# Investigation on the Regional Distribution of the Development of Chinese Social Organization Standards and the Promotion of Quality Improvement in Related Industries

Authors: Linfeng Wu; Peng Liu
Journal: Mathematical Problems in Engineering
 (2023)

---

## Abstract

Based on the query data of the national social organization standard information platform, the registration of Chinese social organizations on the national social organization standard information platform and the publication of social organization standards in recent six years are counted, and the correlation is compared with the population of provinces and cities in China, the innovation ability index, GDP, and the national invention patents. The experience of social organization standardization management in the United States and Germany is briefly analyzed. This paper discusses the current situation of the development of Chinese social organization standards and the problems existing in the development process and puts forward suggestions on the management of social organization standardization, in order to provide management suggestions for the high-quality development of China’s industry.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

The national social organization standard information platform [1] (herein after referred to as “the platform”) was initially organized and established by the National Standardization Administration Committee, and China National Institute of Standardization is responsible for the daily operation and maintenance of the national social organization standard release and exchange platform. For social organizations to register on the national social organization standard information platform, the National Standardization Administration Committee has no mandatory requirements. At present, social organizations are only encouraged to register on the platform and publish social organization standards. The current principle is that whoever publishes the standards is responsible. Social organizations need to be responsible for the technical content of their standards. In the process of registration and management of social organizations, our institute mainly provides technical guidance for the qualification of social organizations and the implementation of social organization standardization work and implements the relevant management policy requirements of the National Standardization Administration Committee and other relevant departments for social organization standardization. In the cultivation and development stage, we are more to encourage and guide the relatively free development of social organization standards, not too much involved in the developing process of social organization standardization but only to carry out overall macronorms and guidelines. The market-oriented operation and free development of social organization standards have their advantages, which will certainly bring some problems. How to effectively guide the high-quality development of social organization standards, so as to improve the quality and efficiency of related industries, is a problem worthy of our common attention and discussion.As we all know, only high-quality standards can have a positive impact on the industry. Just like the implementation of both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 standards has a noticeable impact on the increase in the efficiency of processes carried out in supply chains [2–5]. In the process of standardizing and guiding social organizations, we have mastered a large number of first-hand materials and summarized the real problems in the standardization activities of a large number of Chinese social organizations. We systematically counted the basic information of social organizations and the regional and industrial distribution of published social organization standards. The distribution of social organizations and social organization standards is compared with GDP (gross domestic product), the population, innovation capacity index, and national innovation patents of various provinces in China. Among them, these indicators are the most relevant. Subsequently, we compared these correlations and screened out the most relevant indicators. Finally, on the basis of the above research and analysis, some suggestions are put forward to improve the standardization level and quality of Chinese social organizations.


## 2. Literature Review

### 2.1. Literature on the Management of American Social Organization Standards

Regarding the high quality and standardized development of social organization standards, China has to force more study and research on the development of American social organization standards. From the historical experience of development, the social organization standard system in the United States has a long history and was once considered to be one of the most effective and complete standard systems in the world [6]. From the perspective of management system and operation mechanism, the United States has established a decentralized and flexible voluntary standard system with civil social organization standards as the main body. From the perspective of the relationship between the main body of standardization activities and the government, American industry associations and professional societies play a leading role in standardization activities. ANSI is not a monopoly institution for standard development, but a coordinator of a voluntary national standard system. The main responsibility of ANSI is to organize and coordinate the way to finally achieve the approval of American national standards [7, 8]. In terms of the selection of standardization objects, American social organization standards are basically developed based on the specific concerns and needs expressed by industry, government, and consumers [9], and more standards come from actual industry, management, and living needs. In terms of technical professionalism, the vast majority of American standards bodies are composed of industry associations and professional societies. From the perspective of social participation in the standard-developing process, their standard-developing process is very open, and many interested parties can participate in the drafting process of social organization standards. Thousands of individuals, enterprises, governments, social organizations, scientific research institutions, and individuals can participate in the development of American national standards by participating in the work of standardization institutions recognized by ANSI. ANSI standard-developing process also encourages the participation of the widest range of experts in relevant fields, thereby developing a widely recognized high-quality standard. In references [10, 11], from the perspective of the will of the government, we note that members of government agencies can achieve this by voluntarily participating in relevant standardization activities. In this way, on the one hand, members of government agencies can timely understand the current situation of the standardization work of the organization. On the other hand, members of government agencies can communicate the thoughts and will of the government to the standardization organization by participating in the discussion and voting of relevant programs [12]. The whole process of American social organization standardization is worth Chinese reference.


### 2.2. Literature on the Management of German Social Organization Standards

From the necessity of research, Germany is the world’s largest manufacturing country and power that combines manufacturing and standardization best. German standardization and standardization strategy have penetrated into almost every detail of its manufacturing development and are constantly optimized according to economic reality and domestic and foreign environments [13]. For many years, Germany has been in the international leading position in the fields of traditional machinery, automobiles, robots, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, new energy, environmental protection, and so on. Its “industry 4.0” proposed in 2011 has had an important impact on the innovation in the international high-tech field [14]. “Industry 4.0” is the innovation of industrial technology, and in essence, it is also the advancement of standards. According to the report provided by the German information technology, telecommunications and new media association (Bitkom) in 2017, from 2016 to 2017, in all industries related to “industry 4.0” in Germany, hardware solutions increased by more than 14%, software solutions increased by 23%, and its services increased by 22% [15]. In terms of its international influence, influenced by Germany’s “industry 4.0,” more and more industrial enterprises around the world have been transforming their digital production, services, and even business models for more than a decade [16]. From the perspective of industry and experience value, Germany’s industrial policy is different from other countries, and the essence of policy-making is to stimulate innovation [17]. It can be seen that Germany attaches great importance to innovation, and standards are one of the concentrated manifestations of innovative technological achievements. Therefore, it is necessary to study and analyze its social organization standardization model. From the historical experience of development, Germany attaches great importance to standardization, has also carried out a lot of research, and has achieved gratifying results. Dr. T.Bahke, President of Germany’s standardization society, pointed out at the press conference that Germany’s standardization investment in 2001 had reached 770 million euros and generated 16 billion euros in benefits. 33% of Germany’s national economic growth was created by standardization [18]. From the perspective of management system and operation mechanism, anyone can use DIN (short for German Association for Standardization) standards, and the use of these standards is voluntary. DIN standards are recommended standards and are mandatory only when DIN standards are referenced in laws, regulations, or contracts. From the perspective of the relationship between the main body of standardization activities and the government, DIN has reached relevant agreements with the government to participate in international standardization affairs on behalf of the government. German social organization standards are independently developed, published, and applied internally by various industry associations and alliance organizations. They are Association standards and alliance standards that can be made public [19]. If necessary, the German government will directly quote DIN standards in legislation rather than organize and develop standards by itself. From the perspective of social participation in the standard-developing process, DIN needs to consider the interests of stakeholders when developing standards. All stakeholders can participate in the standard-developing process and finally reach a consensus [9, 20]. On the one hand, the wide participation of standards can more effectively solicit opinions from multiple parties and improve the scope of the application of standards. On the other hand, it can expand the supply channels of standards and promote the rapid transformation of excellent scientific and technological innovation achievements. For example, Germany’s strict restrictive policies in ensuring the basic welfare of workers, including workers’ wages, working environment, social insurance, and layoffs [21], have effectively improved employees’ sense of belonging and loyalty to enterprises, thus stimulating innovative ideas. More innovations have been successfully solidified into standards, which has effectively improved the rapid transformation, promotion, and application of successful scientific and technological innovation.


### 2.3. Literature on the Management of Chinese Social Organization Standards

Through the sorting and analysis of the above German and American-related research literature, we find that many of them are worthy of reference and learning in the management system, management philosophy, experience, and practice. Throughout China’s research in this field, it mainly involves the following aspects. The research represented by Cao and Jin [22], based on the current development situation of social organization standardization in China, drawing on the social organization standardization governance mechanism of developed countries such as the United States and Japan, improves the social organization standardization governance mechanism by giving full play to the role of industry management departments and the China Association for Science and Technology and strengthens the role of government guidance based on the whole life cycle of social organization standard development, implementation, and internationalization, so as to cultivate standardized talents and jointly formulated standards by various parties to comprehensively improve the level of social organization standardization governance and put forward suggestions to improve China’s social organization standardization governance. Most of these studies tend to conduct research and analysis from the macro theoretical level and lack of actual research on a large number of groups and in-depth analysis and comparison of a large number of specific data. The research represented by Zhang et al. [23] focused on analyzing the problems in the development of Chinese social organization standards and used the PDSA cycle method to build a preliminary social organization standard evaluation mechanism, aiming to provide suggestions for the evaluation of Chinese social organization standards. This kind of research mainly focuses on the process and method of establishing the social organization standardization evaluation mechanism and does not propose specific methods for promoting social organization standardization. The research represented by Yu et al. [24] mainly makes a comparative analysis and summary of the characteristics of various standardization management systems from the perspective of standardization organizations and standards systems. It is expected to provide a reference for clarifying the development status and characteristics of standardization management systems at home and abroad and for formulating standardization policies in China. This kind of research mainly focuses on the standardization management system and does not focus on the promotion methods for group standardization in combination with the specific problems existing in the process of social organization standardization. The research represented by Fang and Kang et al. [25, 26] mainly studies the measures to promote economic quality and efficiency on the basis of balancing the interests of all parties, mainly from the perspective of revealing the distribution of interests of interested parties in high-tech industry social organization standard activities, government decision-making measures, fairness, and justice.


### 2.4. Comparative Analysis with Relevant Research at Home and Abroad

Comparison and brief analysis of the above representative existing literature on the normative development of social organization standardization in Germany, the United States, and China are shown in Table1.Table 1
Analysis and comparison of relevant documents.
No.Author’s articleTitle of articleThe year of publicationMajor relevant content or contributionMain research fields involved1F. LiStandardization research paper in the USA2004American social organization standard systemThe management of American social organization standards2H. Liu et al.Analysis of America’s voluntary standards system2014Development of American national standards3L. Liao et al.United States standardization system and its references giving for China2013Development of American national standards4F. Fang et al.The experience of social organization standards supervision in foreign countries and its enlightenment to China2021Development process of American national standards5H. YangTo gain the enlightment from American adminstrative system of standardization2006Development process of American national standards6C. Liu et al.Discussion on the driving force of NTTAA to American standardization development,2010Development process of American national standards7Q. DongFrom a large manufacturing country to a world manufacturing power: new mission and strategic Adjustment of China’s standardization strategy2022German standardization and standardization strategyThe management of German social organization standards8L. Wang et al.Ten-year review of development of Germany industry 4.0 and its enlightenment to China2021German “industry 4.0” standards9J. DechowIndustrie 4.0-Zukunft der produktion2017German “industry 4.0” standards10K. Henning et al.Industrie 4.0 in a global context: strategies for cooperating with international partners (acatech STUDY)2016German “industry 4.0” standards11C. PerezTechnological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms2010German industrial policy12L. YangCurrent situation and enlightenment of standardization construction of advanced manufacturing clusters in Germany2021Economic benefits of standardization in Germany13Z. Chen et al.Standardization development in Germany and recommendation on standardization cooperation between China and Germany2018German social organization standards14C. LiuSelected laws and regulations on standardization management in EU and its member states2016Development process of German social organization standards15C. MatravasGerman industrial structure in comparative perspective1997Relevant policies in Germany16Cao Lili et al.Development course and governance of association standardization in China2022Macro management theory related to social organization standard developmentThe management of Chinese social organization standards17Zhang Lu et al.Group standard: power engine for high quality development2020Social organization standardized evaluation18Yu Xiao et al.Comparison of standardization management system at home and abroad2020Self management of social organization standardization organization19Fang fang et al.The imbalance in benefits distribution of group standards in high-technology industry and government countermeasures: a perspective of distributive justice2019Social organization standardized benefit distribution and economic benefits20Kang erliStudy on the government countermeasures for the unbalanced group standard interests from the perspective of distributive justice2019Social organization standardized benefit distribution and economic benefits21Linfeng Wu et al.Investigation on the regional distribution of the development of Chinese social organization standards and the promotion of quality improvement in related industries2022Social organization standardization quality improvementThrough comparative analysis, this study is different from previous studies. It is intended to sort out and analyze the practical problems in the process of social organization standardization based on a large number of real data from research and comparative analysis. Combining the advanced experience of the United States and Germany in social organization standardization and the combination of science and technology industries, it is intended to study and analyze effective ways to improve the quality of social organization standardization in China from the perspective of specific practice.


## 2.1. Literature on the Management of American Social Organization Standards

Regarding the high quality and standardized development of social organization standards, China has to force more study and research on the development of American social organization standards. From the historical experience of development, the social organization standard system in the United States has a long history and was once considered to be one of the most effective and complete standard systems in the world [6]. From the perspective of management system and operation mechanism, the United States has established a decentralized and flexible voluntary standard system with civil social organization standards as the main body. From the perspective of the relationship between the main body of standardization activities and the government, American industry associations and professional societies play a leading role in standardization activities. ANSI is not a monopoly institution for standard development, but a coordinator of a voluntary national standard system. The main responsibility of ANSI is to organize and coordinate the way to finally achieve the approval of American national standards [7, 8]. In terms of the selection of standardization objects, American social organization standards are basically developed based on the specific concerns and needs expressed by industry, government, and consumers [9], and more standards come from actual industry, management, and living needs. In terms of technical professionalism, the vast majority of American standards bodies are composed of industry associations and professional societies. From the perspective of social participation in the standard-developing process, their standard-developing process is very open, and many interested parties can participate in the drafting process of social organization standards. Thousands of individuals, enterprises, governments, social organizations, scientific research institutions, and individuals can participate in the development of American national standards by participating in the work of standardization institutions recognized by ANSI. ANSI standard-developing process also encourages the participation of the widest range of experts in relevant fields, thereby developing a widely recognized high-quality standard. In references [10, 11], from the perspective of the will of the government, we note that members of government agencies can achieve this by voluntarily participating in relevant standardization activities. In this way, on the one hand, members of government agencies can timely understand the current situation of the standardization work of the organization. On the other hand, members of government agencies can communicate the thoughts and will of the government to the standardization organization by participating in the discussion and voting of relevant programs [12]. The whole process of American social organization standardization is worth Chinese reference.


## 2.2. Literature on the Management of German Social Organization Standards

From the necessity of research, Germany is the world’s largest manufacturing country and power that combines manufacturing and standardization best. German standardization and standardization strategy have penetrated into almost every detail of its manufacturing development and are constantly optimized according to economic reality and domestic and foreign environments [13]. For many years, Germany has been in the international leading position in the fields of traditional machinery, automobiles, robots, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, new energy, environmental protection, and so on. Its “industry 4.0” proposed in 2011 has had an important impact on the innovation in the international high-tech field [14]. “Industry 4.0” is the innovation of industrial technology, and in essence, it is also the advancement of standards. According to the report provided by the German information technology, telecommunications and new media association (Bitkom) in 2017, from 2016 to 2017, in all industries related to “industry 4.0” in Germany, hardware solutions increased by more than 14%, software solutions increased by 23%, and its services increased by 22% [15]. In terms of its international influence, influenced by Germany’s “industry 4.0,” more and more industrial enterprises around the world have been transforming their digital production, services, and even business models for more than a decade [16]. From the perspective of industry and experience value, Germany’s industrial policy is different from other countries, and the essence of policy-making is to stimulate innovation [17]. It can be seen that Germany attaches great importance to innovation, and standards are one of the concentrated manifestations of innovative technological achievements. Therefore, it is necessary to study and analyze its social organization standardization model. From the historical experience of development, Germany attaches great importance to standardization, has also carried out a lot of research, and has achieved gratifying results. Dr. T.Bahke, President of Germany’s standardization society, pointed out at the press conference that Germany’s standardization investment in 2001 had reached 770 million euros and generated 16 billion euros in benefits. 33% of Germany’s national economic growth was created by standardization [18]. From the perspective of management system and operation mechanism, anyone can use DIN (short for German Association for Standardization) standards, and the use of these standards is voluntary. DIN standards are recommended standards and are mandatory only when DIN standards are referenced in laws, regulations, or contracts. From the perspective of the relationship between the main body of standardization activities and the government, DIN has reached relevant agreements with the government to participate in international standardization affairs on behalf of the government. German social organization standards are independently developed, published, and applied internally by various industry associations and alliance organizations. They are Association standards and alliance standards that can be made public [19]. If necessary, the German government will directly quote DIN standards in legislation rather than organize and develop standards by itself. From the perspective of social participation in the standard-developing process, DIN needs to consider the interests of stakeholders when developing standards. All stakeholders can participate in the standard-developing process and finally reach a consensus [9, 20]. On the one hand, the wide participation of standards can more effectively solicit opinions from multiple parties and improve the scope of the application of standards. On the other hand, it can expand the supply channels of standards and promote the rapid transformation of excellent scientific and technological innovation achievements. For example, Germany’s strict restrictive policies in ensuring the basic welfare of workers, including workers’ wages, working environment, social insurance, and layoffs [21], have effectively improved employees’ sense of belonging and loyalty to enterprises, thus stimulating innovative ideas. More innovations have been successfully solidified into standards, which has effectively improved the rapid transformation, promotion, and application of successful scientific and technological innovation.


## 2.3. Literature on the Management of Chinese Social Organization Standards

Through the sorting and analysis of the above German and American-related research literature, we find that many of them are worthy of reference and learning in the management system, management philosophy, experience, and practice. Throughout China’s research in this field, it mainly involves the following aspects. The research represented by Cao and Jin [22], based on the current development situation of social organization standardization in China, drawing on the social organization standardization governance mechanism of developed countries such as the United States and Japan, improves the social organization standardization governance mechanism by giving full play to the role of industry management departments and the China Association for Science and Technology and strengthens the role of government guidance based on the whole life cycle of social organization standard development, implementation, and internationalization, so as to cultivate standardized talents and jointly formulated standards by various parties to comprehensively improve the level of social organization standardization governance and put forward suggestions to improve China’s social organization standardization governance. Most of these studies tend to conduct research and analysis from the macro theoretical level and lack of actual research on a large number of groups and in-depth analysis and comparison of a large number of specific data. The research represented by Zhang et al. [23] focused on analyzing the problems in the development of Chinese social organization standards and used the PDSA cycle method to build a preliminary social organization standard evaluation mechanism, aiming to provide suggestions for the evaluation of Chinese social organization standards. This kind of research mainly focuses on the process and method of establishing the social organization standardization evaluation mechanism and does not propose specific methods for promoting social organization standardization. The research represented by Yu et al. [24] mainly makes a comparative analysis and summary of the characteristics of various standardization management systems from the perspective of standardization organizations and standards systems. It is expected to provide a reference for clarifying the development status and characteristics of standardization management systems at home and abroad and for formulating standardization policies in China. This kind of research mainly focuses on the standardization management system and does not focus on the promotion methods for group standardization in combination with the specific problems existing in the process of social organization standardization. The research represented by Fang and Kang et al. [25, 26] mainly studies the measures to promote economic quality and efficiency on the basis of balancing the interests of all parties, mainly from the perspective of revealing the distribution of interests of interested parties in high-tech industry social organization standard activities, government decision-making measures, fairness, and justice.


## 2.4. Comparative Analysis with Relevant Research at Home and Abroad

Comparison and brief analysis of the above representative existing literature on the normative development of social organization standardization in Germany, the United States, and China are shown in Table1.Table 1
Analysis and comparison of relevant documents.
No.Author’s articleTitle of articleThe year of publicationMajor relevant content or contributionMain research fields involved1F. LiStandardization research paper in the USA2004American social organization standard systemThe management of American social organization standards2H. Liu et al.Analysis of America’s voluntary standards system2014Development of American national standards3L. Liao et al.United States standardization system and its references giving for China2013Development of American national standards4F. Fang et al.The experience of social organization standards supervision in foreign countries and its enlightenment to China2021Development process of American national standards5H. YangTo gain the enlightment from American adminstrative system of standardization2006Development process of American national standards6C. Liu et al.Discussion on the driving force of NTTAA to American standardization development,2010Development process of American national standards7Q. DongFrom a large manufacturing country to a world manufacturing power: new mission and strategic Adjustment of China’s standardization strategy2022German standardization and standardization strategyThe management of German social organization standards8L. Wang et al.Ten-year review of development of Germany industry 4.0 and its enlightenment to China2021German “industry 4.0” standards9J. DechowIndustrie 4.0-Zukunft der produktion2017German “industry 4.0” standards10K. Henning et al.Industrie 4.0 in a global context: strategies for cooperating with international partners (acatech STUDY)2016German “industry 4.0” standards11C. PerezTechnological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms2010German industrial policy12L. YangCurrent situation and enlightenment of standardization construction of advanced manufacturing clusters in Germany2021Economic benefits of standardization in Germany13Z. Chen et al.Standardization development in Germany and recommendation on standardization cooperation between China and Germany2018German social organization standards14C. LiuSelected laws and regulations on standardization management in EU and its member states2016Development process of German social organization standards15C. MatravasGerman industrial structure in comparative perspective1997Relevant policies in Germany16Cao Lili et al.Development course and governance of association standardization in China2022Macro management theory related to social organization standard developmentThe management of Chinese social organization standards17Zhang Lu et al.Group standard: power engine for high quality development2020Social organization standardized evaluation18Yu Xiao et al.Comparison of standardization management system at home and abroad2020Self management of social organization standardization organization19Fang fang et al.The imbalance in benefits distribution of group standards in high-technology industry and government countermeasures: a perspective of distributive justice2019Social organization standardized benefit distribution and economic benefits20Kang erliStudy on the government countermeasures for the unbalanced group standard interests from the perspective of distributive justice2019Social organization standardized benefit distribution and economic benefits21Linfeng Wu et al.Investigation on the regional distribution of the development of Chinese social organization standards and the promotion of quality improvement in related industries2022Social organization standardization quality improvementThrough comparative analysis, this study is different from previous studies. It is intended to sort out and analyze the practical problems in the process of social organization standardization based on a large number of real data from research and comparative analysis. Combining the advanced experience of the United States and Germany in social organization standardization and the combination of science and technology industries, it is intended to study and analyze effective ways to improve the quality of social organization standardization in China from the perspective of specific practice.


## 3. Materials and Methods

### 3.1. Data Source

The data come from the platform [1], the National Bureau of statistics, and relevant scientific research institutions. Through this platform, the social organization standards in various sectors of the national economy are released. The query date is until April 30, 2022.


### 3.2. Data Processing

Establish a database through data statistical analysis software, input the standards’ name, standards’ number, the names of social organizations, social organizations license issuing agency, standard disclosure, and other information of relevant social organization standards, statistically analyze the social organization level, license issuing province, etc. and compare it with the population, innovation capacity index, GDP (gross domestic product), and national invention patents of each province.


## 3.1. Data Source

The data come from the platform [1], the National Bureau of statistics, and relevant scientific research institutions. Through this platform, the social organization standards in various sectors of the national economy are released. The query date is until April 30, 2022.


## 3.2. Data Processing

Establish a database through data statistical analysis software, input the standards’ name, standards’ number, the names of social organizations, social organizations license issuing agency, standard disclosure, and other information of relevant social organization standards, statistically analyze the social organization level, license issuing province, etc. and compare it with the population, innovation capacity index, GDP (gross domestic product), and national invention patents of each province.


## 4. Results and Analysis

As of April 30, 2022, a total of 6202 social organizations have registered on the platform, and social organizations have published a total of 37747 social organization standards on the platform. In recent years, the number of registered social organizations and published social organization standards on the platform is shown in Figure1. With the release of relevant policies in various regions and the increasing recognition of the important role of standards in leading high-quality development, the number of social organization registrations and the number of social organization standards issued have shown a rapid growth.Figure 1
Trend chart of the number of registered social organizations and published social organization standards.


### 4.1. Brief Analysis of Social Organizations’ Registration Data on the Platform

The 6202 social organizations are distributed according to the location of the issuing authority of their association legal person registration certificate: 901 from the Ministry of civil affairs and 5301 from local organizations. The number of social organizations of the Ministry of Civil Affairs accounted for 14.53%. Among them, the number of registered social organizations in the top three provinces is 885 in Guangdong Province, 438 in Zhejiang Province, and 425 in Shandong Province. The number of registered social organizations in other provinces (excluding Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan) is shown in Figure2.Figure 2
The number of registered social organizations in all provinces of China.The number of registered local social organizations in China is compared with the population, innovation capacity index, GDP (gross domestic product), and national invention patents of provinces and cities in China, as shown in Figures3–7. Compare the population, innovation capacity index, GDP (gross domestic product), and national invention patents of various provinces and cities in China, as shown in Figure 8. Among them, the population data comes from the latest “statistical bulletin of the people’s Republic of China on national economic and social development in 2021” issued by the National Bureau of statistics in 2022, and the data up to the end of 2021. Among them, the innovation capability index data comes from the latest annual report “China regional innovation capability evaluation report 2021” [27] prepared by the China Science and technology development strategy research social organization and the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences with the support of the Ministry of science and technology. This kind of report has been published for 21 consecutive years. Through the establishment of a four-level scientific index evaluation system, it comprehensively evaluates and compares the innovation capability of domestic provinces and cities and is the authoritative regional development evaluation report in China. Among them, GDP comes from the statistical data of the National Bureau of statistics. Among them, the data of national invention patents comes from the statistical analysis report of China’s national invention patents in 2021 [28] drafted by Chen Lixin of the science and education management and evaluation research center of Wuhan University, and the revised data includes the total amount of national invention patents obtained by domestic provinces and cities in the five-year period from 2017 to 2021 (according to the statistics of the first inventor).Figure 3
Comparison between the number of registered local social organizations in China and the number of permanent residents in various provinces and cities in China.Figure 4
Comparison between the number of registered local social organizations in China and the innovation capacity index of provinces and cities in China.Figure 5
Comparison between the number of registered local social organizations in China and the GDP of provinces and cities in China.Figure 6
Comparison between the number of registered local social organizations in China and the number of national invention patents in provinces and cities in China.Figure 7
Comparison of population, innovation capacity index, GDP, and national invention patents in various provinces and cities in China.Figure 8
Distribution map of provinces publishing social organization standards.From Figure7, the number of national invention patents, GDP, the number of permanent residents, and the innovation ability index in each province show different trends. From the comparison of Figures 3–6, the order of the correlation between the four indicators and the number of registered local social organizations in China from large to small is the number of national invention patents, GDP, the number of permanent residents, and the innovation ability index. Among them, the number of registered local social organizations in China shows a relatively consistent trend with the number of national invention patents in all provinces and cities in China. The reason should be that standards and patents belong to the solidification form of knowledge achievements. Social organizations can effectively and regularly carry out social organization standardization activities and solidify knowledge and experience achievements through registration on the platform. Therefore, the data of all provinces and cities in these two aspects show consistency.


### 4.2. Brief Analysis of Published Data of Social Organization Standards

#### 4.2.1. Level of Standard-Issuing Body

Social organizations have published a total of 37747 social organization standards on the platform, which are distributed according to the location of the issuing authority of their corporate registration certificate: 13295 by the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and 24452 by local social organizations. National social organizations accounted for 35.22%, and the number of standards published by local social organizations accounted for 64.78%.


#### 4.2.2. Publicity of Social Organization Standards

Social organizations published a total of 37747 social organization standards on the platform, among them, 15826 social organization standards make the contents of the full text of the standards publicly visible on the platform, accounting for 41.93%.


#### 4.2.3. Release of Social Organization Standards in Provinces

Social organizations published 24452 standards by local social organizations on the platform, and the distribution of published provinces of social organization standards is shown in Figure8. Compare the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China with the population, innovation capacity index, GDP, and national invention patents of provinces and cities in China, as shown in Figures 9–12.Figure 9
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the number of permanent residents in provinces and cities in China.Figure 10
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the innovation capability index of provinces and cities in China.Figure 11
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the GDP of provinces and cities in China.Figure 12
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the number of national invention patents in provinces and cities in China.From the above-given four comparison charts, the order of the correlation between the four indicators and the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China is the number of national invention patents, the number of permanent residents, GDP, and the innovation ability index. The number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China also shows a relatively consistent change trend with the number of national invention patents in various provinces and cities in China. The reason should be that standards and patents belong to the solidification form of knowledge achievements, and the positioning of social organization standards in the policies related to Chinese social organization standards is to encourage innovation and meet market demand, which has the same requirements as the authorization mechanism of national invention patents. They are all inventions and creations that meet the specific needs of the market. Therefore, it is inevitable that the number of social organization standards developed by social organizations is consistent with the number of invention patents. It can be seen that all provinces and cities have shown the same action in developing innovative thinking and solving practical problems.


#### 4.2.4. Social Organization Standard Industry Distribution

The published social organization standards are classified and counted according to the classification of national economic industries. The top five are 14928 standards in manufacturing, accounting for 39.55%, 6101 standards in agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery, accounting for 16.16%, 2282 standards in information transmission, software, and information technology services, accounting for 6.05%, 2190 standards in construction, accounting for 5.80%, and 1941 standards in scientific research and technical services, accounting for 5.14%. Other specific distributions are shown in Figure13.Figure 13
Distribution map of social organization standard industry in China.According to the international standard classification statistics, the top three are 4265 standards in agriculture, accounting for 11.30%, 4242 standards in food technology, accounting for 11.24%, and 4072 standards in sociology, service, organization, management, administration, and transportation of companies (enterprises), accounting for 10.79%.


#### 4.2.5. Social Organization Standard Industry Distribution

According to the statistics of industrial and social scope, there are 6101 standards in agriculture, accounting for 16.16%, 18488 standards in the industry, accounting for 48.98%, 8205 standards in the service industry, accounting for 21.74%, and 4931 standards in social undertakings, accounting for 13.06%, as shown in Figure14.Figure 14
Social organization standard industry distribution.


## 4.1. Brief Analysis of Social Organizations’ Registration Data on the Platform

The 6202 social organizations are distributed according to the location of the issuing authority of their association legal person registration certificate: 901 from the Ministry of civil affairs and 5301 from local organizations. The number of social organizations of the Ministry of Civil Affairs accounted for 14.53%. Among them, the number of registered social organizations in the top three provinces is 885 in Guangdong Province, 438 in Zhejiang Province, and 425 in Shandong Province. The number of registered social organizations in other provinces (excluding Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan) is shown in Figure2.Figure 2
The number of registered social organizations in all provinces of China.The number of registered local social organizations in China is compared with the population, innovation capacity index, GDP (gross domestic product), and national invention patents of provinces and cities in China, as shown in Figures3–7. Compare the population, innovation capacity index, GDP (gross domestic product), and national invention patents of various provinces and cities in China, as shown in Figure 8. Among them, the population data comes from the latest “statistical bulletin of the people’s Republic of China on national economic and social development in 2021” issued by the National Bureau of statistics in 2022, and the data up to the end of 2021. Among them, the innovation capability index data comes from the latest annual report “China regional innovation capability evaluation report 2021” [27] prepared by the China Science and technology development strategy research social organization and the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences with the support of the Ministry of science and technology. This kind of report has been published for 21 consecutive years. Through the establishment of a four-level scientific index evaluation system, it comprehensively evaluates and compares the innovation capability of domestic provinces and cities and is the authoritative regional development evaluation report in China. Among them, GDP comes from the statistical data of the National Bureau of statistics. Among them, the data of national invention patents comes from the statistical analysis report of China’s national invention patents in 2021 [28] drafted by Chen Lixin of the science and education management and evaluation research center of Wuhan University, and the revised data includes the total amount of national invention patents obtained by domestic provinces and cities in the five-year period from 2017 to 2021 (according to the statistics of the first inventor).Figure 3
Comparison between the number of registered local social organizations in China and the number of permanent residents in various provinces and cities in China.Figure 4
Comparison between the number of registered local social organizations in China and the innovation capacity index of provinces and cities in China.Figure 5
Comparison between the number of registered local social organizations in China and the GDP of provinces and cities in China.Figure 6
Comparison between the number of registered local social organizations in China and the number of national invention patents in provinces and cities in China.Figure 7
Comparison of population, innovation capacity index, GDP, and national invention patents in various provinces and cities in China.Figure 8
Distribution map of provinces publishing social organization standards.From Figure7, the number of national invention patents, GDP, the number of permanent residents, and the innovation ability index in each province show different trends. From the comparison of Figures 3–6, the order of the correlation between the four indicators and the number of registered local social organizations in China from large to small is the number of national invention patents, GDP, the number of permanent residents, and the innovation ability index. Among them, the number of registered local social organizations in China shows a relatively consistent trend with the number of national invention patents in all provinces and cities in China. The reason should be that standards and patents belong to the solidification form of knowledge achievements. Social organizations can effectively and regularly carry out social organization standardization activities and solidify knowledge and experience achievements through registration on the platform. Therefore, the data of all provinces and cities in these two aspects show consistency.


## 4.2. Brief Analysis of Published Data of Social Organization Standards

### 4.2.1. Level of Standard-Issuing Body

Social organizations have published a total of 37747 social organization standards on the platform, which are distributed according to the location of the issuing authority of their corporate registration certificate: 13295 by the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and 24452 by local social organizations. National social organizations accounted for 35.22%, and the number of standards published by local social organizations accounted for 64.78%.


### 4.2.2. Publicity of Social Organization Standards

Social organizations published a total of 37747 social organization standards on the platform, among them, 15826 social organization standards make the contents of the full text of the standards publicly visible on the platform, accounting for 41.93%.


### 4.2.3. Release of Social Organization Standards in Provinces

Social organizations published 24452 standards by local social organizations on the platform, and the distribution of published provinces of social organization standards is shown in Figure8. Compare the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China with the population, innovation capacity index, GDP, and national invention patents of provinces and cities in China, as shown in Figures 9–12.Figure 9
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the number of permanent residents in provinces and cities in China.Figure 10
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the innovation capability index of provinces and cities in China.Figure 11
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the GDP of provinces and cities in China.Figure 12
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the number of national invention patents in provinces and cities in China.From the above-given four comparison charts, the order of the correlation between the four indicators and the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China is the number of national invention patents, the number of permanent residents, GDP, and the innovation ability index. The number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China also shows a relatively consistent change trend with the number of national invention patents in various provinces and cities in China. The reason should be that standards and patents belong to the solidification form of knowledge achievements, and the positioning of social organization standards in the policies related to Chinese social organization standards is to encourage innovation and meet market demand, which has the same requirements as the authorization mechanism of national invention patents. They are all inventions and creations that meet the specific needs of the market. Therefore, it is inevitable that the number of social organization standards developed by social organizations is consistent with the number of invention patents. It can be seen that all provinces and cities have shown the same action in developing innovative thinking and solving practical problems.


### 4.2.4. Social Organization Standard Industry Distribution

The published social organization standards are classified and counted according to the classification of national economic industries. The top five are 14928 standards in manufacturing, accounting for 39.55%, 6101 standards in agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery, accounting for 16.16%, 2282 standards in information transmission, software, and information technology services, accounting for 6.05%, 2190 standards in construction, accounting for 5.80%, and 1941 standards in scientific research and technical services, accounting for 5.14%. Other specific distributions are shown in Figure13.Figure 13
Distribution map of social organization standard industry in China.According to the international standard classification statistics, the top three are 4265 standards in agriculture, accounting for 11.30%, 4242 standards in food technology, accounting for 11.24%, and 4072 standards in sociology, service, organization, management, administration, and transportation of companies (enterprises), accounting for 10.79%.


### 4.2.5. Social Organization Standard Industry Distribution

According to the statistics of industrial and social scope, there are 6101 standards in agriculture, accounting for 16.16%, 18488 standards in the industry, accounting for 48.98%, 8205 standards in the service industry, accounting for 21.74%, and 4931 standards in social undertakings, accounting for 13.06%, as shown in Figure14.Figure 14
Social organization standard industry distribution.


## 4.2.1. Level of Standard-Issuing Body

Social organizations have published a total of 37747 social organization standards on the platform, which are distributed according to the location of the issuing authority of their corporate registration certificate: 13295 by the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and 24452 by local social organizations. National social organizations accounted for 35.22%, and the number of standards published by local social organizations accounted for 64.78%.


## 4.2.2. Publicity of Social Organization Standards

Social organizations published a total of 37747 social organization standards on the platform, among them, 15826 social organization standards make the contents of the full text of the standards publicly visible on the platform, accounting for 41.93%.


## 4.2.3. Release of Social Organization Standards in Provinces

Social organizations published 24452 standards by local social organizations on the platform, and the distribution of published provinces of social organization standards is shown in Figure8. Compare the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China with the population, innovation capacity index, GDP, and national invention patents of provinces and cities in China, as shown in Figures 9–12.Figure 9
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the number of permanent residents in provinces and cities in China.Figure 10
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the innovation capability index of provinces and cities in China.Figure 11
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the GDP of provinces and cities in China.Figure 12
Comparison between the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China and the number of national invention patents in provinces and cities in China.From the above-given four comparison charts, the order of the correlation between the four indicators and the number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China is the number of national invention patents, the number of permanent residents, GDP, and the innovation ability index. The number of social organization standards published by local social organizations in China also shows a relatively consistent change trend with the number of national invention patents in various provinces and cities in China. The reason should be that standards and patents belong to the solidification form of knowledge achievements, and the positioning of social organization standards in the policies related to Chinese social organization standards is to encourage innovation and meet market demand, which has the same requirements as the authorization mechanism of national invention patents. They are all inventions and creations that meet the specific needs of the market. Therefore, it is inevitable that the number of social organization standards developed by social organizations is consistent with the number of invention patents. It can be seen that all provinces and cities have shown the same action in developing innovative thinking and solving practical problems.


## 4.2.4. Social Organization Standard Industry Distribution

The published social organization standards are classified and counted according to the classification of national economic industries. The top five are 14928 standards in manufacturing, accounting for 39.55%, 6101 standards in agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery, accounting for 16.16%, 2282 standards in information transmission, software, and information technology services, accounting for 6.05%, 2190 standards in construction, accounting for 5.80%, and 1941 standards in scientific research and technical services, accounting for 5.14%. Other specific distributions are shown in Figure13.Figure 13
Distribution map of social organization standard industry in China.According to the international standard classification statistics, the top three are 4265 standards in agriculture, accounting for 11.30%, 4242 standards in food technology, accounting for 11.24%, and 4072 standards in sociology, service, organization, management, administration, and transportation of companies (enterprises), accounting for 10.79%.


## 4.2.5. Social Organization Standard Industry Distribution

According to the statistics of industrial and social scope, there are 6101 standards in agriculture, accounting for 16.16%, 18488 standards in the industry, accounting for 48.98%, 8205 standards in the service industry, accounting for 21.74%, and 4931 standards in social undertakings, accounting for 13.06%, as shown in Figure14.Figure 14
Social organization standard industry distribution.


## 5. Discussion

### 5.1. Problems in the Development of Social Organization Standards in China

In terms of the number of social organizations registered on the platform, there are 66242 social organizations nationwide, including 50420 associations, 13455 chambers of commerce, 576 societies, 1628 federations, and 163 alliances, according to the data released through the national social organization credit information publicity platform. By the end of April 2022, only 6202 social organizations had registered on the platform, accounting for only 9.36%, less than 10%, and the proportion was still very low. In terms of the number of social organization standards released by social organizations on the platform, by the end of April 2022, 37747 social organization standards have been released, while the number of currently effective national standards is 41518 standards (as of June 24, 2022, the national standard full-text public system shows data) [29], the proportion has exceeded 9 : 10, and social organization standards have shown a rapid growth trend. On the one hand, the rapid growth of social organization standards benefits from the support of relevant national regulations and policies; on the other hand, it conforms to the local economic development. However, in the development process of social organization standards, we found that there are still some problems.


#### 5.1.1. Normative Issues

Generally speaking, the standardization activities of social organizations registered on the platform are more standardized than those not registered on the platform, because social organizations need to submit relevant qualification information and standardized standard-developing procedure materials when registering on the platform. We will guide and standardize the development of standardization work of relevant social organizations to make them comply with relevant national policies and requirements. On the one hand, the problem of standardization is reflected in the procedure of social organization standard development. When carrying out the standardization work of many social organizations, they do not strictly implement the standard-developing procedure materials submitted by the social organizations to the platform system and approved. On the other hand, in terms of the content of the standard text, due to the lack of study and Research on the spirit of relevant policy documents and the lack of standardization professional knowledge, many social organizations have problems in the selection of social organization standardization objects, the determination of standard types, the determination of core technical elements of standards, etc., which are inconsistent with the positioning of social organization standards, the improper selection of standard types, and the inaccurate determination of core technical elements.


#### 5.1.2. Lack of Broad Participation

The standards of American and German associations are similar to the current dominance of social organization standards in China and are also approved and promulgated by associations. However, American and German associations have broader participation. The members of the technical committee of the American Association generally include representatives of producers, users, trading companies, professional and technical associations, scientific research institutions, technology, government departments, workers, and consumers. Any organization and individual at home and abroad who are interested in standardization can participate [30]. However, the developing process of Chinese social organization standards lacks extensive participation. China’s social organization member units generally include producers, trading companies, scientific research institutions, and professional and technical associations. The number of members of the social organization is small, and the scope of soliciting opinions in the process of social organization standard development is relatively narrow. Generally, all provinces and cities across China discuss and develop within the effective geographical scope, and many do not solicit opinions widely on the platform. Even for social organizations soliciting opinions on the platform, many of them also have the phenomenon of formal solicitation, There are many cases that we do not pay much attention to feedback, which leads to the lack of extensive participation in the process of developing social organization standards in China. This is also a gap from considering the demands of stakeholders as much as possible in the process of developing German standards.


#### 5.1.3. Weak Willingness to Promote Application

In terms of the promotion and application of social organization standards, compared with the completely open use of DIN standards, many social organizations still have more concerns. On the one hand, from the publicity of many social organization standards, the proportion of full-text disclosure on the platform is only 41.93%, which is still low. Some existing standards do not have the conditions for full-text disclosure, while others only want to be used within the social organization and member units, and do not want to be widely adopted by the society. On the other hand, from the standard-developing procedure documents published by many social organizations, many social organizations need to obtain the written consent of the social organization when they agree to use their social organization standards in the standard-developing procedure documents or specially formulated intellectual property management policies because they pay too much attention to their intellectual property rights. Although this has promoted the protection of intellectual property rights of its social organization standards, from another perspective, it is bound to raise the threshold for all sectors of society to use its social organization standards, which is not conducive to the application and promotion of social organization standards, the promotion of technological achievements and the improvement of the overall industrial level of China.


### 5.2. A Brief Analysis of Domestic Management Policies

#### 5.2.1. Brief Analysis of Relevant Regulations

The new standardization law of the people’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “standardization law”) [31] implemented in 2018 stipulates that “the State encourages social organizations such as societies, associations, chambers of Commerce, federations and industrial technology alliances to coordinate relevant market entities to jointly develop social organization standards that meet the needs of the market and innovation,” which not only establishes the legal status of social organization standards but also points out the direction for the development of social organization standards. In terms of relevant institutional provisions, Article 27 of the standardization law states: “The State implements a system of self declaration, publicity, and supervision of social organization standards and enterprise standards”; in terms of the way to achieve the provisions, the standardization law points out that “the State encourages social organization standards and enterprise standards to be made public to the public through the standard information public service platform.” In order to realize the information disclosure of social organization standards, the National Standardization Administration Committee organized the China National Institute of standardization to develop and establish a platform and encouraged social organization standards to be made public to the public through the platform.Establishing a unified platform is an important means to realize the effective management of social organization standardized data resources and promote communication and technical cooperation. By disclosing the information of social organization standards on the platform, the public can easily consult and feed back their opinions with the help of information means, so as to strengthen the information disclosure and social supervision of social organization standards.


#### 5.2.2. Brief Analysis of Relevant Policies

In March 2015, the State Council issued a reform plan for deepening standardization work [32], which proposed to cultivate and develop social organization standards and ushered in a new era of standardization construction in China in the form of national policy documents, because a single government supply model can no longer meet market demand. By adding social organization standards, we can increase the supply channels of standards and give full play to the wisdom of the whole people.In January 2019, the National Standardization Administration Committee and the Ministry of civil affairs jointly issued the “Regulations on the management of social organization standards” (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”) [33], which refined the relevant requirements in the process of social organization standardization. The promulgation of the regulations further improved the relevant requirements for the scientificity and standardization of social organization standards, refined the requirements for important links in the developing procedure of social organization standards, and put forward clear requirements for the developing process of social organization standards, social organization responsibilities, and social supervision [34]; in terms of the requirements of the standard-developing body, the regulations pointed out that social organizations should formulate relevant management measures, intellectual property management systems, standard-developing procedures, and other requirements; in terms of the fields involved, social organizations should, in accordance with the business scope stipulated in the articles of association, develop standards to meet the market and innovation needs, focus on new technologies, new industries, new formats, and new models and fill the standard gaps.In October 2021, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued the national standardization development outline [35]. In terms of the ratio of government standards to market standards, it was pointed out that “we should optimize the dual structure of government-issued standards and market independently developed standards and significantly increase the proportion of market independently developed standards.” In terms of social organization efforts and enterprise assistance, it is proposed to “vigorously develop social organization standards, implement the social organization standard training plan, promote the application demonstration of social organization standards, give full play to the role of enterprises with technological advantages, and guide social organizations to develop original and high-quality standards.” In terms of self-evaluation and social supervision, it is pointed out that it is necessary to “improve the evaluation mechanism of good behavior of social organization standardization, strengthen industry self-discipline and social supervision, and give play to the role of the market in the survival of the fittest of social organization standards.”In February 2022, in order to further standardize the social organization standardization work and promote the high-quality development of social organization standards, the National Standards Commission, together with other 16 ministries and commissions, jointly issued the opinions on promoting the high-quality development of social organization standards [36]. In view of the problems of inaccurate positioning, low level and nonstandard management of social organization standards after years of training and development, The document puts forward relevant requirements to improve the standardization workability of social organization and establish a demand-oriented social organization standard-developing mode. At the same time, it also puts forward some incentive measures to improve and promote the high-quality development of social organization standards.


### 5.3. Suggestions on Promoting the Development of Social Organization Standards

#### 5.3.1. Improving the Policy of Encouraging Publicity of Social Organization Standards

The current “standardization law” and “regulations” only mention that the State encourages social organization standards to be made public through the platform” and do not clarify the specific details of social organization standards to be made public to the public. In addition, the opinions on promoting the high-quality development of social organization standards put forward some incentive measures to improve and promote the high-quality development of social organization standards, such as giving preference to social organization standards in the recognition and reward of some scientific and technological achievements, but there is no specific definition of the publicity of social organization standards. Therefore, while encouraging the social organization standards to disclose the basic information of the social organization standards on the platform, we should encourage the disclosure of the full text of the social organization standards, which is conducive to the opening of the social organization standards, the wider access and adoption of the standard text by all sectors of society, and the supervision and feedback of the society on the social organization standards, so as to attract more participants in the revision process of the social organization standards and promote the improvement of the technical content of the social organization standards, and expand its scope of application. However, while encouraging publicity, we should also pay attention to the protection of intellectual property rights and increase the punishment for intellectual property infringement, so as to enhance the willingness of social organizations to disclose the full text of social organization standards and improve the quality and efficiency of related industries.


#### 5.3.2. Strengthening Technical Innovation Related to Social Organization Standards

Through the above-given data analysis, it is found that the development of social organization standardization is most relevant to technological innovation, and technological innovation is the source of high-quality social organization standards. Therefore, we should strengthen the technological innovation related to social organization standards. First of all, we should create a good innovation environment, refer to Germany and the United States in some management systems, incentive policies, and other aspects, provide good working environment conditions and atmosphere for relevant staff, and provide more opportunities and possibilities for innovation. Secondly, in the specific implementation of innovation, it mainly includes two aspects. On the one hand, it is the technological innovation of standardized objects, such as strengthening innovation in methods, modes, and technologies and promoting the solidification and promotion of innovative technological methods, modes, and advanced technologies, so as to improve the quality and efficiency of the whole industry. For example, the flex standard [37] proposed by the British Association for standardization proposes a new and flexible method to develop good practices based on consensus and dynamically adapt to the rapidly changing market, which provides a good reference for us to further shorten the developing cycle of social organization standards. The other is the innovation of standard form and application. Among them, in terms of standard forms, for example, international and foreign developed countries and regions have proposed the digitalization of standards for future development and innovative standard delivery forms. In terms of a standard application, we should innovate the application mode of standards, such as developing some practical software tools for standard development, promotion, and application and innovating the embedding mode of standards and related software, so as to improve the convenience of social organization standard application.


#### 5.3.3. Strengthening the Learning of Professional Skills Related to Social Organization Standards

Social organizations should strengthen the study of professional skills related to social organization standards. On the one hand, they should strengthen the study and research of foreign advanced experience, including its management concept, operation mechanism, promotion, and application measures; on the other hand, they should strengthen the research and study of relevant domestic policies and standardization theories, including relevant domestic regulations and policies, relevant national standards, and relevant standardization basic knowledge. In addition, due to the frequent personnel changes in many social organizations, the frequency of relevant training should be increased. In addition, we should also strengthen the in-depth research of relevant majors, explore ways to meet market demand and innovation needs, and strengthen the research and learning in the field of technology innovation suitable for standardization.


#### 5.3.4. Encouraging the Application of Social Organization Standards in Products

Roderburg and MacGregor [38, 39] mentioned that the regulation of standards includes not only government departments but also nongovernmental organizations, such as social public institutions, industry self-discipline organizations, and individuals. The ultimate purpose of developing a large number of social organization standards is to promote the application of related industries. Therefore, we should encourage the application of social organization standards in daily consumer goods, so that consumers across China can have an intuitive understanding of social organization standards, which is more conducive to the supervision and feedback of the application effect of social organization standards. This requires relevant departments to develop relevant incentive policies to promote social organizations to develop more social organization standards related to daily consumer goods and product standards. So as to realize the transformation from allowing consumers to participate in the application supervision of social organization standards to gradually participate in the developing process of social organization standards.


## 5.1. Problems in the Development of Social Organization Standards in China

In terms of the number of social organizations registered on the platform, there are 66242 social organizations nationwide, including 50420 associations, 13455 chambers of commerce, 576 societies, 1628 federations, and 163 alliances, according to the data released through the national social organization credit information publicity platform. By the end of April 2022, only 6202 social organizations had registered on the platform, accounting for only 9.36%, less than 10%, and the proportion was still very low. In terms of the number of social organization standards released by social organizations on the platform, by the end of April 2022, 37747 social organization standards have been released, while the number of currently effective national standards is 41518 standards (as of June 24, 2022, the national standard full-text public system shows data) [29], the proportion has exceeded 9 : 10, and social organization standards have shown a rapid growth trend. On the one hand, the rapid growth of social organization standards benefits from the support of relevant national regulations and policies; on the other hand, it conforms to the local economic development. However, in the development process of social organization standards, we found that there are still some problems.


### 5.1.1. Normative Issues

Generally speaking, the standardization activities of social organizations registered on the platform are more standardized than those not registered on the platform, because social organizations need to submit relevant qualification information and standardized standard-developing procedure materials when registering on the platform. We will guide and standardize the development of standardization work of relevant social organizations to make them comply with relevant national policies and requirements. On the one hand, the problem of standardization is reflected in the procedure of social organization standard development. When carrying out the standardization work of many social organizations, they do not strictly implement the standard-developing procedure materials submitted by the social organizations to the platform system and approved. On the other hand, in terms of the content of the standard text, due to the lack of study and Research on the spirit of relevant policy documents and the lack of standardization professional knowledge, many social organizations have problems in the selection of social organization standardization objects, the determination of standard types, the determination of core technical elements of standards, etc., which are inconsistent with the positioning of social organization standards, the improper selection of standard types, and the inaccurate determination of core technical elements.


### 5.1.2. Lack of Broad Participation

The standards of American and German associations are similar to the current dominance of social organization standards in China and are also approved and promulgated by associations. However, American and German associations have broader participation. The members of the technical committee of the American Association generally include representatives of producers, users, trading companies, professional and technical associations, scientific research institutions, technology, government departments, workers, and consumers. Any organization and individual at home and abroad who are interested in standardization can participate [30]. However, the developing process of Chinese social organization standards lacks extensive participation. China’s social organization member units generally include producers, trading companies, scientific research institutions, and professional and technical associations. The number of members of the social organization is small, and the scope of soliciting opinions in the process of social organization standard development is relatively narrow. Generally, all provinces and cities across China discuss and develop within the effective geographical scope, and many do not solicit opinions widely on the platform. Even for social organizations soliciting opinions on the platform, many of them also have the phenomenon of formal solicitation, There are many cases that we do not pay much attention to feedback, which leads to the lack of extensive participation in the process of developing social organization standards in China. This is also a gap from considering the demands of stakeholders as much as possible in the process of developing German standards.


### 5.1.3. Weak Willingness to Promote Application

In terms of the promotion and application of social organization standards, compared with the completely open use of DIN standards, many social organizations still have more concerns. On the one hand, from the publicity of many social organization standards, the proportion of full-text disclosure on the platform is only 41.93%, which is still low. Some existing standards do not have the conditions for full-text disclosure, while others only want to be used within the social organization and member units, and do not want to be widely adopted by the society. On the other hand, from the standard-developing procedure documents published by many social organizations, many social organizations need to obtain the written consent of the social organization when they agree to use their social organization standards in the standard-developing procedure documents or specially formulated intellectual property management policies because they pay too much attention to their intellectual property rights. Although this has promoted the protection of intellectual property rights of its social organization standards, from another perspective, it is bound to raise the threshold for all sectors of society to use its social organization standards, which is not conducive to the application and promotion of social organization standards, the promotion of technological achievements and the improvement of the overall industrial level of China.


## 5.1.1. Normative Issues

Generally speaking, the standardization activities of social organizations registered on the platform are more standardized than those not registered on the platform, because social organizations need to submit relevant qualification information and standardized standard-developing procedure materials when registering on the platform. We will guide and standardize the development of standardization work of relevant social organizations to make them comply with relevant national policies and requirements. On the one hand, the problem of standardization is reflected in the procedure of social organization standard development. When carrying out the standardization work of many social organizations, they do not strictly implement the standard-developing procedure materials submitted by the social organizations to the platform system and approved. On the other hand, in terms of the content of the standard text, due to the lack of study and Research on the spirit of relevant policy documents and the lack of standardization professional knowledge, many social organizations have problems in the selection of social organization standardization objects, the determination of standard types, the determination of core technical elements of standards, etc., which are inconsistent with the positioning of social organization standards, the improper selection of standard types, and the inaccurate determination of core technical elements.


## 5.1.2. Lack of Broad Participation

The standards of American and German associations are similar to the current dominance of social organization standards in China and are also approved and promulgated by associations. However, American and German associations have broader participation. The members of the technical committee of the American Association generally include representatives of producers, users, trading companies, professional and technical associations, scientific research institutions, technology, government departments, workers, and consumers. Any organization and individual at home and abroad who are interested in standardization can participate [30]. However, the developing process of Chinese social organization standards lacks extensive participation. China’s social organization member units generally include producers, trading companies, scientific research institutions, and professional and technical associations. The number of members of the social organization is small, and the scope of soliciting opinions in the process of social organization standard development is relatively narrow. Generally, all provinces and cities across China discuss and develop within the effective geographical scope, and many do not solicit opinions widely on the platform. Even for social organizations soliciting opinions on the platform, many of them also have the phenomenon of formal solicitation, There are many cases that we do not pay much attention to feedback, which leads to the lack of extensive participation in the process of developing social organization standards in China. This is also a gap from considering the demands of stakeholders as much as possible in the process of developing German standards.


## 5.1.3. Weak Willingness to Promote Application

In terms of the promotion and application of social organization standards, compared with the completely open use of DIN standards, many social organizations still have more concerns. On the one hand, from the publicity of many social organization standards, the proportion of full-text disclosure on the platform is only 41.93%, which is still low. Some existing standards do not have the conditions for full-text disclosure, while others only want to be used within the social organization and member units, and do not want to be widely adopted by the society. On the other hand, from the standard-developing procedure documents published by many social organizations, many social organizations need to obtain the written consent of the social organization when they agree to use their social organization standards in the standard-developing procedure documents or specially formulated intellectual property management policies because they pay too much attention to their intellectual property rights. Although this has promoted the protection of intellectual property rights of its social organization standards, from another perspective, it is bound to raise the threshold for all sectors of society to use its social organization standards, which is not conducive to the application and promotion of social organization standards, the promotion of technological achievements and the improvement of the overall industrial level of China.


## 5.2. A Brief Analysis of Domestic Management Policies

### 5.2.1. Brief Analysis of Relevant Regulations

The new standardization law of the people’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “standardization law”) [31] implemented in 2018 stipulates that “the State encourages social organizations such as societies, associations, chambers of Commerce, federations and industrial technology alliances to coordinate relevant market entities to jointly develop social organization standards that meet the needs of the market and innovation,” which not only establishes the legal status of social organization standards but also points out the direction for the development of social organization standards. In terms of relevant institutional provisions, Article 27 of the standardization law states: “The State implements a system of self declaration, publicity, and supervision of social organization standards and enterprise standards”; in terms of the way to achieve the provisions, the standardization law points out that “the State encourages social organization standards and enterprise standards to be made public to the public through the standard information public service platform.” In order to realize the information disclosure of social organization standards, the National Standardization Administration Committee organized the China National Institute of standardization to develop and establish a platform and encouraged social organization standards to be made public to the public through the platform.Establishing a unified platform is an important means to realize the effective management of social organization standardized data resources and promote communication and technical cooperation. By disclosing the information of social organization standards on the platform, the public can easily consult and feed back their opinions with the help of information means, so as to strengthen the information disclosure and social supervision of social organization standards.


### 5.2.2. Brief Analysis of Relevant Policies

In March 2015, the State Council issued a reform plan for deepening standardization work [32], which proposed to cultivate and develop social organization standards and ushered in a new era of standardization construction in China in the form of national policy documents, because a single government supply model can no longer meet market demand. By adding social organization standards, we can increase the supply channels of standards and give full play to the wisdom of the whole people.In January 2019, the National Standardization Administration Committee and the Ministry of civil affairs jointly issued the “Regulations on the management of social organization standards” (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”) [33], which refined the relevant requirements in the process of social organization standardization. The promulgation of the regulations further improved the relevant requirements for the scientificity and standardization of social organization standards, refined the requirements for important links in the developing procedure of social organization standards, and put forward clear requirements for the developing process of social organization standards, social organization responsibilities, and social supervision [34]; in terms of the requirements of the standard-developing body, the regulations pointed out that social organizations should formulate relevant management measures, intellectual property management systems, standard-developing procedures, and other requirements; in terms of the fields involved, social organizations should, in accordance with the business scope stipulated in the articles of association, develop standards to meet the market and innovation needs, focus on new technologies, new industries, new formats, and new models and fill the standard gaps.In October 2021, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued the national standardization development outline [35]. In terms of the ratio of government standards to market standards, it was pointed out that “we should optimize the dual structure of government-issued standards and market independently developed standards and significantly increase the proportion of market independently developed standards.” In terms of social organization efforts and enterprise assistance, it is proposed to “vigorously develop social organization standards, implement the social organization standard training plan, promote the application demonstration of social organization standards, give full play to the role of enterprises with technological advantages, and guide social organizations to develop original and high-quality standards.” In terms of self-evaluation and social supervision, it is pointed out that it is necessary to “improve the evaluation mechanism of good behavior of social organization standardization, strengthen industry self-discipline and social supervision, and give play to the role of the market in the survival of the fittest of social organization standards.”In February 2022, in order to further standardize the social organization standardization work and promote the high-quality development of social organization standards, the National Standards Commission, together with other 16 ministries and commissions, jointly issued the opinions on promoting the high-quality development of social organization standards [36]. In view of the problems of inaccurate positioning, low level and nonstandard management of social organization standards after years of training and development, The document puts forward relevant requirements to improve the standardization workability of social organization and establish a demand-oriented social organization standard-developing mode. At the same time, it also puts forward some incentive measures to improve and promote the high-quality development of social organization standards.


## 5.2.1. Brief Analysis of Relevant Regulations

The new standardization law of the people’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “standardization law”) [31] implemented in 2018 stipulates that “the State encourages social organizations such as societies, associations, chambers of Commerce, federations and industrial technology alliances to coordinate relevant market entities to jointly develop social organization standards that meet the needs of the market and innovation,” which not only establishes the legal status of social organization standards but also points out the direction for the development of social organization standards. In terms of relevant institutional provisions, Article 27 of the standardization law states: “The State implements a system of self declaration, publicity, and supervision of social organization standards and enterprise standards”; in terms of the way to achieve the provisions, the standardization law points out that “the State encourages social organization standards and enterprise standards to be made public to the public through the standard information public service platform.” In order to realize the information disclosure of social organization standards, the National Standardization Administration Committee organized the China National Institute of standardization to develop and establish a platform and encouraged social organization standards to be made public to the public through the platform.Establishing a unified platform is an important means to realize the effective management of social organization standardized data resources and promote communication and technical cooperation. By disclosing the information of social organization standards on the platform, the public can easily consult and feed back their opinions with the help of information means, so as to strengthen the information disclosure and social supervision of social organization standards.


## 5.2.2. Brief Analysis of Relevant Policies

In March 2015, the State Council issued a reform plan for deepening standardization work [32], which proposed to cultivate and develop social organization standards and ushered in a new era of standardization construction in China in the form of national policy documents, because a single government supply model can no longer meet market demand. By adding social organization standards, we can increase the supply channels of standards and give full play to the wisdom of the whole people.In January 2019, the National Standardization Administration Committee and the Ministry of civil affairs jointly issued the “Regulations on the management of social organization standards” (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”) [33], which refined the relevant requirements in the process of social organization standardization. The promulgation of the regulations further improved the relevant requirements for the scientificity and standardization of social organization standards, refined the requirements for important links in the developing procedure of social organization standards, and put forward clear requirements for the developing process of social organization standards, social organization responsibilities, and social supervision [34]; in terms of the requirements of the standard-developing body, the regulations pointed out that social organizations should formulate relevant management measures, intellectual property management systems, standard-developing procedures, and other requirements; in terms of the fields involved, social organizations should, in accordance with the business scope stipulated in the articles of association, develop standards to meet the market and innovation needs, focus on new technologies, new industries, new formats, and new models and fill the standard gaps.In October 2021, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued the national standardization development outline [35]. In terms of the ratio of government standards to market standards, it was pointed out that “we should optimize the dual structure of government-issued standards and market independently developed standards and significantly increase the proportion of market independently developed standards.” In terms of social organization efforts and enterprise assistance, it is proposed to “vigorously develop social organization standards, implement the social organization standard training plan, promote the application demonstration of social organization standards, give full play to the role of enterprises with technological advantages, and guide social organizations to develop original and high-quality standards.” In terms of self-evaluation and social supervision, it is pointed out that it is necessary to “improve the evaluation mechanism of good behavior of social organization standardization, strengthen industry self-discipline and social supervision, and give play to the role of the market in the survival of the fittest of social organization standards.”In February 2022, in order to further standardize the social organization standardization work and promote the high-quality development of social organization standards, the National Standards Commission, together with other 16 ministries and commissions, jointly issued the opinions on promoting the high-quality development of social organization standards [36]. In view of the problems of inaccurate positioning, low level and nonstandard management of social organization standards after years of training and development, The document puts forward relevant requirements to improve the standardization workability of social organization and establish a demand-oriented social organization standard-developing mode. At the same time, it also puts forward some incentive measures to improve and promote the high-quality development of social organization standards.


## 5.3. Suggestions on Promoting the Development of Social Organization Standards

### 5.3.1. Improving the Policy of Encouraging Publicity of Social Organization Standards

The current “standardization law” and “regulations” only mention that the State encourages social organization standards to be made public through the platform” and do not clarify the specific details of social organization standards to be made public to the public. In addition, the opinions on promoting the high-quality development of social organization standards put forward some incentive measures to improve and promote the high-quality development of social organization standards, such as giving preference to social organization standards in the recognition and reward of some scientific and technological achievements, but there is no specific definition of the publicity of social organization standards. Therefore, while encouraging the social organization standards to disclose the basic information of the social organization standards on the platform, we should encourage the disclosure of the full text of the social organization standards, which is conducive to the opening of the social organization standards, the wider access and adoption of the standard text by all sectors of society, and the supervision and feedback of the society on the social organization standards, so as to attract more participants in the revision process of the social organization standards and promote the improvement of the technical content of the social organization standards, and expand its scope of application. However, while encouraging publicity, we should also pay attention to the protection of intellectual property rights and increase the punishment for intellectual property infringement, so as to enhance the willingness of social organizations to disclose the full text of social organization standards and improve the quality and efficiency of related industries.


### 5.3.2. Strengthening Technical Innovation Related to Social Organization Standards

Through the above-given data analysis, it is found that the development of social organization standardization is most relevant to technological innovation, and technological innovation is the source of high-quality social organization standards. Therefore, we should strengthen the technological innovation related to social organization standards. First of all, we should create a good innovation environment, refer to Germany and the United States in some management systems, incentive policies, and other aspects, provide good working environment conditions and atmosphere for relevant staff, and provide more opportunities and possibilities for innovation. Secondly, in the specific implementation of innovation, it mainly includes two aspects. On the one hand, it is the technological innovation of standardized objects, such as strengthening innovation in methods, modes, and technologies and promoting the solidification and promotion of innovative technological methods, modes, and advanced technologies, so as to improve the quality and efficiency of the whole industry. For example, the flex standard [37] proposed by the British Association for standardization proposes a new and flexible method to develop good practices based on consensus and dynamically adapt to the rapidly changing market, which provides a good reference for us to further shorten the developing cycle of social organization standards. The other is the innovation of standard form and application. Among them, in terms of standard forms, for example, international and foreign developed countries and regions have proposed the digitalization of standards for future development and innovative standard delivery forms. In terms of a standard application, we should innovate the application mode of standards, such as developing some practical software tools for standard development, promotion, and application and innovating the embedding mode of standards and related software, so as to improve the convenience of social organization standard application.


### 5.3.3. Strengthening the Learning of Professional Skills Related to Social Organization Standards

Social organizations should strengthen the study of professional skills related to social organization standards. On the one hand, they should strengthen the study and research of foreign advanced experience, including its management concept, operation mechanism, promotion, and application measures; on the other hand, they should strengthen the research and study of relevant domestic policies and standardization theories, including relevant domestic regulations and policies, relevant national standards, and relevant standardization basic knowledge. In addition, due to the frequent personnel changes in many social organizations, the frequency of relevant training should be increased. In addition, we should also strengthen the in-depth research of relevant majors, explore ways to meet market demand and innovation needs, and strengthen the research and learning in the field of technology innovation suitable for standardization.


### 5.3.4. Encouraging the Application of Social Organization Standards in Products

Roderburg and MacGregor [38, 39] mentioned that the regulation of standards includes not only government departments but also nongovernmental organizations, such as social public institutions, industry self-discipline organizations, and individuals. The ultimate purpose of developing a large number of social organization standards is to promote the application of related industries. Therefore, we should encourage the application of social organization standards in daily consumer goods, so that consumers across China can have an intuitive understanding of social organization standards, which is more conducive to the supervision and feedback of the application effect of social organization standards. This requires relevant departments to develop relevant incentive policies to promote social organizations to develop more social organization standards related to daily consumer goods and product standards. So as to realize the transformation from allowing consumers to participate in the application supervision of social organization standards to gradually participate in the developing process of social organization standards.


## 5.3.1. Improving the Policy of Encouraging Publicity of Social Organization Standards

The current “standardization law” and “regulations” only mention that the State encourages social organization standards to be made public through the platform” and do not clarify the specific details of social organization standards to be made public to the public. In addition, the opinions on promoting the high-quality development of social organization standards put forward some incentive measures to improve and promote the high-quality development of social organization standards, such as giving preference to social organization standards in the recognition and reward of some scientific and technological achievements, but there is no specific definition of the publicity of social organization standards. Therefore, while encouraging the social organization standards to disclose the basic information of the social organization standards on the platform, we should encourage the disclosure of the full text of the social organization standards, which is conducive to the opening of the social organization standards, the wider access and adoption of the standard text by all sectors of society, and the supervision and feedback of the society on the social organization standards, so as to attract more participants in the revision process of the social organization standards and promote the improvement of the technical content of the social organization standards, and expand its scope of application. However, while encouraging publicity, we should also pay attention to the protection of intellectual property rights and increase the punishment for intellectual property infringement, so as to enhance the willingness of social organizations to disclose the full text of social organization standards and improve the quality and efficiency of related industries.


## 5.3.2. Strengthening Technical Innovation Related to Social Organization Standards

Through the above-given data analysis, it is found that the development of social organization standardization is most relevant to technological innovation, and technological innovation is the source of high-quality social organization standards. Therefore, we should strengthen the technological innovation related to social organization standards. First of all, we should create a good innovation environment, refer to Germany and the United States in some management systems, incentive policies, and other aspects, provide good working environment conditions and atmosphere for relevant staff, and provide more opportunities and possibilities for innovation. Secondly, in the specific implementation of innovation, it mainly includes two aspects. On the one hand, it is the technological innovation of standardized objects, such as strengthening innovation in methods, modes, and technologies and promoting the solidification and promotion of innovative technological methods, modes, and advanced technologies, so as to improve the quality and efficiency of the whole industry. For example, the flex standard [37] proposed by the British Association for standardization proposes a new and flexible method to develop good practices based on consensus and dynamically adapt to the rapidly changing market, which provides a good reference for us to further shorten the developing cycle of social organization standards. The other is the innovation of standard form and application. Among them, in terms of standard forms, for example, international and foreign developed countries and regions have proposed the digitalization of standards for future development and innovative standard delivery forms. In terms of a standard application, we should innovate the application mode of standards, such as developing some practical software tools for standard development, promotion, and application and innovating the embedding mode of standards and related software, so as to improve the convenience of social organization standard application.


## 5.3.3. Strengthening the Learning of Professional Skills Related to Social Organization Standards

Social organizations should strengthen the study of professional skills related to social organization standards. On the one hand, they should strengthen the study and research of foreign advanced experience, including its management concept, operation mechanism, promotion, and application measures; on the other hand, they should strengthen the research and study of relevant domestic policies and standardization theories, including relevant domestic regulations and policies, relevant national standards, and relevant standardization basic knowledge. In addition, due to the frequent personnel changes in many social organizations, the frequency of relevant training should be increased. In addition, we should also strengthen the in-depth research of relevant majors, explore ways to meet market demand and innovation needs, and strengthen the research and learning in the field of technology innovation suitable for standardization.


## 5.3.4. Encouraging the Application of Social Organization Standards in Products

Roderburg and MacGregor [38, 39] mentioned that the regulation of standards includes not only government departments but also nongovernmental organizations, such as social public institutions, industry self-discipline organizations, and individuals. The ultimate purpose of developing a large number of social organization standards is to promote the application of related industries. Therefore, we should encourage the application of social organization standards in daily consumer goods, so that consumers across China can have an intuitive understanding of social organization standards, which is more conducive to the supervision and feedback of the application effect of social organization standards. This requires relevant departments to develop relevant incentive policies to promote social organizations to develop more social organization standards related to daily consumer goods and product standards. So as to realize the transformation from allowing consumers to participate in the application supervision of social organization standards to gradually participate in the developing process of social organization standards.


## 6. Conclusion

After several years of development, China’s social organization standards have shown a trend of rapid growth as a whole, but there are obvious regional differences. Social organization standards appear in the context of responding to market demand and the needs of technological innovation and development, reflecting the different levels of the innovation ability of various provinces and cities in China. However, there is still a large gap in the promotion and application across China. Many good practices of foreign countries in terms of organization, management, and operation mechanism are still worth learning. From the perspective of managers, we should strengthen the formulation and guidance of targeted policies. From the perspective of social organizations, we should strengthen the ability improvement and independent innovation of social organizations in all aspects, and pay more attention to the application of social organization standards. In this way, we can overcome some problems in the development of current social organization standards, so as to realize the synchronous improvement of social organization standards and industrial quality and efficiency.



---

*Source: 8772161-2023-01-10.xml*