BUSINESS STANDARDS
is the quarterly magazine of BSI Group, highlighting the vital role that standards play in today's business environment. Regular features include interviews with leading business figures, as well as news on the latest developments in management systems and standards.

Business Standards > Opinions

Viewpoint

Question: Is the contribution made by standards always positive?

Standards can make an enormous contribution to organizations, businesses and society - a number of recent studies have confirmed this as an indisputable fact. But is the contribution they make always positive?

In my role as chairman of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS), I have a close understanding of the world of standards. Most of UKAS' accreditation work is based on standards - from the certification of quality and environmental management systems to a huge range of product testing and beyond. UKAS itself works to ISO/IEC 17011: the international standard for accreditation bodies. However, given the authority and reputation of the standards-making bodies in the marketplace, it is important to ensure that all the standards they produce are designed and used in the public interest.

As a member of the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council (RRAC), I have been involved in a study of health and safety practices in the small business community that has questioned whether this is always the case. The RRAC has established that ?risk actors? - such as insurers, legal professionals, consultants, the media and even standards makers - can sometimes have an unhelpful impact on assessments and outcomes. More specifically, we have identified the confusion for a small business when surrounded by different ?risk actors? sending different signals. This is against a general view that the flexibility of the legal framework, in this case the Health and Safety at Work Act, can lead to uncertainty and a desire for external advice or reassurance.

We have also found that, in some cases, the activities of these ?risk actors? can drive an unnecessarily risk averse approach to health and safety, and this includes those designing or recommending standards as much as any of the others. This may arise where standards are misunderstood, inappropriate or produced without broad societal support. It can also arise as the result of poor advice from an over cautious consultant.

We need to ensure that standards are designed, promoted and implemented in a way that delivers what organizations, businesses and society really need. Equally, we need to ensure that the purpose and use of standards are properly explained and understood. This is especially important in these times of economic difficulty. Where standards are applied, they must provide proportionate and intended outcomes without adding unnecessary demands.

The prize is worth striving for. The right standard in the right circumstances, underpinned by accredited certification where appropriate, enables an organization to demonstrate with confidence and assurance that a chosen level of performance is being achieved. Everyone wins.

Lord Jamie Lindsay, chairman, UKAS _________________________________________

There's no question that standards make a very positive contribution to society. According to The Empirical Economics of Standards, a 2005 study by the Department of Trade and Industry (now BERR) in association with BSI, they have contributed £2.5bn per annum to the UK economy since WWII. Standards continue to add value to organizations of all sizes, in both the private and public sector. Does this mean their contribution is always positive? Standards are created with positive goals in mind, usually focusing on best practice and continuous improvement. They include perspectives from a wide range of individuals and organizations, in an attempt to reach transparency and consensus on how to achieve these goals effectively and efficiently. This doesn't mean that the path will always be a smooth one, or that the end result will be exactly what people want or expect.

At the same time, the development of standards is an iterative process and continues long after publication. They are reviewed on an ongoing basis, and they evolve over time. Updates to standards are based on input from standards users and standards developers, and should always accommodate an impact assessment to gauge the relevancy for all stakeholders.

For example, ISO 9001, the world's first quality management systems standard, was updated in 2008 following a regularly scheduled review. The changes were relatively minor but implemented because they were considered important enough by the stakeholders involved in the review process. In other words, while there may be bumps along the way, the intent of any standard is about making things better - and to make a positive contribution by improving efficiency, reducing risk, enhancing interoperability, increasing competitiveness and stimulating global trade.

Frank Post, marketing and communications director, BSI Group

Business Standards © 2007. Editorial produced by Caspian Publishing in association with the British Standards Institution. Editorial opinions expressed on are not necessarily those of BSI Group or Caspian Publishing. Neither Caspian Publishing nor BSI Group accept responsibility for advertising or editorial content, nor for that appearing on linked third-party websites. Reproduction in whole or in part is forbidden without written permission from BSI Group or Caspian Publishing.

We are under increasing pressure to comply with a growing number of regulations and to maintain growth - while under greater scrutiny than ever before. How can this be good for business?

We are all in the risk management business. In the current climate, as consumers we are encouraged to claim compensation or sue for damages for almost any negative incident we encounter.

Read more

Have a standards-related question for BSI or a comment on the website? We'll find the right person to answer.