KANBrief 1/12
With a presidial decision taken in 1996, DIN moved to protect stakeholder groups in standardization activity at national level. The presidial decision was updated in 2007 (DIN Presidial Decisions 4/1996 and 1/2007). It set out that should a consensus not be reached in a standards committee and a decision instead be put to a vote, the result could not override the block vote of a stakeholder in standardization. This important decision has now been further substantiated.
In the past, KAN has occasionally made use of the block vote, for example with regard to draft standards governing test procedures for cement (2002), mobile cranes (2003), garden shredders (2003), rubber-tyred mining vehicles (2006) and the static safety of racking systems (2008). Concerted action, for the preparation of which the German OSH stakeholders were involved beforehand, enabled the OSH lobby to exert a stronger influence upon German standardization activity.
Block vote placed in doubt
In 2010, the meeting of the DIN Presidial Board discussed experience gained with the presidial decisions concerning the block vote. A draft decision was formulated making provision for the block vote to be withdrawn owing to its abuse by certain stakeholders and because it was considered superfluous owing to the formulation of the new internal procedural rules (DIN 820 series of standards).
Following concerted intervention by the DGUV and the German ministries represented on the Presidial Board and the objection of the representative for consumer protection, the draft decision was however not adopted. Instead, a high-ranking working group of the DIN Presidial Board was convened to address the issue. The working group met twice in 2011 in order to formulate in detail the circumstances under which a stakeholder group may make use of the block vote in future. In particular, it was to be ensured that the instrument could not be abused. At the same time however, unreasonable formal barriers were not to be created.
The decision "for special cases"
The reformulated draft presidial decision set out that the block vote was to serve solely to assure the three public interests of occupational safety and health, environmental protection, and consumer protection. The working group had also already reached a consensus that DIN's Consumer Council and KAN should be responsible for bringing about unanimity for health and consumer protection and occupational safety and health respectively. In the meeting of the DIN Presidial Board held on 4 November 2011 it was further agreed that a block vote for environmental protection must be carried jointly by the Coordinating unit for environmental organisations’ work on standardisation (KNU), the German Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMU), and the German Federal Environmental Agency (UBA).
This new procedure, adopted as Presidial Decision 07/2011, is to be regarded as an interpretation of DIN 820 in special cases, and replaces the two preceding decisions 4/1996 and 1/2007. In order to prevent potential abuse, its scope has now been limited to the three public interests and contains a number of further criteria which must be observed:
• The presidial decision applies only to European and international standards projects. For national standardization activity, the usual conciliation and arbitration procedures must be followed.
• Until the position has been agreed within a particular stakeholder group, the group concerned does not have recourse to the block vote.
• The organization making recourse to the block vote is required to have briefed the relevant stakeholder's expert delegate to the standardization committee comprehensively beforehand in order for this individual to be able to submit the consensus position in a timely manner.
• Detailed reasons for the block vote must be stated.
• Active involvement with a willingness to compromise is mandatory, particularly during the comments resolution meeting.
• The Director of DIN must first determine that the formal requirements are satisfied.
Stability for the future
DIN has been requested to determine the consequences of the decision for the ministries and to present the results for discussion at this year's meeting of the Presidial Board. In the interests of occupational safety and health and of consumer and environmental protection, it is however to be hoped that the procedure, which has been logically argued and unanimously agreed (with two abstentions), will now prevail in the long term.
Corrado Mattiuzzo
mattiuzzo@kan.de