Abstract
Internationalizing technical standards is crucial for global standardization efforts. However, the reasons and influencing factors due to which some states pursue a leading role in certain international standards but not in others have not been thoroughly examined. This study uses an integrated theoretical framework and case analysis to explore the internationalization of Chinese standards in broadcast marketing, railway, electrified railway, and university–business partnerships. The findings suggest that the maturity of the standardization field and the complexity of technical standards are the primary factors influencing choices, with the decision to lead being largely dependent on the latter. Specifically, when technical standards are highly complex, a country can choose to take the lead, while a high maturity of the standardization field or less advanced technical standards make following appropriate. These conclusions provide valuable insights for economists, policymakers, and non-governmental standards-setting groups in emerging countries, encouraging their participation in various international standardization domains.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
GB is the acronym in Chinese Pinyin for “guo biao,” which means “national standards.” T is the acronym in Chinese Pinyin for “tui jian,” which indicates that the standard is voluntary, not mandatory.
China proposed the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013 to promote economic and trade cooperation in Asia and Europe.
The author thanks the anonymous referee who pointed this out. The question of whether the technical sophistication of standards can vary between countries is critical to testing the generalizability of the theory. Technical sophistication can vary between countries (i.e., high in one country but low in another), even within the same industry. Thus, a nation with more progressive standards has the advantage of being the leader in international markets. Further, the technical sophistication of standards can be high in two or more countries. For example, many countries are involved in the trade of chips and semiconductors, including China and Brazil. R&D pertaining to chips and semiconductors in China and Brazil may have different priorities, resources, and approaches based on their unique socio-economic and geopolitical contexts. This can affect the maturity level and competitiveness of their respective industries. The degree of standardization in the field of chips and semiconductors is high. Owing to the complexity of modern electronic devices, each chip and semiconductor product needs to meet a series of standards to ensure its reliability and compatibility. Thus, from a country’s perspective, it is reasonable to choose a compete–cooperate–lead path of internationalizing domestic standards. The integrated framework proposed in this study can be applied to analyze and compare the development of these industries in different countries, as it provides a framework for understanding the factors that contribute to technological advancement and growth.
Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) suggested that four to 10 cases can provide a suitable basis for analysis and induction.
Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) discussed the research strategy of building theories from multiple cases. Multi-case research involves using one or more cases to develop theoretical constructs, propositions, or middle-range theories from case-based empirical evidence. According to the principles of normalization, typicality, and replication, each case is a distinct experiment standing on its own merits as an analytic unit.
Chinese standards are part of international standards, promoting global connectivity and coordinated development. The effects of standardization and the role played by the internationalization of Chinese standards are not fully understood. China is still lagging behind other countries (e.g., the USA) in the construction of science-based standards (Augustin-Jean and Xie 2018).
ISO/IWA 41, “Guidelines for live streaming marketing service,” covers various aspects of live-streaming marketing, including equipment requirements, operation procedures, and risk management. The technical expertise of the Chinese live-streaming marketing industry has contributed to the development and adoption of this standard. The standardization process involved inputs from diverse industry stakeholders, including experts in live-streaming technology, marketing, and e-commerce. ISO/IWA 41 also reflects the global trend toward live e-commerce and live delivery services. As more businesses worldwide turn to live-streaming to market their products and services, there is a growing need for standards that can ensure the reliability and quality of these services. ISO/IWA 41 provides a framework for meeting these needs, and its global nature means that it can be adopted by businesses and organizations in any country.
This has evolved into the primary marketing strategy and development trend for enterprises in the digital economy. Driven by new communication and computer network technologies, live-broadcast marketing can achieve marketing accuracy and quantifiable marketing results while exploring new markets and potential consumers in a low-cost, efficient, and multichannel manner. Viewers worldwide can watch various live programs online (Zhou and Moon 2020). Thus, viewers and live broadcasters can have instant and efficient interactions. Many companies have taken advantage of live broadcast platforms for marketing activities. Live-broadcast marketing is cheaper and faster than traditional marketing, and it can generate more realistic feedback from consumers.
This was also the first international standard to refer to “live streaming” and “marketing” since the establishment of the ISO 74 years ago.
The author acknowledges the referee for bringing attention to this point. These standards are specifically related to the design and safety aspects of railway passenger cars and electric multiple units (EMUs). While not explicitly limited to high-speed or electrified railways, they apply to the broader railway industry, including both conventional and electrified railway systems. These standards ensure the quality and safety of passenger car windows and safety glass used in railway vehicles, irrespective of rail system speed or electrification status. Hence, it is more appropriate to categorize these standards under railway standards rather than electrified railway standards. Furthermore, many high-speed rail systems worldwide, including in China, rely on electrification to power their trains. This enables them to achieve higher speeds, as electric traction systems offer better acceleration and maintainability than traditional diesel-powered trains. However, not all electrified railways can be classified as high-speed railways. The scope of electrified railways extends beyond high-speed railways and includes various types of railway systems such as conventional rail lines and urban transit systems. China’s leadership in railway standards within ISO can be attributed to its extensive experience and expertise in high-speed rail. When it comes to setting international standards for electrified railways in the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), China adheres because of factors such as differing technical requirements and collaboration challenges.
Experts from the following companies participated in the preparation of the standard: Zhuzhou Times New Material Technology Co., Ltd.; China Academy of Railway Sciences; CRRC Qingdao Sifang Locomotive and Rolling Stock Co., Ltd.; CRRC Changchun Railway Passenger Car Co., Ltd.; CRRC Zhuzhou Electric Locomotive Co., Ltd.; and CRRC Qingdao Sifang Rolling Stock Research Co., Ltd.
The author thanks the referee who pointed this out. Railway and electrified railway are investigated separately in the present study. For a case analysis of China’s internationalization of technical standards, it would be beneficial to consider railway (especially high-speed railway) and electrified railway as separate case studies. Although there can be overlapping elements, separating them allows for a more focused analysis and a deeper understanding of the unique challenges, strategies, and impacts associated with each domain. Therefore, China’s leading role in high-speed railway is included and presented in Sect. 4.3, and when discussing the electrified railway standards in Sect. 4.4, high-speed railway has been excluded.
China has emerged as a leader in high-speed railway standards while adopting a follower approach to setting electrified railway standards. This distinction can be attributed to two factors. First, driven by domestic demand, China invested in high-speed rail infrastructure for efficient transportation. In contrast, the demand for electrified railway systems initially focused on energy efficiency and sustainability rather than domestic travel. Second, China collaborated with foreign partners in high-speed rail development, leveraging existing technologies. Such collaboration was less prevalent in the electrified railway sector. Therefore, China’s success in high-speed rail enabled it to export expertise and shape global standards. China’s progress in electrified railway standards contributes to international standards development as well.
Additionally, university–business collaborations require coordination between parties with different goals, cultures, and priorities. This makes it challenging to establish standardized approaches that are widely accepted and implemented. Furthermore, some businesses may have concerns about sharing ideas and resources with universities.
This is a vocational education group for the modern service industry, led by the commercial industry branch of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade and the Jiangsu Vocational and Technical College of Economics and Trade. It comprises local and national social groups, enterprises, institutions, vocational education groups, vocational colleges, and applied undergraduate colleges in the modern service industry. The secretariat of the group is at the Jiangsu Vocational and Technical College of Economics and Trade. The Beijing office of the group belongs to the commercial industry branch of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade.
Some countries have incorporated university–business collaborations into their national strategies. The Chinese government has a national policy that promotes such collaborations. Similarly, the Japanese government has established an Innovation and Industry University Collaboration Office under the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry. In the United Kingdom, the government offers guidelines and contract templates for creative R&D based on university–business collaboration on its website.
The current author believes that it is necessary to include standardization in technology and business in higher education. Teaching standardization would improve students’ professional theoretical training standards and enhance their practical abilities regarding standards-related economic issues. This also forms the basis for future research by the present author.
References
Augustin-Jean, Louis, and Lei Xie. 2016. Food safety standards and market regulations as elements of competition-case studies from China’s international trade. Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy 11(2): 289–324. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2849015.
Augustin-Jean, Louis, and Lei Xie. 2018. Food safety, agro-industries, and China’s international trade: a standard-based approach. China Information 32(3): 400–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X18782260.
Baldwin, Richard, and Toshihiro Okubo. 2019. GVC journeys: Industrialisation and deindustrialisation in the age of the second unbundling. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 52: 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjie.2019.02.003.
Beghin, John C., Miet Maertens, and Johan Swinnen. 2015. Nontariff measures and standards in trade and global value chains. Annual Review of Resource Economics 7: 425–450. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100814-124917.
Blind, Knut, and Jo-Ann. Müller. 2019. The role of standards in the policy debate on the EU-US trade agreement. Journal of Policy Modeling 41(1): 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2018.09.006.
Blind, Knut, Annika Lorenz, and Julius Rauber. 2021. Drivers for companies’ entry into standard-setting organizations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 68(1): 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.2975427.
Blind, Knut, Axel Mangelsdorf, Crispin Niebel, and Florian Ramel. 2018. Standards in the global value chains of the European single market. Review of International Political Economy 25: 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2017.1402804.
Blind, Knut, Florian Ramel, and Charlotte Rochell. 2022. The influence of standards and patents on long-term economic growth. Journal of Technology Transfer 47(4): 979–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09864-3.
Blind, Knut. 2004. The economics of standards: theory, evidence, policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cho, Daemyeong, Kwangsik Yoon, and Seongin Seol. 2021. Technology standard competition analysis in the 4th wireless telecommunication industry using evolutionary game theory. Wireless Personal Communications 121: 3041–3060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-08863-9.
Choi, Dong Geun, and Henk J. de Vries. 2013. Integrating standardization into engineering education: the case of forerunner Korea. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 23: 1111–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9231-7.
Choung, Jae-Yong., Hye-Ran. Hwang, and Jun-Kyun. Choi. 2016. Post catch-up system transition failure: the case of ICT technology development in Korea. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 24: 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2016.1207422.
Choung, Jae-Yong., Illyong Ji, and Tahir Hameed. 2011. International standardization strategies of latecomers: the cases of Korean TPEG, T-DMB, and binary CDMA. World Development 39(5): 824–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.09.007.
Chu, May. 2020. Horses for courses: China’s accommodative approach to food standard-setting in response to the internationalization of regulation. Regulation and Governance 14(3): 514–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12228.
Cui, Shun-Ji. 2008. Government role in the internationalization of accounting standards in China. Korea International Accounting Review 24: 413–429. https://doi.org/10.21073/kiar.2008.24.020.
Curzi, Daniele, Monica Schuster, Miet Maertens, and Alessandro Olper. 2020. Standards, trade margins and product quality: firm-level evidence from Peru. Food Policy 91: 101834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101834.
de Vries, Henk J., and Frank M. Go. 2017. Developing a common standard for authentic restaurants. Service Industries Journal 37: 1008–1028. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2017.1373763.
Disdier, Anne-Célia., Lionel Fontagné, and Olivier Cadot. 2015. North-South standards harmonization and international trade. World Bank Economic Review 29(2): 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lht039.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Melissa E. Graebner. 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50(1): 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888.
Ernst, Dieter, Heejin Lee, and Jooyoung Kwak. 2014. Standards, innovation, and latecomer economic development: conceptual issues and policy challenges. Telecommunications Policy 38(10): 853–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.09.009.
Farrell, Joseph, and Garth Saloner. 1985. Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 16(1): 70–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555589.
Fernandes, Ana M., Esteban Ferro, and John S. Wilson. 2019. Product standards and firms’ export decisions. The World Bank Economic Review 33(2): 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhw071.
Fuchs, Daniel, and Sarah Eaton. 2021. Diffusion of practice: the curious case of the Sino-German technical standardisation partnership. New Political Economy 27(6): 958–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2021.1961221.
Ganslandt, Mattias, and James R. Markusen. 2001. National standards and international trade. IUI Working Paper No. 547. The Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Stockholm. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/94852/1/wp547.pdf.
Gao, Ping, Xudong Gao, and Guanyu Liu. 2021. Government-controlled enterprises in standardization in the catching-up context: case of TD-SCDMA in China. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 68(1): 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.3005274.
Gao, Ping. 2015. Government in the catching-up of technology innovation: case of administrative intervention in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 96: 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.01.014.
Gyamerah, Samuel, Zheng He, Emmanuel Etto-Duodu. Gyamerah, Dennis Asante, Bright Nana Kwame. Ahia, and Enock Mintah Ampaw. 2021. Implementation of the Belt and Road initiative in Africa: a firm-level study of Sub-Saharan African SMEs. Journal of Chinese Political Science 27: 719–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-021-09749-0.
ISO/IWA 41. 2022. Guidelines for live streaming marketing service. https://www.iso.org/standard/83974.html. Accessed 17 October 2022.
Kwak, Jooyoung, Heejin Lee, and Vladislav Fomin. 2011. Government coordination of conflicting interests in standardisation: case studies of indigenous ICT standards in China and South Korea. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 23(7): 789–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2011.592285.
Lee, Heejin, and Joon(Chris). Huh. 2012. Korea’s strategies for ICT standards internationalisation: a comparison with China’s. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research 10(2): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/jitsr.2012070101.
Liu, Yingyan, Zaisheng Zhang, Huadun Chen, and Heng Zhao. 2021. Measuring the political cost of environmental problems (PCEP): a scale development and validation. Journal of Chinese Governance 8(3): 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2021.1944555.
Mangelsdorf, Axel, Alberto Portugal-Perez, and John S. Wilson. 2012. Food standards and exports: evidence for China. World Trade Review 11: 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474745612000195.
Nabin, Munirul H., Xuan Nguyen, and Pasquale M. Sgro. 2013. Technology transfer, quality standards, and north–south trade. Review of International Economics 21(4): 783–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12070.
Porter, Michael E. 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review 76(6): 77–90.
Sakawa, Hideaki, Naoki Watanabel, and Gu. Junjian. 2021. The internationalization and voluntary adoption of international accounting standards by Japanese MNEs. Management International Review 61: 713–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-021-00452-z.
Schlemmer, Eliane, and Luciana Backes. 2015. Brazilian experiences in metaverse. In Learning in metaverse: Co-existing in real virtuality, Hersey, 309–340. PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6351-0.ch015
Schmidt, Julia, and Walter Steingress. 2022. No double standards: quantifying the impact of standard harmonization on trade. Journal of International Economics 137: 103619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2022.103619.
Schouten, Greetje, and Verena Bitzer. 2015. The emergence of Southern standards in agricultural value chains: a new trend in sustainability governance? Ecological Economics 120: 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.017.
Standardization Administration of China (SAC). 2021. National standardization development outline. https://en.dl.gov.cn/art/2021/10/11/art_688_1941593.html. Accessed 17 October 2022.
Stewart, James Kenneth, Xiaobai Shen, Chengwei Wang, and Ian Graham. 2011. From 3G to 4G: standards and the development of mobile broadband in China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 23(7): 773–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2011.592284.
Su, Hung-Chung., Suvrat Dhanorkar, and Kevin Linderman. 2015. A competitive advantage from the implementation timing of ISO management standards. Journal of Operations Management 37: 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.03.004.
Swann, G.M.P. 2010. The economics of standardization: an update. UK Department of Business, Innovation, and Skills (URN 00/1694). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/economics-of-standardisation-update-to-report. Accessed 14 November 2022.
Swinnen, Johan. 2016. Economics and politics of food standards, trade, and development. Agricultural Economics 47(S1): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12316.
Upton Jr, Gregory B., and Brian F. Snyder. 2017. Funding renewable energy: An analysis of renewable portfolio standards. Energy Economics 66: 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.06.003.
van de Kaa, Geerten, Mark Greeven, and Gildo van Puijenbroek. 2013. Standards battles in China: opening up the black box of the Chinese government. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 25(5): 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.785511.
Wang, Xuejun, Huiying Zhou, and Su. Dongmei. 2022. Does the internationalisation of China’s agri-food standards affect export quality upgrading? Evidence from firm-product-level data. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 66(4): 887–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12493.
Wei, Yuming M. 2022. Exploring the technical assessment standards for “ordinary purposes” in the CISG. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 15(3): 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-021-00337-3.
Yan, Karl. 2022. Rethinking China’s quest for railway standardization: competition and complementation. Journal of Chinese Governance 7(1): 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2020.1807889.
Yang, Lijuan, and Du. Weigong. 2023. Catalyst or barrier? Heterogeneous effects of standards on agricultural trade between China and the Belt and Road countries. International Studies of Economics 18(1): 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ise3.25.
Yang, Lijuan. 2023a. Fields of harmony: trade standards and China’s value-added exports in global value chains. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 36(2): 2140304. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2140304.
Yang, Lijuan. 2023. The economics of standards: a literature review. Journal of Economic Surveys. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12555.
Yang, Lijuan. 2023. Recommendations for metaverse governance based on technical standards. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01750-7.
Zhang, Chen, Biao Ma, Yujie Gan, and Xu. Hao. 2022. The bottom of the heart of the property builder: evidence from online messages of Chinese rural migrant workers. Chinese Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00222-8.
Zhou, Jing-Yi., and Yong-Eun. Moon. 2020. A comparative analysis of live broadcasting between Korea and China. Journal of Information Systems 29(1): 113–136. https://doi.org/10.5859/KAIS.2020.29.1.113.
Acknowledgements
My gratitude to the editorial panel for their encouragement and guidance
Funding
Post-funded project of the National Social Science Fund of China, “Research on academic frontier theory and policy of the economics of standards” [Grant No. 21FJLB039]; project of the China Association of Trade in Services, “Research on the role of technical standards in supporting enterprise digital transformation” [Grant No. FWMYKT-202303]; Humanities and Social Sciences Project of Gansu Province, “Research on strategies for promoting digital transformation and empowering Gansu’s high-quality development through technical standards” [Grant No. 23ZZ02]; and the Gansu Provincial Science and Technology Program Fund, “Research on promoting trade development between Gansu and countries along the Silk Road through harmonization of standards” [Grant No. 23JRZA385].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Lijuan Yang: Conceptualization, project administration, data curation, writing‐review & editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Availability of data
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, L. Lead or Follow: Cases of Internationalization of Chinese Technical Standards. Fudan J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 17, 23–49 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-023-00393-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-023-00393-x