Discord dogs the harmonisation of Union standards

Date: 24/04/1997

NO ONE would dispute that harmonised standards hold the key to a genuine single market. Without them, say European Commission officials, there would be “chaos”.

But the standardisation process provokes conflicting feelings within industry, acutely aware of the advantages of operating in a border-free Europe but often wary of too much competition.

Companies see the advantages of ensuring a high level of harmonisation across Europe, allowing manufacturers to sell their goods anywhere in the Union without having to meet different technical standards in each member state.

But some argue that the risks can outweigh the benefits of a bigger, more competitive market, making the maintenance of the status quo attractive to some sectors. This in turn prompts accusations that standards are being used as a protectionist measure to exclude foreign rivals.

“Standards can make the market and they can break the market,” says one Commission official. “Standards are very important and were cited by the United States years ago when they were talking about 'Fortress Europe'.”

Yet even though the standardisation process has played a part in the development of an almost infinite list of everyday objects from toys and mobile phones to machinery and credit cards, little is known about how common rules are agreed.

Health and safety, foodstuffs, playground equipment, Trans-European Networks, public procurement and biotechnology are just some of the many and diverse areas where harmonised standards have been laid down.

Nor is the process restricted to technical specifications. It also extends to standards of performance in fields such as sampling, testing or environmental management.

Primarily intended to back up the huge volume of single market legislation, common European standards are crucial to the process of dismantling the remaining barriers to trade.

The Commission maintains control over specific areas of public interest, such as food additives or cars, which it feels are too important to leave to the market and where it believes EU legislation is essential.

But it entrusts much of the work on the development of common standards in a wide range of other areas

to CEN, an independent international association of national standards bodies from 18 EU and EFTA states.

CEN churns out hundreds of standards a year. Its two sister bodies - CENELEC, which handles agreements on standards for electrotechnical goods, and ESTI, with a similar role in telecommunications - produce yet more.

Commission officials stress that the decision to hand over so much of the responsibility in this area to an outside body was not taken because the institution could not cope with the volume of work.

It was instead designed to ensure that the development of European standards, which are voluntary, takes place close to the market.

Standards are, in theory, built on consensus rather than imposed from above. But while the system is designed to allow for greater technical flexibility, these must be set within a defined framework.

The difficulties involved in getting Europe-wide agreement on common standards are underlined by the fact that it takes some three to four years to develop them.

But although consensus-building can mean delay, it is generally agreed that CEN has made good progress in terms of coping with the sheer volume of work.

There is, nevertheless, criticism of the organisation, with consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) complaining that they are being squeezed out of decision-making.

Two years ago, in response to growing concern that consumers were not playing enough of a role in the process, a new organisation - known as ANEC - was set up specifically to represent their interests.

This reflected a growing recognition that while some national standards bodies were conscientious about consulting consumer groups, many others were not.

ANEC now has a seat on some 60 standards committees and working groups, formulates proposals and comments on draft EU directives which contain references to standardisation.

But the organisation is unhappy that it has no vote. “Consumers have a strong voice but they cannot block things as much as they would like to,” says ANEC secretary-general Bruce Farquhar.

He argues that “vested industry interests” sometimes have too much influence over standardisation and claims tactical voting to block unfavourable deals is commonplace in the various committees.

“The European ideal is fine, but once we get down to smoke-filled rooms it is a different story.”

Farquhar says that, in general, industry sees the advantage of creating common standards. In the long term, they can lead to lower costs and greater competitiveness. For consumers, that should translate into lower prices and more choice as well as higher quality.

But standardisation is also a time-consuming process and a drain on manfacturers' resources. It can, for example, cost a great deal of money to retool to comply with new standards.

ANEC's frustration with the system is shared by SMEs, who are also members of standardisation bodies but have no vote. To combat this lack of representation, they set up NORMAPME - a European Office of Craft/Trades and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises for Standardisation - in 1995.

NORMAPME says that although 99.7&percent; of European businesses are SMEs and they tend to be among those hardest hit by the cost of implementing agreed standards, they are often given no role in creating them.

Instead, the chairmen of technical committees in European standardisation bodies are normally appointed from among a given sector's market leaders.

This, say critics, leaves the system open to abuse, with standards drawn up on the basis of proposals from those with a vested interest in making life difficult for rivals.

“You can easily make problems for your competitors by creating expensive standards,” claims Peter Neusser of NORMAPME, who says SMEs find it difficult and expensive to participate in the standardisation process, even when they understand how it works - and many do not. “The majority of SMEs is not aware of what is going on in Europe,” he adds.

The Commission agrees that there is a need for SMEs and consumers to be given a bigger say in the process, but believes the onus is on national standards bodies to consult them fully.

“ANEC has done a wonderful job. It is now up to national standards bodies to improve the system,” said one official.

But both CEN and CENELEC insist that consumer groups are consulted adequately by national standards bodies, and argue that extending ANEC's powers would be problematic.

“How would you weight the vote?” asks a CEN spokesman.

Stephen Marriott, secretary-general of Cenelec, stresses that its members have a duty to take all interests, including those of consumers, into consideration when making their decisions.

“There is no worry in my mind that consumers are not well-represented,” he says, arguing that they do not have enough expertise or finance to get more involved in the standardisation process.

Giving them a vote would “require a change in the philosophy of standardisation”, argues Marriott, and open up a debate on whether trade unions or employers should have a vote too.

But it is not only consumers and SMEs who feel neglected. Even the Commission - which part-funds the standardisation process - faces problems when it tries to get involved in CEN's work.

“When there is a strategic decision within CEN, the Commission is not consulted. If it is a technical meeting, they invite us. They represent, in the first place, national interests. We are not against national interests, it is normal, but it is not a reason to exclude us,” said a senior official in the Directorate-General for industry (DGIII).

Amid concern that the Commission is being sidelined, Industry Commissioner Martin Bangemann has ordered a joint CEN and Commission report on the way the system is working to be drawn up by September.

Jacques Repussard, secretary-general of CEN, has said standardisation will benefit from an evolution in the way his organisation and the Commission cooperate.

“We are looking into whether institutional relationships between the Commission and standardisation bodies are strong enough,” said a DGIII official.

“Our priorities are changing. It is no longer just about making standards. What we should do is make sure that the standardisation process is irreproachable.”