[Click here and type] - ANEC

European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation, AISBL

Av. de Tervueren 32, box 27 – B-1040 Brussels, Belgium - phone +32-2-743 24 70 - fax +32-2-706 54 30
e-mail: [email protected] - internet: www.anec.eu

ANEC comments

on the CEN/CENELEC position
on the IMCO draft report

on the future of European standardisation
(2010/2051 (INI))
and the ITRE opinion

on the future of European standardisation

Raising Standards for Consumers

ANEC introduction

ANEC welcomes the very considered review by CEN/CENELEC and their national
members of the IMCO draft report on the future of European standardisation and
the related ITRE opinion.

We recognise the considerable contribution of European standardisation to the
creation and maintenance of the Internal Market and leadership of CEN/CENELEC
in delivering the European Standards needed to support legislation (essentially
the harmonised standards of the New Approach) as well as those responding to
voluntary market demands.

However, bearing in mind that consumer expertise in standardisation is weak or
non-existent at national level in most Member States, ANEC does not believe the
fundamental principle of national delegation will ever be sufficient in ensuring an
effective consumer voice in the technical bodies of CEN and CENELEC. Indeed,
we note the finding of the EXPRESS report1:

But the difficulties for some key stakeholders (SME, consumer, environmental and trade
union interests) to participate in the ESS through national delegations were stressed in
the EIM study. Participation of these stakeholders at national level is weak in many
countries for several reasons. In order to address this weakness – and so guarantee the
relevance of the European standards process built on national delegations - it has been
recognised since the 1990s that it is essential to ensure participation of these
stakeholders directly at European level. The roles of public authorities and standards
bodies in seeking to improve participation at national level have been noted in various
Council Conclusions, most recently those of September 2008, and there is an important
role too for the European organizations established to represent these stakeholders.

Although ANEC is an Associate of CEN and a Co-operating Partner of CENELEC,
we have no more than observer status in the associations. This places the ANEC
representatives at particular disadvantage in the technical bodies (the standards
development committees) of CEN and CENELEC where their positions can be too
easily rejected. Given this, we believe ANEC (together with other Associates and
Co-operating Partners representing the societal stakeholders) should be granted
further rights in CEN and CENELEC.

Noting the intention of the Commission over the next decade to increase the use
of European standardisation to support European legislation and public policies,
and perhaps even to replace legislation, ANEC believes an alternative production
line should be established within the existing European Standardisation System
to draft European Standards for items of exceptional public interest. This second
production line would guarantee the participation of relevant stakeholders in the
drafting of the European Standard. However, its adoption would remain with the
national standards bodies and its implementation as a national standard would
be unchanged. ANEC believes such a system can provide the appropriate checks
and balances without undermining the principle of national delegation.

1 ‘Standardization for a competitive and innovative Europe: a vision for 2020’ (page 28)

Introduction
CEN and CENELEC:

Welcome the European Commission’s and European Parliament’s commitment to strengthening the
European Standardization System. The various initiatives of the IMCO in this respect and the deriving
proposals to improve the current system, together with the ITRE opinion on this matter have been duly
taken into consideration by CEN and CENELEC, and their NSBs whose comments and views are
expressed here below.

ANEC comment: Noted.

Fully endorse the proposal to preserve the core values of the current European Standardization
System, which have proved to be essential to the shaping and consolidating of the Single Market and to
foster economic growth in Europe.

ANEC comment: We agree.

Have already started implementing the EXPRESS recommendations and are ready to support Member
States and EC should they cooperate in defining a strategic document which would deliver
recommendations that go further than the EXPRESS ones; recognising that such an initiative would be a
highly useful tool to achieve the goals of the EU 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

ANEC comment: Which and by when? Despite being an Associate of CEN and Co-operating
Partner of CENELEC, ANEC has seen no action plan to implement the recommendations.

Stress the difference between economic and societal stakeholders and urges the Parliament and the
Commission to reflect this difference when drawing policies related to European standardization. In the
ongoing debate on standardization, a difference ought to be made between societal stakeholders such as
consumers and environmentalists, and SMEs who are in turn driven by economic interests and are part of
what should be considered as European industry as a whole. Particular attention should indeed be paid to
SMEs needs and specificity; however they should not be amalgamated with societal stakeholders as such.

ANEC comment: We believe this position is derived from the Access to Standardisation
study2 (March 2010), prepared for DG ENTR, which found representatives of large and small
business to be more active in national mirror committees, and more knowledgeable, than the
representatives of consumer, environmental or trade union interests. Nevertheless, many
obstacles within the European Standardisation System (such as the limitation to observership
in CEN & CENELEC) are common to consumer and SME representatives.

Encourage the Parliament to refer to “appropriate” representation of stakeholders in the
standardization system rather than “balanced” representation, which could fuddle the voluntary nature of
European standardization. Indeed, in a voluntary system, CEN and CENELEC can up to a certain degree
facilitate and foster participation of all stakeholders in the standardization work, thus ensuring “appropriate”
representation. In that case, individual stakeholders decide on the relevance of their participation and bear
the responsibility of this choice. Conversely, in a case of “balanced” representation, every category of
stakeholders has to be represented regardless of their willingness to participate and of the relevance of the
topic. This may trigger additional problems deriving from the lack of interest and potential lack of
knowledge and expertise of some stakeholders, thus slowing down or halting progress in the
standardization work.

ANEC comment: Guaranteed, balanced participation is relevant only to the 'second
production line' (or ‘alternative production line’), intended to develop European standards in
fields of exceptional public interest (and decided upon by the 98/34 Committee). Even so,
only those stakeholder interests appropriate to the work should be compelled to participate.

2 See http://tinyurl.com/ydupxz3

Stress the benefits of having one coherent standardization system in Europe that covers both market
driven (B2B) and policy driven standardization. Whereas certain procedures to improve “appropriate”
representation of stakeholders could be developed for some standardization areas with high societal
interest, it is of utmost importance not to separate the system into different parts or “production systems”
and thereby jeopardise the effectiveness of having one coherent system.

ANEC comment: The 'second production line' (or ‘alternative production line’) would operate
within the existing European Standardisation System so ensuring coherency. CEN and
CENELEC already have a separate ‘production system' to develop CEN/CENELEC Workshop
Agreements as lower level alternatives to European Standards. Indeed, similar fears were
put forward by the national standards bodies when the idea of the Workshop Agreement was
proposed in the 1990s. Workshop Agreements are now hailed as a success of the system.

Fully support the idea of extending the legal framework of European standardization to include service
standards, provided there is genuine interest from the sector. Willingness and commitment of stakeholders
in this sector to standardise services is crucial to guarantee the delivery of quality and relevant European
service standards. Member States and European Commission’s support in raising awareness within the
service sector would be highly beneficial.

ANEC comment: We agree.

Empowering the European Standardization System
The role of standardizers in their co-regulation activities is indeed to define the technical means for

reaching the goals set by the legislator while ensuring a high level of protection. However, standardizers’
role is not limited to that. The market-relevance and the international dimension of European
standardization provide standardizers with up to date information on market needs and on international
developments, which could have an impact at European level. This puts standardizers in a position to
identify new areas where standardization is needed.

ANEC comment: There are indeed other European standardisation activities beyond those
needed to support European legislation or public policies.

Given the success of the New Approach and the potential to extend it to other sectors, any
improvement to its procedures could only be valuable. Therefore, CEN and CENELEC welcome the
Parliaments suggestion to reengineer the management of the New Approach consultants.

ANEC comment: Some national standards bodies would like to see the New Approach
Consultants disappear, believing they are a cause of delay. However, their role is essential in
checking the compliance of a draft European Standard with a related mandate. Indeed, we
want to see the role of the Consultants broadened to check the compliance of certain draft
European Standards with key public policies (such as Accessibility for All).

Improving access to the standardization process
CEN and CENELEC have acknowledged the need to improve “weaker” stakeholders’ access to the

standardization process. A working group is currently revisiting the CEN and CENELEC membership
criteria in order to harmonise NSBs implementation of their obligations and to ensure full respect of these
criteria which go beyond the WTO principles of transparency, openness, impartiality, consensus,
effectiveness and relevance. This exercise will undoubtedly improve the process and ensure better
representation of all stakeholders in the standardization system.

ANEC comment: As noted in the draft IMCO report, such criteria are not sufficient to ensure
the access of weaker stakeholders to the system.

All stakeholders do already participate in the European standardization process. The system in place
offers to all categories of stakeholder two avenues of participation, one at national level and another one at
European level. The national delegation principle entails that the position expressed by the national
representative at European level is the national consensus position of all national stakeholders. The
national level is for “weaker” stakeholders undoubtedly the gateway to effective participation and influence
in the standardization process, thus guaranteeing that the reality of the market is duly reflected. Offering
geographical proximity, language facilities and tailor-made solutions, NSBs are the platform par excellence
for weaker stakeholders to be fairly and fully represented. Therefore efforts for improving societal
stakeholders’ participation should be and are actually being concentrated at that level. In this respect, and
in order to complement these national initiatives, CEN and CENELEC would like to call on the European
Parliament and Member States to help European Associations representing societal interests improve
participation at national level.

ANEC comment: The presumption here is that expertise exists among the weaker
stakeholders at national level. Consumer expertise in standardisation is fragmented at
national level and does not exist in most Member States. Consumer representatives in
standardisation need to be expert in the topic being standardised (e.g. toy safety). Although
ANEC can train potential consumer representatives at national level in the rules and
procedures of the standards bodies, we cannot train them to be expert in a technical topic.
While consumer expertise remains so fragmented across the countries of the EU & EFTA,
ANEC will still be needed to pool the few experts from across Europe into one strong and
coherent consumer voice able to be conveyed directly at the European level.

At European level, “weaker” stakeholders participate in the standardization process via European
Associations. The latter may, depending on the areas of standardization work, lack of relevant expertise
and understanding of sometimes very complex issues. CEN and CENELEC would therefore like to
encourage the Commission to provide adequate support to these Organisations in order to strengthen and
optimise their participation in standardization.

ANEC comment: ANEC participates only in work that accords with its priorities and where it
has expertise available. Hence the claim of a lack of expertise is false in our case. We could
more correctly challenge the competence of those national delegations, where there is no
consumer expertise available at the national level, to intervene (or vote) on matters of
consumer relevance at the European level. ANEC agrees with the need for further support
from the Commission in order to grow and deepen the activities of societal stakeholders in
European standardisation but we fundamentally disagree with the rationale.

Exploring the development of an alternative production line that establishes a predetermined number
of seats for the various stakeholder organisations, similarly to the ISO 26000 standard development model,
would jeopardise the CEN-CENELEC national delegation principle, which is recognised by the Parliament
to be a successful element and a cornerstone of the European Standardization System. Introducing an
alternative production line would also complicate and overload the system in a context where
simplification is the leitmotiv. Moreover, the ISO 26000 model has not proved to bring better results than
the usual model, considering it took over 5 years to develop the standard. This model also raises the
question of financing. Securing the financial sustainability of this additional production line in the area of
public interest would undoubtedly call on public authority funding.

ANEC comment: The national delegation principle is indeed a cornerstone of European
standardisation but it is deficient. As noted earlier, consumer expertise often does not exist
at national level and so is missing from in the national mirror committees that brief the
national delegations. With the intent of the Commission to extend the use of standardisation
in support (or even replacement) of legislation over the next decade, there is need to ensure
that participation of relevant stakeholders (business, public authorities, societal stakeholders.
. .) in standards work of exceptional public interest is not only encouraged but ensured.

In essence, the alternative production line focuses on the drafting of the standard, not its
adoption or implementation. Adoption would remain on a vote of the national standards
bodies, and implementation would remain the responsibility of the national standards bodies.
Hence the national delegation principle is not jeopardised.

We do not understand how the use of the second production line could “complicate and
overload the system”. The national standards bodies made the same arguments before the
introduction of CEN/CENELEC Workshop Agreements in the 1990s as lower ranking
alternatives to European Standards. Workshop Agreements are now hailed by the national
standards bodies as a success of the system.

Moreover, the ISO 26000 model is only one model of balanced representation. It was a
pioneering model in a complex field having to take into account many different interests,
many different nationalities and many different cultures. We believe a similar model within a
Europe of far greater similarities would be a greater success.

We agree that the participation of stakeholders in the second production line will need to be
ensured by Commission financing (perhaps through its usual per diem rules). Even so, it will
represent a cheaper and faster alternative to legislation. Moreover, the dependence on public
funding means that the second production line could be used only for items of exceptional
public interest and not generalised.

It is worth also highlighting that access to the system is definitely facilitated by the national delegation
principle. Being involved in the standard development process at national level offers “weaker”
stakeholders the possibility to express their opinion in their own native language, therefore removing
considerable barriers in understanding and contributing to state-of-the art discussions.

ANEC comment: We agree but the expertise among the weaker stakeholders must exist in
the first place. Consumer expertise in standardisation is fragmented or non-existent in most
Member States.

Enhancing the national delegation principle
The imbalance in the NSBs effective participation in the European Standardization System, as

mentioned in the IMCO draft report, reflects the economic reality of the EU where some countries are more
industrialised than others. Standardization is definitely linked to economy, and so the stronger the
country’s economy, the stronger the NSB. However, the motto of the EU – united in diversity – also
prevails in European standardization and we take our strength from this diversity.

ANEC comment: In other words, CEN and CENELEC accept that some national delegations
are weak in the European process and do not take into account all interested parties.

Despite these discrepancies, the European standardization system offers a win-win situation. Stronger
economies make their solutions and know-how available to weaker ones in the form of a standard, instead
of protecting it in a patent. Best practices are shared amongst NSBs and stronger NSBs’ toolboxes are
offered to other NSBs e.g. new internet portal for craftsmen.

ANEC comment: There is obvious benefit in national standards bodies sharing best practice.
But that alone cannot improve the quality of a smaller country's national delegation if that
country has no expertise among stakeholders at the national level.

Participation in standardization activities at European level implies costs that some NSBs which do not
currently run technical committee secretariats aren’t able to afford even though they may have the relevant
experts for the development of their national positions. Therefore CEN and CENELEC would like to
encourage Member States to take all measures needed to foster participation of these NSBs in the
European and international standardisation process.

ANEC comment: We agree.

CEN and CENELEC welcome the Parliament’s encouragement for Member States to ensure the
presence of national authorities in standardization debates and in the standards development process.

ANEC comment: We strongly agree. The national authorities are a notable omission from
much standards work, sometimes leading to problems in the implementation of a European
Standard in a country where the national authority later considers it 'deficient'. Note that the
second production line is intended to ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders in
work of exceptional public interest, including the national authorities.

Facilitating access to standards
CEN and CENELEC are grateful for the Parliament’s recognition of the various efforts and initiatives

launched to facilitate SMEs access to standards and to the standard development process and remain
committed to taking these efforts further. A first CEN-CENELEC guide has been drafted to help standard
writers draft standards that take into account SMEs needs. Additionally the 58 recommendations of the
Access Study are being implemented at national and European level and closely followed-up by a
dedicated committee. Improvement is ongoing and will continue so.

ANEC comment: CEN and CENELEC have now invited ANEC and ECOS to be included in
implementation of the recommendations to see to what degree consumers and
environmentalists can also benefit. It is a perhaps a small but very welcome step.

A survey launched by CEN and CENELEC to its standardization community in July has shown that the
majority of NSBs grant to societal stakeholders free access to the national mirror committees. Most NSBs
also do not charge any fee to societal stakeholders for the participation in the European Technical
Committees (TCs). Moreover, in a few countries governmental or other financial arrangements are
available to facilitate stakeholders’ participation in TCs at European or international level. Additionally a
majority of NSBs lead promotional activities (national exhibitions, events, seminars, conferences, face-to-
face meetings, etc.) to encourage the participation of societal stakeholders in standardisation activities. As
far as access to documents is concerned, a vast majority of NSBs do not charge societal stakeholders for
access to documents at the Public Enquiry stage and are improving their electronic tools or web-based
applications and portals.

ANEC comment: We welcome the initiatives but their value will be limited if there is no
expertise among the societal stakeholders at national level.

Turning to SMEs, the survey demonstrates that 2/3 of NSBs have specific arrangements to facilitate
the participation of SMEs in their national mirror committees. Some NSBs offer free participation to SMEs,
and other provide discount for microenterprises. Furthermore, SMEs’ participation in national mirror
committees is fostered through initiatives such as informative seminars and trainings, database on SME
expertise, dedicated helpdesk or financial support. NSBs also directly cooperate with their Chambers of
Commerce or Trades/Craft federations. Other initiatives worth mentioning relate to the creation of panels
of SMEs to assess whether standards are easy to understand and to apply, and to research projects
aiming to identify SME’s needs in the field of standardization.

ANEC comment: The representatives of SMEs must comment here.

Sales of standards constitutes a cornerstone in the business model of European standardization and it
is important to stress that the income from sales of standards is crucial for keeping the entrance fee for
participation in standardisation low. Imposing reduced prices that are not fully covered by other sources of
funding would inevitably increase costs for those participating and contributing to the standardisation
process and risk to jeopardise the broadness in representation. The member states have expressed
unwillingness to fund such price reductions so unless funding is provided by the EU, price reductions
should not be imposed. Whereas it is proposed to NSBs to offer bundled standards at reduced prices it
should be noted that most NSBs already do so.

ANEC comment: We do not believe the free availability of standards to be tenable in the
business models of CEN and CENELEC. We support the position.

Standardization in support of innovation and sustainable competitiveness in a globalised
environment

CEN and CENELEC welcome the Parliaments’ encouragement to improve mutual awareness and
cooperation between standardizers, innovators, academia and the research communities. The automatic
inclusion of the standards dimension in publicly funded research and innovation programmes would come
in direct support to achieve smart and sustainable growth in line with the EU 2020 strategy. CEN and
CENELEC would like to call on the Commission to more systematically involve standardizers in innovation
and research initiatives and to recognise the added value of their involvement at a very early stage in the
R&D process.

Within this context, CEN and CENELEC support the ITRE opinion to call on the Member States and the
Commission to launch information campaigns on standardization and standardization procedures in order
to raise awareness particularly with the R&D sector, academia and educational institutions. Measures
should be taken to ensure that publicly funded research and innovation programmes support the promotion
of european standards by for example considering the implementing of a 'relevance for standardisation'
section in the evaluation of Commission-funded R&D projects.

ANEC comment: We agree.

Recognising the added value of stronger cooperation with relevant fora and consortia, CEN and
CENELEC are assessing ways to working with them and are making concrete proposals to accommodate
their deliverables into the formal standard making process.

ANEC comment: This is essential as the fragmentation of the European standards landscape
that would happen through the recognition of fora and consortia as additional European
Standards Organisations would lead to potential conflict and duplication. It would also make
it more difficult for stakeholders to participate in work relevant to them and increase costs.

For the ICT sector, which has characteristics of its own and is also a strategic sector which is expected
to contribute largely to the Digital Agenda, CEN and CENELEC support the ITRE opinion to develop a
high-level, multi-stakeholder platform where the ESOs would naturally play an essential role due to the
expertise they represent.

ANEC comment: We agree.

Finally, CEN and CENELEC confirm their commitment to international standardization activities and
will strive to gain competitive advantage in the global market using standardization for European-led
technologies.

ANEC comment: We welcome confirmation of this commitment.

Improving awareness of standardization
CEN and CENELEC would like to encourage the Parliament to call on the Commission’s support to

improve awareness of standardization across the board. Awareness-raising campaigns addressing all
sectors of the economy, as well as the inclusion of standardization in education programmes, are crucial if
we are to bet on Europe’s innovative potential to reach sustainable growth

ANEC comment: We are in full agreement with the CEN/CENELEC position.

ANEC-SG-2010-G-008
10 September 2010