Columns
Focus on sustainability
Prof. Dr Markus Große Ophoff is Head of the DBU Centre for Environmental Communication and a columnist for tw tagungswirtschaft. Photo: DBU Archive
Prof. Dr Markus Große Ophoff is Head of the DBU Centre for Environmental Communication and a columnist for tw tagungswirtschaft. Photo: DBU Archive
Standardisation: curse or blessing? Why a reform of the standardisation system is necessary
Column by Prof. Dr Markus Große Ophoff, Technical Director and Authorised Representative DBU Centre for Environmental Communication at the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU)
We all have to deal with standards on a daily basis. This ranges from the size of the paper in our printers to sustainability standards for events. The aim of standards is to simplify cooperation in business and international trade. Without standards, a chaos of incompatible systems would quickly arise - for example in event technology. In this respect, standards are definitely a blessing and we will continue to need standards. Standards are very diverse. They range from DIN standards for demountable stages, media servers or plug-in devices for lighting applications to accident insurers' regulations on fall protection or professional stage dancing, as well as numerous construction standards for the construction and operation of buildings used for events, through to guidelines for voluntary certifications - such as the recently introduced Blue Angel for sustainable events. In total, there are certainly hundreds of organisations that publish standards, regulations or certificates that also affect the event sector. If you search for "event technology" on the DIN website alone, you will get 243 hits. For "event management", there are a further 33 standards and publications. As you can see: It is almost impossible to keep track of all standards and regulations.
DIN standards accompany events, be it for demountable stages or media servers. The picture shows the Environment Week 2024 with 12,000 participants and 190 exhibitors in the park of Bellevue Palace. Photo: Peter Himsel, DBU
Can standards also be a curse? One example of this is an article in the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung, which appeared a few months ago under the headline "Building contractor from Bad Iburg settles scores with politicians". The building contractor complains about over-regulation, which is making construction prices considerably more expensive. He then cites two examples:
- The first example relates to the site power box. Instead of being connected once by qualified electricians, it now has to be checked several times - including every four weeks by a qualified electrician. This would multiply the costs.
- The second example deals with lightning protection. "Where for decades a galvanised flat steel in the concrete floor was sufficient - the electrician checked the resistance later - today a stainless steel earth electrode in contact with the ground is required in a shaft board-like installation under and next to the building," says the building contractor. This costs ten times as much as it used to.
What both examples have in common: They are not political guidelines, but standards that are being criticised here. Such standards can cause considerable costs. The costs should be weighed up against the desired protective effect. In my opinion, this actually requires a social discussion and, if possible, democratically legitimised decisions. What is the situation with standards?
How are standards created?
Standards are created by independent standardisation organisations. These are often the Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. (DIN) or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). However, many standards are also created by professional associations such as the VDE - Verband der Elektrotechnik Elektronik Informationstechnik e. V. for the electrical sector. You can contribute to national and international standards via DIN. Participation is aimed at technical experts. I myself was involved in the development of standards in the event sector for many years. DIN is financed in two ways: On the one hand, the institutions that want to participate have to pay a contribution. There are staggered contributions for companies, associations, start-ups and universities. On the other hand, the adopted standards are sold at a relatively high price via DIN Media Verlag.
Criticisms of the standardisation process
DIN standardisation committees are not democratically legitimised. There is no independent body that ensures that technical expertise without vested interests is included in standardisation. The costs alone are enough to deter technical experts who do not have their own economic interests. Not only would they have to contribute their working time free of charge, they would also have to pay for it. The fact that the documents in which standards are written down can only be purchased or obtained at great expense also creates a lack of transparency. Although standards are not mandatory, they often become binding in reality, as some laws or regulations refer to them or insurers, for example, insist on compliance with them. I experienced this when I was on the school parents' council and a new sports hall was being built at the school. We were able to see all the laws that formed the basis for the construction free of charge. However, we never got to see the standard for sports halls, which the building authorities always referred to, because the school parents' council didn't have the money to buy it. At the same time, however, this standard made considerable specifications that were relevant for use by pupils and sports clubs.
"Although standards are not mandatory, they often become binding in reality, as some laws or regulations refer to them."
Prof Dr Markus Große Ophoff, Technical Director and Authorised Representative DBU Centre for Environmental Communication of the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU)
In many conversations, I have also gathered a lot of positive feedback and gained my own experience of standardisation work. But there is also negative feedback. There are repeated reports that companies apply for standards to make their own product more successful on the market or to generate more sales for their own industry. I am also aware of such examples. In one case, I was even told that independent scientists were involved in a research project at the beginning of the long process of creating a standard. After the research project came to an end, they were no longer able to finance their involvement in the standardisation process. Soon afterwards, the standard was then adopted without taking the independent experts into account.
An alternative: The Blue Angel for events
Over the past two years, I have seen that there is another way of doing things with the development of the Blue Angel for sustainable events. The Federal Environment Agency worked with research partner adelphi to develop the basis for awarding this ecolabel. There was an extensive participation process in which everyone who wanted to was able to take part. Unlike DIN, other organisations also have a participation process. In the case of the guidelines of the Association of German Engineers (VDI), for example, a basic print is published first and then a participation process is carried out. The final guideline is only adopted after the input has been weighed up. In the following table, I compare the procedure for the Blue Angel for Sustainable Events with the development of ISO 20121 for sustainable event management.
Reform required for standardisation work
I see an urgent need for reform in standardisation work. As DIN standards and similar guidelines have an impact on more and more areas of the economy, society and the environment, a minimum level of democratic participation procedures and independent scientific support should be ensured. At the same time, the financing of DIN standardisation work would have to be put on a different footing. I see the following starting points for a fundamental reform process:
- Financing of DIN standardisation work via a chamber model - similar to the chambers of industry and commerce - with a compulsory contribution (which would certainly be low if the standardisation costs were passed on to everyone).
- Ensure that independent experts are also represented on each standardisation committee - in addition to representatives from industry and associations - who are also paid for their involvement (similar to the adelphi company for the Blue Angel).
- Public consultation procedure for each standard, in which any interested person can participate. Discussion of all comments from the participation procedure in the standardisation committees.
- Free publication of all standards and thus accessibility and transparency.
- Examination and identification of the economic and social impact of the standard.
- Final resolution on the standards by an independently appointed standardisation committee (analogous to the Environmental Label Jury), which carries out the social considerations.
I also see room for optimisation with the Blue Angel. It would be helpful here if not only a specialised scientific institute but also a small advisory board with representatives of pioneers from the industry, trade associations and science were set up when developing the basis for awarding the label. This would allow a well-founded draft to be developed more quickly and in a more targeted manner. Even if there has been little public discussion of this so far, I believe that a reform of the standardisation system is overdue, not least because international standardisation work is increasingly becoming an instrument in the geopolitical power structure. I look forward to the exchange of views on my theses. Do you share my views, do you have other arguments or have I overlooked important points or arguments? You are also welcome to contact me directly via my LinkedIn channel.
Prof Dr Markus Große Ophoff
New for our international readers:
For the first time, we are offering an English version of our magazine in addition to the German edition. The translation was made with the help of AI and is currently in the test phase. We’d love to hear your feedback on this new service!