A flexible standardisation system, gateway to the market Hearing of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection European Standardisation: improving competitiveness through a new regulatory framework A flexible standardisation system, gateway to the market Adrian HARRIS Director General of Orgalime The European Engineering Industries Association Wednesday 23 November 2011 European Parliament, Brussels

Orgalime: 34 Member associations, 22 countries Industry is ESS’ main stakeholder: Orgalime: 34 Member associations, 22 countries Lithuania LINPRA Italy ANIE ANIMA Luxembourg ILTM The Netherlands FME-CWM METAALUNIE Norway Norsk Industri Poland PIGE Portugal AIMMAP ANEMM Slovenia GZS-MPIA Spain CONFEMETAL SERCOBE Switzerland SWISSMEM Sweden TEKNIKFÖRETAGEN Croatia HUP Associate Members EGMF EUROPUMP Austria FEEI FMMI Belgium AGORIA Bulgaria BASSEL Denmark DI Finland Federation of Finnish Technology Industries France FIEEC FIM Germany VDMA WSM ZVEI Great Britain BEAMA EAMA GAMBICA Ireland IEEF Latvia MASOC 130,000 companies, €1,510 billion of annual output, 9.7 million people employed

Standards are not legislation but a key tool for handling complexity EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES RECYCLING & DISPOSAL USE BUSINESS PROCESS assembly, marketing, distribution sale MANUFACTURING DESIGN Compatible EMC Green energy efficiency labelling RoHS Safe Work prot. directives Clean technology IPPC EUP eco design of energy using products REACH Chemicals Packaging GPSD WEEE LVD Outdoor noise EMF Recommendation PRODUCT A tool for companies first: voluntary to meet market needs … and facilitate their compliance to EU laws Standards are not legislation: Policy setting = EU institutions’ privilege & duty Standardisation = technical work Examples of directives Low-Voltage (2006/95/EC) EMC (89/336/EEC) Pressure equipment ATEX (94/9/EC) … …part of the Alignment Package What legal framework? Harmonised legislation + GPSD Essential requirements decided by policy makers Regulation on Standards + 98/34 Directive Technical requirements implemented by interested stakeholders in standardisation work Avoid turning standardisation into a policy-making instrument, thereby undermining the role of EU regulators. The debate on public expectation should not be shifted at standardisation level: it should remain policy makers’ privilege and duty. Standardisation work should remain of technical nature. Next slide: 2 examples of how private standards have driven benefit for the general interest without public interference

Private or public need? Interchangeable batteries 20ft Containers IEC 60086 standard based on ANSI C18.1 IEC   20 14     6 3 61 Interchangeable batteries Here are 2 examples from our industry where product standardisation had a huge socio-economic impact while public authorities had no need to interfere: 20 feet containers have revolutionized logistics and shipping and hence boosted global trade. This is a public benefit without public authorities involvement. Standardised portable batteries (originally from ANSI on the other side of the Atlantic are now based on an international IEC standard that provide a great benefit to users of portable appliances  type reduction. International alignment is key for most standards almost 80% of Cenelec standards in the electrical field are similar or based on IEC standards (via the Dresden Agreement as recalled by previous speakers: most probably Elena Santiago and Paul Coebergh van den Braak); Type reduction and interoperability that could lead to larger market access are core standardisation benefits. Is standardisation meeting public or private needs? The answer is both. 20ft Containers Cargo terminal at the port of Antwerpen (Belgium)

Speed is not an end in itself Quality and market acceptance must come first For most of the engineering industry  market acceptance more important than speed Market / Standardisers to decide alone on the plug for EV Safe and smart grids at stake ICT standards OK  for public procurement only Speed in itself is not an end in itself. In traditional engineering processes where most standards are already available, what matters first is the market acceptance to secure the widest use of the standard on the long run, to the difference of the ICT field where the time-to-market and the life cycle of products and technologies commends a much shorter time span to produce technical specifications. One size does not fit all here. The example of E-car charging: In new market segments the market or standardisers should choose what is the most relevant technology for all future applications: speeding standardisation here is counter-productive, for instance for the adoption of a single plug for e-car charging if the issue of safety and electricity management of the whole electrical infrastructure is not duly taken into account. Standards referencing for regulatory goals must remain exclusively to ENs, also in ICT.

ESS needs public support and flexibility, not bureaucratic control Industry interests not at odds with SMEs Diversity of interests outweighs one-stop-shop Annex III orgs Education and training are key to promote standards EC requests should meet market needs Call for a multi-stakeholder platform open to ALL Improved consensus building is needed ESS to remain based on national delegation principle Improvement: Due recognition of a “sustained opposition” at TC level with independent appeal open to all Up to ESOs without interference from public institutions The ESS should remain a voluntary, private and nationally rooted in order to remain attractive to companies to feed in with their expertise. Active participation in standardisation work has a cost that many small and medium sized companies and other stakeholders are not ready to bear as it does not meet their priorities. The diversity of their needs is best reflected via their professional and trading bodies and organisations, which are mostly active at national level. This is why the European Commission should not rely only on a one-stop-shop approach with the limited scope and means of Annex III organisations. Promote standardisation by education at national level and by acknowledging the key role of national trade organisations of all kinds to reflect the needs of their SME constituencies (avoid one-stop-shop / one-size-fits-all solutions); Education and awareness-raising in several languages are the priorities for companies, especially SMEs - more than the purchase price of a standard. For a European multi-stakeholder platform to scrutinize EC standardisation requests. There is today no mechanisms in the 98/34 desk officers Market relevance matters more than speed – this requires an effective functioning of the consensus building process in standardisation work (due consideration should be given for a sustained opposition of any stakeholder early enough in the standardisation process. ESOs should put into place an effective and independent appeal procedure in case of such opposition. Orgalime will support improving the standardisation procedures within the private governance of ESOs. This should happen free from pressure from the European Commission or Member States.

Thank you for your attention! Adrian Harris Director General ORGALIME aisbl I Diamant Building Tel.: +32 (0)2 706 82 40 Fax: +32 (0)2 706 82 50 Email: adrian.harris@orgalime.org www.orgalime.org The European Engineering Industries Association