Executive summary

Standards for digital technologies are all around us, enabling devices to interact with each other, allowing us to connect to mobile networks, and facilitating the exchange of information. By providing rules or guidelines for the development and functioning of technologies, products, and services, standards foster interoperability and enable safety and quality of service. This report provides an overview of the digital standardisation ecosystem and explores China’s role within this ecosystem.

Why standards matter

In addition to their technical functions, standards have economic, social, and (geo)political implications. They support innovation, economic growth, and competitiveness, and facilitate international trade by enabling companies to enter new markets and helping avoid discrepancies between trade partners. In addition, standards can help societies take advantage of the opportunities offered by digital technologies, including when it comes to advancing sustainable development and devising responses to global challenges.

When embedded into technologies put to different uses, standards can provide a broader context for promoting – or abusing – human rights and freedoms. For instance, standards related to internet protocols can pose privacy risks if they do not embed sufficient protections to ensure the confidentiality of communications and the security of data.

Although standards are usually looked at from a technical and economic perspective, they have always had a political dimension, particularly due to their potential to help achieve certain policy objectives, from promoting innovation and protecting consumer rights, to safeguarding critical infrastructures and protecting national security. Given the growing technological competition between nations, standards are gaining more attention in the geopolitical context. If a country’s actors can influence standards in strategic industries, that country could obtain a significant advantage on the international stage. This realisation has led to calls for strengthened cooperation between partners on standardisation-related matters, as illustrated by the adoption of a Framework for G7 Collaboration on Digital Technical Standards and the establishment of a working group on technology standards in the context of the EU-US Trade and Technology Council (TTC).

A complex and dynamic digital standardisation ecosystem

At the international level, digital standards are developed in a multitude of spaces. Formal standards development organisations (SDOs) – the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) – are complemented by quasi-formal organisations – such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) – and a wide range of industry forums and consortia. The large number of organisations, as well as the diversity of membership structures, working methods, and rules and procedures governing the development of standards make the standardisation ecosystem a complex one.

State and non-state actors participate in SDOs driven by technical, economic, and/or (geo)political interests. Many tend to focus their attention on the IEC, ISO, and ITU because standards developed within these organisations are generally understood as being relevant in the context of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade adopted at the World Trade Organization (WTO). The agreement calls on countries to base their regulations on international standards as a way to prevent unnecessary barriers to trade.

Beyond its complexity, the standardisation landscape is also highly dynamic, mirroring the interests of key actors and the competition environment in certain industries. While for several decades Western actors (in particular the USA and some European countries) used to take the lead in the development of international standards, the picture started changing in the 1990s and 2000s, as Asian actors (Japan, the Republic of Korea, and China) became increasingly prominent in economic and technological spheres. The growing presence of Asian actors was also coupled with shifts in industry participation, as some of the more traditional actors reduced their involvement in key SDOs, while other, newer actors started playing a more prominent role.

Generally speaking, the SDOs function by well-established rules and are able to adapt to the changing environment in which they operate. But they are also faced with various challenges. For instance, they are called upon to encourage more diversity within their membership and bridge the standardisation gap between developed and developing countries. Other concerns relate to the speed at which standards are developed; the challenges that may appear if groups of actors – be they entities from the same country, alliances of countries, etc. – attempt to dominate the work; and the tendency of some actors to engage in forum shopping, sometimes leading to the duplication of work across several organisations.

Mindful of such challenges, SDOs are constantly exploring modalities for more efficient and effective processes, while maintaining the quality and integrity of their work. And while questions have emerged on whether new rules are needed to enable SDOs to cope with some of these challenges, it is important to acknowledge that actors always learn to play by the rules in ways that are advantageous to them.

China’s approach towards standardisation

Standards play an important role in the context of China’s ambitions for economic and technological leadership at the global level. The government sees standards as essential driving innovation, industrial development, and economic growth, as well as in improving the country’s competitiveness on international markets.

Overall, China’s approach towards standardisation is characterised by several key elements:

• The standardisation strategy is aligned with the broader ‘two markets, two resources’ approach (i.e. protect the domestic market, while integrating it into the international one), and focuses on two key goals: strengthening the national standardisation system and advancing engagement in international standards development processes.
• Over the past decade, China’s standardisation system has undergone a series of changes, and is now described as ‘market-driven, government-led’. State entities usually oversee the development of national and sector standards, with most of the work being carried out by the private sector (which is actively encouraged to contribute its expertise to the process). Opportunities were also created for foreign-invested companies to contribute to standardisation processes, although it appears that some barriers continue to exist in this regard.
• China’s overall policy framework for standardisation is shaped by the new standardisation law (in effect since 2018), as well as a series of policy priorities set periodically by entities such as the State Council, the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT). Moreover, standardisation objectives are closely connected with industrial and economic policies. For instance, Made in China 2025 (MiC 2025) sees standards as important elements in improving the quality of Chinese products (thus increasing their competitiveness on regional and global markets). The 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development also connects standards with broader technology-related goals. For example, it talks about ‘improving’ security standards as a way to strengthen network security protection.
• China’s strategy of ‘opening up’ its standardisation system rests on three pillars: (1) active participation in international standardisation processes, (2) strengthened bilateral and multilateral standards cooperation, and (3) harmonisation of Chinese and international standards, through (a) the internationalisation of Chinese standards and technologies and (b) the transposition of international standards at the national level.
• China’s growing involvement in SDOs is a result of planned and concentrated efforts, and is driven by one essential goal: The country wants to shift from being a consumer of international standards to becoming a producer and ‘exporter’ of standards. This goal is also pursued through regional and multilateral initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and BRICS (Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China, and South Africa).

Implications of China’s growing involvement in international standardisation

China has emerged as a global economic power, so it is natural that it seeks to have a more prominent voice in international standard-setting. Chinese actors are now much more present in SDOs than they were before 2000; not only in terms of people attending meetings, but also in terms of active contribution, drafting of proposals, and leadership roles within technical groups. This growing involvement comes with both opportunities and challenges.

On the one hand, it is a win for standardisation processes and an indication that China wants to be part of the global system of standards, rather than decouple itself from it. It could also have positive consequences for global interoperability and the safety of products and services, as well as strengthen the acceptance and adoption of international standards at a national level, thus reducing market barriers for foreign companies. The fact that Chinese actors become more familiar with the principles of international standardisation (e.g. transparency, consensus, and relevance) could translate into improvements in the national standardisation system.

On the other hand, the growing involvement of Chinese actors in international standard-setting means more competition, posing a challenge to established standard powers (be they countries or companies). There is also a concern that China is trying to reshape the current international standards environment to one that is more state-driven. This is a legitimate concern, but China may only succeed in advancing such a model if there is not enough opposition from other actors. Some proposals advanced by Chinese actors in SDOs – such as the New IP proposal (intended to design a new protocol system for the internet) and a proposal related to standardising the application of facial recognition in visual surveillance systems – have generated concerns that Chinese actors may try to misuse standardisation as a vehicle to promote technologies that pose challenges to democratic values and human rights.

As these and similar issues continue to fuel discussions, the debate remains open on whether China is or could be dominating SDOs in a way that allows it to dictate how these organisations work or the standards they produce. But it is likely that Chinese actors will continue to strengthen their engagement in international standardisation, in particular when it comes to shaping standards related to advanced and emerging technologies.

Recommendations for maintaining the integrity of the standardisation ecosystem

In the debate on whether SDOs need to change their rules to cope with the challenges of the dynamic standardisation ecosystem and the emergence of new powerful actors, our report argues that a more holistic approach is needed, one focused on maintaining the overall integrity of the ecosystem. The recommendations we outline for governments, participants in international standard-setting, and SDOs themselves cover several key issues, as now summarised.

Governments

• Developing standardisation strategies with priorities and goals for the domestic standards system and the engagement in international processes.
• Encouraging and strengthening the participation of domestic actors (governmental bodies, technical community, private sector, academia, civil society) in SDOs, through funding, awareness-raising, capacity development, and fostering cooperation and coordination, where possible.
• Bridging the gap between the different communities, allowing them to better understand each other’s interests and positions on standardisation matters (e.g. technical considerations, economic aspects, human rights perspectives).
• Creating frameworks for cooperation and exchange of information with other countries and their actors within SDOs.

SDOs and participants in SDOs

• Ensuring a holistic approach to the debates and decisions on standard proposals, where technical, economic, human rights, and (geo)political considerations are given appropriate weight.
• Fostering more diversity in standardisation processes and facilitating the participation of actors less represented.
• Ensuring that the rules and procedures governing standardisation work are adhered to.
• Fostering strengthened cooperation within the standardisation ecosystem.

Enabling clearer communication about standardisation processes and engagement opportunities, as a way to increase transparency and enhance information accessibility.