For decades, the global standardization system rested on a relatively clear understanding of what is considered an “international standard”. Under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement, international standards should follow six core principles: transparency, openness, impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance, coherence, and a development dimension. If you’ve been following me, you will have read how ISO, IEC and ITU, all located in Geneva, became the main organizations seen as consistently operating under these principles and providing the technical backbone for global trade:

• Why a fragmented world rewrites the rules of standardization.

In recent years, this landscape has started to shift, with technical standards increasingly used as tools of foreign policy and strategic competition. States, alone or grouped in the form of economic or political blocs, are now building and empowering parallel architectures for standards development that coexist with, and sometimes bypass, the three Geneva‑based institutions. This is what I call “strategic parallel standardization”, a concept that this article develops and uses to examine its implications for the international standardization system.

Read more

There is so much that is posted on social media about standards bodies’ governance meetings and workshops that these streams of content have become a surprisingly rich source of information. If you know what you are looking for, two or three posts are often enough to reconstruct the narrative. Sometimes, a sing…

Read more

Dear Readers,

I am now back to Geneva after four months in Mexico City. Here is a new edition of The Unstandardized Digest:

Read more

Dear Readers of The Unstandardized,

Here is a new selection of news, articles, videos or podcasts that came to my attention recently:

About standards referenced in the legislation

Pressure on standards bodies to make their standards freely available when referenced in legislation continues to mount, as I have been explaining here and there. Over the past few weeks, two significant court decisions have addressed public access to and, more critically, the fair use of such standards by third parties in commercial products.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against UpCodes, a technology company that operates a freemium platform aggregating U.S. building and fire codes for use by construction professionals, finding that its online publication, without obtaining a license, of ASTM standards incorporated by reference into law likely constitutes fair use:

• American Society for Testing & Materials v. UPCODES Inc, No. 24-2965 (3d Cir. 7 April 2026)

In the other case, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that when an EU directive designed to protect human health refers to international standards, individual must have free access to those standards. This means that such access must be general, effective, without charge and non-discriminatory:

• Judgment of the Court in Case C-155/24 | Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit and Others (21 April 2026)

As such, this judgment extends the ECJ decision of 5 March 2024, about European harmonized standards, to international standards published by ISO.

Also on 21 April, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing on the Pro Codes Act which seeks to balance copyright protection for Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) with the public’s right to access the laws that govern them. The bill would affirm copyright protection for standards incorporated by reference while requiring SDOs to make those standards available online at no cost. As you will note watching the video, witnesses represent a wide spectrum of views on this issue:

In a coming article, I will discuss why the push for free access to standards referenced in regulation is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as legislators and courts overlook the public-private partnership that makes high-quality standards possible in the first place. I will also examine why SDOs that fiercely oppose free access may be choosing the wrong tactic, and why those that embrace it may be underestimating what they are giving away.

About digitalization of standards

This DCL article explains that while organizational dependence on PDF is deepening, not diminishing (PDF is very far from being dead), AI systems working directly from PDFs are building on weak structural foundations:

• PDF: Anatomy of a Document Format and the Paradox it Presents for AI (DCL, Data Conversion Laboratory Inc.)

About standards users

IFAN, the International Federation of Standards Users of which I am a Vice-President, has released new episodes of its podcast. I can only, and strongly, invite you to have a listen:

• Sonya Bird, UL Standards and Engagement - Bringing the User Voice to Global Standards

• Muhamad Ali, HP - Connecting Technology and Standards

• Matthew Sexton, Technical and Compliance Director at BMI - Why the User Voice Matters in Construction

• Laurie Locascio, ANSI President - Why Users Matter in a Global System

• Alton Saunders, Boeing - The User Perspective on Safety, Standards, and Digital Transformation in Aerospace

You can also listen and subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

About trade, trade governance, trade policies and geopolitics

The future of the World Trade Organization (WTO) remains unclear:

• A framework for WTO reform: Less law and more politics (Hinrich Foundation)

• Why the WTO is struggling to adapt (Hinrich Foundation)

In the absence of reform, multilateralism is not multilateral anymore:

• How 66 (or is it 67?) WTO members are trying to unblock their e-commerce deal (Hinrich Foundation)

The close of the WTO 14th Ministerial Conference in Yaoundé, Cameroon is another warning that the institution’s decision-making machinery no longer meets the demands of modern trade:

• The WTO cannot keep calling delay a result (Hinrich Foundation)

About international organizations’ funding

The U.S. House Appropriations Committee has released its FY2027 national security and State Department spending bill, which sets the terms and the limits of U.S. financial engagement with international organizations for the coming fiscal year:

• Making appropriations for national security, Department of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes

To make a long story short, the financial pressure on international organizations keeps growing and this is not without consequences:

• US threatens to halt UN funding unless conditions met (Devex)

• ILO considers large-scale layoffs as member states fail to pay dues (Geneva Solutions)

It is in this context of funding and credibility crisis that the United Nations are looking for a successor to Secretary General António Guterres:

• Race to lead the UN: candidates grilled on peace, reform and great-power tensions (Geneva Solutions)

New publications

• Quality Policy Trilogy (Unido, April 2026)

Business model innovation and digital transformation are occupying a large part of the discussions in standards bodies, with various projects around these issues currently being deployed.

At international level, ISO and IEC are pursuing their SMART Standards programme, which aims to deliver machine‑readable, interoperable standards and to explore new business models for their distribution.

In the United States, SAE International has established the Digital Standards Alliance (DSA) under SAE ITC to “accelerate the integration and use of digital standards across the entire product development lifecycle” and to coordinate the standards industry’s digital transformation around common use cases and services.

In Europe, CEN and CENELEC, two of the three European Standards Organizations recognised under Regulation 1025/20121, recently announced a new value proposition to “move away from a traditional, document‑led model and towards a dynamic model centred around added‑value digital standardization services” (see my previous article European standardization and the illusion of invisible power).

Initiatives described as “digital transformation” in standards bodies are not new. In the 1980s, ISO launched a project to publish its standards in SGML, already with machine‑readable ambitions for its standards, before being abandoned a few years later. In the mid‑1990s, most standards bodies successfully converted their standards from print to PDF, mostly through scanning, enabling the sale of standards via online stores. At the same time, offset printing was progressively replaced by digital, print‑on‑demand workflows, resulting in substantial gains in efficiency. Then came the early twenty‑first century and, somewhat paradoxically, almost a full decade of inertia. It took indeed until 2011 for ISO to relaunch an XML project that was dormant, and to reopen the conversation on structured, reusable standards content. Since then, announcements about “digital transformation” have multiplied, especially around SMART Standards, a major initiative launched in 2021 following the recommendations of ISO’s Technical Management Board Strategic Advisory Group on Machine Readable Standards (ISO/TMB SAG MRS).

If the promise of transformation is everywhere in the communications, its effects on how standards bodies create, deliver and capture value are much harder to see. Despite all this activity and projects, no genuinely “disruptive”, high‑value products or services have emerged at scale, and the underlying business models of standards bodies remain variations of the sale and licensing of their documents.

This article explores why, despite multiple waves of digital initiatives and substantial investments, standards bodies are still struggling to achieve genuine business model innovation, seem to go round in circles, and what they can realistically do about it. To summarize, the high‑level view is that the main obstacles are not technical but conceptual, cultural, structural and political. The current fascination with “digital standards” often hides the real questions, particularly on the fundamental dynamics of why standards are developed and bought, and how they are used, two aspects that remain widely misunderstood.

The argument will develop over ten parts:

• Part 1 - The unbearable pressure: The current pressure on standards bodies and their funding, including calls for free access to standards, legal challenges around standards referenced in legislation, reduction in public subsidies, and geopolitical tensions.

• Part 2 - The struggles: How standards bodies have responded so far, mostly through digital publishing projects, and why many initiatives failed to deliver the expected impact or return on investment.

• Part 3 - The business model confusion: How the lack of clarity around the concept of “business model” leads to poor strategic choices.

• Part 4 - History of standards sales: How standards sales emerged and became central to funding of several standards bodies, and why this configuration is path‑dependent rather than the product of deliberate design.

• Part 5 - Market (mis)understanding: The economic nature of standards as products, and how misreading the demand has led to chronic misalignment between standards bodies and their markets.

• Part 6 - The obsession with digital transformation: How the pressure to “digitalize everything” has turned digital transformation into a mantra, often reduced to tooling and formats.

• Part 7 - When inspiration comes from the wrong benchmark: Why analogies with the music industry and autonomous driving are poor templates for standardization and costly strategic diversions.

• Part 8 - Other barriers to business model innovation: Internal blockers that make transformation so difficult.

• Part 9 - Where we are now: A system that is technologically more sophisticated but financially fragile and strategically hesitant.

• Part 10 - Recommendations: Directions for standards bodies that really want to move towards business models and strategies that are both sustainable and compatible with their public‑interest missions.

So, let’s dive in!

Read more

Europe is reforming how it sells standards while the rest of the world is competing to own them. This contrast finds its most visible expression in a single phrase from a post published this week on LinkedIn by CEN and CENELEC1:

Standards to “remain the trusted, invisible engine of the Single Market”: this is a striking image, and a deeply revealing one. As the United States is leveraging bilateral trade deals to redraw the rules of international standardization, and as China consistently executes its strategy to lead the technical bodies that define the technologies of tomorrow, Europe’s response is not to change, to transition from documents to digital services, and to embrace invisibility as a guiding aspiration.

Is this a vision? Or is it a concession dressed in the language of transformation?

Read more

The world order as we know it since the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall is now behind us. The period of “Happy Globalization”, as economists and think tanks now like to describe it, going roughly from the early 1980s to around 2010, was based on three main pillars:

• A belief in the liberalization of trade and investments.

• The delegation of technical rule‑making to private and semi‑private standards and regulatory bodies.

• The use of international standards as the primary technical infrastructure for integrating markets and reducing regulatory friction.

During that period, voluntary, consensus-based standardization created immense public value. Today the world is fragmented and the standardization ecosystem is under growing structural pressure driven by geopolitical forces. In this article, I will explore the profound changes that are reshaping standardization, develop potential future scenarios, and present strategies that standards bodies can adopt to survive and remain influential.

Subscribe now

Read more

Dear Readers,

Back to The Unstandardized after a few weeks of travels. I am now in Mexico City for the next four months and will be attending Accuris SPAB meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona, at the end of February, where I will speak about standards and geopolitics. In the meantime, here is a new selection of news, …

Read more

Dear Readers,

You will find below a selection of news, articles, videos or events that came to my attention recently:

About standards users

IFAN, the International Federation of Standards Users, has published in October its standards users survey. This …

Read more

Dear Readers,

You will find below a selection of news, articles, videos or events that came to my attention recently:

About international organizations’ funding

International organizations in Geneva are facing major challenges due to substantial decreas…

Read more

Dear Readers,

You will find below a selection of news, articles, videos or events that came to my attention recently while I am writing my next essay for The Unstandardized:

From standards organizations

• IEC Annual Report 2024

Read more

Dear Readers,

You will find below a selection of news, articles, videos or events that came to my attention recently.

About standards bodies’ business models

A number of US Standards Development Organizations (SDO) have formally opposed the Pro Codes Act

Read more

Dear Readers,

You will find below a selection of news, articles, videos or events that came to my attention recently.

Events to come

• IFAN Webinar - Navigating the AI Landscape: Impacts and opportunities for standards users

Read more

Last week U.S. court ruling in a case involving the artificial intelligence startup Anthropic, affirming that the use of books to train its AI model Claude is fair use and transformative1, is not a good news for standards bodies. The decision comes at the moment where these bodies are developing policies so that they can keep the exclusive use of the content in their standards to train, in the future, their own AI models. The verdict directly undermines such plans as any AI generative system can now ingest and repurpose technical content without licensing or compensation, as long as the material has been legally acquired.

The Anthropic ruling compounds the impact of the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) decision on 5 March 2024 requiring free public access to harmonized standards referenced in EU law, with the argument that public interest outweighs the protection of commercial interests of standards bodies. While it is hoped that the mandate for free access to standards in Europe can be contained to the continent and is not going to produce a domino effect, another front is now opening in the United States that is compromising the objectives of standards bodies to add value to the content in standards, and develop new revenues streams through technology.

This combination accelerates the existential threat to the revenues that standards bodies directly derive from the sales of standards. Let’s see why a fundamental shift of mindset, from the defensive copyright policies followed so far to an open exploitation of the content in standards, is not just advisable but critical for the survival of several standards bodies, and how such a shift can be provoked.

Read more

At the recent G7 Summit in Canada, a landmark moment unfolded as the United Kingdom and the United States formally signed the UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD)1 first announced in May. While media coverage focused on the incident involving the physical handling of the agreement, the true significance of the EPD has largely escaped notice, particularly within the standardization community. Which is unfortunate as the EPD contains provisions2 that can fundamentally reshape the global standardization landscape and redefine the roles of established multilateral, voluntary standards development organizations. Let’s examine the key elements of the deal and discuss the possible far-reaching implications for international standardization.

Read more

I am Nicolas Fleury, 58 years old, Swiss living in Geneva. I worked for about 35 years at ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, the world’s largest developer and publisher of international standards. …

Read more