Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

No C 96 / 2 Official Journal of the European Communities 15 . 4 . 92

COMMISSION COMMUNICATION

STANDARDIZATION IN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMY

( Follow-up to the Commission Green Paper of October 1990 )

( 92 / C 96 / 02 )

I. INTRODUCTION

1 . On 28 January 1991 the Commission published in

the Official Journal of the European Communities a
Green Paper on the development of European stan ­
dardization O, a consultation paper open for
comment by all interested parties . The comment
period ended on 28 April 1991 .

2 . The Green Paper was intended to be the most wide ­

ranging review to date of European standardization .
Although its publication was mainly stimulated by
concern that the European standards needed for
Community product legislation would not be
produced in time, it addressed wider issues, in
particular the place of standardization in the
European economy and the responsiveness of
European standardization to new demands from
legislators and the market . While recognizing the
private and voluntary character of standardization,
the Commission made over 40 detailed recommen ­
dations aimed at promoting more efficient and
market-responsive European standardization as a
means of achieving the full benefits of a single
European market . The Commission invited all those
concerned to express their views on the Green
Paper .

3 . This second communication summarizes the
response to the Green Paper, makes recommen ­
dations for the development of European standardi ­
zation in the 1990 's and proposes greater use of
European standardization in Community policy .

The Council is asked in particular to confirm its

agreement with the content of this communication
by means of a resolution outlined later in the text .

II . THE RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION GREEN

PAPER ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN

STANDARDIZATION

4 . The Green Paper has been widely recognized as

addressing an important issue for the success of the
Community 's internal market . A debate has been

organized in all Community Member States, within
the Community institutions, and within European
standardization bodies and European-level industrial
and professional organizations . The Commission has
received more than 250 comments from interested
parties, a good number of which reflect extensive
consultation at national or European level ; a number
of comments were also received from third countries .
In terms of focusing public attention on standardi ­
zation, the Green Paper has been an unqualified

success .

5 . The Commission has received overwhelming support

for its objective — the establishment of a more
efficient and market-responsive machinery for
European standardization, which is recognized as a
fundamental instrument for achieving the full
economic benefit of a single market .

6 . On the issues identified by the Commission as

priorities — greater efficiency and flexibility in the
standardization process, wider representation of
economic interests and greater openness to interna ­
tional standardization — there is a wide measure of
agreement on the need for change and the methods
proposed . On other points, such as new organiz ­
ational structures and a distinct status for European
standards, there are reservations as to whether such
radical change is necessary or useful . Even on these
points, however, there is a willingness on the side of
the standards organizations to go some of the way
and respond to the underlying concerns of the
Commission .

Comments on the main points of the Green Paper

A summary of the comments received is provided
below . A more detailed review, giving the reactions
to each of the Commission 's recommendations, will
be sent to those who commented on the Green
Paper and is also available on request from the
Commission (*).

( 2 ) Copies may be obtained from the Directorate-General for

Internal Market and Industrial Affairs . Unit III.B.2, Rue de
(') OJ No C 20, 28 . 1 . 1991, p. 1 . la Loi 200, B-1049 Brussels .

15 . 4 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 96 / 3

( i ) The role of industry

7 . The importance of standardization for European

industry was universally accepted . Most commen ­
tators, however, felt that it was unreasonable to ask
for a greater financial contribution from industry, as
opposed to government . Industry also expressed a
strong wish for clearer priorities to be set for
European standardization work and better
management of the process .

( ii ) Standards organizations

Efficiency

8 . Comments have confirmed the need, particularly in

CEN, to improve efficiency . The standardization
bodies have committed themselves to better
programming of standardization, the establishment
of clearer priorities, and more effective monitoring
of the progress of work . ( The Commission and
Council are also urged to assist the standardization
bodies by giving clearer guidance for their work .)

Particular recommendations that have received
support are more flexible working methods
( including the use of project teams, feeder organiz ­
ations or associated standardization bodies ), the use
of new technology, and clear rules on the use of
majority voting . Other practical suggestions include
the use of a single working language in European
standardization, and accelerated translations for
adopted texts ; it has also been proposed that an
external management audit of European standards
bodies should be carried out .

A general cautionary note has been expressed :
quality is as important as speed in standardization,
and undue acceleration of the standardization
process could reduce the opportunity for all
interested parties to be involved .

Coordination and structures

9 . The suggestion that there could be more European

standardization organizations in addition to CEN,
Cenelec and ETSI has been strongly rejected .
Similarly, there has been considerable opposition to
the creation of new bureaucratic layers to supervise
or direct the activity of existing bodies ( such as the
European Standardization Council ).

Nevertheless, the three European standardization
organizations have accepted that there are political
arguments in favour of establishing a common
consultative body ( to be called the European Stan ­
dardization Forum ) in which economic interests
could be directly represented, and to reinforce their

cooperation within the CEN / Cenelec / ETSI Joint
Presidents Group . The precise character, tasks and
composition of the Forum is still open for discussion .

Membership and international cooperation

10 . The recommendation that the standardization bodies

of all European countries be eligible for ' affiliate '
( observer ) status in CEN, Cenelec and ETSI has
been accepted . Most of the bodies concerned have
now applied and been accepted .

Cooperation with the international standardization
bodies has recently been improved by CEN and
Cenelec and this process is expected to continue
further . Most commentators on the Green Paper
have confirmed that international rather than
European standards must remain the main objective
of standardization activity and would be concerned
if more effective standardization within Europe
seriously undermined the long-standing commitment
of Europe to international standards .

Accountability

11 . CEN and Cenelec have recently announced
measures which are intended to increase the repre ­
sentation of European-level organizations in their
work alongside national delegations ; however,
implementation of these measures may still take
some time and will have to be closely monitored .

Financing

12 . Most of the Commission 's proposals, and in
particular the scheme for direct funding of European
standardization through sales of European
standards, have been rejected by the standards
bodies and have not received strong support from
other quarters .

There has, however, been general agreement on the

need to assure longer-term planning in the financing
of European standardization, and all organizations
are working on this .

Information

13 . The Commission 's criticism of the poor quality of

information concerning European standardization
was very widely supported . All of the European stan ­
dardization bodies, and CEN in particular, have
accepted that measures must be taken quickly to give
a higher profile to their activity .

No C 96 / 4 Official Journal of the European Communities 15 . 4 . 92

Status of European standard

14 . The Commission 's proposal that European standards

should exist in their own right was among the most
controversial . It was strongly supported by a number
of industrial sectors ( particularly for new techno ­
logies ) and even by some of the smaller national
standards organizations . The majority view,
however, appears to be that presentation of
European standards at national level is a key factor
in their market acceptance, at least for the next few

years .

consensus on most points, although important
differences remain on some issues . On this basis the
Commission is now in a position to put forward to
the Council and to the main parties concerned
strategic guidelines for future European standardi ­
zation policy, based on closer cooperation and part ­
nership between all the interested parties .

18 . The Commission wishes to underline, as it previously

a did in the Green Paper, that the main responsibility
in their market acceptance, at least for the next few for the management of standardization remains with
years . the standardization organizations and the interested

parties themselves . It is they, rather than public auth ­
orities, who will decide the pace and the direction of

CEN and Cenelec have accepted the need for change . This second Commission communication is,
greater visibility for the European standard at the however, intended to assist and promote democratic
national level and much faster transposition : self-management of standardization by indicating
discussion on the details are still going on . the changing political context in which European

standardization takes place, the fundamental prin ­
ciples on which standardization should be based and
Testing and certification the organizational changes which may be needed to
ensure that those principles are fully observed .

CEN and Cenelec have accepted the need for
greater visibility for the European standard at the
national level and much faster transposition :
discussion on the details are still going on .

15 . The Commission proposal for a single mark of

conformity to European standards was strongly
supported by some parts of industry   - but dismissed
as unrealistic in the short term by others . CEN has
now initiated discussions on the possibility of a
single mark of conformity to European standards, to
be accompanied by the relevant national mark or
mark of the body that carried out the certification .

( iii ) The role of governments

16 . There was general support for a renewed Council

commitment to European standardization which
might include a provision for pluriannual funding .
Most commentators expressed the view that
governments should do more, not less, to fund stan ­
dardization, in view of its general economic benefits .

Some commentators have also questioned whether
Community financial support can be limited to
payment for services ( through ' mandates '); they
believe that an element of permanent but limited
subsidy will be necessary at the European level ( as is
already recognized at national level ).

III . COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FOLLOW-UP ACTION

17 . In the light of the comments received, the
Commission has consulted each of the European
standardization bodies and the CEN / Cenelec / ETSI
Joint Presidents Group on the Green Paper . These

discussions produced a reasonable degree of

19 . The Commission 's main recommendations can be

summarized as follows :

European standardization organizations

— Rapid implementation of measures designed to

improve day-to-day management and efficiency .

— Implementation of their commitment to provide

for observer ( non-voting ) participation by
relevant European interest groups at every level
of their work .

— Publication of the statutes of the

CEN / Cenelec / ETSI Joint Presidents Group and
its rules of procedure .

— Establishment of a European Standardization

Forum in the light of the Luxembourg
Conference of December 1991 .

— Amendment of internal rules to provide for

transposition by endorsement of adopted
European standards and other measures to
improve their visibility and availability at national
level .

— Development with the European Organization

for Testing and Certification ( EOTC ) and the
other parties involved of a single mark desig ­
nating conformity to a European standard .

15 . 4 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 96 / 5

— Increased coordination of technical assistance to

third countries, especially in central and eastern
Europe .

The Commission

— Conclusion of new guidelines for cooperation

and a new framework agreement with
CEN / Cenelec / ETSI .

— Follow-up reports on :

( i ) the effect of measures taken by the European

standardization organizations to improve on
efficiency ; and

( ii ) new possibilities for reference to standards in

other areas of Community policy .

— Introduction of programming mandates for
major new areas of standardization .

— Direct reference in future proposals for
Community legislation to European standards
rather than to national standards transposing
them .

— Presentation of a proposal in early 1992 to
amend the notification procedure for national
standards in Directive 83 / 189 / EEC .

— Development and implementation of its current

programme of technical assistance to central and
eastern Europe and other third countries .

The Council of Ministers

— Adoption of a Council resolution confirming
agreement with the broad policy guidelines of
this communication and drawing particular
attention to :

— the commitment of the Community to interna ­

tional standardization,

— the political importance of a European standardi ­

zation system based on transparency, openness to
all interested parties, independence of vested
interests, efficiency and decision-taking in
accordance with the basic principles which
govern decisionmaking at the political level,

— support for the proposed European Standardi ­

zation Forum, which will increase the cohesion
and responsiveness to market needs of European
standardization,

— the willingness of the Council to pursue a policy

of reference to standards in Community legis ­
lation in appropriate areas, subject to respect of
the basic principles indicated above,

— the intention of the Council to continue, subject

to overall budgetary constraints, to give adequate
financial support to European standardization
bodies ( at current levels over the period 1992 to

1994 ), in order to permit the delivery of
standards needed for Community legislation and
of other standards required in order to complete
the internal market, particularly in areas which
affect a wide range of sectors, such as energy .

The budgetary authority ( Council of Ministers and
European Parliament )

— Support for maintenance of current levels of

Community financial support to standardization
for the period 1992 to 1994 .

European economic and social interests

— More effective coordination in order to ensure

input into the standardization process .

The Member States

— Appropriate measures at national level to ensure

compliance of national standardization bodies
with common rules relating to notification of

national activities and the transposition of
adopted European standards .

— Maintenance and, where necessary, increase of

financial support to national standardization
bodies .

— Consideration of support to non-manufacturing

interests to facilitate their participation in stan ­
dardization, having regard, inter alia, to the
Council resolution of 4 November 1988 on the
improvement of consumer involvement in stan ­
dardization .

The following sections of this communication

explain these recommendations in more detail :

— Section IV ( Future Directions for European
Standardization ) outlines policy guidelines for
European standardization in the 1990 's,

— Section V ( Standardization and Community
Legislation ) proposes that European standardi ­
zation should be used more within the
framework of other Community policies .

No C 96 / 6 Official Journal of the European Communities 15 . 4 . 92

IV . FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR EUROPEAN

STANDARDIZATION

20 . This chapter addresses the main themes which have

emerged from the Green Paper debate rather than
individual recommendations in that document . Its
objective is to identify the direction of future stan ­
dardization policy in the context of a single
European market .

The themes to be addressed are :

( i ) priority setting and programming ;

( ii ) efficiency and openness ;

( iii ) effective participation by interested parties ;

( iv ) structures for coordination and consultation ;

( v ) stronger links with international standardi ­

zation ;

( vi ) implementation and visibility of European
standards ;

( vii ) information about European standardization ;

( viii ) access to European standards ;

( ix ) external cooperation in standardization ;

( x ) partnership with public authorities ;

( xi ) other issues .

( i ) Priority setting and programming

21 . A major concern of those commenting on the Green

Paper, in particular from the point of view of
industry, has been the absence of clear priorities for
European standardization work . A common reaction
to the large number of standards now under prepa ­
ration within the three European standardization
bodies, CEN, Cenelec and ETSI, has been to
question whether all of those standards are really
necessary for the operation of the single Community
market . Industry is worried that scarce technical
expertise is being dissipated in over-ambitious stan ­
dardization programmes, rather than being concen ­
trated on what is essential in the short term .

22 . Criticism for failing to set priorities has been
directed at the Community institutions, especially the
Commission, and at the standardization bodies . The
Commission, it is alleged, has not set sufficiently
clear priorities in its standardization mandates and
has left the detailed programming to the European
standardization bodies . The latter, it is suggested,
have not been able to establish priorities either, and
have tended to include within the European stan ­
dardization programme all or most of the proposals
put forward by the nationally-organized membership

without any serious process of selection . Thus,
although the total programme of CEN, for example,
has expanded rapidly to about 4 000 work items, it
does not yet cover all the priority subjects linked to
achievement of the Community 's internal market
legislation and would have to expand still further in
order to do so . The effectiveness of European stan ­
dardization will depend on the careful identification
of priorities and self-discipline in taking on more
work .

23 . The Commission and the European standardization

bodies have recently discussed ways of improving
priority setting, especially ( but not exclusively ) in
respect of those European standards to be referred
to in Community product legislation . It has been
agreed that in future the planning and programming
of European standardization should be separated as
far as possible from the drafting of the standards .
The Commission will give ' programming mandates '
to the European standardization bodies in areas
where a significant number of European standards
are required for EEC legislation, under which a full
programme of standardization work for the sector
concerned will be drawn up after consultation with
all parties . On the basis of this proposed programme
the Commission will, after consulting the Standing
Committee for Technical Regulations and
Standards, determine what work will be covered by
a standardization mandate .

24 . This two-step mandating procedure would have a

number of advantages :

— the programme developed under a programming

mandate would in principle cover all aspects of
standardization in the sector concerned, not just
those relevant to EEC legislation, and would
thus provide an opportunity for interested parties
to set priorities for other, market-led standardi ­
zation,

— consultation on the work programme would give

European industry and other parties an oppor ­
tunity to express their views before standardi ­
zation work is under way,

— programming would allow the standards bodies

to identify alternative sources of technical input
into the work and new working methods ( such as
use of project teams, ' feeder organizations ' or
associated standardizing bodies ),

15 . 4 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 96 / 7

— the Commission and Member States could better

verify that proposed standardization work was

matched to the essential requirements and the
needs of the conformity assessment procedures of
Community legislation, as this would be
indicated in the proposed programme,

— the programming mandate would provide an

opportunity for the standardization bodies to
draw attention to difficulties arising from insuf ­
ficiently precise essential requirements in
proposed legislation,

— the programming would allow the better delin ­

eation of the scope for standardization with
respect to related areas or areas which the
legislator wants to regulate .

25 . A first set of programming mandates will be given in

sectors where Community legislation is either in
place or to be proposed ( machinery, medical devices,
pressure systems ). A separate priority-setting exercise
for the construction products Directive is being
managed by the Commission with the assistance of
the standing committee of that Directive . In parallel,
the Commission is re-examining with the European
standardization bodies standardization work already
under way for existing mandates ( for example, for
machines or construction products ) in order to
ensure that priorities are properlv followed .

A second potential area for standardization
programming concerns the development of trans ­
European networks, where, as the Commission has
already stated in its communication to the Council
of 10 December 1990, a significant effort of coordi ­
nation of standardization will be needed in order to
establish clear priorities for the creation of such
networks .

( ii ) Efficiency and openness

26 . The comments on the Green Paper have shown that

there is general agreement on the need to make
European standardization more efficient . This has
already led the European standardization bodies to
consider how better management control, new
working methods and quicker procedures may be
applied to make agreement on standards as rapid as
possible, while keeping in mind the need to maintain
a high level of quality in European standards .
Examples of successful new working methods are the
Cenelec ' Vilamoura ' procedure for information and
cooperation on national standardization projects,
and the programming of standardization work in
ETSI and EWOS .

27 . A recurring theme in discussions on efficiency in

standardization, however, is that no single formula
can meet all situations . On the contrary, efficiency is
dependent upon flexibility, that is, an ability to
match the standardization method to the particular
circumstances, as the following examples may show :

— small, full-time project teams may be useful

where original working documents are needed to

advance discussion, but less so in areas where a
large number of national standards already exist,

— more sectorally-based industrial organizations
could be encouraged to contribute to the stan ­
dardization process, perhaps through the
creation of associated standardization bodies, but
the sector concerned must be relatively
autonomous so as to limit the need for managing
the interface with other standardization work,

— public enquiry periods can be shortened in cases

where European standardization is limited to
taking over international standards, but this is
more difficult for innovative European work and
where due account must be given to the needs of
small, medium-sized and craft enterprises .

28 . The rules of the European standardization bodies

already provide for some flexibility of approach, but
too little use has been made of these possibilities so
far . It is now accepted that the options available
should be better publicized and more frequently
used, and that new working methods may still be
necessary in order to widen the base of European
standardization . The Commission notes that CEN,
for example, has announced its intention of making
known among industrial circles its various working
methods and is prepared to explore the possibility of
working with more associated standardization
bodies . Cenelec, too, is discussing how it can
cooperate with so-called ' feeder organizations '
which can submit their own technical documents for

acceptance as European standards . Such changes in
procedures will require an educational process
amongst the national membership, who are mainly
responsible for the work of the European organiz ­
ations .

29 . In parallel with the introduction of more flexible

working methods there is a concern within the
European bodies, and particularly CEN ( which is
responsible for most European standardization
work ), to develop more effective management
control over a highly decentralised system for
technical work in which individual technical
committees organized by a national member body
have enjoyed considerable autonomy . The
contractual commitments made by CEN, for
example, to deliver a large ( and still growing )

No C 96 / 8 Official Journal of the European Communities 15 . 4 . 92

number of European standards to the Commission
within a given time is forcing that organization to

demand more accountability from the technical
committees which actually carry out the work . The
progress of work against agreed timetables is being
more carefully monitored and the possibility of
changing the allocation of secretariats between
member bodies in the event of poor performance is
now being considered . The Commission, and, more
importantly, European industry, would welcome a
more businesslike approach to the delivery of
European standards .

30 . It is not yet possible to assess how much the ef ­

ficiency of European standardization will be
improved by the changes now under discussion in
the European standardization bodies . Even if all the
proposed changes are agreed, their implementation
will take some time . The Commission intends,
however, to monitor the implementation of these
measures and will produce a further progress report
in due course .

31 . In any event, the Commission concludes from the

Green Paper comments that there is a link between
the efficiency of standardization and public
awareness of what is going on . The demand for
information about European standardization is practi ­
cally unlimited, from both within and outside
Europe . It comes from potential users of European
standards and potential contributors to the stan ­
dardization process . If the European standards
organizations can better publicize their current and
planned activity ( and the programming mechanism
discussed in the previous section would provide an
additional opportunity ) they will increase the range
of expertise available for their work as well as the
market for their end-product . Industrial and other
interested partners may provide additional resources,
by making experts available or by putting forward
technical documents as a basis for European stan ­
dardization . Hence the importance of an effective
information policy ( see section VII below ).

( iii ) Effective participation by interested parties

32 . The Green Paper debate has shown that national

representation in standardization discussions and
national decision-making on proposed European
standards are regarded as fundamental to the
European standardization process . Most interest
groups, and some in particular, such as craft, small
and medium-sized companies, look to their national

standards body as the natural means for advancing
their point of view at the European level, and
consider the development of a national position
which takes account of all interests as the most

practical way to negotiate European standards .

33 . The primacy of the national route to European

standards-making should not, however, be a
monopoly . The responses to the Green Paper also
indicate that in the fast-changing Europe of today
many economic and industrial interests are organ ­
izing themselves at European level and expect direct
input into European-level standardization ; examples
are the railways, banking, electrical power, gas and
medical device industries ( besides telecommuni ­
cations and electrotechnology which already have
sectoral standardization bodies at the European
level ). European-level input into the standardization
process may be particularly important for industries
which are coming to standardization for the first
time, such as those operating public transport and
utility networks . In other sectors too, European
industrial trade union, consumer, craft and SME
federations can help to identify common interests or
priorities as a complement to the nationally-based
consensus-building process . For some sectors, it may
even be possible to organize standards-related work
at the European level under the aegis of an
industry-led association, which will then pass on the
results of such work to the European standardization
bodies for consideration as European standards .

34 . For these reasons the European standardization
bodies must allow the direct participation of
representative European-level organizations in their
work . Such participation, even in the form of
non-voting observership, must be possible at every
stage of the standardization process and at every
level of the standardization body concerned, from
working group to General Assembly . In the case of
the social partners, the Commission considers, with
the European Parliament and Economic and Social
Committee, that such direct participation is a
political precondition for the acceptability and
further development of European standardization .

35 . CEN has, following an open session of the General

Assembly in Milan on 23 October 1991, taken note
of the intent of CEN 's main national European
economic and social partners to become more
directly involved in the policy-making of CEN and
has confirmed its intention to address the issue of

involvement of CEN 's social and economic partners
within the constitution of CEN . Cenelec, following
its General Assembly in Toulouse on 29 and 30
October 1991, has decided to submit for approval to

15 . 4 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 96 / 9

its members draft decisions according to which rep ­
resentatives of European-level industry associations,
trade unions and consumer groups should be invited
to attend, as observers, future General Assembly
sessions and, during discussion of relevant agenda
items, Technical Board meetings . ETSI already
provides for the possibility of interested parties to
become members of the organization .

The Commission welcomes the initiatives of CEN

and Cenelec and will be interested to see how these
policy decisions will in future allow for genuine
direct participation . The Commission believes that
the Council should unequivocally confirm the
importance of the right to direct representation of
European-level organizations in European standardi ­
zation .

36 . For interested parties the possibility to participate

constitutes an important responsibility and a
challenge . Success of their involvement will depend
on their ability to get properly organized at
European level to develop a clear position and to
feed substantial input into the standardization
process . For some parties, however, the right to
participate in standardization may be an empty letter
without the means to do so . Comments on the Green
Paper coming from user interests, ranging from
consumer organizations and trade unions to
professional groupings such as architects or the
medical profession, have pointed out that without
some public financial support for their participation
in standardization the outcome is likely to be
determined by manufacturer interests, which may
not be appropriate in the case of standards linked to
Community legislation whose purpose is to achieve
high levels of safety .

37 . The Commission is sensitive to these difficulties . It

has already provided financial support to the
European trade unions to establish a Technical
Bureau to coordinate views on standardization

matters, as well as to European consumer organiz ­
ations for their effective participation in standardiz ­
ation work, and it has assisted, because of the
distances involved, the participation of experts from
certain Member States ( Portugal, Ireland and
Greece ) at some meetings related to mandated stan ­
dardization work . These measures have not been a
significant charge on the Community budget . Similar
assistance is also being considered for small and
medium-sized enterprises . Such aid will, however,
have to remain modest if it is not to raise the cost to
the Community budget of European standardization
significantly . Supplementary efforts may therefore be
needed at national level .

( iv ) Structures for coordination and consultation

38 . As a complement to the effective participation of all

interested parties in each European standardization
body, there is a need to ensure that the work of all

European standardization bodies, taken together,
corresponds to the objectives of those operating in
the market and to the principles of openness, inde ­
pendence and fairness which must govern European
standardization . The view is widely held that the
links between the European standardization bodies
should be strengthened and that the European stan ­
dardization system as a whole should demonstrate
support of the parties at European level .

39 . The Green Paper debate has shown that, although

the detailed proposals on structure suggested in the
Green Paper are not acceptable, further consoli ­
dation of the existing standardization organizations
at European level would be welcome . The purpose
of such consolidation would be two-fold :

— to ensure permanent coordination between CEN,

Cenelec and ETSI by formalizing, making public
and strengthening the tasks of the Joint Presidents

Group as an alternative to the European Stan ­
dardization Board, and secondly

— to establish a permanent dialogue between the

European standardization bodies, on the one
hand, and the main economic and social partners
engaged in standardization activity, on the other
hand, by setting up a European Standardization
Forum as an alternative to the European Stan ­
dardization Council .

Joint Presidents Group

40 . The Joint Presidents Group ( JPG ) of
CEN / Cenelec / ETSI is intended to coordinate the
work programmes of the three European standards
bodies and, where possible, to develop a common
approach to issues of common concern ( such as, for
example, the Commission Green Paper, information
policy on European standardization or the
relationship between intellectual property rights and
standardization ). It is also beginning to address
other tasks such as the development of common
rules for European standardization or a common
database for standardization projects . It represents,
at the highest level, the management function of
European standardization .

The Commission accepts that through proper func ­
tioning of the JPG, coordination needs in European
standardization can be met . At the request of the
Commission the JPG is now preparing a
consolidated version of its statutes, as well as those
of its subsidiary committees, in order that its role
and functioning can be more clearly perceived .

No C 96 / 10 Official Journal of the European Communities 15 . 4 . 92

The European Standardization Forum

41 . The idea of a European Standardization Forum

( ESF ) has been put forward in comments on the
Green Paper and discussions with the European
standardization organizations as an alternative to the
European Standardization Council . The ESF would
be a broadly-based body, intended to be the focal
point for debate on major standardization policy
issues in Europe . It would bring together all the
principal interested parties at European level in order
to develop, where possible, consensus-based rec ­
ommendations on future strategy in European stan ­
dardization . It would also provide a regular and
wide-ranging dialogue between the European stan ­
dardization bodies and the ' customer ' interests they
serve, both public and private .

42 . The Commission agrees that such a consultative

body can play a useful role in European standardiz ­
ation and that therefore its setting up and operation
should be given careful thought . As far as the
Commission is concerned, the following elements
should be examined :

( a ) Tasks

The ESF would be able to address any issue which it
considered relevant to the success of European stan ­
dardization . Among these might be :

— the current activity of the European standards

bodies ( as presented in reports by the Joint
Presidents Group ),

— application of the basic principles of standardiz ­

ation by European standardization bodies ( such
as openness, the right of participation for
interested parties, independence of vested
interests, etc .),

— the criteria for representativity of European
organizations wishing to participate in standardiz ­
ation work,

— relations between public authorities and the
European standardization organizations,

— information on and access to standardization

work,

— conditions of access to adopted standards
( including sales and distribution systems, the
price of standards and information on standards ),

— new subjects for standardization,

— the interface between standardization and

conformity assessment activities,

— relations with international standardization,

— technical assistance from standardization bodies

to non-member countries and cooperation with
affiliate members .

( b ) Output

The conclusions of the ESF could take the form of
resolutions addressed to all or any of the parties
concerned with European standardization, that is to
say, standardization bodies, users of standards,
manufacturing industry, the social partners, or public
authorities . ESF resolutions, although not binding,
would be likely to carry considerable weight .

( c ) Composition

The composition of the ESF should ensure the
widest possible participation of interested parties and
a reasonable balance between national and
European-level interests . The Commission would
therefore suggest the following :

— one delegate from each Member State of the

Community and each EFTA country, to be
designated by national authorities,

— five representatives of the Joint Presidents
Group,

— 12 representatives of European manufacturing

and service industries ( including small and
medium-sized firms ),

— three representatives of consumers,

— three representatives of trade unions,

— three representatives of professional users of
standards ( such as architects, doctors, insurance
companies, testing organizations ),

— one representative of the European Organization

for Testing and Certification,

— one representative of the Commission of the

European Communities,

— one representative of the EFTA Secretariat .

As proposed in the Green Paper concerning the
European Standardization Council, the President of
the ESF could be a European industrialist .

15 . 4 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 96 / 11

( d ) Activity include use of current international standardization
work in areas where new standards are requested of

CEN or Cenelec for EEC product legislation, so
long as the following conditions are met :
The ESF should decide its own rules of procedure

and the frequency of its meetings ; the Commission
recommendation would be, however, that during its
start-up phase it meet at least twice a year . Members
of the Forum would bear their own costs ; secretarial
costs should be borne by the Joint Presidents Group .

— the standards can still be delivered by the inter ­

national standardization body within the
time-scale imposed by EEC legislation,

— the essential requirements laid down in EEC

43 . Following discussion with Commission Vice ­ legislation are fully taken into account,
President Bangemann in July, the Joint Presidents
Group announced that it intended to organize a
two-day 3 and 4 conference December open 1991 to all in order the main to discuss interests the on — the European standardization bodies
recent development of European standardization and contractual responsibility for delivery
the role and tasks of the European Standardization standards .
Forum . Results of the conference would be coor ­

dinated with the Commission and EFTA .

— the European standardization bodies retain final

contractual responsibility for delivery of the
standards .

This procedure of European standardization bodies
referring some mandated standardization tasks to
the international standardization bodies in appro ­

( v ) Stronger links with international standardization priate circumstances would not affect the operation

of the framework contract governing relations
between the Commission and the European stan ­
dardization organizations .
44 . The overwhelming majority of those responding to

the Green Paper confirmed the Commission view
that international standards should remain the main
objective of standardization work . European
standards, although more important for the
European economy than purely national standards,
will often be second-best .

45 . The European standardization bodies have already

taken steps to improve coordination with their inter ­
national counterparts . CEN and Cenelec have
concluded agreements with the ISO and IEC
respectively for regular discussion of their work
programmes with a view to avoiding overlap and
deciding where the work should take place . Cenelec
and IEC have gone further, by providing for
arrangements for ' parallel voting ' on each others '
draft standards, which may lead to the simultaneous
adoption of the same text as a European and inter ­
national standard ( at present, 54 IEC draft standards
are being dealt with under this procedure ). ETSI is
also cooperating with its Japanese and United States
counterparts to improve coordination of standards ­
making in the telecommunications sector .

46 . The achievement of the internal market and the

implementation of the Community 's new approach
to technical regulation must take account of this
commitment to international standards . Where
possible, the Community should have recourse to
international standards rather than devise standards
at the regional level . This idea could be extended to

47 . The international standards bodies may find it
difficult to meet these conditions . The average time
accorded to CEN / Cenelec and ETSI under
Community standardization mandates to deliver new
standards is between two and three years ; the time
taken to deliver an ISO standard is usually double
that . Other parties in international standardization
may not wish to aim at the high level of performance
required by the standards needed for Community
product legislation, or may not be interested in the
development of some standards because their
national authorities directly regulate the sector in
question . In spite of these uncertainties, the
Commission has invite the international standardiz ­

ation organizations to take up the challenge implicit
in the Community 's commitment to give them an
opportunity to meet European needs . A similar
position has also been expressed by other interna ­
tional partners ; following political-level contacts
between the Commission and the United States

Government in June 1991, the main European and
United States standards organizations have agreed
jointly to promote the faster development of interna ­
tional standards in the international standardization
organizations and to identify priority areas in which
international work could be intensified .

48 . The Commission must, however, repeat what it said

in the Greem Paper concerning the need for
commitment to international standardization to be
shown by all participants, particularly by taking over

No C 96 / 12 Official Journal of the European Communities 15 . 4 . 92

at the national level international standards that have
been agreed with a large measure of consensus . It
would be pointless and politically unacceptable for
the Community to transfer work to the international
standardization bodies if only standardization bodies
in Europe were to take over the international results .

( vi ) Implementation and visibility of European
standards

49 . The Commission Green Paper recommended that

' European standards should exist in their own right
and should not have to be transposed at national
level before they can be used ' ( paragraph 83 ).
Comments on this suggestion indicated that there
are divergent views . European industry, through
UNICE, has declared in favour of the recommen ­
dation . The same is true for the telecommunications

sector . Similarly, European interest groups, such as
consumers, have given support . Most Member States
that have commented on this issue can agree with
the principle of direct applicability, provided an
appropriate solution can be found for practical
problems, and only a few have rejected the idea .
Within the European standardization bodies them ­

selves, opinion is divided .

50 . One of the difficulties raised by direct applicability

of European standards is the need to ensure that
new standards are brought to the attention of those
who use them . This is even more important when the

standards are given particular status under
Community legislation, either by conferring
presumption of conformity to the requirements of a
Directive or as an obligatory reference for
purchasing entities falling under the public
procurement Directives .

51 . National standardization bodies are the usual source

of information on standards at national level and are
therefore best suited to ensure the ' visibility ' of

European standards in the market . The Commission
is prepared to take this situation into account, but
believes that, in order to meet the sense of comments
received on the Green Paper :

— European standards should be visible as such,

even if transposed into national standards ( many
commentators agree that further action is
necessary to make European standards visible ),

— transposition should be rapid and effective :
national standardization organizations themselves
do not always attach sufficient importance to
transposition, which has been slow in many cases
and non-existent in others .

52 . The Commission therefore proposes that additional

measures be taken by the European and national
standards bodies and national authorities to make
transposition effective . These measures would be
based on the principle that European standards exist
and are made available for use immediately after
their adoption at European level :

( i ) the internal rules of CEN, Cenelec and ETSI

would provide for mandatory endorsement ( i.e.
publication of the common reference, title and
number ) of newly adopted European standards
by national standardization bodies within a
short time of their adoption ;

( 11 ) national standardization bodies would commit

themselves to completing within six months
other action provided for in the internal rules,
such as withdrawal of any conflicting national
standards, as well as publication of the new
standard in the national language where
deemed appropriate by the national body, to be
monitored under a centralized information

system ;

( iii ) the internal rules of the European standardi ­

zation bodies would limit the right of those
member bodies to sell European standards to
those standards that have been endorsed in the
country concerned ;

( iv ) national standards bodies would apply a single

numbering system for all European standards,
in which only the designation of the national
standards body would accompany the desig ­
nation ' EN ' or ' ETS ' and the European
number, with no additional national number ;

( v ) national authorities would agree to take all

appropriate measures to ensure that national
standardization bodies fulfil their obligations
under European standardization rules .

15 . 4 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 96 / 13

53 . Under Community law any national standard trans ­ the various organizations involved, as well as a

posing a harmonized European standard may be common bulletin of European standardization to be
used for the purposes of compliance with EEC legis ­ issued regularly . CEN has developed a compre ­
lation, irrespective of the country of origin of the hensive ( 500-page ) introduction to its entire
product or of the manufacturer . The Commission technical programme, which may be regularly
nevertheless considers that, in order to avoid any updated in future for subscribers . Cenelec now
dependence oh the national transposition of produces an Annual Report in addition to its
standards for the effective application of EEC legis ­ six-monthly Report on Current Activities . ETSI, too,
lation, it would be appropriate that such legislation has produced its own publicity material . Publications
refer in future to European standards rather than to of this kind, provided that they give complete and
the national standards which transpose them . Future timely information, are certainly useful . The stan ­
proposals for Directives will contain such a formu ­ dardization bodies should, however, regularly
lation . consult interested parties in order to ensure that

information about standardization is provided in the
way they want . A closer partnership between stan ­
dardization bodies and professional information
54 . A single mark of conformity to European standards service providers could also be helpful in accelerating

would be a further contribution to visibility for such the diffusion of this information .

53 . Under Community law any national standard trans ­

posing a harmonized European standard may be
used for the purposes of compliance with EEC legis ­
lation, irrespective of the country of origin of the
product or of the manufacturer . The Commission
nevertheless considers that, in order to avoid any
dependence oh the national transposition of
standards for the effective application of EEC legis ­
lation, it would be appropriate that such legislation
refer in future to European standards rather than to
the national standards which transpose them . Future
proposals for Directives will contain such a formu ­
lation .

would be a further contribution to visibility for such

standards, as well as a tangible indicator of high
quality common to the whole European market . The
Green Paper proposal in this sense was strongly
supported by some industrial sectors, although
concern was expressed that the competence and
reputation of individual testing and certification
bodies should also be reflected in marking . The
Commission notes with interest that CEN is now
discussing the possibility of introducing a common
mark of conformity to European standards, to be
accompanied by the relevant national mark or the
mark of the body that actually carried out the certi ­
fication of conformity . This could represent a
significant step forward in achieving market visibility
for European standardization if done with the firm
support and participation of Cenelec, ETSI and the
EOTC .

57 . Besides information about current activities there is a

need for information about existing standards, either
European or national . The Commission has in the
past discussed with the standardization bodies the
creation of a single European Standardization
Database ( ESD ) which would provide up-to-date
bibliographical information on current standards . In
parallel, the three major national standardization
bodies ( BSI, DIN and AFNOR ) have, with
Commission financial assistance, launched a
commercial product, Perinorm, which provides to
subscribers bibliographic information on the
standards of each participant . The Perinorm system
was initially limited to the standards produced by the
three original participating bodies . It is now open to
other CEN members, and it is expected that over
time this system will contain information on most, if
not all, existing standards in western Europe . If
Perinorm were to provide a comprehensive infor ­
mation system, the Commission considers that there
would be no need to press ahead with a publicly
funded ESD .

58 . A final point concerns the need for better infor ­

mation on national standardization activity . The
Commission proposed in the Green Paper that the
standardization bodies should take the initiative to
reinforce the procedure for mutual information on
national standardization work laid down in Council
Directive 83 / 189 / EEC, which has been the subject
of criticism in two successive Commission reports on
the operation of the Directive ( 1 ). In particular, the
Commission would like to see the introduction of a
status quo system for proposed new national activity,
in order to allow time for comment from other
national and European standards organizations, as
already exists in the so-called ' Vilamoura Procedure '

(') The most recent Commission report ( for the years 1988 to

1989 ) is document COM(91 ) 108 final, 5 April 1991 .

( vii ) Information about European standardization

55 . Most commentators on the Green Paper strongly

supported the Commission 's recommendations for
better quality information about European stan ­
dardization . There appears to be an urgent need for
up-to-date information on the work programme of
each of the European standardization bodies, an
indication of which standards are linked to
Community mandates and which are not, much
wider availability of working documents so as to
allow non-participating parties the opportunity to
comment and, not least, more rapid availability of
European standards once they have been adopted .
Particular measures to improve access to information
by craft, small and medium-sized enterprises are also

necessary .

56 . The European standardization bodies are aware of

this demand for information and are taking some
steps to meet it . The CEN / Cenelec / ETSI Joint
Presidents Group has decided to produce a new
brochure in order to promote European standardiz ­
ation and to familiarize potential participants with

No C 96 / 14 Official Journal of the European Communities 15 . 4 . 92

applied by Cenelec since 1988 . So far no action has ( ix ) External cooperation in standardization
been taken by CEN to reconsider the information
procedure .

( a ) Community technical assistance in stan ­

dardization
In the absence of an effective information procedure
applied on a voluntary basis ( which it would much
prefer ) the Commission has decided to include in its

Through the

forthcoming proposal for amendments to Directive

83 / 189 / EEC a revised information procedure for
standards to ensure effective transparency of
national standardization work .

( viii ) Access to European standards

59 . The comments made in the Green Paper concerning

Through the Commission 's programme of external
technical assistance, the Community is committed to
assist the lesser developed economies of the world .
Demand for assistance in standardization increases
as the positive implications of the Community 's 1992
programme is better understood . Helping the
emerging market economies of eastern Europe,
South America, the Mediterranean, Asia, India and
Africa to understand and apply European standards
will greatly facilitate their future economic devel ­

opment .

the conditions of distribution and sale of European
standards were regarded by the standardization
bodies as interference in a purely internal matter .
The Commission disagrees . It considers that access
to adopted European standards is an important
element in the efficiency of the single European
market . The cost of obtaining standards is a matter
of public concern ( as recent questions in the
European Parliament have confirmed ), and the
conditions of sale of standards, including the degree
of competition permitted, are critical in determining
the final cost . While standards should not be made
freely available ( unless standardization costs are to
be borne entirely by public funds ) they should be
marketed at a price that promotes their wide dis ­
tribution, that is to say, the price set by the most
efficient producer or distributor within the relevant
market .

Many assistance programmes in standardization are
already underway including projects in the ASEAN
countries, India, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia as
well as a regional quality assurance programme in
Central and Eastern Europe .

of competition permitted, are critical in determining The Commission reaffirms its belief that European
the final cost . While standards should not be made standardization bodies have an important role to
freely available ( unless standardization costs are to play in these programmes . The first steps have been
be borne entirely by public funds ) they should be taken . CEN has established a third-country unit to
marketed at a price that promotes their wide dis ­ provide information on European standardization
tribution, that is to say, the price set by the most and to coordinate technical assistance projects for
efficient producer or distributor within the relevant the European standardization organizations . The
market . Commission has now concluded an agreement with

CEN under which the third-country unit provides
services upon request to the Commission in adminis ­
tering technical assistance programmes to third
60 . CEN has informed the Commission that previous countries .

restrictions on competition between its members in
the sale of European standards have been lifted . The
Commission does not have sufficient information
concerning these new arrangements to know
whether all its concerns have been met . Discussions
on this subject should be pursued, not merely
between the Commission and the standardization
bodies but between all parties concerned and repre ­
sented in the European Standardization Forum .

61 . The effects on some national standardization bodies

of more competition in sales of standards need,
however, to be understood . The revenue from sales
of standards of some national organizations, which
can be an important part of their total income, could
be reduced by such competition, which may require
that income be raised by other means, such as by
payment for previously free services or by increased
financial support from the public authorities at
national level . This issue should also be addressed by
the European Standardization Forum .

b ) Standardization in central and eastern
Europe

62 . The major political changes that have taken place in

central and eastern Europe have opened the way to
the development of a truly continental-scale
European market economy in which standards and
standardization will play a critical role . Helping the
emerging market economies of the east to
understand and to apply the standards of the west
will greatly facilitate their future economic devel ­

opment . A massive programme of information,
training and technical assistance will be needed in
order to effect such a difficult transition . The
Commission reaffirms its belief that the European
standardization bodies must assume responsibility for
the coordination and management of such a

programme .

15 . 4 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 96 / 15

63 . CEN and Cenelec have admitted a number of other

European countries to participate in their work as
' affiliates ', which will assist those countries to fam ­
iliarize themselves with European standards ; ETSI
has admitted some of them as full members . The
establishment of the CEN third-country unit and the
agreement concluded with the Commission should
considerably assist the implementation of the Phare
regional programme for technical cooperation in
standardization, certification and quality which is
designed to address the needs of central and eastern
European countries ; exploratory missions have been
made to each beneficiary country in order to assess
priorities and discuss practical arrangements . Further
steps, such as the organization of conferences and
exchanges of experts could also take place in future .

64 . The likely needs of these countries in the field of

technical cooperation pose an additional challenge to
the European standardization system at a time when
its work to meet the needs of western Europe is
already expanding quickly . Additional resources in
terms of finance and expertise will have to be
mobilized in order to ensure that the integration of
these economies into the rest of the European
economy does not occur at the expense of the
Community 's internal priorities . The Commission
intends to discuss further with the standardization
bodies and other interested parties how to obtain
these additional human resources .

( x ) Partnership with public authorities

65 . European standardization is, and must remain, a

voluntary activity managed by private organizations .
Today 's discussion within the institutions of the
European Communities about its future development
is not intended to change that fundamental principle .
The Community authorities recognize the strengths
of voluntary standardization and its importance for
the promotion of efficiency in the European
economy . Their main concern is to ensure that this
private activity effectively serves the public interest,
in terms of its openness to all parties and its ef ­
ficiency . This interest is particularly acute when stan ­
dardization is used to complement technical regu ­
lation, since in this case standardization bodies are
often assuming responsibilities previously held by the
public authorities themselves . Provided that this basic
concern is met, public authorities should leave the
parties concerned to manage the standardization

system .

66 . Most commentators on this issue in the Green Paper

consider that the public benefit derived from stan ­
dardization as an economic instrument and a means
of managing the interface between regulation and
technology must be matched by support for stan ­
dardization from the public authorities at European
and national level . In return for the services rendered
to the economy or to the legislator, public auth ­
orities must ensure that the European standardiz ­

ation system remains strong enough to respond to
new demands . But the relationship between public
authorities and standardization bodies is one of part ­
nership and mutual dependence, not of authority
and subservience .

67 . As far as Community support for European stan ­

dardization is concerned, the Commission considers
that its relationship with the European standardiz ­
ation bodies should be that of a customer with a

service provider . In other words, the Commission
should pay for the services provided by the
European standardization bodies under contract
within the context of ' mandated ' standardization

work . In line with what has been said in section ( i )
above, the scope of mandated work and the terms
and conditions for carrying it out should be agreed
beforehand between the two sides . The Commission

is now close to reaching agreement with the
European standardization bodies on a new
framework contract, which will introduce greater
clarity into the estimation of the costs of future stan ­
dardization work and give those organizations the
assurance that their actual costs will be reimbursed,
subject to compliance with the other terms of the
contract, such as delivery times .

68 . Some commentators, particularly from within
European industry, have suggested that Community
financial support of European standardization
should go beyond payment for contracted services to
include an element of general subsidy for the overall
costs of standardization organizations . Such
subsidies are a general practice at national level . The
Commission accepts that standardization is unlikely
to be economically self-sustaining in all its activities
and that its ' public interest ' character justifies some
degree of financial assistance from public authorities .
In the case of European standardization, however,
the Commission believes that any general subsidy at
European level could lead to a risk of duplication
with national-level subsidies to standardization
organizations and should therefore be avoided .

69 . The Community may, nevertheless, wish from time

to time to encourage certain activities within
European standardization other than the delivery of
particular standards . These could include, for
example, the promotion of European standardiz ­
ation, the improvement of information systems, the
reinforcement of management or accounting infra ­
structure, or technical assistance to third countries .
In the absence of appropriate funding by the
standards bodies themselves, such occasional public
intervention should not be excluded .

No C 96 / 16 Official Journal of the European Communities 15 . 4 . 92

70 . The long-term budgetary implications for the V. STANDARDIZATION AND
Community of this policy are difficult to quantify LEGISLATION
but it is clear that substantial provision in the EEC
budget for the financing of European standardiz ­
ation work will be necessary for the foreseeable 72 . The Commission has diversified
future .

V. STANDARDIZATION AND COMMUNITY

72 . The Commission has diversified its links with stan ­

For at least the next three years ( 1992 to 1994 ) the
annual cost of new standardization work contracted

by the Community will remain at, or close to, its
current level in real terms ( ECU about 33 million ),
as important pieces of Community product legis ­
lation, such as the Directives on machinery,
construction products, medical devices, measuring
instruments, and so on are put into place and as
standardization is stimulated in areas of industrial
economic policy ( such as in information technology,
telecommunications and energy supply or in sectors
dominated by public procurement ). ( An indication of
how current Community spending on European
standardization is allocated is annexed .)

From 1995 onwards the amount of mandated work
is likely to decline from its present high level,
although demand from the Community authorities
for European standards will continue from requests
for the up-dating or improvement of existing
harmonized standards or from the use of standardiz ­

ation in new areas related to legislation, or major
industrial projects such as the trans-European
networks . Incidental support for the infrastructure of
European standardization would have to be added,
as would payments for the translation of European
standards into all official Community languages
( which already costs ECU 3 million per year ). The
long-term cost to the Community budget of main ­
tenance of the European standardization system is
estimated to be no less than ECU 1 5 million per year
at current prices . Any major policy initiatives
requiring additional standardization effort, or any
extension of financial support to interested parties to
allow them to participate in European standardiz ­
ation would increase that figure .

( xi ) Other issues

71 . In the Green Paper the Commission discussed the

relationship between intellectual property rights
( IPR ) and standardization and called for the devel ­
opment by standards bodies of clear conditions for
the inclusion of IPR in standards, based on practice
in the international standardization organizations . In
view of the importance and complexity of the issue
for IPR, standardization, competition and trade
policies, the Commission intends to produce a
separate communication on this subject . Meanwhile
work is going on in the European standardization
bodies on a common approach to handling IPR in
standardization and the results expected at the
beginning of 1992 will be carefully examined .

appreciated by those responsible for Community
policy .

73 . If the European and national standardization bodies

implement the measures aiming at efficiency and
openness indicated in the preceding section of this
communication, Community regulations could and
should make even greater use of standardization
than they do today . The advantages of recourse to
standardization as a method of determining technical
requirements are worth repeating :

— standardization is a highly transparent process in

which all interested parties may be involved,

— it combines the advantages of democracy with

the ability to reflect the technological state of the

art,

— standards can be easily modified to reflect tech ­

nological development,

— reference to standardization in legislation means

that most of the costs of production of technical
specifications are transferred from the public to
the private sector,

— to the extent that many sources of expertise are

available for standardization work, and the final
outcome must receive support from interested
parties in order to be accepted, standardization
may be more efficient than technical regulation,
in so far as it will better reflect technical reality
in the market .

74 . Some of the broad economic sectors where more

voluntary standardization will clearly assist in the

creation and consolidation of the Community 's
internal market have been mentioned : information
technology, telecommunications, energy and

dardization since the adoption of the new approach
to technical harmonization in 1985 . Mandates for
the development of European standards now go
beyond the area of product safety legislation . They
include information technology standards, standards
for motor fuels, advanced ceramic materials, and
measurement methods for emissions from waste
incineration plants ; mandates are currently being
considered for power generation equipment,
methods of analysis for foodstuffs, biotechnology
equipment and auditing methods for monitoring
compliance with EEC public procurement Directives .
The versatility of standards is becoming more widely

15 . 4 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 96 / 17

transport . The Commission is ready to take further
action in these areas . Others where initiatives to
encourage standardization may be considered are
standards related to environmental protection and
foodstuffs, although in these areas some specific
regulations may still be necessary .

75 . Standardization, whether national, European or
international, cannot substitute for, weaken or
contradict legislation . Standardization organizations
however, remain free to elaborate standards within
the limits set by regulation .

76 . Where standardization is related to legislation, it will

remain necessary for the public authorities to fix the
parameters within which standardization may take
place, and to monitor the standardization process,
by direct participation if necessary, in order to
ensure that these parameters are adhered to . The
legislator must also be satisfied that interested parties
are as directly involved in standardization as they
would be in the regulatory process ; hence the
Commission 's insistence, in the Green Paper and in
this communication, on the need for full trans ­
parency and the right to participate in
European-level standardization .

77 . For its part, the Commission intends to undertake an

internal review of the possibilities for greater use of
standardization in future Community legislation, and
will report to the Council on its outcome .

78 . This prospect of a developing partnership between

regulators and standardizers in the Community
framework underlines the importance of the
decisions now facing the European standardization
system . For public authorities to have the confidence
to make more use of voluntary standardization, stan ­
dardization bodies must demonstrate that they are
efficient, transparent and fair, and capable of
producing high-quality output . The process of
critical self-examination and reform now going on
within the European standardization bodies is a
promising sign, but there must be no doubt about
the cost to the European economy of failure to carry
this reform out . In the absence of an effectively
managed European standardization system the
Community legislator will be forced to resort to
technical regulation, with the inevitable risk of arbi ­
trariness and loss of efficiency .

The challenge to the European standardization
system is to prove itself worthy of the responsibility
now placed on it .

No C 96 / 18 Official Journal of the European Communities 15 . 4 . 92

ANNEX

Community financing of European standardization

The standardization work currently attributed to CEN, Cenelec and ETSI relating to the internal market,

information technology and telecommunications concerns the drafting of about 1 950 European standards,
broken down as follows :

( in million ecus )

Area Number of Standards Amount financed

New approach Directives
— Pressure vessels 42 1,15

— Toys 7 0,37
— Construction products 484 13,33
— Machines 184 3,79
— Personal protective equipment 102 3,17
— Medical devices 42 2,06
— Gas appliances 54 2,91
— Electromagnetic compatibility 23 0,42

938 27,21

Other work

— Information technology 25 7 13,37
— Telecommunications 30 5,57
— Public procurement 216 3,91
— Eurocodes 27 4,69
— Steel 129 3,80
— Advanced ceramics 42 0,59
— Aerospace 300 1,29

1 001 33,21

Total 1 939 60,42

During 1991, CEN, Cenelec and ETSI where asked to produce 828 standards for a sum of about ECU 28
million, broken down as follows :

New approach Directives
— Toys 1 0,10
— Construction products 220 6,3 7
— Machines 60 1,93
— Medical devices 42 2,06

323 10,46

Others

— Information technology 80 7,00
— Telecommunications 5

— Public procurement 216 3,91
— Eurocodes 27 4,69

— Steel 27 0,98

— Aerospace 150 0,80

505 17,38

Total 828 27,84

Other annual expenses for support to standardization ( translations, information
procedure, etc. ) I

3,70