- Standards are indispensable for ensuring interoperability and widespread adoption of technologies like barcodes and USB-C connectors.
- Corporate interests can influence standards to favor specific products, which raises concerns about technical objectivity.
- Political regulations increasingly drive standard development, introducing complexity and sometimes conflicting requirements.
- Active involvement by European companies in standardization is crucial to safeguard their influence and avoid dominance by external actors.
A commentary by Olaf Wilmsmeier, founder and owner of Wilmsmeier Solutions and expert in AIDC/Auto-ID and European standardization.
Standardization is important—no question about it! Without standards, many things in our everyday lives would not be possible. Just think of the barcode or—more recently—the standardized USB-C connector for our smartphones. Standards are essential when it comes to auto-ID: without standards, there would be no market penetration, no successful dissemination, and no interoperability.
Many standards are currently being developed that will have a significant impact on the European and global economy in the coming years. Standards are therefore not only technically motivated, but are also increasingly demanded by politicians. So how much politics is involved in standards – and is that always a good thing from a technical point of view?
Why standards are so important
When it comes to standardization, we can all think of numerous positive examples. As I mentioned at the beginning, I am firmly convinced that standards are useful. I myself am active in many standardization committees and am particularly involved in the creation and maintenance of standards relating to the AIDC (Automatic Identification and Data Capture) industry.
Standards can be driven by commercial enterprises, consortia, or associations – often for technical reasons. This is because standardized solutions often enable a solution to achieve significant market penetration. In addition, the results achieved are also "protected" to a certain extent by standards.
Standards are also corporate policy
This inevitably leads to the conclusion that standards are also used to shape corporate policy. Anyone who sets a standard that fits their own product or solution perfectly has an advantage. This insight is not new – I am aware of that.
The question, however, is: How much politics is still good for technically sensible and good standards? I am increasingly recognizing that standards are deliberately used for lobbying—for example, to coin terms.
When regulation drives standards
In addition to industry-driven standards, many standards are also based on new political regulations. The RED cybersecurity extension to improve the cybersecurity of internet-enabled radio equipment, the Cyber Resilience Act (cybersecurity for all products with digital elements), and the Digital Product Passport (DPP) are just three examples of European legislation that will have a significant impact on the European economy in recent months and in the coming years.
Product manufacturers and distributors of products for the European Union economic area must comply with these new requirements. To ensure that manufacturers know how to test and implement these requirements, the EU Commission awards contracts to the standardization bodies ETSI and CEN/CENELEC. This results in (partially harmonized) standards that help industry demonstrate compliance with EU regulations.
Easy-LOCFIELD RFID Bumper
The Easy-LOCFIELD RFID Bumper integrates durable mechanical protection with precise UHF RFID detection for reliable, localized item identification.
Complexity meets time pressure
The EU Commission often has very good reasons for introducing such new regulations – reasons that I fundamentally support. For example, the European economic area and consumers need to be protected. When it comes to cybersecurity, this is immediately understandable.
However, the projects are often very complex. At the same time, there is considerable time pressure to develop the associated standards that are intended to help industry implement the new regulations as independently and legally compliant as possible. Complexity combined with time pressure challenges the players in the standardization groups across the board.
In addition, political objectives that do not always match the actual technical requirements must be reconciled. It is in the nature of things that the EU Commission's requirements are also politically motivated.
In complex projects such as cybersecurity, environmental protection, and the circular economy, the requirements sometimes contain contradictory requirements or framework conditions that run counter to the actual interests of the EU—at least in my view.
Example: DPP – user-friendly, but with side effects?
From the EU Commission's point of view, an important aspect of the DPP is that it should be easy for consumers to interact with digital product data. There should be no barriers, such as registration requirements, to accessing digital product information. This is a reasonable demand.
However, if this is interpreted in such a way that identification technologies that are already a basic component of smartphone operating systems are given preference, this has disadvantages – including dependence on large corporations headquartered outside the EU. The latest problems with Google's ML Kit, which does not interpret barcodes in a standard-compliant manner, show what such dependence can lead to.
Such requirements create dependence on individual companies, which neither represents real added value for consumers nor makes technical sense.
Example: Identifiers: Restrictions can create practical problems
In the case of the DPP in particular, it will become clear – as soon as the regulations with the EU Commission's specifications for the individual product groups are available – whether the technically sensible and necessary data will also be recorded and maintained as part of the DPP.
When it comes to identifiers, it is also desirable that the entire range of standards developed by CEN/CENELEC be permitted for each product group. The new battery regulation that has already been published imposes severe restrictions in this regard with its reference to QR codes.
In practice, it remains to be seen to what extent this will have negative consequences for the implementation of a genuine circular economy – which is, after all, the actual goal of the DPP. Only time will tell whether a QR code is really the most suitable technology for identifying batteries in industrial recycling plants.
Of course, additional battery labeling with other AIDC technologies, such as UHF RFID, is not prohibited.
Standardization remains indispensable
Despite all the challenges, I stand by my opening statement: standardization is important – and right! Yes, we must always question whether requirements and implementation are effective. Industry must also ensure that company policy and lobbying do not take over in standardization groups.
All in all, however, I have found that standardization involves highly committed specialists and colleagues who are always striving to create meaningful and error-free standards. Many thanks to all those involved! I am delighted to be able to contribute to this in the working groups.
It's worth getting involved
German and European companies would be well advised to become more involved in standardization again. As mentioned at the beginning, this also protects their own interests.
Otherwise, no one should be surprised—or even complain—if, in the future, the influence of other countries and regions becomes increasingly apparent, especially in international standards.
It's worth getting involved!
