Chapter 8. Standards and technical regulations (Dimension 7) in the Western Balkans and Turkey

The inter-institutional co-ordination of quality infrastructure is stronger

With the exception of Bosnia and Herzegovina, all WBT governments have functioning bodies to co-ordinate quality infrastructure processes. Nonetheless, the existence of a dedicated body does not always translate into effective co-ordination. For instance, in Kosovo, the Division for Quality Infrastructure at the Ministry for Trade and Industry has only three employees, rendering effective co-ordination challenging. Meanwhile, co-ordination of the quality infrastructure systems in both Albania and North Macedonia excludes market surveillance – hindering the holistic co-ordination of all of the quality infrastructure pillars.

The majority of WBT governments have also adopted and renewed strategies and action plans to transpose EU legislation for industrial products. Albania and North Macedonia are in the process of renewing their strategic documents. The political stalemate in the Committee for Technical Regulations of Bosnia and Herzegovina as the body involved in preparing programmes of transposition, persists due to disagreement over state and entity competences for issuing technical regulations and appointing conformity assessment bodies.2

The progress made in ensuring overall quality infrastructure co-ordination in the WBT economies has not been complemented by support systems for exporters (for more information, please refer to Chapter 12 on internationalisation of SMEs). Most economies lack designated web portals or single points of contact. Information about applicable EU laws and regulations remains fragmented, which not only creates potential discrepancies in the information but also forces SMEs to search for and contact the relevant institutions and agencies individually.

Only Serbia and Turkey have designated portals that provide specific information to SMEs interested in exporting to the EU Single Market. In Serbia, a user-friendly website called TEHNIS provides comprehensive information on export requirements and government support mechanisms for exporters (Box 8.1). Likewise, information concerning compliance with export requirements is also provided in Bosnia and Herzegovina, although only in the Republika Srpska (RS). Turkey has established a single contact point for exporters, which enables SMEs to directly contact the Ministry of Trade experts via phone, on line and via a mobile phone application. It also allows SMEs to find the relevant forms for exports and to reach Turkey’s trade representations abroad. Kosovo’s Private Sector Development Strategy 2018-2022 envisages the establishment of a single point of contact for trade in services, but no such initiatives seem to be in preparation for trade in products.

The way forward for overall co-ordination and general measures

Although overall co-ordination of quality infrastructure policies has significantly improved in the WBT economies, there is scope to improve general measures to support exporters. In particular, governments should:

• Establish a single source of tailored information for SMEs. This could consist of single web portals or trade help-desks and could include guidance in local language(s) for SMEs on health, safety, marketing and the technical standards their products need to meet. Coverage could also be extended to include the necessary shipping forms when exporting or to provide information on trade agreements and trade representations abroad.

Most governments have aligned their technical regulations, although regular monitoring and evaluation are often lacking

With the exception of Bosnia and Herzegovina, progress has been made across all WBT economies in transposing EU technical regulations. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the process has stagnated since the aforementioned Committee for Technical Regulations responsible for stopped convening in 2012. As a result, EU legislation has not been aligned in a uniform manner, leading to inadequate harmonisation with the EU acquis.

The training needs of the institutions implementing technical regulations have been assessed in all the WBT economies, except North Macedonia. In Serbia and Turkey, the staff of government ministries and agencies are trained in new regulations and their implementation; however, this training is usually one-off and sporadic in nature.

Most of the economies have weak mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the impact of the implementation of technical regulations. Regular monitoring and evaluation only take place in Serbia and Turkey – in other economies the arrangements are more ad hoc.

Adoption of European standards is progressing, though mostly by endorsement

The national standards bodies in the WBT economies have increased their efforts to adopt EU standards. However, the region shows two distinct levels of performance, with Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey achieving much higher adoption rates (Table 8.5).

In most cases transposition involves issuing an “endorsement notice”3 or by translating only the cover page – the “cover page method”. As a result, standards are usually not available in local languages making it hard for SMEs to find the relevant standards, fully grasp their content and implement them correctly. This finding was further reinforced in the interviews conducted with private sector. For instance, Turkey has only fully translated 3 686 EU standards – just 18% of all adopted EU standards. The share is even lower in the Western Balkan economies.

In spite of linguistic similarities in the Western Balkans, regional co-operation has not been used as a cost-effective way to translate European standards.

National standards bodies lack funding and human resources

National standards bodies (NSBs) in the Western Balkans and Turkey grapple with financial issues, since they struggle to raise their own funds and continue to depend largely on public funding. The challenge is that these bodies collect very little revenue from sales of standards and other services offered to the private sector. Moreover, in certain cases, the revenues they collect are funnelled into general government budgets, further undermining their already weak incentives to diversify revenue sources. For instance, the Kosovo Standardisation Agency is administratively part of the Ministry of Trade and Industry and lacks its own budget or bank account, and the income it generates from the sales of standards goes entirely to the state budget.

Some NSBs have already cited lack of staff due to limited and fluctuating budgets as a significant obstacle to carrying out their activities. This is the case for regular activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Montenegro, while the NSBs in Albania and North Macedonia foresee a need for a more employees in order to strengthen and diversify their services.

Turkey’s national standards body, the Turkish Standards Institution (TSE), provides conformity assessment services, thereby raising additional revenue to support its other standardisation activities. Currently, the TSE is the only national standards body in the WBT region that does not rely on public funding. Although the direct engagement of public NSBs in conformity assessment has certain benefits, such as offering competence-building activities for private conformity assessment bodies (CABs) and generating financial resources for standardisation services, there are also certain risks. First, it might crowd out private investment in CABs; and second, it might create biased incentives for NSBs to develop unnecessary standards just to generate some certification business. It is therefore crucial to maintain a clear separation between NSBs’ activities in standardisation and conformity assessment, and also to ensure that NSBs only offer conformity assessment services in specific sectors which have major relevance for the society and economy in general, and where there is no business case for private CABs to offer those services.

National standards bodies are well integrated into European structures and co-operate regionally

All national standards bodies except the Kosovo Standardisation Agency actively participate in the European standards system. The national standards bodies of North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey are members of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), allowing them to represent their economies’ interests on their technical committees. The other economies have affiliate status. In 2017, Kosovo signed an agreement with CEN and CENELEC for direct access to EU standards. All the WBT governments except Bosnia and Herzegovina have also carried out needs assessments into the investment and technical expertise required to participate in the European standards system.

Regional co-operation among national standards bodies has also been deepening in the Western Balkans and Turkey. For example, CEN has been running a project aimed at the full implementation of EU product legislation for electrical/electronic equipment and construction products in the six economies of the Western Balkans. The project is financed by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). It includes the organisation of workshops and training, networking events, and proficiency testing. However, regional co-operation is not limited to donor-funded initiatives. For example, in 2018 the national standards bodies of Turkey and Serbia signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to facilitate co-operation in the certification of management systems and products (e.g. halal), as well as in organising training and expert exchanges.

Education in standardisation is almost non-existent

Standards have the potential to achieve public objectives (e.g. protecting human health or the environment), while also facilitating trade by reducing market uncertainty and information asymmetries between producers and consumers. This potential can only be fully harnessed if the relevant actors in the standardisation process (regulatory authorities, standards developing organisations, academia, businesses and consumers) are able to participate and make informed decisions (Wilfried and de Vries, 2011[17]). Since the process entails a significant level of technical knowledge, education in standardisation can help businesses and consumers to take on a contributory role and enhance the effectiveness of overall participation.

Education in standardisation in the WBT economies is limited to small-scale and irregular activities and lacks a coherent approach, thereby depriving the economies from fully realising the advantages of standards. While various programmes have been prepared to educate and train businesses in implementing standards, they usually do not cover topics related to developing them. Moreover, education about standardisation has not been well established in academic programmes or curricula. While national standards bodies and public universities have signed co-operation agreements in several of the economies, they are limited to irregular seminars. Furthermore, these seminars are not complemented by attractive study materials and rarely include practical classes.

Standardisation education is not included in government strategies or action plans in the majority of the economies. Only Serbia and Turkey have defined clear government actions to systematically improve and expand education activities (Box 8.2).

Accreditation infrastructure is solid and conformity assessment services have increased in priority sectors

The increasing number of specific EU standards and technical regulations has brought about a need for effective systems in the Western Balkans and Turkey to evaluate compliance. National accreditation bodies provide an authoritative statement on the competence and credibility of conformity assessment bodies (CABs), which in turn evaluate whether products fulfil the requirements of the EU Single Market (European Accreditation, 2018[19]). SMEs often need to show proof of their compliance with the requirements set out in standards and regulations. For this, they depend on the availability of reliable conformity assessment services, such as certification.

National accreditation bodies in the assessed economies have increased their participation in European accreditation systems. They are either full members of the European co-operation for Accreditation (Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey) or associate members (Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo). Likewise, most WBT economies are signatories of the European Accreditation Multilateral Agreements (EA MLA)4 or Bilateral Agreements (EA BLA). These agreements provide confidence that national accreditation is operated in a manner that is harmonised and consistent with accreditation procedures in the EU. This means that conformity assessments carried out by accredited CABs in the WBT economies are accepted across borders, opening up markets for SMEs. Having been tested or certified once, SMEs do not need to re-test or re-certify their product. In the region, the EA MLAs of Turkey and Serbia cover the highest number of scopes, seven and six respectively (Table 8.6).

The WBT economies have also concluded co-operation agreements with each other. In October 2018, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia signed an MoU to mutually recognise documents issued by accredited laboratories for industrial non-food products, which will further remove trade barriers and facilitate exports for SMEs.

Almost all WBT governments have adopted legislation on conformity assessment in line with the EU acquis. Their legislation has also moved towards the principles applied in European harmonised legislation, i.e. the presumption of conformity, self-certification and absence of mandatory standards. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the effectiveness of the law on conformity assessment remains limited, since the Republika Srpska continues to develop and implement its own legislation separately. As with other quality infrastructure pillars, the legislation on accreditation and conformity assessment in the WBT economies is generally not subject to regular monitoring and evaluation.

While most governments declare their accreditation body to be fully operational, in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, additional staff will be required to maintain the current level of accreditation services. Accreditation of new CABs remains a major issue for Kosovo’s accreditation body, which currently employs only three auditors. As the number of CAB applications continues to increase, Serbia foresees the need for additional staff and Albania has allocated increasing funds to hire auditors and technical experts for their accreditation.

Since many economies do not need or cannot afford CABs in all sectors, the focus of WBT governments has primarily been to ensure the existence of conformity assessment services in mandatory areas and their priority sectors.5 Although the number of CABs has increased across the WBT economies, SMEs in certain sectors still need to seek conformity assessment abroad in several economies. For instance, conformity assessment services are not available for the food and electrical equipment sectors in Albania, or for lift and lift parts manufacturers in Kosovo.

SMEs in all WBT economies can check the availability of conformity assessment bodies and services through online CAB registries.

Several metrology bodies in the WBT economies lack resources

Metrology ensures that reliable measurement systems and equipment are used in production, and tests whether products and processes adhere to standards and regulations.

All the WBT governments have established institutions responsible for metrology and they are well integrated into European and international organisations. With the exception of Kosovo, their metrology bodies are associate members of the European Cooperation in Legal Metrology and members of the European Association of National Metrology Institutes (EURAMET). Their integration and co-operation with these bodies ensures alignment in industrial as well as legal metrology, providing SMEs with access to reliable metrological services such as equipment calibration.

However, it is debatable whether the Western Balkan economies all need their own metrology bodies, given the difficulty of financing metrology bodies in smaller economies (Guasch et al., 2007[8]). The need for additional financial resources has consistently been voiced by national metrology bodies in the region – with the lack of laboratories and adequate premises notably highlighted as obstacles in North Macedonia and Montenegro respectively.

Co-operation among metrology bodies in the region is well developed. A number of MoUs have been signed, most recently between the Institute for Metrology of Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia’s Bureau of Metrology (in August 2018). Several WBT metrology bodies also participate in EURAMET’s inter-laboratory comparison programmes, which allow test results to be compared and the quality assurance of testing services. For example, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, and North Macedonia all participate in regional volume comparisons.

Market surveillance activities have increased, but focus mainly on enforcement rather than supporting compliance

An important challenge for governments is achieving high levels of compliance with regulations, while reducing the burden on enterprises. Although the ultimate goal of market surveillance remains protecting consumers from unsafe products, a well-formulated system will also protect businesses from disproportionate costs and unfair competition.

All WBT economies have legislation on market surveillance that is in line with the EU acquis. Implementation has mainly focused on enforcement – recalling products and imposing penalties. In this context, market surveillance authorities have concentrated their resources on increasing the number of inspections and hiring new inspectors, without developing upstream measures to support and encourage SMEs to comply with technical regulations. They have also made only limited efforts to provide information and guidance on legal requirements for products in order to promote compliance among enterprises. One exception is the annual guide for economic operators produced by the Market Surveillance Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which serves as a good practice example of how to help economic operators to place safe products on the market (Box 8.3).

The majority of the WBT economies have also made progress in co-ordinating market surveillance activities through a designated co-ordination body. However, in Kosovo and North Macedonia, overlapping competences in secondary legislation and a large number of competent authorities are increasing government expenses as well as the compliance burden for enterprises. Acknowledging this problem, Albania established the State Inspectorate for Market Surveillance in 2016, merging various market surveillance activities and clearly defining its competences and tasks. Meanwhile, Kosovo is planning to decrease overlapping and parallel inspections by merging the current 36 market surveillance directorates into 15. Although improving, the overall effectiveness of market surveillance in North Macedonia is inhibited by the multiple pieces of legislation which continue to regulate inspections.

Cross-border collaboration also remains a challenge. While discussions continue in various forums on developing a module for exchanging information about dangerous products (test reports, checklists, risk assessments, etc.), no steps have been taken to implement it.

The way forward for harmonisation with the EU acquis

The WBT governments have taken positive steps to enhance their quality infrastructure systems. However, several issues related to operating self-sufficient quality infrastructure bodies and sustaining efforts in harmonisation with the EU acquis warrant further attention:

• Explore regional collaboration and consider taking steps to establish the common use of quality infrastructure at the regional level. Establishing fully fledged national quality infrastructure requires considerable investment and ties up resources over the long term. For many economies with limited financial means and a relatively modest demand for some of the quality-related services, this is neither feasible nor useful. Instead, the common use of a shared and complementary infrastructure or intensified expert exchange appear to be better approaches (BMZ, 2004[22]). A first step could be to consider the costs of and demand for quality infrastructure services to find out which services individual economies should establish themselves, and which could be provided at the regional level.

• This SBA assessment reveals the scope to step up regional co-operation for the following quality infrastructure pillars in the Western Balkans and Turkey:

  • Accreditation: since national accreditation bodies require substantial resources to cover all conformity assessment areas, the economies could consider only providing accreditation services for their priority sectors. An individual economy should base its decision to add or remove specific areas of accreditation on a cost-benefit analysis of market priorities, demand for auditing and availability of audit experts. Where accreditation would not be effective and efficient, governments could consider regional solutions, such as recognising foreign accreditation or contracting with another accreditation body in the region to undertake accreditation on their behalf.

  • Metrology: operating a metrology body in smaller economies is a costly endeavour. Policy makers should therefore conduct a cost-benefit analysis to assess which services are essential in their national economies. For instance, it would not be economically reasonable for national metrology bodies to develop a system for metrological traceability in all areas of metrology. Stronger regional co-operation in metrology activities would therefore reduce the financial burden of maintaining current levels of investment in national metrology bodies.

  • Standardisation: regional co-operation could be further stepped up by building on existing bilateral co-operation agreements between some national standardisation bodies in the WBT region. A regional database and network covering applicable local and international standards in the region could be established to improve information and knowledge sharing. This would also facilitate intra-regional trade, and contribute to the efforts of the WB governments under the Multi-Action Plan for the Regional Economic Area6. Moreover, given the linguistic similarities in the region, standardisation bodies could create synergies by translating the relevant EU standards, and sharing the cost among themselves.

  • Conformity assessment: if not available locally, governments should facilitate SMEs’ access to conformity assessment in neighbouring economies. Government support could include measures to cover extra costs incurred by SMEs when seeking conformity assessment abroad. This would also reduce the costs of providing those services in their economy.

  • Market surveillance: in order to establish predictable and consistent enforcement of regulations across the WBT economies, market surveillance authorities should enhance their co-operation by exchanging information on unsafe products and measures carried out by national authorities (as well as producers or distributers). To achieve this, national authorities could establish contact points to improve the co-ordination of market surveillance activities. The WBT economies would also benefit from mapping sector-specific challenges and establishing region-wide working groups to produce guidelines for joint action.

• Scale up the revenue-earning services of national standards bodies. NSBs could diversify their revenue-earning services by preparing packages and subscriptions tailored to the needs of SMEs in particular sectors. Such offers in the Western Balkans and Turkey would make it easier and less expensive for SMEs to implement the standards they require while generating additional revenues for national standards bodies. NSBs in the WBT region should also aim to offer innovative services to SMEs, which could bring them additional sources of revenue and support their regular standardisation activities (see Box 8.4 for some EU/OECD examples).

• Include standardisation topics in national secondary and tertiary curricula. The role of education in standardisation could be improved through a number of measures. First, the relevant standardisation topics could be embedded in high school courses as well as university programmes (such as electrical, mechanical or civil engineering; and economics). Second, co-operation between national standardisation bodies and academic institutions could facilitate the exchange of experience and expertise. As an example, the Rotterdam School of Management hosts a Chair in Standardization – endowed by the Netherlands Standardization Institute (NEN) – to give courses at bachelor’s and master’s levels, as well as supervising master’s and doctoral projects. Co-operation could extend to organising practical classes to improve the skills required for standardisation processes.

  All the relevant stakeholders need to engage in developing study materials that are attractive to both students and teachers. The CEN and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) have repositories of teaching materials (for primary, secondary and higher education) with examples of the different materials used throughout the world.7

• Complement the enforcement of regulation with measures to increase transparency and compliance. Regulatory enforcement agencies, in close co-operation with business associations, should develop and publish guidance notes or toolkits that help SMEs understand regulations and how to comply with them in the most common situations and sectors. For instance, the Consumer Product Safety Program of Canada publishes guides and holds webinars specifically for manufacturers, distributors and retailers to introduce them to their regulatory responsibilities (Government of Canada, 2018[26]). Governments could also introduce “self-check” tools to allow SMEs to understand their ability to comply with the regulations. These publications and tools should be tailored to specific sectors of operation.

Authorities are improving awareness of standards and their benefits

SMEs are often unaware that by using standards they can boost efficiency, increase confidence in their clients and open new markets. The potential benefits of using standards remain overshadowed by perceptions that they are an onerous burden.

All WBT governments have also introduced initiatives to promote the benefits of standards and standardisation. The current programmes remain focused on promotional campaigns and training events for SMEs. However, they are infrequent and irregular in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo. In addition, SMEs are often uninterested unless the events are tailored to their very specific segment or group. National standards bodies often disseminate generic materials prepared by international standards organisations, instead of producing practical guides with instructions and solutions tailored to the local context. Therefore, there is still significant room for improvement when it comes to preparing relevant materials that present success stories from the region. The Living Standards Award by the national standards body of Austria is one example of how the use of standards can be promoted by identifying and showcasing local success stories (Box 8.5).

While all WBT authorities have ensured easy access to their database of national and European standards, identifying relevant standards remains an issue for SMEs. Since standards are frequently revised and new ones adopted, SMEs need to know how to keep track of relevant standards for their area of operation. The monthly journal published by Turkey’s national standards body stands out as a positive example of how this can be achieved. Offered in print and online versions, the journal caters for SMEs in the manufacturing industry and aims to improve implementation of standards specific to this sector. Meanwhile, in Serbia, the Institute for Standardisation offers SMEs free consultations to learn about the relevant standards for their operations, and the Serbian Chamber of Commerce organises regular meetings with SMEs operating in particular sectors to inform them about the latest relevant standards.

National standardisation bodies increasingly co-operate with business associations to provide a communication channel with SMEs. In Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey, such co-operation is regular and business associations send updates to their members concerning new developments and upcoming events. Nevertheless, joint promotional campaigns or sectoral roadshows remain sporadic across the economies.

SME participation in the development of standards is weak

SMEs’ involvement in standardisation remains low across OECD and EU countries, even though evidence shows that it has a positive impact on their profits (Wakke, Blind and Ramel, 2016[29]). SMEs often regard the standardisation process as being inflexible, as it does not take into account the limited time, personnel or financial resources at their disposal (de Vries et al., 2009[27]).

Across the Western Balkans and Turkey, NSBs struggle to get SME representatives to participate in technical committees for standards development. Interviews conducted in the region reveal that SMEs perceive their participation as futile, and that such meetings keep them away from their “real work”.

To encourage SME participation, Serbia’s NSB extends invitations to technical committee meetings through phone calls, and organises them in different cities across the country. In a similar vein, Turkey’s NSB has signed a co-operation protocol with the Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges to facilitate the effective participation of SMEs through regular and sector-specific meetings. In North Macedonia, the NSB has established a working group to develop an action plan to increase SMEs’ participation, which is planned to be completed by 2019.

While the other economies largely lack any proactive approaches to increasing SME participation in standards development, they do publish calls for feedback on drafts of standards during their development (although in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the drafts are yet to be made publicly available for feedback). However, SME participation in these public calls remains low, which might be partially attributed to the fact that national standards bodies do not produce any follow-up reports specifying how private sector feedback was taken into account in the standards development process. Similarly, the involvement of SMEs is rarely monitored and evaluated, with the exception of Serbia, which regularly produces reports on their participation in the standardisation process.

Financial support for SME access to standardisation exists but varies in scope

Given SMEs’ limited resources, financial support programmes are essential to help them acquire and implement standards, as well as to ensure their overall participation in standards development.

Only Serbia and Turkey offer standards at reduced prices for SMEs. In other economies, discounts for the acquisition of standards are limited to members of technical committees. Although SMEs could also benefit from these discounts, they are less likely to participate in technical committees than larger enterprises, so they rarely do.

Programmes supporting the implementation of standards differ significantly across the seven economies in their source, level and scope. With the exception of Kosovo, all governments operate some financial support programmes, albeit often small-scale and irregular. This support is usually provided within the scope of assisting SME exporters and improving SME competitiveness.

For instance, in Albania, the Competitiveness Fund run by the Albanian Investment Development Agency (AIDA) supports SMEs exporting their products to foreign markets by reimbursing up to 70% of their costs for product certification, other conformity assessments and introducing quality management systems. However, the requirement to demonstrate the ability to finance the entire project costs can deter SMEs from applying. Likewise, the Development Agency of Serbia (RAS) runs a programme to support SME exporters, covering up to 50% of the costs of implementing standards, and the certification or recertification of products.

Montenegro operates a state-funded national programme to enhance regional and local competitiveness through compliance with international business standards. It aims to support SMEs financially, in particular those from less developed municipalities, to comply with international product standards by reimbursing up to 70% of the costs of certification.8 The programme is expected to continue until 2020.

Turkey’s Small and Medium-Sized Industry Development Organization (KOSGEB) supports the implementation of standards and management systems under its General Support programme.9 The admissible costs also include certification tests, analyses and calibration. In North Macedonia, SMEs can benefit from a voucher scheme operated by the Innovation Fund to support quality infrastructure investments, including implementation of standards and certification.10

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, financial support for implementing standards is provided at the entity level. While the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) supports the implementation of international quality standards through annual grants, in the RS the focus is on sector-specific funds (e.g. wood processing).11

Finally, when it comes to financial support to help SMEs to participate in standards development, the majority of WBT economies allow SMEs to join technical committees at no cost (Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey). In Serbia, technical committee meetings are held in different cities to lower SMEs’ cost of participation (e.g. travel costs). Turkey is exploring the potential of using digital tools to ease SME participation. Furthermore, the Turkish Ministry of Economy (now the Ministry of Trade) has initiated a support programme for companies entering new markets. If they can provide evidence that participating in standardisation is necessary to enter the new market, SMEs are offered a reimbursement of 50% of their relevant participation expenditure.

The way forward for SME access to standardisation

Despite the existence of some initiatives across the region aiming to increase SME’s access to standardisation, governments need to ensure they are better targeted:

• Disseminate successful case studies that highlight benefits of standardisation in a local context. In addition to publishing guides on the use of standards, governments should disseminate successful case studies that highlight the advantages of standardisation for improving market results in a local context. The measures introduced by the Dutch standards development organisation are a good example of how to increase SMEs’ awareness of standards and their benefits (Box 8.6).

• Allow SMEs to participate in standards development through digital tools or by covering their travelling costs. SMEs often do not have the time, personnel or financial resources to engage in standards development. National standards bodies should therefore consider the provision of digital platforms, allowing for online participation, feedback and comments to reduce time and travel costs. For example, the German standards development body, Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) offers SMEs the opportunity to join the meetings of technical committees via web conference to increase their participation rates (Box 8.7). Additionally, the WBT governments should consider providing funds to cover the travel costs of SMEs attending technical meetings. The Swedish Electrical Commission provides such support and requests the grantees to prepare a report on their participation to be published in its magazine.

• Scale up financial support programmes to help SMEs implement standards. Support for implementing standards is currently provided through general programmes for enhancing competitiveness, and the number of SMEs benefitting from the programmes remains low. Therefore, governments should scale up funding and ensure their programmes are better targeted. The authorities should also strive to develop long-term financing schemes based on SMEs’ needs when exporting to the EU Single Market, as well as on the evaluation of programmes already conducted.