1 / 8

BusinessEurope's views on European standardisation system review

BusinessEurope's key views on the review of the European standardisation system, including the importance of fostering market-relevant standards, maintaining private and voluntary standardisation, and the role of standards in supporting innovation and business.

cramerc
Download Presentation

BusinessEurope's views on European standardisation system review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. BUSINESSEUROPE’s views on the review of the European standardisation system Paul Coebergh van den Braak BUSINESSEUROPE, Chairman of WG IM - Free Movement of Goods Philips Intellectual Property & Standards P. Coebergh van den Braak EP hearing, Brussels, 23 November 2011

  2. BUSINESSEUROPE key views • We welcomeimproving ESS by evolution not revolution • ESS must foster good, market-relevant standards • Standardisation must remain privateand voluntary • Appropriate participation is already possible and mainly a stakeholder responsibility • Subsidiesfor informing on how to use standards shouldrespect the level playing field fortrade associations • We support referencing relevant ICT standards in publicprocurement • Standards are not legislation but can support it subject to their voluntary take-up

  3. Standards are not legislation • Standardisation helped create prosperous EU market • Value for EU economic actors • Support for legislation; such as in New Approach style regulation • Package links standardisation to many policy goals, but • Standards are a voluntary, private market tool to support innovation and business • 70% of Europeanstandards have no relation with public interests • Can support policies and laws but not become a tool of politics • Policies define “what and why”, experts define “how” in standards • Political choices in the political area, not in standardisation • Exploit the mutual support but do not mix them up

  4. Private or public need?

  5. Foster good, market-relevant standards • Low quality or irrelevance is harmful and can result from • Planning top-down without stakeholder consultation • Participants lacking expertise on technology or application field. • Wasted effort: best case unused; worst case unavoidable • International alignment is key for most standards • Agreements: Vienna ISO – CEN, Dresden IEC – CENELEC • Global uniformity reduces cost and creates level playing field • Only directly affected stakeholders can judge relevance • Do not “push” standards • Consult stakeholders: we suggest a multi-stakeholder platform • What worked for products might not simply transpose to services • Only truly committed experts makequality standards

  6. Appropriate participation is already possible • All stakeholders get informed and can join on equal terms • “Weak stakeholders” shouldself-organise to share efforts • E.g. very good German model for SMEs • E.g. MSs market authorities • Genuineinterests and available expertise should lead, not formal balancing rules • There are more business associations representing SMEsthan the one in Annex III • All should be consulted on equal terms for plans and mandates • Annex III organisations should not verify standards for quality or conformity to EU policies and legislation (A12d) • Not impartial and unclear why they would be qualified

  7. Speeding up the process? • Quality and market relevance come first • Sometimes speed is a key factor, often only one of many goals • Slow pace does in general not result from time-consuming or bureaucratic processes but from • Need to achieve consensus • Deeply divided stakeholder interests • Missing key inputs

  8. Thank you for your attention P. Coebergh van den Braak 23 November 2011

More Related