Standardisation meets global competition: actively leveraging Europe’s strengths

Competition in the sphere of international standardisation is increasing. In key digital fields, such as artificial intelligence  and networked production systems, other players are moving quickly to establish a presence and set the agenda, often before Europe has even agreed on a position. For occupational safety and health, this is not an abstract issue: it is where decisions are being taken on the safety requirements that will take effect in the work systems of the future.

The standardisation systems of the major economic regions differ in their philosophies. The US relies on market-driven standards with state backing. In China, standardisation forms part of the overarching strategy of the country’s industrial policy. Europe relies on consensus-based processes in which industry, the research community, the public sector, OSH interests and civil society are involved collectively. The European approach may be slower, but it delivers standards that are compatible with existing regulations, enjoy public confidence and meet with acceptance on export markets. German exports with a value of over €1.5 trillion are based on standards in which DIN is heavily involved. This is not a coincidence: it is the result of a model in whose structure quality and acceptance are firmly embedded.

Digital fields: where the course is currently being set

Germany is almost unrivalled in its shaping of international standardisation. DIN holds responsibility for 17.1% of ISO secretariats – more than any other country – and at European level is also responsible for 28.7% of CEN secretariats (International Standardisation Barometer). This presence is the product of several decades of consistent participation. It is now under pressure, however, as competition shifts to fields where a need for standardisation arises rapidly and positions adopted at an early stage have a decisive impact. Europe is well positioned in established industrial sectors; in emerging digital fields, however, market competition is keener, and Germany is competing with many other countries that are setting the rules, foremost among them being the USA and China.

In dynamic fields such as these, in particular, the parties setting the substantive guidelines and thus shaping global markets are decided at an early stage. A striking example is ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42, the key international committee for the standardisation of AI. This committee is currently developing standards that have a direct impact on industrial applications: requirements concerning AI-assisted decision-making systems, algorithmic risk analysis and the reliability of automated processes in safety-critical environments. At the same time, this international work also forms an important basis for standardisation in Europe, since although the AI Act sets the legal framework in the EU, it specifies its technical requirements through standardisation. To this end, the European Commission has tasked the European Standards Organizations CEN and CENELEC with developing harmonised European standards. These often build upon or make reference to international standards, with the selective addition of European requirements.

This European standardisation work is currently giving rise to standards for high-risk AI systems – explicitly including applications in the workplace. These standards will be of direct relevance to manufacturers and operators, as they specify the requirements that must be met for AI systems to be considered safe and legally compliant.

It is therefore crucial that occupational safety and health expertise be brought to bear at an early stage in these processes. KAN coordinates the occupational safety perspective in Germany and, through DIN, channels it into European and international standardisation processes. This helps to ensure that safety requirements are given consideration from the outset. This commitment demonstrates the structural contribution made by occupational safety and health interests to the quality and acceptance of standards.

Occupational safety and health: a structural quality feature

Consideration of product safety aspects is systematic and mandatory in the European standardisation system, to a far greater extent than in many other standardisation systems. In Germany, consideration of the public interest, which includes occupational safety and health interests, is also firmly enshrined in the agreement on standardisation reached between DIN and the German federal government. One result of this is that safety requirements are enshrined in a standard during its development, and not only once technologies have already reached the market and risks have become apparent.

This approach has a demonstrable impact. This is evident, for example, in the European Machinery Regulation and the standards associated with it. Above all, the EN ISO 12100 series of standards on risk assessment is considered internationally to be the benchmark for safety-oriented product design. This successful model is already being applied to new technologies. The standardisation of AI currently in progress demonstrates the importance of occupational safety and health interests having a voice in highly dynamic, digital fields, such as the assessment of algorithmic risks or the safe design of automated decision-making processes in occupational scenarios.

DIN: translating German expertise into international influence

DIN coordinates German participation on European and international standards committees at CEN and ISO and brings national positions to the table at an early stage. DIN’s independence and neutrality are what make it effective in this role; standardisation that is perceived as being interest-driven loses its crucial capital. Trust in the independence of the process is the reason why European standards are accepted in international markets – and why, in the longer term, the European model is more resilient than alternatives under state direction or driven by industry. The fact that Germany maintains this position is not a foregone conclusion: it requires a continuous presence and strategic agenda-setting.

The involvement of occupational safety and health interests is a prime example of how different perspectives can be taken into account constructively during standardisation work. Both within ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42 and in the CEN/CENELEC standardisation mandates supporting the AI Act, requirements are being defined in current standardisation of AI systems that directly affect day-to-day working practices in safety-critical environments. KAN’s bridging role, particularly in AI-related standardisation, is a clear example of how effective engagement by occupational safety and health representatives can contribute to shaping future digital issues in standardisation.

Ultimately, the standard that prevails is not the fastest, but the one that opens up markets, integrates regulation and engenders trustschutzexpertise frühzeitig in diese Prozesse einfließt. In Deutschland bündelt die KAN die Arbeitsschutzperspektive und bringt sie über DIN in europäische und internationale Normungsprozesse ein. Das trägt dazu bei, dass Sicherheitsanforderungen von Beginn an mitgedacht werden. Dieses Engagement zeigt, welchen strukturellen Beitrag der Arbeitsschutz zur Qualität und Akzeptanz von Normen leistet.