The New Governance of ICT Standards in Europe

  • Morten KallestrupEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 25)


In 2012, the ‘European Multi-Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardization’ (MSP) was inaugurated as a new platform for dialogue on European ICT standardization. The MSP was comprised of a wide range of members, e.g., representatives of national authorities of EU member-states and European Free Trade Association countries; the European and international ICT standardization bodies and stakeholder organizations representing industry; small- and medium-sized enterprises, consumers, and other stakeholders. The MSP was set up by the European Commission as a new kind of collaborative forum in ICT standardization, partly in response to the otherwise consolidated and formalized European standardization system, which had a clear allocation of competences between exclusively selected public and private actors, yet also inefficiencies due to a rather bureaucratic governance system. This chapter outlines the creation of the MSP as a new ICT-enabled collaborative decision-making system in European ICT standardization. Not due to the application of new technologies, but due to the systemic consequences of the fast development of ICT for political, administrative and regulatory setups of collaboration in Europe. This chapter provides an analysis of the MSP as a new type of forum for deliberation and cooperation in European ICT standardization, and it outlines how the platform facilitates a regulatory dialogue on ICT standardization in Europe. Simultaneously, the MSP plays a significant role in public–private co-creation of regulation and ICT standardization, and it may prove to be a pathbreaker leading to a ‘paradigm shift’ in the governance of European standardization. Finally, certain implications of the MSP are discussed.


European Union Private Actor Public Procurement Formal Recognition Private Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abbott, K.W., Snidal, D. (2009). The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and the Shadow of the State. In Mattli, W., and Woods, N. (eds.) The Politics of Global Regulation, pp. 44–88. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blind, K., and Gauch, S. (2008). Trends in ICT standards: The relationship between European standardization bodies and standards consortia. Telecommunications Policy, 32, 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blind, K., Gauch, S., and Hawkins, R. (2010). How stakeholders view the impacts of international ICT standards. Telecommunications Policy, 34, 162–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blind, K., Grossmann, A. M., Müller, J. A., and Rauber, J. (2014). Indicator Report 2014. German Standardization Panel (DNP). Berlin: German Society for the Promotion of Research on Standardization (FSN).Google Scholar
  5. Büthe, T., and Mattli, W. (2011). The New Global Rulers. The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cafaggi, F. (2011). New Foundations of Transnational Private Regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 38(1), 20–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cafaggi, F., Renda, A., and Schmidt, R. (2013). Transnational Private Regulation. International Regulatory Co-operation: Case Studies, Vol. 3. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  8. CEBR (2015). The Economic Contribution of Standards to the UK Economy. London: BSI.Google Scholar
  9. Copenhagen Economics (2013). Potentialer for standardisering og vækst. Report produced for the Danish Business Authority. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Economics.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission (2014a). Helping European public bodies use the most common ICT specifications. Accessed on December 15 24 2016 on:
  11. European Commission (2014b). The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of EU product rules. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission (2016). European Multi Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardization. Accessed on December 15 2016 on:
  13. European Commission Register of Expert Groups and Other Similar Entities (2016). European Multi-Stakeholders Platform on ICT Standardization (E02758). Accessed on December 15 2016 on:
  14. Gauch, S. and K. Blind (2015). Technological convergence and the absorptive capacity of standardization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 91, 236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kallestrup, M. (2015). Amidst a Plethora of Interests and Actors. The EU Negotiations of Regulation 1025/2012 on European Standardization. The 20th EURAS Annual Standardization Conference Proceedings, 22–24 June 2015. Aachen: Wissenschaftsverlag Mainz.Google Scholar
  16. Koop, C., and Lodge, M. (2015). What is regulation? An interdisciplinary concept analysis. Regulation and Governance doi:10.1111/rego.12094.Google Scholar
  17. Levi-Faur, D. (ed.) (2011). Handbook on the Politics of Regulation. Northampton, MA: Edwar Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, G. E. (1979). Standardization. Microelectronics Journal, 10(2): 30–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scott, C., Cafaggi, F., and Senden, L. (2011). The Conceptual and Constitutional Challenge of Transnational Private Regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 38(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Slaughter, A. M. (2004). A New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Van Eecke, P., Fonseca, P. P., and Egyedi, T. (2007). EU Study on the specific policy needs for ICT standardization, Final report. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  22. Wettig, J. (2002). New developments in standardization in the past 15 years – product versus process related standards. Safety Science, 40: 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

EU Documents and Legislation Cited

  1. COM (2010) 2020 final. Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  2. COM (2010) 245 final. A digital agenda for Europe. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  3. COM (2010) 614 final. An industrial policy strategy. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  4. COM (2011) 206 final. Single Market Act. Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  5. COM (2011) 311 final. A strategic vision for European standards: Moving forward to enhance and accelerate the sustainable growth of the European economy by 2020. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  6. COM (2011) 315 final. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European standardization. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  7. Commission Decision of 28 November 2011 on setting up the European multi-stakeholder platform on ICT standardization (2011/C 349/04). Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  8. Commission Decision of 28 July 2015 on the identification of ‘Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise’ profiles for referencing in public procurement (2015/1302/EU). Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  9. Commission Implementing Decision of 3 April 2014 on the identification of ICT technical specifications eligible for referencing in public procurement (2014/188/EU). Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  10. Commission Implementing Decision of 31 October 2014 on the identification of Universal Business Language version 2.1 for referencing in public procurement (2014/771/EU). Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  11. Commission Implementing Decision of 28 January 2016 on the identification of the extensible Business Reporting Language 2.1 for referencing in public procurement (2016/120/EU). Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  12. Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardization. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and Public ManagementUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations