Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

### **COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES**

```
                       COM(90) 456 final

                       Brussels, 8 October 1990

              COMMISSION GREEN PAPER ON

       THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION

        ACTION FOR FASTER TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION

                   IN EUROPE

```

```
                 - 1 
           COMMISSION GREEN PAPER ON

     THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION :

   ACTION FOR FASTER TECHNOLOGICAL INTEGRATION IN EUROPE

Table of contents (P)

   INTRODUCTION 2

   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

PART O N E : THE C H A L L E N G E

I. THE IMPORTANCE OF EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION FOR THE

   INTERNAL MARKET 8

   (I) European standards for legislation 8

    (II) E u r o p e a n s t a n d a r d s in an integrated market 10

II. EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION TODAY 12

   ( I) CEN/CENELEC:

              Estab I i shment 1 2

              R e c o g n i t i o n by the C o m m u n i t y 12
       - P r e s e n t S t r u c t u r e 14

    (II) ETSI 16

PART T W O : M E E T I N G THE C H A L L E N G E

III. THE MAIN ISSUES FOR EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION IN THE

   1990'S: 19

   A. The role of European Industry and other Interested
     par tI es 20

    B. T h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of E u r o p e a n S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n 2 2

      P r i o r i t y i ssues

    ( i) E f f i c i e n c y 22

   ( II) Coordination and structure 27

   (III) Membership and International cooperation 31

     Other important Issues

   ( iv) Accountability 35
   ( v) F InancIng 37
   ( vI) InformatI on 40
   (vli) Status of the European Standard 42
   (viii) Testing and Certification 44

   (Ix) Intellectual property rights and patents 46

```

```
IV.

V.

```

```
C. The roie of public authorities 47

THE NEXT STEPS 49

```

```
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS to CEN 50

```

```
Annex

```

```
1 Standardization OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Order Vouchers given to CEN
  and CENELEC since 1986

```

```
Annex

```

```
2 P r o p o s e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of the
   E u r o p e a n S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n S y s t e m

```

```
                    - 2 
                  INTRODUCTION

The credibility and success of the White Paper on completing

the Internal market do not come from the fact that three

hundred subjects were Identified for legislative
harmonization, but that a thousand or more Community
Directives were abandoned which might have been necessary If
the old approach, based on detailed harmonization, had been

foI lowed.

The new approach is based on two principles:

    mutual recognition of national rules Is the basic
    principle. This presupposes that the objectives of
    national legislation - health, safety and so on - are
    equivalent and that only the means of achieving them are
    di fferent;

    legislative harmonization at Community level only occurs
    exceptionally In those areas where the objectives of
    national legislation are not equivalent; when
    harmonization Is necessary, Community legislation must be
    limited to laying down essential requirements for safety,
    health, and so on. It Is up to producers to chose by what
    means they wish to comply with these requirements.

Let us take domestic electrical applicances as an example.
Technical safety requires the presence In the electrical lead
of a third wire, connected to the earth. Before taking
legislative initiatives, the Commission will see whether the
twelve Member States all require this third wire. If so, there
is no need for legislation to be harmonized; if not, Community
legislation will provide for an earth connection for this type
of appliance throughout the Community, without going into the
details of whether the third pole should be round or square,
or placed in the middle or at the edge of the plug.

This policy will bring about a single Europe for traders, but
not for manufacturers or consumers. A Community citizen may
purchase a washing-machine in the country-next-door and bring
it across frontiers without difficulty, but he may still find
that the plug of the appliance does not fit the socket in his

house.

Thus neither mutual recognition nor the new approach to
harmonization can operate satisfactorily unless manufacturers
come together and agree upon common Instruments - plugs and
sockets - which are intended to achieve the legislator's
objectives. That is the role of the standardization
organ I zat i ons.

Only European standards will bring about a common economic
area. National standards on the contrary compartmentalise the
common market. They cannot be the subject of mutual
recognition, since, not laid down by the authorities, they
are not obligatory; each producer is free to fulfill

```

```
                    - 3 
essential requirements by other means and no purchaser can be
obliged to recognize foreign products. Standards will only
fulfill their role In the common market If they are agreed at
the European level and published as European standards.

That Is why the Community encourages the work of CEN, CENELEC
and ETSI, which brings together the standardization bodies of
the eighteen member countries of the Community and EFTA.

The output of the European standardization bodies has risen
spectacularly. Over 800 standards have been adopted In the
last six years, three times as many as in the previous twenty
years. But the completion of the Internal Market requires the
adoption of at least 800 additional standards, or about one
standard a day until 31 December 1992.

The Commission is responsible for the operation of the common
market, not only for traders but also for producers and
consumers. In order not to have to return to the old approach
of detailed harmonization, It wishes to assist standards
organizations to respond to the growing demand for
standardization in anticipation of 1992. In this Green Paper,
the Commission proposes for discussion suggestions for
improving the efficiency of standardization organizations as
well as their cooperation and cohesion.

```

```
                  - 4 
      COMMISSION GREEN PAPER ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

            EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION

               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The single Community market will become a reality for European
Industry only insofar as common technical standards can be
developed progressively at European rather than national
I eve I .

Less than 900 days from the Community's deadline for
achievement of the internal market, European standardization
has become central to that objective. Hundreds of European
Standards are today being drawn up to accompany the
Community's technical legislation which will come into force
before 1 January 1993. This Is the Immediate goal of the
European standardization process.

But as the regulatory barriers to the free circulation of
industrial products within the Community are removed,
differences In national technical standards still constitute a
significant obstacle to the acceptability of those products In
the market .

Although under Community law Member State authorities are
required to accept on their market products which conform to
the legislation and standards of other Member States where
these are intended to achieve equivalent objectives, the same
principle of "mutual recognition" cannot be applied to the
individual purchaser in the market, who remains free to set
his own requirements, often by reference to national
standards. Only through the gradual voluntary harmonization of
standards can the Community market fully achieve the economic
rationalization and competition which are prime objectives of
the EEC Treaty.

The objectives of the Green Paper

The main purpose of this Green Paper - a consultation document
addressed to all interested parties - is to draw to the
attention of producers and users of industrial product's in the
private and public sector the strategic significance of
European standardization for the realization of the internal
market. Nothing less than the future technological
environment for products on the European market is at stake.

A second purpose of this Green Paper is to accelerate the
delivery of European standards, especially those required for
the implementation of EEC product legislation. The European
standardization bodies have made major efforts to respond to
the increased demand for their services In recent years, for
which they are to be congratulated, but demand for European
standards is outstripping supply.

```

```
                  - 5 
A third objective of this paper Is to stimulate debate on how
to ensure long-tern dynamism and stability In European
Standardization so that this economlcaI Iy-Important activity
can be sustained at the pace which will be required during the
next decade.

Contents of the Green Paper

The Green Paper examines a number of Issues relating to the
organizational structure, financing and policies and practices
of standardization bodies, both at European and national
level, and assesses what changes may be needed to make
standardization serve the European market more effectively.

It Is divided Into two parts.

Part One identifies the challenges and problems facing
European standardization. Section I explains the importance of
European standardization for the Community's internal market,
both for EEC Directives adopted under the so-called New
Approach to technical harmonization and in terms of common
technical standards In the Community market. Section II
briefly describes the structure and operation of the European
standardization bodies, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI.

Part Two puts forward possible solutions to the challenges
facing European standardization in the 1990's and addresses
the role of European Industry and other parties in the
standardization process, the organization of European
standardization and the role of public authorities.

The Commission's main recommendations can be summarized as

foI lows :

   European Industry is called upon to give European
   standardization a much higher priority in its strategy
   for the internal market. Without greater involvement of
   industry In standardization work, and the commitment of
   more money and expertise to that process, the ambitious
   objectives which the Commission and European
   standardization bodies have set themselves may not be
   met. Lack of involvement at a strategic level by
   European industry is likely to be a high-cost option, and
   will reduce the potential of the internal market.

```

```
                   - 6 
   Standardization bodies are asked to take further steps to
    Improve their efficiency and to consider restructuring
   the European standardization system to permit sectoral
   autonomy In standards-making while ensuring coordination
   through new European-love I structures (a European
   Standardization Council and Board) which will lay down
   the strategic direction of European standardization.

   Other recommendations Include greater direct
   participation of Interested parties in European
   standardization work, the creation of self-standing
   European Standards and a long-term policy for the
   financing of European standardization bodies, which
   should allow future Community funding of European
   standardization to decline from its present high levels
   over the next few years.

   The Commission also recommends measures by which the
   European Standardization bodies might respond to their
   changing external environment, especially In Eastern
   Europe.

   Governments are asked to step up their promotion and
   support of standardization at national and at European
    level. At the Community level, the Commission recommends
   that the Council of Ministers should decide upon the
   basic principles for future cooperation between the
   European standardization system and public authorities
   and commit Itself to long-term financial support.

(A full summary of Commission recommendations is given in
Section V of the paper).

Follow-up to the Green Paper

This Green Paper will be widely distributed by the Commission.
Interested parties will be consulted In the three months
following publication, with a view to identifying the main
points of consensus.

The Commission will at the same time consult the European
standardization bodies on the priority issues (efficiency, new
structures and external relations) with a view to agreeing
appropriate action as soon as possible.

The Commission will, In the light of the discussion of the
Green Paper, also consider making proposals to the Council of
Ministers for decisions to formalize its recognition and
support of European standardization.

For further copies of the Green Paper, please apply preferably
by letter or telefax to:
Un 11 I I I .B.2,
Directorate General for Internal Market and Industrial Affairs

Commission of the European Communities
200, rue de la Loi
B - 1049 Brussels
Telephone: 32/2/235.46.50
Telefax: 32/2/236.08.51

```

**-** **7** **-**

**PART ONE: THE CHALLENGE**

```
                 - 8 
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION FOR THE

   INTERNAL MARKET

1. The elimination of technical barriers to trade has been

    recognized at the highest political level of the
    Community as a priority task in the programme for the
    completion of a market without internal frontiers by 31
    December 1992. Since the adoption by the Council of the
    so-called "New Approach to technical harmonization and
    standardization" In 1985, the harmonization of European
    Industrial standards In the areas covered by Community
    technical legislation has become an essential Instrument
    in achieving that objective.

    As 1993 approaches, European standardization is also
    being perceived as a tool by which to obtain the full
    economic benefits of that market. As well as being a
    means of eliminating regulatory barriers to trade,
    European standards are becoming an economic objective in
    the Ir own r ight.

(I) European standards for législation

2. In the Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 on the new
    approach to technical harmonization and standardization,
    which is now the basis of most Community technical
    legislation, reference to voluntary standards was
    accepted as the appropriate method of giving technical
    expression to the essential requirements of Community
    Directives. Under the new approach, EEC legislation
    confines Itself to laying down the essential requirements
    to which products must comply in order to ensure the
    protection of public health or safety, of the environment
    or the consumer. European standards are developed In
    respect of each Directive in order to provide
    manufacturers with a set of technical specifications
    recognized in the Directive as giving a presumption of
    conformity to the essential requirements. The European
    standards concerned, the so-called "harmonized
    standards", remain voluntary; manufacturers are still
    able to put on the Community market products which either
    met other standards or no standards at all, subject to
    fulfilling the procedures for assessment of conformity
    laid down by the Directive.

3. The Council has now adopted several Directives based on
    the new approach (toys, simple pressure vessels,
    construction products, electro-magnetic compatibility,
    machines, personal protective equipment and gas
    appliances). Further Directives for medical devices and
    telecommunications terminal equipment are likely to be
    adopted this year. A large amount of work has been given
    to the European standardization bodies by means of

    individual "standardization mandates"

    from the Commission, which, after consultation of the
    standardization body concerned, establish the scope of
    the work, lay down any supplementary guidelines and fix
    the timetable by which the standards should be adopted.

```

```
                 - 9 
   (It should be noted that the EFTA countries, whose
   national standardization bodies are also members of the
   European standardization organizations, have consistently
   supported the Community's approach and contribute to the
   financing of mandated standardization work).

   In a separate initiative, the Community has given
   harmonized European standards a prominent role in the
   opening up of public procurement markets. The revised
   Community Directives on public supplies and works [(1)],
   and the proposed Directive which will shortly extend the
   same disciplines to such sectors as telecommunications,
   transport, energy and water supply, require purchasing
   entities to refer to national standards transposing
   European standards where they exist, subject to some
   IImI ted except Ions.

   The final success of the new approach and of the use of
   European standards in public procurement policy depends
   largely on the European standardization bodies. The pace
   at which the Community has adopted Its legislation has
   resulted In an unprecedented Increase In their workload.
   Since 1986 about 30 standardization mandates related to
   EEC legislation have been given to the two main European
   standardization bodies, CEN (Comité Européen de
   Normalisation) and CENELEC (Comité Européen de
   Normalisation E lectrotechnI que) for approximately 800
   European Standards, most of which are to be completed by
   1993(2), More mandates are being prepared, which are
   likely to bring the total to over 1,000 standards. This
   demand for new standards work has led to a doubling of
   CEN/CENELEC Technical Committees and working groups;
   between December 1987 and December 1989 the number of

   Technical Committees alone rose from 122 to 239. The
   number of draft European standards in course of
   development in CEN rose from 220 in 1986 to 950 in 1989.
   Several thousand people currently participate in
   standardization work directly related to mandated
   European Standards.

   Despite this response from the standards bodies the
   overwhelming part of this standardization work for the
   EEC internal market still has to be done before 1993.
   The annual output of new European standards is still low
   (about 150 were published by CEN/CENELEC in 1989)
   compared to the target of at least 800 additional
   standards needed for EEC legislation or the production of
   national standards in the main standards-producing
   countries of the Commun Ity( [3] *. Even though current
   CEN/CENELEC output represents a rapid increase from
   previous levels (19 in 1985, 102 in 1988), demand for
   European standards is Increasing faster than supply.

(1) Reference: OJEC N° L 127, 20/5/88, p. 1.
(2) A list of the subjects for which standardization
  mandates have been given Is contained In Annex I.
(3) Purely national standards published by France, Germany
  and the United Kingdom in 1989 were approximately
  350, 650 and 400 respectively.

```

```
                     - 10 
(II) European standards In an integrated market

7. The Community's Interest In common European standards Is

    not limited to those to which can be referred to In

    Community product legislation. More European
    standardization will benefit the single European market
    In all sectors, not only In those subject to regulation,
    by bringing about the very economic rationalization and
    competition which are prime objectives of the EEC Treaty.

8. The main motive for promoting any standardization
    activity is economic. The motivation for standardizing
    products, processes or services at the national level     namely, to reduce costs for producers and to Improve
    transparency of the market for consumers - clearly exists
    at the European level. Given the current fragmentation of
    the European market, economic gains should be much
    higher from European standardization than from further
    national standardization. Common European standards will
    reduce research, production and distribution costs for
    producers, and promote more intensive competition, to the
    benefit of consumers, In respect of the non-standard
    features of products.

9. A second reason Is that, even in the absence of technical
    regulations Imposed by governments, national standards
    inhibit intra-CommunIty trade and add to costs for
    manufacturers. National standards tend to shape customer
    preference for products. Important customers in national
    markets, such as government agencies, reinforce this
    effect by favouring national standards in public
    procurement. Pressure in favour of known national
    standards Is also exercised by bodies such as insurance
    companies. More European standardization can gradually
    eliminate these hidden technical barriers to trade, by
    building up a degree of commonality in technical
    specifications where the market considers it useful.

10. For newly-developing technologies (information
    technology, telecommunications or new industrial
    materials) standards are often a pre-condition for
    industrial production or marketing. It is crucial that in
    these sectors, where markets are becoming global,
    standardization should, where possible, proceed at the
    international or at least the European level from the

    outset.

```

```
                   - 11 
   While Europe may have to come to terms with an
   Inheritance of conflicting national standards in more
   traditional technologies for some time, It must not
   repeat history In the technologies of tomorrow.
   Standards for new technologies must also be delivered
   more quickly than ever before If they are to meet the
   needs of the market. d)

11. For all the reasons alluded to above, the work which the
   European standards bodies are being called upon to do is
   extensive and growing quickly.For most of It (two-thirds
   of CEN's activity and one-half of CENELEC's is covered by
   standardization mandates from the Community and EFTA) the
   European standards bodies have contracted to complete the
   Job within the next two-and-a-half years. This task alone
   requires more than doubling the current annual output of
   European standards. To this must be added the growing
   demand from industry for European standards in other
   areas, which, although perhaps less urgent, is of long   term economic importance.

   European standardization is faced with a huge challenge.
   It is unlikely to succeed without a heightened level of
   commitment from those who want the standards and from the

   standardization bodies themselves.

(1) The Community's research and development programmes
   already have an important role In pre-standardization.
   One of the objectives of the Community Bureau of
   Reference (BCR) is to facilitate the implementation of
   standards, and links between research, standardization
   and certification policies are currently being
   re i nforced.

```

```
                    - 12 
II. EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION TODAY

    In this Section the origin and current structure of the
   three European standardization bodies (CEN, CENELEC and
   ETSI) is briefly reviewed, and the main constraints on
   expansion of their activity are Identified.

( I) CEN and CENELEC

    Establishment and early development

12. The European standardization organizations were set up to
    ensure more effective implementation of International
    standards by national standardization bodies In Europe,
    the harmonization of divergent national standards or the
    preparation of standards where none existed. An
    association of European national standards, bodies from
    the member countries of the EEC and EFTA, the Comité
    Européen de Normalisation - CEN, was established In
    1961, to be followed In 1962 by a similar organization
    for the e lectrotechnlea I area (CENELCOM, which became

    CENELEC in 1973).

13. In the first twenty years the output of these European
   organizations was low. CEN adopted 96 European standards
    between 1961 and 1982; CENELEC adopted in the same period
    37 European standards and 303 harmonized documents (texts
   which, while containing common elements, allow for
   national deviations on a permanent or temporary basis).
   An important distinguishing feature of both
   organizations, however, was that their decisions on
   common European standards, once adopted, became binding

   on those members which had voted for them. Outside the

    limited area covered by common standardization work,
   national standardization bodies continued to develop
    their own standards independently.

   Recognition by the Community

14. A stronger regional orientation was given to European
   standardization after 1983, as a result of initiatives
    taken by the Community in order to eliminate technical
   barriers to intra-CommunIty trade.

```

```
                   - 13 
15. The first of these was the adoption, on 28 March 1983, of
   Council Directive 83/189/EEC laying down an Information
   procedure for. standards and technical regulations. This
   Directive established the procedures for cooperation
   between the members of CEN/CENELEC and the Commission
   which still apply today. In particular, It provided for:

     the collection by the European standardization bodies
     of Information from their members concerning their
     planned and current activity (Articles 2 and 4 ) ;

     requests from national standards bodies to be
     associated with the work of another body, or to have
     work taken up at European level (Article 3 ) ;

     a Standing Committee on Technical Regulations and
     Standards, composed of Member State representatives
     and chaired by the Commission, in whose work the
     European and national standards organizations could
     participate (Article 5 ) ;

     requests from the Commission, after consultation of
     the Standing Committee, to the European
     standardization bodies to draw up standards on
     specific subjects (Article 6) ;

     best efforts by Member State authorities to ensure
     that national standardization did not continue on

     subjects for which the Commission had requested
     European standards (Article 7 ) .

   Directive 83/189/EEC provided a mechanism through which
   national standardization could become open to collective
   scrutiny and the Commun Ity author 111 es could initiate
   European standardization work.

16. The Council of Ministers has formally recognized the role
   of European standardization in Community legislation.
   The Conclusions of the Council on Standardization of 1984
   and the Resolution on the New Approach of May 1985 refer
   to the place to be given to voluntary standardization in
   future Community legislation, to the advantages of
   standardization for industrial competitiveness in the
   Community and In external markets, and to the need for "a
   very rapid strengthening of the capacity to standardize,
   preferably at European level".

```

#### **`- 14 -`**

```
17. In 1984 the Commission defined Its relationship with
   CEN/CENELEC In General Guidelines for Cooperation. The
   Commission committed Itself to following the New Approach
   as widely as possible, and to giving financial support to
   CEN/CENELEC. CEN/CENELEC agreed to coordinate their
   activity, to Increase their resources, to align as far as
   possible with International standards, to ensure that all
    Interested parties were associated with their work, and
    to maintain an effective Information service.
   The financial aspects of Commlsslon-CEN/CENELEC
   cooperation were laid down in a Framework Contract, first
   agreed in 1985 and renewed In 1989.

18. Following ratification of the European Single Act in
    1987, the Internal regulations of CEN/CENELEC were
    revised at the request of the Commission to permit the
    adoption and obligatory transposition of European
    standards by weighted majority vote. Under CEN/CENELEC
    rules, a draft European standard which receives a
    favourable vote from a qualified majority of member
    bodies is deemed to be adopted and is Implemented by all.
    In the event that a standard does not receive a
    favourable vote from a majority of the entire CEN/CENELEC
   membership, the votes of members from the EEC Member
    States are counted separately and a qualified majority in
    favour requires the adoption of the standard by all EEC
   Member bodies and those EFTA member bodies which had

    voted In favour. ( D A similar procedure is also
    provided for In the rules of the European
    Telecommunications Standardization Institute (ETSI).

    Present structure

19. The structure of CEN and CENELEC Is that of associations

   of national standards bodies or electrotechnIcaI

    committees, which have the last word on all questions
    relating to standardization activity at the European
    level. The budget of each European organization is voted
    by the national members, as are its Internal rules, work
    programmes, and decisions on the allocation of resources.
    In contrast to the situation at national level, the
    governing bodies of CEN contain no direct representation
    of other interests than of professional standardizers
    (such as public authorities, manufacturers, or other
    users of standards), although CENELEC Is closely
    associated with the electrotechnicaI Industry and
    appoints some of Its office-holders from Industry.

(1) It should be noted, however, that the weighted majority
    voting procedure used In CEN/CENELEC is not Identical
    to that of the EEC Treaty. In particular, the condition
    for a proposal to be adopted that no more than 3 members
    may vote negatively constitutes a more restrictive
    approach than that of Article 148. The Commission has
    asked, so far unsuccessfully, for this condition to be
    removed from the CEN/CENELEC regulations.

```

```
                 - 15 
20. CEN and CENELEC have responded with energy and commitment
   to the Increasing demand for common European standards.
   The secretariats of both organizations have expanded
   quickly ; In the period 1985 - 89, staff members have
   Increased from 10 to 70 In CEN, from 13 to 32 In CENELEC.
   A comparison of the annual output of the organizations in
   1989 with that of, say, 1982 is also eloquent: CEN last
   year adopted almost seven times as many standards as in
   1982 (130 instead of 19) and CENELEC six times as many
   standards and Harmonized Documents (126 compared to 20).
   But the distance between today's achievement and
   tomorrow's goal Is still great. There are today about
   1250 adopted European standardization documents of which
   about 800 In the e IectrotechnicaI area ; the number of
   national standards in Germany, France and United Kingdom,
   is about 20,000, 13,000 and 10,000 respectively (a
   significant proportion of these is Identical to or
   related to international or European standards).

21. CEN and CENELEC have in recent years recognized the value
   of using the services of other organizations, the so   called "Associated Standardization Bodies" (ASB's), in
   the preparation of technical documents destined to become
   European Standards. A number of such bodies have been
   given this status, such as ECISS - European Committee on
   Iron and Steel Standardization, AECMA - Association
   Européenne des Constructeurs de Matériel Aérospatial, and
   EWOS - European Workshop for Open Systems, and have been
   responsible for the programming and drafting of documents
   which have only to be submitted to public enquiry by CEN
   and voting and CENELEC before becoming European
   Standards. Some of these bodies provide for direct
   participation in their work of Interested parties at the
   European level. Approximately 100 European Standards so
   far adopted by CEN and CENELEC have been provided by
   ASB's.

22. Despite this impressive response to the challenge, the
   limits to CEN and CENELEC's flexibility are becoming
   apparent as European activity has Intensified:

     In spite of the introduction of weighted majority
     voting for final decisions on standards, a concern to
     achieve consensus on draft standards has led to long
     de I ays ;

```

```
                    - 16 
      CEN/CENELEC have not yet applied the "project team"
      approach to work up Initial drafts of standards system
      outside Information technology field; Instead the
      organizations continue to apply a "collegiate" system,
      In which every stage of the standardization process
      assures parity of treatment on a national basis:

      Procedures for public enquiry, examination of comments
      and final voting are widely Judged to be slow and to
      delay the delivery of European standards, particularly
      for new technologies ;

      The requirement that adopted European standards be
      transposed as national standards In each member
      country before they can be applied leads to delays In
      their availability for use ;

      Procedures for the collection and distribution of

      Information on national standardization activity under
      Directive 83/189/EEC have been applied loosely (in
      1989 an independent report described the Information
      as not responding to the needs of the market);

      Information on European standardization activity is
      not yet made available In a clear and comprehensive
      way to European Industry.

    These and other difficulties are the subject of further
    analysis and recommendations for change in PART TWO of

    this document.

(il) ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute)

23. In Its Green Paper on the development of a Community
    telecommunications policy (1987) the Commission proposed
    that the development of harmonised specifications would
    be accelerated by the creation of a new European
    standardization body. In response, the members of the
    European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications
   Administrations (CEPT) decided to establish such a body,
   which represented a radical change in approach to
    European standardization insofar as it provided for the
    direct participation at European level of all interested
    parties in standardization work rather than for
    representation through national delegations headed by the
    national standards body.

```

```
                 - 17 
24. The establishment of ETSI In March 1988 outside the

    CEN/CENELEC framework posed a number of problems for the
    coherence of European standardization. In the first
    place, coordination between ETSI and CEN/CENELEC was
    necessary to avoid duplication of effort In
    standardization, particularly as the extension of
    telecommunications technology Into other technologies
    made overlapping increasingly likely. A second problem
    was the need to ensure that the basic principles of
    standardization, such as transparency and Independence of
    particular interests, were respected by the new body.
    Finally, there was a concern to ensure that the
    standards produced by ETSI would be effectively
    integrated into the corpus of European and national

    standards.

25. During 1988 and early 1989 the Commission negotiated with

    ETSI In order to resolve these issues. This led to

    amendments to the ETSI rules of procedure and to a
    commitment by ETSI to cooperate with CEN and CENELEC. Two
    years after the establishment of ETSI, the three European
    standardization bodies have recently decided to establish
    a Joint Presidents Group in which matters of common
    Interest can be discussed, and have negotiated a
    cooperation agreement for the handling of technical work.
    Because of the pragmatic approach followed In recent
   months the dangers of duplication of work appear to have
    been avoided. At the time of writing, however, the

    Commission is still concerned that the role of national

    standards bodies in ETSI's standardization activity
    should be fully recognized.

26. ETSI has in two years already developed into a
    substantial organization. It currently has 212 members
    and 31 observers, representing PTT administrations,
    public network operators, manufacturers, users and other
   organizations. Its programme of work aims to deliver
    nearly 300 European Telecommunications Standards, of
   which 40 will be adopted this year and a further 260 are
    at the stage of public enquiry. The Commission has
   provisionally concluded a framework agreement with ETSI
    for one year, and has issued nine standardization

   mandates to it.

```

```
        - 18 
PART TWO: MEETING THE CHALLENGE

```

```
                   - 19 
III. THE MAIN ISSUES FOR EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION IN THE

   1990'S

27. This central section of the Green Paper Is divided Into
   three parts

   A. - The role of European Industry and other Interested
       parties

   B. - The organization of European standardization

   C. - The role of public authorities.

```

**\**

```
                    - 20 
   A. The role of European Industry and other interested

      part les

28. Effective standardization depends on the motivation and

    commitment of those who use standards. The Commission

    believes that companies intending to exploit the benefits
    of a single European market, and other Interests, such as
    users and consumers of Industrial products, should ask
    themselves whether they are giving European

    standardization the attention It deserves and whether

    that attention Is exercised at a sufficiently strategic
    level within the organization.

29. In view of the Impact of European standardization on the
    acceptability of products in the market (and therefore on
    profitability) companies should accord standardization a
    higher priority In their planning for the Internal
    Market. Standards have now become too important to be
    the exclusive preserve of technical experts. The European
    standards developed over the next decade will have a
    decisive Influence on the technological structure of the
    entire European market; they will change the conditions
    of trade not Just in export markets but in each national
    market as well. European standardization work is already
    under way In a wide and growing number of sectors. The
    speed and scale of this process means that companies need
    to be attentive to what is going on in their sector and,
    above all, must become involved in this negotiation.
    Standards are not written by or for professional
    standard I zers, but by and for those motivated enough to
    seek a place at the negotiating table.

30. The long-term benefits of standardization require
    Investment by individual companies, Just as Improvements
    in productivity, marketing or distribution systems.
    Standards organizations need personnel and physical
    resources to provide an efficient service. But direct

    financial contributions to the costs of standardization

    bodies, either at European or national level, is not the
    main expense. That comes from participation In the
    standardization negotiations themselves, through the
    release of technical experts to assist in the drafting of
    European standards or in discussion of them in Technical
    Committees and working groups. Although streamlining the
    procedures of the European standardization bodies may
    reduce the time taken to produce European standards in
    future, the cost of participation in standards-making
   will still appear high. Companies wishing to influence
    their future technical environment, however, should ask
    themselves whether they really have a choice.

```

```
                   - 21 
31. Besides Influencing the pace of European standardization,
   European Industry and other Interested parties will be
   asked to play a bigger role in deciding its future
   direction. Although much current European work Is
   dictated by the needs of EEC legislation, this will not
   always be the case. Even now, a number of Industries are
   proposing subjects for harmonization of standards to CEN,
   CENELEC and ETSI. The possibilities outlined later in
   this document for more sectoral autonomy within the
   European standardization system should encourage
   industry to identify where the absence of European
   standardization Is inhibiting economic rationalization
   and, if necessary, to set up Its own organizations to do
   something about It. Nor is European standardization a
   concern limited to large companies; it should also
    interest small and medium companies, since It offers an
   opportunity to agree on common technical specifications
   openly and democratically. In the absence of
   standardization, specifications will be set by the most
   powerful forces in the market.

32. European industry is faced with a choice. It can accept
   the present structure of standardization in Europe, from
   which European standards will emerge relatively slowly
   over the next few years, or It can decide to commit
   Itself whole-heartedly to the rapid development of common
   European standards. The second choice will be more
   expensive in the short term than the first, and may well
   be perceived by some parts of industry as more of a
   threat than a benefit. The Commission considers, however,
   that companies which delay in coming to terms with what
   Is an inevitable process will find themselves at a major
   disadvantage compared to their more enlightened
   competI tors.

33. Other Interests, too, such as consumers, users, or
   workers, will have to be prepared to organize themselves
   more effectively to participate in European
   standardization. The Commission has already provided
   financial assistance to European Trades Union
   Confederation for the establishment of a Technical Bureau
   intended to monitor European standardization work which
   affects the Interests of organized labour. The Commission
   later in this paper recommends that the European
   standardization bodies be more open to participation in
   their work by non-manufacturing interests. Any greater
   access to the standardization process for such interests
   will only lead to an Improved system, however, If those
   concerned take up the opportunities that are offered, and
   ensure that their needs are articulated.

```

```
                    - 22 
   B. - The organization of European standardization

34. Not all of these challenges facing European
   standardization are of the same Immediacy or importance.
   A distinction is, therefore, made between priority and
   other Issues. Priorities which mainly concern improving
    the capacity of European standardization organizations to
   meet their commitment to deliver harmonized standards for

    the Internal Market. The other issues, while important,
   are more relevant to the period Immediately following
    1992; for some of these too, however, It would be useful
    to make progress in the near future to lay the foundation
    for the longer term.

                Priority Issues

(i) Eff ic lency

35. Efficiency In the production of European standards is,
    from the Commission's poInt-of-view, the highest
    priority; the operation of Community product legislation
    effectively depends upon It. In spite of the mobilization
   of an army of technical experts to work on standards for
    the Directives that will enter into force In 1991 and

    beyond (such as construction products, machines, electro   magnetic compatibility, gas appliances or medical
    devices), It is probable that without a fairly radical
    change In working methods delays will occur which will
    have a tangible economic cost for Community
   manufacturers.

```

```
                 - 23 
36. There seems a real risk that the current working methods
   of European standard Izers may not be capable of
    delivering the large number of European standards needed
    before 1993. It usually takes CEN about two to three
    years to produce a draft standard from the initiation of
    work at European level, another year between the
    beginning of a public enquiry on that draft and the
    adoption of a standard, and at least six months between
    adoption and transposition of the standard In all member
    countries of CEN/CENELEC. Delays can occur at several
    stages: the setting-up of a new Technical Committee, the
    ratification of a work programme by executive bodies, or
    the translation of working documents. Although the speed
    of standardization work ultimately depends on the
    difficulty In obtaining consensus on the technical
    issues, the procedural rules under which technical
    discussions take place can and do affect delivery times.

37. New working methods are indispensable and urgent for
    European standardization If It Is to match the current
    pace of European Integration. At a time when important
    decisions at the political level are taken on the basis
    of majority vote, there needs to be a shift away from an
    unqualified commitment to consensus in European
    standardization, although the Commission accepts that the
    use of standards is related to the degree of consensus

    reached in their elaboration.

38. The Commission recommends for urgent consideration by the
    European standardization bodies:

    (I) New methods for establishing common working

        documents

        The traditional Committee-based procedure bringing
        together 18 national delegations (12 from the EEC,
        6 from EFTA) to. discuss conflicting solutions to a
        technical problem is costly, laborious and at times
        Inefficient. Technical Committees, although an
        indispensable part of the standards-making process,
        need to be assisted In their deliberations by
        working documents which already put forward common
        solutions. One way of doing this would be to use
        "drafting secretariats", "project teams", or even
        outside consultants to bring together a summary of
        the technical issues in a single document which did
        not give a particular advantage to a given national

        so lut ion.

        The viability of this approach, however, is
        directly related to the availability of technical
        experts from industry. Without greater commitment
        from European Industry, there can be no significant
        improvement in the present situation.

```

```
(4)

```

```
                    - 24 
    (II) Greater use of Associated Standards Bodies

        CEN and CENELEC could actively encourage more
        Industry-based associations to offer their services
        as Associated Standards Bodies to develop technical
        documents as the basis for future European
        standards. Such an Initiative would not only

        reduce the administrative and financial burden on

        European standardization bodies themselves, but
        also provide the advantages of a more decentralized
        approach, such as direct industry Involvement In
        priority-setting and the execution of work. . (CEN
        and CENELEC have recently indicated that they are
        prepared to reexamine their rules on Associated

        Standards Bodies in order to ensure that sufficient

        flexibility is given to potential candidate
        organ Izat ions).

    (ill) Use of new technology to accelerate discussion on
        working documents

        The distribution by conventional means of working
        documents to a membership spread across Europe
        takes time. Some of this time could be gained by
        more systematic use of modern communications
        technology, such as electronic mail. It would be
        possible to circulate both working documents and
        final drafts by this means, and to encourage the
        development of discussion outside formal meetings
        by exploiting this channel of communications.

    (i v) Majority voting on proposed draft standards

        Much time is spent in Technical Committees trying
        to arrive at a consensus^ [1] ) before a draft
        European standard Is put out to public enquiry.
        This may be appropriate where a standard is not
        particularly urgent; In the case of most of the
        European standards now under discussion, however,
        decisions are indeed urgent if the single European
        market Is to become a reality.

        Majority voting on proposed draft standards should

        therefore be used as a matter of course If

        consensus (which remains the ideal objective) is
        difficult to achieve within the time a v a i l a b l e ;
        this would be particularly, important in the case of

        mandated standardization work.

(1) Consensus is defined by the ISO as the absence of
   sustained opposition to a particular proposal.

```

```
               - 25 
    The executive bodies of the European
    standardization bodies (Technical Boards In the
    case of CEN/CENELEC, the Technical Assembly In the
    case of ETSI) could, for example, regularly review
    progress In Technical Committees and require a vote
    to be taken where appropriate. Voting might also
    take place at the request of a quorum of members,
    to be fixed by each standardization body.
    (The Commission assumes that weighted national
    voting rules would be aligned with those of the EEC
    Treaty) .

(v) Shorter and more flexible public enquiries

    If all Interested parties have an opportunity to be
    represented in European standardization work and
    the quality of Information about that work Is
    Improved, there is scope for the public enquiry for
    a draft European standard to be reduced from the
    present six months. Such enquiries could also take
    more account of the degree of consensus which has
    already been reached on the draft. Where consensus
    has been reached without voting, then a two months
    public enquiry might be sufficient ; where a draft
    standard has been agreed on the basis of a majority
    vote, a longer enquiry (but no more than four
    months) might be necessary.

(vI) More rapid handling of comments

    At present, the speed with which comments received
    in an enquiry are processed depends on the
    Technical Committee concerned. Some acceleration of
    the examination of comments (which can now take up
    to six months) would result by establishing a
    general rule that comments must be examined and
    responded to within two months of the conclusion of
    a public enquiry. Exceptions would have to be
    decided case-by-case by the executive of the
    standardization body concerned.

```

```
                     - 26 
    (vil) Immediate application of adopted standards

        Standards agreed at European level currently have
        to be "transposed" as national standards before
        they become official. A period of six months Is
        usually allowed for this, although longer periods
        may be granted and national bodies often do not
        respect the agreed timetable. National
        transposition should no longer be a pre-condition
        for the use of a European standard (See "Status of
        the European standard"). This would eliminate the
        time-lag between adoption of a European standard
        and its availability to users.

39. The adoption of some, or all, of these procedural
    recommendations In the short term would speed up the
    delivery of European Standards. But care must also be
    taken to avoid overburdening the European standardization
    system. It Is Indispensable to set priority objectives
    for the first generation of harmonized European
    standards, and to discard objectives which are not
    strictly related to priorities.

    in respect of standardization mandates related to EEC
    legislation, for instance, the technical expression of
    essential requirements of a given Directive has to be
    incorporated into European standards within the timescale
    agreed. Other aspects of standardization related to, for
    example, the efficiency or fitness for use of products,
    can be dealt with only If the delivery of mandated work
    on time is not compromised. Responsibility for sticking
    to priorities lies mainly with the European standards
    bodies themselves, but the Commission, with the advice of
    the Standing Committee on Technical Regulations and
    Standards, may give further guidance on priorities to
    the standards bodies through supplementary mandates. The
    Commission will also limit the issuing of new
    standardization mandates In the next two years as far as
    possible to items that are essential to achievement of

    the InternaI Market.

40. Those concerned with keeping to priorities may have to
    discourage attempts to Include every feature of existing
    national standards in early European standards. Even if a
    full convergence of technical standards In Europe is
    desirable In the long-term, to try to proceed quickly on
    all fronts will jeopardize agreement on the essential
   minimum for the functioning of the Internai Market.
    Concentrating on performance rather than design
    parameters in European standards-making would also assist
    the process of reaching agreement.

```

```
                    - 27 
(II) Coordination and structure

41. improvement In the coordination of European
    standardization and organ IzatlonaI stab I I Ity are a high
    priority for the Commission. Efficiency and structural

    issues are to some extent linked. The Commission

    recognizes, however, that more time may be needed before
    the recommendations In this section can be implemented.
    Nevertheless, ideas on this mather need to be developed
    and discussed as soon as possible.

42. Of the three European standardization organizations, CEN

    and CENELEC have a common set of rules for their

    activity, while ETSI has a separate set of rules
    reflecting a different structure. Although some
    adjustment of the ETSI rules has already taken place to
    bring that organization Into line with commonly-accepted
    principles of standardization, and further changes are
    being considered, the approach to European
    standardization is fundamentally different between ETSI
    and CEN/CENELEC. In future other branches of the economy
    than telecommunications (such as information technology,
    or the food Industry) may propose that they, too, need to
    organize their own standardization activity at European
    level. The Commission, while wishing in the spirit of
    the New Approach to encourage voluntary standardization
    as a preferred alternative to regulation in bringing
    order to markets, Is also concerned that new
    standardization activities should be properly integrated
    Into the rest of the standardization system.

43. Standardization activity can only gain public recognition
    and legitimacy if it is governed by a clear set of rules,
    known and approved by all Interested parties. Standards
    that are established in an open way, providing all
    parties with an opportunity to Influence the final
    outcome, have a far better chance of being applied in the
    market than those which are not -, standardization is a
    process by which technical documents acquire legitimacy
    through adequate consultation. A variety of
    organizations, such as individual companies, trade or
    professional associations, may develop technical
    specifications for their own purposes, but if these are
    to become standards they must be subject to review
    through a formal process open to all interested parties.

```

```
                   - 28 
44. The absence. In 1990, of a fixed and generally-agreed
   framework for European standardization results In a loss
   of efficiency In the service offered by standardization
   to Industry, governments, and other Interested parties.
   The organization of more standardization work on a
   sectoral basis could be a positive development, allowing
   for more direct participation by Industry and perhaps
   more commitment to the work. Because of growing pressure
   for common European standards In the coming years, there
   may be more demand for such sector a I Iy-based
   standardization. Unless such standardization is
   coordinated, however, and made subject to certain ground   rules, the risk of duplication or contradiction between
   different European standardization activities will
    Increase. The United States of America, with nearly 400
   active standardization bodies, shows the risks of
   fragmentation In standards-making ; Europe, which is now
   trying to move beyond Its heritage of nationally-based
   technologies, needs to ensure that scarce human and
   capital resources are not wasted In duplication of work.

45. For this reason the Commission considers that the

   customers for European standards, as well as the
    Institutions which currently supply them, should now
   consider whether the time has not come to establish a

   European Standardization system, In which the role of all
   participants at national and European level would be
   clearly defined in terms of agreed objectives, the most
    Important of which would be the accelerated integration
   of European technology through agreement on common
   standards.

   Such a system could

     allow for diversity of organization and autonomy of
     management within sectoraI Iy-based standardization
     bodies at the European level, and

     assure the coordination, transparency and the
      legitimacy of European standardization by applying
     common rules to all standardization bodies within the
     System, these rules to be developed and maintained by
     a new central body, the European Standardization
     CouncI I.

   The clearer the common rules governing the European
   standardization, the more freedom can be given to sectors
   to organize themselves in the most appropriate way.

```

```
                   - 29 
46. The concept of a "European Standardization System"
   Implies a coherent whole made up of a number of component
   parts. The system could consist of several European
   standardization bodies, provided that they were subject
   to common rules as far as the formal process of turning
   documents Into European standards Is concerned. The
   decision to establish new European-levé I bodies would
   depend on the quality of the service obtained from the
   existing organizations. If CEN, for example, as a multi   sectoral European standardization organization, can
   respond promptly and efficiently to the demands of
   European Industry, it is unlikely that many, if any,
   sectors will wish to take the trouble to establish a new
   standardization body. Where a sector can demonstrate,
   however, that Its needs can only be met through a
   separate European standardization body, It should be free
   to set one up, subject to compliance with the rules of
   the European Standardization System.

47. The Commission has recently discussed these ideas with
   the European standardization organizations, and a degree
   of consensus appears to be emerging on the need for a new
   structure for European standardization which can respond
    to the concerns already expressed. The Commission
    therefore puts forward the following outline of a new
   structure for the future coordination of European
   standardization (a fuller description of which is given
    i n Annex 2 ) :

     the European Standardization Council would be a new
     body responsible for the overall policy of European
     standardization ; it would comprise persons reflecting
     the views of European industry and social partners,
     representatives of the EEC Commission and EFTA
     Secretariat and the European standardization bodies;

     a European Standardization Board would act as the
     executive body of the Council, responsible for the
     management and coordination of European
     standardization; Its membership would comprise of the
     officers of the European standardization bodies (for
      the time being, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI) and the
     Secretary of the Standardization Council;

      the European standardization bodies would be those
     bodies organized at European level and recognized by
      the Council as responsible for standardization in
      their particular field ; they would enjoy full
      autonomy in the programming, financing, preparation
      and adoption of European standards, subject to
      compliance with the rules of the European
     Standardization System and to formal agreements with
      the national standardization bodies;

```

```
                     - 30 
      the national standardization bodies would carry out
      particular tasks on behalf of the European
      standardization bodies at national level (public
      enquiry, expression of national vote), provide regular
      Information concerning their national activity and
      comply with "standstill" rules during the development
      of European standards.

48. The main benefits of this approach, In the Commission's

    vIew, wouId be that :

      strategic direction of European standardization would
      be assured by representatives of the main economic and
      political Interests It Is Intended to serve;

      existing sectoral standardization bodies (CENELEC,
      ETSI) could maintain their autonomy and dynamism, and
      the possibility of admitting further sectoral
      organizations into the system would not be excluded;

      a set of common rules for the creation of European
      standards would apply to existing and future European
      standardization bodies (acceptance of the rules would
      be a condition for recognition under the system);

    - the day-to-day operation of CEN, CENELEC and ETSI
      would remain essentially unchanged;

      the European Standardization Council would require
      limited resources, thereby avoiding unnecessary
      bureaucracy and expense;

      the role of national standardization bodies in

      European standardization would be recognized in every

      sector.

49. Further detailed discussion will be necessary to
    elaborate on these ideas, In particular to define more
    exactly the role and organizational shape of the European
    Standardization Council. With the cooperation of all
    concerned, the Commission believes it is now possible to
    foresee the establishment of this new framework during

    the course of 1991.

```

```
                     - 31 
(III)Membershlp and International cooperation

50. The development of European standardization must take

    account of the external as well as Internal environment.

    The rapid political changes taking place In Central and
    Eastern Europe will, over time, lead to a larger, more
    close Iy-Integrated European market economy than exists,
    today, and common technical standards are one of the
    means of assuring an orderly transition to that state-of    affalrs. This raises Important and pressing questions
    concerning the relationship between the present members
    of the European Standardization System and other European
    countries. Closer cooperation with these countries is
    desirable, and their inclusion within the System has to

    be considered.

    Technical assistance to Central and Eastern Europe in the
    standardization field will also be a high priority in the
    years ahead: Community financial and technical assistance
    under the PHARE operation has already been requested by
    both the Polish and Hungarian governments for the
    Improvement of standards and measures, particularly with
    a view to satisfying Community product requirements.
    There is growing Interest In technical assistance from
    non-European countries, too.

    Finally, the cooperative relationship between European

    and international standardization bodies will have to be

    further developed to ensure an effective two-way flow of
    Information and, where possible, agreement on the best

    allocation of standardization work in order to avoid

    duplication of effort.

    Membership of European standardization bodies

51. Membership of the three European standardization bodies
    is mainly confined to the member countries of the EEC and
    EFTA; CEN and CENELEC membership is limited to these
    countries, while ETSI also has Cyprus, Malta and Turkey
    as members. A number of Central and Eastern European
    countries have, however, recently expressed an Interest
    in becoming members of all three European standardization
   organizations, and Turkey has been a candidate for
   CEN/CENELEC membership for some time. CEN and CENELEC
    have repeatedly stated that membership of their
   organizations is related to that of membership of the EEC

   and EFTA.

```

```
                 - 32 
52. It Is In the Interests of all countries, European or non    European, that the present pace of development of
    European standards is sustained and, If possible,
    increased. The harmonization of conflicting national
    standards within Europe, based upon international
    standards as far as possible, Is a formidable
    contribution to promoting International trade and global
    economic growth. The Commission considers that extension
    of the full membership of the European standardization
    bodies in the short term would compromise that objective,
    Insofar as it would increase the difficulties facing the
    present membership of coming to agreement on complex
    technical issues. Although desirable in the longer term,
    wider membership should not be a Immediate priority.

53. Nevertheless, those European countries which are not
    members of the European standardization system but wish
    to take over European standards should be closely
    associated with the work of European standardization
    bodies, In order to allow them to adapt to new European
    Standards quickly and to obtain the economic benefits of
    using them. The widespread adoption and use of European

    Standards outside the member countries of the EEC and

    EFTA is in Western Europe's economic interest. It should
    also be recalled that the Community has concluded
    Association Agreements with some European countries, and
    may conclude similar Agreements with others. For these
    reasons, it would be desirable for the European
    standardization bodies to offer European countries the
    possibility of participation in their work with a status
    that would be less than full membership.

    The Commission believes that "associate member" status,
    which would imply a right to participate in the work of
    European standardization without the right to vote, would
    reflect the interest of the Community and the countries
    In question in moving towards a closer economic
    relationship, while making allowances for the
    uncertainties surrounding those countries' structural and
    economic development. Depending on general economic and
    political developments, a transition to full membership
    could take place after some years, when the countries
    concerned will have demonstrated their willingness and
    ability to apply European standards.

54. As far as non-European countries are concerned, the
    Commission believes that it is primarily up to the
    European standardization bodies to decide whether it is
    in their interest to offer a limited degree of input into

    their work to the standardization bodies of these

    countries. One European body, ETSI, already admits
    observer representatives from non-European countries to
    some of Its meetings, on the basis of reciprocity. Such
    an approach has potential costs as well as benefits.

```

```
                    - 33 
   Against the undoubted advantages of Improved transparency
    and the opportunity for state-of-the-art Input from non    European sources must be weighed the possible risk of
    delay In arriving at consensus and concern that
    discussions proper to the International standardization
    bodies might take place Instead at the European level.
    In a more decentralized, sectors I Iy-based standardization
    structure within Europe, however, it seems approprI ate
    for each European standardization body to take Its own
    decision on this matter, provided that reciprocity Is

    assured. Meanwhile the admission of observers from the

    international standardization bodies to the technical

    work of CEN and CENELEC, as proposed below, would in
    Itself allow other countries to be kept informed of the
    progress of European work.

    Technical Cooperation

55. The standardization organizations of Western Europe are
    being called upon to offer technical assistance to other
    countries on an Increasing scale as the positive
    implications for international trade of the Community's
    1992 programme becomes better understood. The demand from
    Central and East European Countries is already great,
    but similar interest has been expressed in other regions
    (In the Mediterranean, and South America) and the
    Commission already manages cooperation programmes in the
    standardization field with India, the ASEAN countries and

    the Andean Pact. The main focus of this interest is on

    information on current and planned European standards and
    the training of Industry and standardization experts in
    their app I I cat ion.

56. The Community is, in principle, prepared to Include
    technical assistance In this field within its cooperation
    programmes with third countries, although It must be

    remembered that the technical resources for this task are

    limited. The Commission has to rely upon the expertise
    available in the private sector (and in standardization
    bodies in particular) for the execution of such
    cooperation ; CEN and CENELEC and their members have
    already assisted the Commission in the past.

57. in view of the European dimension to this activity the
    Commission believes that the European standardization
    bodies should assume responsibility for the coordination
    and management of such technical assistance, even if the
    experts concerned are largely supplied by national
    standardization bodies. The Commission intends to support
    financially the development of an appropriate
    infrastructure within the European bodies to service
    requests for information and assistance, which although

    an additional burden for the bodies concerned constitutes

    an important instrument of the Community's external
    economic relations. It hopes that national

    standardization bodies and the Member States will

    cooperate by contributing to collective action and
    avoiding uncoordinated national Initiatives.

```

```
                    - 34 
    Relations with International standardization bodies

58. The links between the European standardization bodies and
    their International counterparts are Indirect, since only
    national standardization bodies participate In the
    International Standards Organization (ISO) and the
    International E lectrotechnIcaI Commission (IEC) and
    national authorities in the International Telegraph and
    Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT). Nevertheless,
    cooperation between the International and European bodies
    has increased as the volume and scope of European
    standardization have expanded. In the last two years, in
    particular, arrangements have been concluded between ISO
    and CEN and IEC and CENELEC which provide for regular
    discussions In order to compare work programmes and to
    coordinate them where possible. This Indicates the
    willingness of both sides to establish a cooperative
    dialogue with a view to avoiding duplication and the
    waste of scarce expertise.

59. Other steps may need to be taken by the European
    Standardization System, however, to reassure the
    International standardization community that European    level work is a substitute for national, not global,

    standard IzatIon.

    A first step would be keep the international standards
    organizations fully Informed of the progress of European
    work, by inviting observers from the relevant ISO or IEC
    Technical Committees to European working groups or

    Technical Committees whenever there is a common interest.

    Another positive step would be to continue to ask the

    international standards bodies to take on some of the

    work which is now being proposed at European level,
    particularly in standardization activity that is not
    related to EEC product legislation. if the international
    standardization bodies can respond by accelerating work
    on projects which are of high priority for Europe, with a
    view to delivering results within the timetable set by
    European requirements, European-1 eve I standardization can

    be avoided.

60. If Europe is to promote further international
    standardization, however, others must do the same. The
    Community expects that its leading economic partners, and
    particularly the United States and Japan, will be
    prepared to commit more resources to international
    standardization In the coming years, and, equally
    Important, to Implement International standards at the
    national level. Unless all the parties concerned act

    with the same commitment to international standardization

    as Europe has done in the past, this important mechanism
    cannot be properly exploited as a means of promoting
    international trade and economic growth.

```

```
61

62

```

```
                 - 35 
           Other Important Issues

The following Issues, while Important for the future
development of European standardization, are perhaps less
urgent than those presented in the previous section. It
may be possible to adopt a less pressing timetable for
their resolution, although lack of progress on any of
them would seriously Inhibit the growth of
standardization as a force In the European economy.

(Iv): AccountabI I Ity

Standardization is a service to industry, and, more
widely, to society. The demand for standards may have
traditionally arisen from manufacturing Interests, but
now includes a much wider range of "customers", such as
public authorities, workers, users of equipment, private
consumers, or researchers. All of these customers for

standards want this service to reflect their needs and to

be delivered efficiently.

These various Interests are usually represented in the
governing bodies of the national standards bodies, either
directly or through a representative of government. At
the technical level, too, participation in national
standardization work is generally open to all interested
parties. At the European level, however, direct
representation of different interests in standardization
is much weaker. The situation in the three European

standardization bodies can be summarized as follows:

```

```
CEN

```

```
  Part i c i pat ion In
Technical Committees/

   Working groups

 - Delegations from

  national standards

  bod les

 - Observers from

  recognised European

  manufacturers or

  users associations

```

```
CENELEC De I egatIons from

         natIonaI eIectro
         technical committees

```

```
Représentât Ion

    in

Governing body

Représentât Ives

of nat iona I

standards bodies

Représentât Ives

of natIonaI

e I ect rotechnIcaI

comm11 tees

```

```
ETSI - Members Members

```

```
- Observers from

 recognized interested
 par ties within and
 outside Europe

```

```
(EEC Commission

and EFTA as

CounseIlors)

```

#### **`- s e -`**

```
es. The proposals already made for representation on the
    European standardization Council represent a first step
    towards greater accountability of European
    Standardization, but there Is a need for European
    standardization to be opened up to Its "customer base" at
    all levels. In view of the Importance of European
    standardization for Community product safety legislation,
    for Instance, all parties concerned with safety Issues,
    Including worker or consumer representatives, for
    Instance, should be given the opportunity to participate
    In the technical work going on at European level through
    their European-levé I organizations. Its does not seem
    appropriate that some Interests (manufacturers,
    Industrial users) should be permitted to observe this
    work through their European organizations while others
    (trades unions, consumer organizations) are not. Greater
    openness In the process of European standardization is
    necessary in order to enhance wider public Interest and
    confidence in European Standards.

64. The same point can be made with respect to governing
    bodies. If standardization Is a service, then the
    customers for European standards should have a voice in
    the setting of priorities and the allocation of resources
    for standardization work. With the exception of ETSI, the
    European standardization bodies are managed exclusively
    by representatives of the national standardization bodies
    (CEN) or of the Industrial sector concerned (CENELEC). In

    order better to reflect the growing public importance of
    European standardization, provision should also be made
    for the direct representation within European
    standardization bodies of major interest groups and
    public authorities (which are, after ail, important
    financial contributors to the work). The method of such

    representation can be negotiated later-, the principle,
    however, must be firmly established now.

65. It Is important that national standardization bodies,
    too, which form an integral part of the European
    Standard I zation System, should maintain the principle of
    openness towards other parts of the system. Participation
    in national standardization work going on within an
    integrated Community market should not be restricted on
    the basis of the nationality or the place of
    establishment of the Interested party. Any party from
    within the Community wishing to participate in national

    standardization which can demonstrate an Interest in the .

    work and is willing to comply with the normal rules for
    participation should be allowed to do so. This principle
    was already provided for under Directive 83/189/EEC; it

    is now time to apply it.

```

```
                   - 37 
    ( v ) : F Inanc ing

66. Standardization Is not cheap. The expansion of European
   Standardization must be based on a clear commitment from
   all concerned to support It financially. Considering the
   present scale of European standardization and Its
   foreseeable growth, the current method of funding it
   appears relatively unstable, particularly In the case of
   CEN and CENELEC activities.

   At present, only the national member bodies of
   CEN/CENELEC receive revenue directly from the private
   sector (from membership fees and sales of standards) and
   they fund CEN and CENELEC through annual membership
   contributions. Such Indirect and short-term funding may
   no longer be appropriate for the scale of European
   standardization work that is foreseeable in the 1990's.

   On the other hand, the volume of standardization work
   mandated by the EEC and EFTA means that a large part of
   the expenses of CEN and CENELEC (70 per cent of CEN's
   annual budget and 55 per cent of CENELEC's), as well as
   some costs for national members taking on technical
   secretariats, are met by revenue from the Commission and
   the EFTA countries . Although the budget of the European
   standardization bodies is only a small part of the total
   cost of European standardization (much heavier costs are
    incurred at national level In the coordination of
   national positions and in participation In European
   discussions), the dependence of these bodies on public
   money Is a matter of growing concern to the
   CommIsslon( [1] ).

67. This last tendency is particularly disturbing as it is
   becoming clear that the scale of financing required for
   European standardization may soon exceed available
   resources within the EEC budget. (The Community Is
   expected to commit at least 20 million ECU to European
   standardization work in 1990, and significantly more in
    1991). A more effective channelling of private money
    into European Standardization has to be found. The
   Commission considers that this object Ive must be
   promoted by:

     a commitment to long-term financial planning by
     members of the European standardization bodies;

     changing the present attribution of revenue from the
     sales of European standards, to allow a part of this
     revenue to be channelled directly to European
     standardization bodies;

      instituting membership fees for industry participants
      in European standardization (as is already the case
     for ETSI).

(1) ETSI, although directly financed in part by Its
   membership, Is also heavily dependent upon extraordinary
   contributions from national administrations.

```

```
                     - 38 
    In parallel with such developments, the Council of
    Ministers should be prepared to offer a clear (but
    limited) commitment of public financial support over
    several years (see Section C, "The role of public
    authorities", below).

68. The members of CEN and CENELEC, whose activity and
    development Is Increasingly linked to that of the
    European standardization bodies to which they belong,
    will undoubtedly have to commit more resources to
    European work in the coming years. Rather than taking
    budgetary decisslons on an a_d hoc annual basis as they do
    now, it might be more appropriate to develop a long-term
    financial plan based on existing and anticipated work
    programmes, on the basis of which the likely contribution
    of each national member over a number of years could be
    estimated. This would assist financial planning at the
    national level, and would also provide a tangible target
    for campaigns to obtain funds from industry at the
    national level. (The Commission understands that longer    term financial planning Is now under study within C E N ) .

69. Funding by annual membership contributions is not,
    however, the only way to provide money for European

    standardization. National standardization bodies obtain

    most of their revenue from the sale of their products,
    that Is, standards and Information about standards.
    Direct funding of the European standardization bodies by

    annual member contributions could be to some extent

    offset by providing for some of the revenue from sales of
    European standards to accrue directly (at least in part)
    to the European bodies that are responsible for their
    production . This would not, of course, affect the amount
    transferred from national to European bodies, but It
    could facilitate the transfer, by making It automatic
    with every sale of a European standard.

70. This would not mean that national standards bodies would

    no longer receive Income from sales of European
    standards. National bodies play an indispensable role in
    the preparation of such standards, acting as a bridge
    between national interests and the negotiating process at
    European level. They are also indispensable for the
    marketing of standards, whether national, European or
    International. It would be appropriate to allocate sales
    revenue between the European-1 eve I bodies and the
    national bodies In a way which recognized the essential
    contribution of the latter, for instance by sharing
    revenue between the European standardization body
    responsible for the standard, the organization (European
    or national) that makes the sale and all national

    standardization bodies.

```

```
                    - 39 
71. Such a system would have several advantages:

          It would to a limited (but growing) extent
          provide the European standardization bodies with
          regular independent income-,

          it would maintain a financial Incentive for

          standards bodies to pursue a dynamic sales
          policy for European Standards;

          It would give all national standards bodies a
          share in the Income deriving from sale of a
          European standard, whatever the point-of-sale -,

          it would remove the current anomaly whereby
          public funds for European standardization
          generate income for national standards bodies,
          particularly those which publish their standards
          in the working languages of CEN.

    It would, In other words, reflect the Interdependence of
    the European Standardization System in financial terms.

72. A condition for success in following this approach would
    be the introduction of more competition between sellers
    of European standards, which would reduce the cost to
    European industry of purchasing standards and probably
    increase the total market. Further market growth would be
    stimulated by direct sales by European standards bodies
    of their own standards, where this was Judged by their
    membership to be appropriate, which Is not permitted
    under the present rules of CEN and CENELEC (although the
    Commission understands that this policy is under review).

73. Add 11IonaI financing from industrial membership fees
    would be a natural consequence of greater use of
    Associated Standards Bodies, which provide for direct
    participation of individual members other than through
    national delegations. This already happens, for example,
    in the case of the European Telecommunications Standards
    Institute (ETSI) and the European Workshop for Open
    Systems (EWOS). The right to participate directly in
    standardization work should bring with it increased
    financial responsibility for standardization. If industry
    and other interested parties believe that their economic
    interests are served by European standardization, they
    will be prepared to contribute directly to the costs of
    the European standardization organizations.

```

```
                     - 40 
(vl): Informat Ion

74. Standardization, by defining state-of-the-art technology,
    serves to make the economy more transparent. But
    standards can only fulfil this function If information
    about them Is accessible, clear, and complete. The
    present structure of standardization in Europe, based on
    national standardization bodies, has led to information
    being focussed upon each country's national activity, and
    clear and complete Information concerning common European
    standards or the national standards of other European
    countries is not easy to obtain. If the Community is
    committed to the creation of a single European market,
    and, In the longer term, of an Integrated European
    economy, It Is essential that the technological
    information contained in standards be managed from the
    European perspective and provide a complete picture of
    activity at all levels, national or European.

75. As far as Information about national standardization

    activity Is concerned, Council Directive 83/189/EEC
    required national standard bodies to supply the European

    standardization bodies with information about their

    activity, with a view to promoting closer cooperation
    between them and the transfer of activity of common
    interest from national to European level. This procedure
    has not, however, fulfilled expectations. Input Into the
    CEN/CENELEC database from the national standards bodies

    has often been Incomplete, tardy and unclear. A report
    made in January 1990 by the CEN/CENELEC secretariat (five
    years after the procedure began) pointed out widespread
    cases of non-notification, late notification, and
    erroneous classification . Poor input into the system
    has led to poor output; far from being a "map" of current
    European activity, the bulky registers compiled from the
    Information procedure contain Information which is
    unintelligible to a non-specialist and often out-of-date.
    Recommendations have been made recently within CEN and
    CENELEC decided to Improve the database, but it remains

    to be seen how soon decisions will be taken and

    imp Iemented.

76. It should be noted, however, that CENELEC has since 1988
    adopted a parallel information procedure for the
    eIectrotechnIcaI field which Imposes more constraints
    than the 83/189 information procedure, such as a three
    month "standstill" on national work once another member

    has expressed interest and the automatic conversion into
    European projects of work involving more than one member
    country. The Commission would welcome the extension of
    the same disciplines to other sectors where national
    standardization activity is still significant.

```

```
                     - 41 
77. The distribution of Information about European

    standardization has been regarded by the members of
    CEN/CENELEC as a national rather than a collective

    responsibility. For Instance:

      the European standardardIzatIon bodies may not sell
      copies of European standards, but must refer those
      seeking them to the national member bodies ;

      European Standards are not always clearly Identified
      in national catalogues, in spite of a CEN/CENELEC
      decision of 1987 that they should be ;

      Information obtained under the "information procedure"
      Directive is distributed to the public by the national
      members, not by the CEN/CENELEC secretariat.

    In the past year some initial steps have been taken by
    CEN/CENELEC to Improve the visibility of their activity,
    such as the issuing of a monthly newsletter ("Review of
    Current Activities") which lists new work items, new
    draft European Standards in public enquiry and newly    adopted European Standards. It is still, however,
    difficult to obtain from the European standardization
    bodies a regular and complete overview of their activity.

 78. The Commission considers that in information policy, as
    in other aspects of European standardization,
    responsibility should be shared more evenly between
    European and national bodies. Better-quality Information
    about standardization In Europe, which includes not only
    information about European-1 eve I activity but also about
    the disparity between national standards, will increase
    the demand for European standardization. Such information

    should be collected and made available at both the

    European and national level.

79. The Commission therefore suggests that information on
    standardization activity be gathered and distributed
    along the following lines:

      The information procedure initiated under Directive
      83/189/EEC should be properly implemented and
      reinforced, to provide for a minimum 3-month "stand      still" period during which other national standards
      bodies could comment on proposed new national
      standardization activity. The Commission would welcome
      any Initiatives taken by the standardization bodies in
      this direction; In their absence, it may decide to
      propose amendments to Directive 83/189/EEC.

```

```
                     - 42 
      A single European Standardization Database (ESD),
      containing bibliographic data on national and European

      standards and summaries of current standardization

      activity, should be compiled under supervision of the
      European Standardization Council. This Information
      would be available to all Interested parties In a form
      and on terms to be decided Jointly by the standards

      bod les.

      Arrangements for the marketing of ESD Information
      would depend on whether the standard or activity
      concerned were European or national. In both cases,
      however, responsibility for the supply of information

      to the market about standards and standardization

      should be shared between the European and national

      bod i es

    Such an approach would not stand in the way of European
    or national standardization bodies pursuing their own
    information policies.

(vI I) : Status of the European Standard

80. Most people are surprised to learn that, in 1990, the
    European Standard does not yet exist In its own right.
    European-levé I standardization work aims at the
    harmonization of separate natIonaI standards. The
    standards agreed within CEN, CENELEC and ETSI have no

    formal status until the national standardization bodies

    transpose their content as one or more national standards
    and withdraw any conflicting provisions.

81. This "two-stage" standardization in Europe has
    disadvantages. The first Is delay; at least six months,
    and sometimes longer, is allowed under CEN/CENELEC rules
    for national transposition, and the rules are not always
    observed. Transposition can also lead to lack of clarity
    about which standards are harmonized at the European
    level and which are not, although CEN and CENELEC have

    laid down rules on the matter. Some national standards

    bodies do not fully apply the rules for identification of
    harmonized European Standards. If European Industry
    cannot know at the end of the European standardization
    process which standards are Identical across Europe, then
    an essential point has been lost.

82. More fundamentally, one may question whether national
    transposition is in the interests of the customers for
    European standards in every respect. By pursuing
    harmonization through the alignment of national standards
    national standardization bodies maintain copyright of the
    harmonized standards (and thereby exclusive rights to
    sales revenue) and reinforce the image of the national
    mark of conformity in the market place. The situation can
    therefore arise that the manufacturer of a product

```

```
                   - 43 
   conforming to a European standard sold In all parts of
   the Community may have to obtain several different
   national marks of conformity In order to show the
   customer what he Is buying-, this Is not what the 1992
   programme Is about.

83. The Commission considers that all future European
   standards should exist In their own right and should not
   have to be transposed at national level before they can
   be used. Copyright of European standards should be vested
   In the European standardization body responsible for them
   (as Is the case for ETSI) rather than In each of Its
   national members (as Is the case with CEN/CENELEC). Such
   standards could be published at the European level
   Immediately after their adoption in the working
   language(s) of the European standardization body
   concerned. Although national transposition may still be
   necessary in order, for example, to make the European
   Standard available In the national language and to ensure
   that the national standards body withdraws national
   standards which conflict with the European Standard, the
   European standard should be transposed as such with its
   European-levé I Identifying reference unaccompanied by any
   national reference. European Standards would then stand
   out as separate entitles In national standards
   catalogues, quite distinct from national standards.

84. This approach would lead to the development of a stock of
   truly European standards universally recognizeabIe as a
   measure of European technological integration. Purely
   national standards would remain equally visible as
   Indicators that such integration had not yet been
   achieved or was not necessary. By following such a
   course the Community, and Europe as a whole, would be
   able to assess both Its achievements and its remaining
   objectives in the field of standardization.

85 A logical consequence of self-standing European standards
   should be the development of a common mark of conformity
   to such standards. The Commission has already urged CEN
   and CENELEC to follow this path, as part of the
   Community's global approach to conformity assessment
   which was approved by the Council in December 1989. A
   single conformity mark to a European standard would
   contribute to a clearer public perception of European
   standardization, Just as national marks have done for
   national standardization, it would save manufacturers the
   time and money spent in obtaining several national marks
   of conformity to the same standard. And it would probably
   Increase demand for third-party certification of
   conformity to standards, as the common mark of conformrty
   to a European standard became recognized as a symbol of
   customer acceptability for the entire European market.

```

```
                    - 44 
86. A final comment under this heading concerns the
    Importance of having a single set of European standards.
    The European Standardization System Is Intended to be a
    homogeneous, all-embracing one. It should provide the
    market with a single product - the European standard     which Is universally recognIzeable, whatever the subject.
    It follows that there should be a single designation of
    that standard, without variation. This would mean that
    the recent distinction between European Standards
    ("EN's") produced by CEN/CENELEC and European
    Telecommunications Standards ("ETS's") produced by ETSI
    should disappear, both being subsumed Into a new single
    designation, the "European Standard" ("ES"?).

(v l l I ) Testing and certification

87. The statutes of CEN and CENELEC provide for those
    organizations to cover activities in all fields relating
    to the implementation of European standards, including
    testing and certification issues. This Is not the case
    for ETSI, as the CEPT has kept these questions within its
    area of direct responsibility. CEN and CENELEC have set
    up a number of mutual recognition arrangements and
    certification systems; the CENELEC Certification
    Agreement (CCA), the CENELEC HAR agreement for electrical
    cords and cables, the Cenelec Electronics Components
    Certification agreement and the CEN CCC agreements. Other
    agreements are in preparation. All these agreements
    include provisions on marks of conformity. Thus, for
    example, the HAR agreement is based on a common mark.
    (HAR) accompanied by national marking, the CCA Is based
    on the mutual recognition of test reports which leads to
    products carrying a series of national marks and the CEN
    CCC agreements are based on a single CEN mark denoting
    conformity to the appropriate CEN standards. Both
    organizations have also set up structures to cater for
    more general questions such as the Marks Committee
    (CENELEC) and the CENCER Committee (CEN).

88. These agreements and structures have proved their
    usefulness within their limited ambit, but have not led
    to the development of a really European culture in
    matters relating to testing and certification. This is
    hardly surprising as CEN and CENELEC are made up of the
    national standardization bodies which represent the
    interests of manufacturers more than testing

    laboratories and certification bodies. It would be

    difficult for the standardization bodies to represent the
    latter, as some of their members are major testers and
    certifiers In their own right. CEN and CENELEC
    certification agreements have therefore tended to be
    restricted In practice, closer to the needs of self    elected clubs than to those of a free European market.

```

```
                 - 45 
89. In December 1986 the Commission drew attention to this

    situation and suggested that a new European organization
    should be created In order to complement the European
    Standards Bodies by constituting a focal point for all
    those active in testing and certification. This led to
    the Commission Inviting CEN and CENELEC to draw up
    proposals for such an organization which they presented
    In outline to the Symposium on Testing and Certification
    organized In Brussels In June 1988. The conclusions of
    the Symposium were that one of the main conditions for
    credibility of this organization was that It be
    autonomous, although maintaining close links to
    standardization activities. On 24 July 1989, the
    Commission sent to the Council Its Communication (COM
    (89) 209) on the Global Approach to testing and

    certification in which It confirmed the need for the

    creation of an autonomous body. The Council agreed on 21
    December 1989 to the setting up of the European
    Organization for Testing and Certification (EOTC), which
    led to the formal signature of the Memorandum of
    Understanding between CEN, CENELEC, EFTA and the
    Commission on 25 April 1990.

    This new organization, which will operate alongside CEN
    and CENELEC, has now been set up by the four signatories
    for an experimental period which should end on 31
    December 1992 with the constitution of a legally
    autonomous organization. In the meantime CEN and CENELEC
    accept, on a contractual basis, to provide the necessary
    administrative support.

90. The Commission considers that CEN and CENELEC should

    start, as of now, to examine their future relations with
    EOTC and In particular how they can receive and use its
    results and effectively contribute to its work. It would
    also be appropriate for CEN and CENELEC to bring their
    work In testing, certification and quality assurance into
    line with the principles of the Global Approach which the
    Council of Ministers approved In December 1989, and to

    examine how this cou Id be transferred to EOTC. It would

    be difficult for two structures dealing with these
    questions to coexist, quite apart from the problem of the
    cost to European Industry of financing two systems,
    directly or Indirectly. The transfer of CEN and
    CENELEC's agreements to EOTC would contribute
    considerably to the credibility of that organization.

91. As mentioned in the previous section, further thought
    should be given by CEN and CENELEC to a common marking
    system for conformity to European standards. There is
    already a large degree of confusion on the question of
    marking, underlined by three different regimes existing
    within CEN/CENELEC circles. Moreover, it is difficult to
    imagine that European industry can continue to live with

    a system of national marks of conformity to a common
    European standard which do not all carry the same
    significance, especially within the context of Community
    legislation providing for the CE mark.

```

```
                     - 46 
(Ix) Intellectual property rights and patents

92. The problem of Industrial and Intellectual property
    rights (IPR) as well as patents has become a serious

    issue within the context of standardization . Inclusion

    of such elements within a standard can lead to

    reinforcement of a dominant position within the market
    unless satisfactory conditions for use of such property
    have been agreed. In many cases, the lack of adequate
    procedures to resolve such problems has slowed down work
    and hampered the convergence toward harmonized solutions.
    The European Standardization System should take due
    account of IPR and patent problems and develop practical
    rules to cope with a situation which is already of
    importance for the new technologies but also extending
    rapidly to traditional areas. The reference to European
    and International standards In Community Directives
    increases the urgency of finding adequate solutions and
    practical means to resolve IPR and patent issues.

    The Commission outlines below an approach to the issue

    for further discussion:

      Technical specifications Included in standards should,
      as a matter of principle, be publicly available and
      allow all parties who wish to apply the standards to
      do so freely. Contributing technical specifications to
      a standardization body ensures a wide diffusion of the
      technical know-how which is generally very favourable
      to the promoter's idea.

      Whenever a contribution to a European standardization
      body Is covered by IPR or patents, sufficient
      information should be provided to allow the experts at
      the working group level to base their opinion as to
      whether to Include specifications covered by IPR or
      patent rights on the actual situation, Including, when
      appropriate, the applicable licensing conditions.
      Public Inquiry should be envisaged only if fair and
      reasonable conditions have been achieved and duly
      registered. (It should be noted that this solution is
      closely related to the ISO rules which should be
      rigourously applied in the European context,
      especially In the case of work covered by mandates.)

      In the exeptlonal cases where it proves difficult to
      reach agreement, pragmatic procedures should be at

      hand to find solutions which reconcile the need to

      adopt effective standards, the legitimate Interests of
      IPR as patent owners, and the need to maintain the
      transparency of procedures and compliance with
      competition policy.

```

```
                    - 47 
    C. The role of public authorities

93. European Governments have long recognized the Importance
    of standardization for the economy, and relations between
    EEC Member states and their national standards bodies are

    close. Some Member States have recognized their national
    standards bodies as having a particular Independent
    status (and, in one or two cases, a legal monopoly of
    standardization) while all of them give direct financial
    support to standards bodies. Standardization Is generally
    accepted as a useful mechanism for maximising economic
    efficiency and meeting other social goals. At the
    Community level, the Council of Ministers has given
    répons lb I I Ity to the European Standard IzatIon
   organizations for the drafting of technical
    specifications for EEC product safety legislation.

94. As the transition from national to European-levé I
    standardization accelerates, however, It is likely that
    exceptional efforts will be needed from national and
   Commun!ty-levé I authorities to ensure that this change
   occurs smoothly and without disruption to existing
    structures. Governments have to encourage a greater
    awareness among the various interests concerned of the
    important changes now taking place, while at the same
    time reassuring their national standardization bodies
    that they continue to have an Important role and that
    their future Is secure.

Action at Community level

95. In order to give a clear political signal of support for
   standardization activity it would be appropriate for the
   Commun Ity,through an appropriate act of the Council of
   Ministers, to formalize its relationship with the
    European Standardization System. Such a political act
    could lay down the basic principles for cooperation
   between the standardization community and public
    authorities within the Community. By defining the roles
   and objectives of all parts of the system, it would open
   a new chapter in the development of European
   standardization, and focus the attention of interested
   parties on the opportunities which the European
   Standardization System presents.

96. Community recognition should include an undertaking to
   give financial support to the European Standardization
   System for a determinate period, which the Commission
   suggests should be no less than five years. Such a clear
    indication of financial support would have a double
   advantage; it would confirm the Community's interest in
   the further development of standardization on the one
   hand, but would fix a celling on Community assistance, on
   the other hand, thereby providing some reassurance to the
   Community budgetary authorities, who, In the face of the
   rapidly-escalating cost of Community funding, must

```

```
                    - 48 
   determine the level of the annual appropriations for this
   action within the ceilings set by the Community Financial
   Perspectives. The Commission considers that future
    financial support to European standardization should take
    the form of subsidy calculated on the basis of costs
    already Incurred by standardization bodies. This would
    be a stimulus to find additional private funding for
    European standardization bodies, would simplify the

    administrative burden of both the Commission and the

    standards bodies.

    Action at national level

97. National standardization bodies will remain a crucial

    part of the European standardization system. They will
    not only process draft European standards through public
    enquiry and national voting, but will also coordinate
    national Input into the technical preparation of European
    standards where the direct participation of Interests at
    European level Is not considered necessary. It Is
    Indispensable that national organizations remain
    effective and that public authorities continue to offer
    them support.

98. Revenue from the sales of national standards represents
    the most important source of income for most national

    bodies. If the recommendations made in this document for

    changes in the status of European Standards and In
    arrangements for their sale were followed, this would
    have an impact on national bodies' income over time as
    the number of European Standards increased (although this
    is impossible to estimate without knowing the proportion
    of sales revenue to be allocated to European and to
    national bodies respectively). Direct funding by European
    industry and other Interested parties of European

    standardization bodies would also tend to reduce national

    bodies' Income. National authorities may in future be
    called upon to compensate for such loss of Income, unless
    they take steps to encourage a more active commitment to
    standardization activity as a whole by the private

    sector.

99. The promotion of a keen Interest In European
    standardization is clearly In the interest of all Member
    States. Those who are most aware of European activity,
    and most prepared to contribute to It, will be in the
    best position to defend their own (and their country's)
    economic interests at European level. National standards
    bodies will remain, for most, the preferred route by
    which to obtain Information about what is going on and to
    provide technical input Into the European standards    making process. But Member States must contribute to
    public awareness of the critical phase in European
    standardization which Is now beginning, and encourage
    support of the national, as well as the European, parts
    of the European standardization system.

```

```
                    - 49 
IV. THE NEXT STEPS

100. This Green Paper is Intended to provoke a wide-ranging
    discussion with a view to generating agreement on how to
    take the next steps in the development of European
    standardization. As these next steps will be the
    collective responsibility of all those concerned     governments, standards bodies, manufacturers, users of
    standards, organized labour and the private citizen*- all
    are Invited to reflect on this Green Paper and to offer

    comments on It.

101. The Commission will consult the main parties concerned
    directly over the coming months, with a view to
    Identifying the main points of consensus by the end of
    this year. It also Intends to ask the three European
    standardization bodies to propose basic rules for the
    European Standardization System and to come forward as
    soon as possible with proposals for changes in their own
    procedures and working methods. It may be appropriate to
    organize a major conference after the conclusion of the
    consultation process In order to allow Interested parties
    to react to concrete proposals for action.

102. As has been indicated before, decisions on the
    organization of European standard IzatIon must be
    voluntary, and will depend on the views of all those who
    wish to use standards. The Community is, however, fully
    committed to the promotion of European standardization
    because of its economic importance. The next stage in
    Its development should, therefore, be accompanied a clear
    demonstration of Interest, cooperation and support at the
    poI 11 i ca I levé I .

    In the light of public debate on this Green Paper the
    Commission will consider making proposals for appropriate

    decisions to the Council of Ministers. Such decisions

    could, for example, take the form of

    (i) a Council Decision laying down the basic principles
        for cooperation between Community public
        authorities and the European Standardization
        System, and, in particular, defining the role of
        European standards within the legislative
        framework; and

    (li) a Council Decision committing the Community to a
        multiannual action in favour of European
        standardization, both at the national level and
        within a revised organizational framework at the
        European level. Such a decision would, in
        particuIar, commIt the Community to the principle
        of funding the European Standardization System for
        a fixed period. The actual level of funding would
        be determined annually by the Community Budgetary
        Authority In accordance with the ceilings of the
        current and any future Financial Perspectives
        agreed between the Community Institutions.

```

```
                     - 50 
V. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

A. To European Industry and other Interested parties

      European Standardization should be given a much higher
      priority In company strategy for the single European

      market

      Greater Involvement Is needed In standardization In

      terms of

        direct funding of standardization bodies (national
        and European)

        proposing priorities for standardization work

        releasing experts for standardization work
        (especially project teams)

B. To European and national standardization bodies

(I) Efficiency

      Procedural changes are required urgently to speed up
      delivery of European standards, such as

        the use of "drafting secretariats" or "project
        teams" to accelerate drafting of common working

        documents

        active encouragement of more sectoral "Associated
        Standardization Bodies" by CEN/CENELEC

        use of new communications technology to accelerate
        discussion on working documents

        more systematic use of majority voting to agree
        draft European Standards, particularly for mandated

        work

        alignment of majority voting rules to those of the
        EEC Treaty

        shorter pub I Ic enquIry periods (2 months for
        consensus drafts, no more than 4 months for
        majority vote drafts)

        a maximum 2-month period for response to comments

        direct applicability of adopted European standards,
        without waiting for national transposition.

In addition, priority must be given to work mandated by the
EEC and EFTA, and to performance rather than descriptive

standards.

```

```
                    - 5 1 
(II) Coordination and structure

      Establishment by the end of 1991 of a European
      Standardization System, comprising Of

        A European Standardization Council, made up of
        persons reflecting the views of major economic
        Interest groups, the EEC Commission and EFTA
        Secretariat, and the Presidents of the European
        Standardization bodies, with responsibility for the
        strategic direction of European standardization;

        A European Standardization Board, made up of
        representatives of the European standardization
        bodies, responsible for management and coordination
        of the European Standardization System on behalf of
        the CouncI I ;

        European standardization bodies, recognized by the
        Council as exclusively competent In their area,
        which comply with the common rules of the European
        Standardization System;

        National standardization bodies, which have
        exclusive responsibility for carrying out certain
        tasks for the European standardization bodies at
        the national level (public enquiry, voting).

(ill) Membership and International Cooperation

     Membersh I p

        No enlargement of full membership of European

        standardization bodies for the moment.

        Associate membership (participation without voting
        rights) for non-member European countries.

      Technical cooperation

        European standardization bodies to assume
        responsibility for the coordination of technical
        assistance programmes to non-member countries.

      International cooperation

        Observers from international standardization

        organizations (ISO and IEC) to participate In
        European working groups.

        Continue European requests to International
        standardization bodies to take on work required by
        Europe outside the legislative framework.

```

```
                    - 52 
( Iv) Accountab I I I ty

        Participation In the work and management of
        European level standards bodies to be opened up to
        Interested parties, i.e.

          direct participation of Individual membership In
          the work of Technical Bodies, where appropriate

          observership of all technical work for European          level organizations such as trades unions,

          consumers

          representation of main economic Interests and
          public authorities in the management boards of
          European bodies (following practice at national
          level )

        National standards bodies to be open to
        participation by Interested parties from other
        European Countries.

( v) F InancIng

      A new approach to financing European standardization
      work is necessary to ensure long-term stability, in
      part IcuIar by :

        more long-term planning by the members of European

        standardization bodies

        providing for part of the revenue from sale of
        European standards to be directed to European
        standardization bodies

        Increasing competition in the sales of European

        standards

        wider use of direct financial contributions to

        European standardization work from European
        Industry (such as through more Associated
        Standardization Bodies)

        a long-term commitment to financial support of
        standardization by Community public authorities.

(v i ) I nformatIon

        Information procedure for standardization activity
        under Directive 83/189/EEC to be reinforced, to
        provide for a 3-month standstill period following
        not IfI cat Ion

        a European Standardization Database, with
        bibliographic data on current national and European
        standards and summaries of current activity, to be
        developed under the aegis of the European
        Standardization Council

```

```
                   - 53 
       information to be made available to all Interested

       parties

( vIi) Status of the European standard

       European standards to exist In their own right
       (I.e. no requirement that they be transposed Into
       national standards before use)

       When transposed, European standards to be
        Identified In national catalogues only by their
       European reference number

       A common mark of conformity to European standards
       to replace national marks

       A single set of European standards ("ES"?) to be
       established, removing current distinction between
        "EN's" (CEN + CENELEC) and "ETS's" (ETSI).

(v I I I) Testing and Certification

       European standardization bodies should define their
       relationship with the European Organization for
       Testing and Certification (EOTC)

     - Transfer of CEN/CENELEC certification agreements to

       EOTC

( I x ) Intellectual property rights and patents

       The Inclusion of IPR and patents within standards
       should be subject to clear rules, which provide for
       the right of use of IPR and patents either free or
       on fair and reasonable terms.

   To Member State authorities

     The new European Standardization System should be
     formally recognized In Community law, and the terms of
     cooperation with public authorities laid down In a
     Counc iI Dec I s ion

     a second Council Decision on a multlannual action is

     necessary, which could commit the Community to the
     principle of funding the development of European
     standardization for a fixed period (1991-1995) within
     the limits set annually by the Community Budgetary
     Author Ity.

     Community funding of "mandated" European
     standardization to be changed to reimbursement of
      Incurred expenses.

     More active promotion of European standardization by
     Member States.

```

```
                    Annex 1

  Standardization Order Vouchers given to CEN and CENELEC

                 since 1986

  Standardization programmes on Iron and steel.

  Safety of toys : chemical and mechanical properties,
  fIammab I I I ty, migration of certains metals, chemical toys,
  electrIc toys.

  Cold water meters.

  Woven polypropylene sacks Intended for use In food aid.

  Tactile danger warnings on packaging, requirements.

  Simple pressure vessels

  Pressure vessels (reference standards).

  Self-propelled industrial trucks; rules for the
  construction and lay-out of pedals.

  Gas burning appliances for instantaneous production of hot

  water .

  Heat exchangers.

  Standardization programme in the field of motor vehicle
  fueI s.

  Standardization programme in the field of construction
  products ; timber, concrete, masonry, pitched roofing
  products, cement and building limes.

  Evaluation criteria for testing laboratories and
  certification bodies.

  Standardization tasks In the aeronautic field.

  Personnel protective equipment.

- Machines.

  Public procurement : standardization programmes In the
  field of drinking water supply, energy and transport, water
  supply and drainage/sewerage.

  Electrical equipment (low-voltage).

  Storage heater safety standards.

  Safety standards for earth-leakage circuit-breakers.

```

```
                 - 2 
Airborne noise emitted by household appliances.

Safety for fans.

Electromagnetic compatibility.

Low voltage air-break disconnectors.

Standardization programme in the field of advanced

ceram i cs.

Medical devices: horizontal standards, standards for
active implantable devices

Advanced technical ceramics

Non-automatic weighing instruments

Eurocodes

Information Technology

* Application Functions

* Combined Functions

* Application Extension Functions

* Relay Funct ions

* Character and Control Repertoire Specification

* Telecommunication Functions

* Programming Languages

* Information Processing Systems -Computer Graphic

* Magnetic support media

* Identification and Banking cards

* Trade data interchange

* Ergonomics of visual display units (VDU)

* OS I reference model

* CD-ROM

* ISDN Connector

```

```
                - 3 
* Small computer systems interface

* Safety of T equipment

* ISDN -PABX (Private Automatic Branch Exchange)

* ISDN - ISPBX

* Audlovldeo - computer (A.V.C.)

* Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)

* Technical specification for Electronic components

* Bar Codes

```

```
                  Annex 2

    PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE EUROPEAN

#### **`STANDARDIZATION SYSTEM (*)`**

The European Standardization System should be composed of

    the European Standardization Council

    the European Standardization Board

    European Standardization Bodies

   National Standardization Bodies

European Standardization Council

The European Standardization Council will be responsible for
the strategic direction of the European Standardization
System.

```

**...** **V** **»** **• .** **w .a** **W** **•** **« • • r i » I W % I W I I** **I I I** **>*** **U <0 W 0** **W I** **U** **I 9 f / U** **I C 9** **W W** **fc** **¥T W**
```
and decide on the admission of further European
Standardization Bodies into the European Standar dIzatI on
System.

The Council will request the European Standardization Board to
take action In order to achieve the broad strategic objectives
11 I ays down.

The Council will be made up of persons reflecting the views of
the main economic Interests In European standardization
(Industry, consumers, users, trades unions), representatives
of the Commission of the European Communities and the
Secretariat of European Free Trade Association, and the
Presidents of the European Standardization Bodies. Its
President will be a European Industrialist. (The proposed
membership of the Council is outlined In the Annex).

  See also table I attached

```

```
                    - 2 
European Standardization Board

The European Standardization Board will be the executive body

of the Counc il.

It will be responsible for coordinating the work of the
European Standardization Bodies and for carrying out the
policy of the Council, In particular in respect of:

    the development of more detailed rules for European
    standard IzatIon ;

    monitoring compliance with those rules ;

    developing a common European Standardization Database ;

    promoting awareness and knowledge of European
    standard IzatIon.

The Board will be made up of representatives of the European
Standardization Bodies and the Secretary of the Council.

European Standardization Bodies

European Standardization Bodies are those bodies organized to
carry out standardization work at the European level and
recognized by the European Standardization Council as
conforming to the common rules of the European Standardization
System.

The European Standardization Bodies shall have exclusive
competence within their area of responsibility. They will be
free to determine their membership and working methods,
subject to compliance with the common rules of the System.
They shall, however, ensure that all Interested parties are
adequately represented in their work. They shall have formal
links with the National Standardization Bodies, and shall be
represented in the European Standardization Council and
European Standardization Board. They shall also ensure
effective cooperation with International standardization
bod les..

They shall be responsible for:

    programming, financing and organizing standardization
    work within their area of competence,

    delivering draft European Standards to the National
    Standardization Bodies for public enquiry and final vote,
    In accordance with the common rules of the System,

    ensuring publication of adopted European Standards, in
    cooperation with the National Standardization Bodies, and
    managing the copyright of those standards,

    promoting European standardization In their area of
    competence.

```

```
                    - 3 
National Standardization Bodies

National Standardization Bodies are those organizations
recognized as exclusively competent to promulgate standards at

natIona I I eve I .

They shall carry out certain tasks at national level within
the European Standardization System, such as:

    public enquiry and the expression of the national vote on
    draft European Standards

    publication at national level of adopted European
    Standards, in agreement with the European Standardization
    Bod i es.

They shall comply with common rules for the provision of
Information on their standardization activity to the European
Standardization Database and with the standstill obligations
of the European Standardization B o d i e s .

Where provided in the rules of a European Standardization
Body, they also assume the secretariat of European-1 eve I
Technical Committees, Sub-committees and Working Groups.

```

```
     Industry.

    Consumers.

       Users.

  Trades Unions.

  EC Commi s s i on.

EFTA Secretariat.

```

```
             Table I

   Proposed European Standardization System.

                 ( European Standardization
                       Bodies )

                        CEN

European Standardization

     Counc i1

                       CENELEC

                        ETSI
European Standardization

     Board

                      Others

```

```
  Nat ional

Standardization

   Bodi es

```

```
Bodies recognized by the European Standardization Council

```

```
                 A N N E X

Proposed composition of the European Standardization Council

   7 representatives of European Industry (one of whom
   represents small and medium-sized companies)

   2 representatives of Industrial users of goods and
   serv i ces

   2 representatives of consumers

   2 representatives of trades unions

   1 representative of the Commission of the European
   Commun It i es

   1 representative of the EFTA Secretariat

   1 representative of each European Standardization Body

   (plus a Secretary of the Council)

   The President of the Council shall be a representative of
   European industry.

 Proposed composition of the European Standardization Board

   An equal number of representatives of each of the
   European Standardization Bodies

   The Secretary of the Council

```

#### **ISSN 0254-1475**

## **COM (90) 456 final**

# **DOCUMENTS**

## **E N 01 13 16** **Catalogue number : CB-CO-90-498-EN-C** **ISBN 92-77-64689-6**

**PRICE** **1 • 30** **pages:** **3.50 ECU** **per additional** **10** **pages:** **1-25** **ECU**

#### **Office for Official Publications of the European Communities** **L-2985 Luxembourg**