Enterprises often encounter technology standards after key decisions have already been made. Once a standard is published, they must decide how to apply it and adapt their products and systems.
But standards are developed by technical experts, businesses, governments and standards organisations. Their decisions can influence how technologies work together and how future products and infrastructure are designed.
As AI, cybersecurity, quantum technology and advanced connectivity become more important, enterprises may need to carefully weigh up which standards their future capabilities depend on and then when it’s appropriate to help shape them.
The UK government’s Digital Standards Strategy 2026 to 2030 highlights the role of international standards in innovation, economic growth, security and resilience. It also recognises the value of influencing standards in key technology areas. This doesn’t mean every enterprise needs to join a standards body, but participation is worth considering when the outcome could affect its future.
Why Do Standards Deserve a Place in Technology Strategy?
Digital standards help establish common technical approaches, interfaces and protocols so that products and systems can work together. They allow different organisations to build on a shared foundation rather than solve every compatibility problem independently.
Their importance lies partly in timing. By the time a standard is published and businesses begin implementing it, key technical choices may already have been debated and settled. Those choices can influence which approaches gain wider support, how easily products integrate with other systems and how much work is needed to switch suppliers or adopt new technology.
The World Bank’s World Development Report 2025: Standards for Development explains how standards support trust and economic activity. Even though its recommendations for active participation in international standards forums are mostly aimed at countries, enterprises can also take away a lesson. Standards are important because they help shape the environment in which products and services are developed, traded and used.
The commercial value of any standard depends on the technology, market and organisation involved. Standards participation should be considered based on how it could affect future product design, integration, supplier relationships or investment choices - and not so much be treated as a blanket requirement for all.
What’s the Difference Between Compliance and Participation?
Compliance means following existing standards while participation means helping shape standards as they’re being developed. This development is usually done through contributing technical knowledge, reviewing proposals and sharing real-world experience.
One doesn’t replace the other. Enterprises still need to understand which standards apply to their products and operations. But businesses that rely heavily on a particular technology may also have reason to contribute before its technical direction is established.
The UK’s 2026 strategy highlights AI, cybersecurity, quantum technology, advanced connectivity and semiconductors as areas that should be prioritised when it comes to international standards development.
One example of this is ETSI EN 304 223, a standard for cybersecurity specifically in AI systems. Its development shows how input from government, technical experts and industry can help turn earlier guidance and specialist knowledge into shared technical requirements.
The standard began as an ETSI technical specification before becoming a European Standard through a formal approval process. Input was given by industry experts, government bodies and academia through national standards bodies across more than 30 European countries. In a separate process, the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the National Cyber Security Centre also contributed their technical expertise and guidance.
This example illustrates how participation works in practice: contributors can help shape drafts, identify technical issues and provide feedback before a standard is finalised. It doesn’t mean every enterprise needs to take part. Instead, it shows that enterprises should look at how the standard could affect their business and whether the organisation has useful experience to contribute.
Which Enterprises Have a Reason to Participate?
Participation takes time, specialist knowledge and resources, so it will not be worthwhile for every business or every standard. The case is stronger when an organisation’s products or future investments depend on a technical approach that is still being developed.
For example, a company developing AI-powered products may have a reason to follow standards work on AI security and interoperability if those requirements could affect how its products are built or integrated with customers’ systems. A telecommunications provider may have different priorities from a business that simply purchases standard connectivity services.
Three considerations can help organisations decide whether to explore involvement:
- Strategic dependence: Could the standard affect the organisation’s products, services or future investments?
- Relevant expertise: Can its technical, security, research or operational teams offer useful evidence or practical experience?
- Capacity to engage: Can it commit the time and resources needed to contribute consistently?
The costs of participating can be quite high. A 2026 European Commission impact assessment on European standardisation shows that limited resources, complexity and concerns about their ability to influence the process are all barriers to participation. It estimates that standardisation activity can require between 25 and 30 working days a year per company and annual participation costs can vary between €60,000 and €160,000. These figures are estimates for SMEs, not a general cost estimate for all businesses.
Involvement can take different forms. Depending on the standards body and the work involved, an organisation might contribute a technical proposal, review a draft, provide evidence from implementation, take part in a committee through an industry association or work with research partners. The point isn’t to join every initiative, but to contribute where the organisation has relevant knowledge and the outcome matters to its work.
How Could Standards Participation Affect Commercial and Security Decisions?
Participation does not guarantee commercial advantage or control over the final standard. Proposals can be challenged, changed or rejected, and standards development involves different priorities and competing interests. Its potential value is more practical: an organisation can bring its technical experience into discussions that may affect how future systems are designed.
For example, a business that relies on products from several suppliers may be concerned about whether systems will interoperate. Its engineers could explain integration problems encountered in practice or comment on a proposed interface. A technology developer may contribute evidence about what’s feasible to implement, while a security team may highlight operational risks that a draft needs to account for.
Such contributions may help make technical requirements more workable or bring real-world constraints into the discussion. They may also help the organisation understand proposed changes earlier, which can inform product roadmaps, supplier decisions and investment planning. These are possible benefits, not guaranteed outcomes; their value depends on the issue, the process and whether the contribution affects the final result.
Security is another consideration. Organisations that deploy and protect technology may be able to flag risks or implementation challenges that aren’t obvious from a purely theoretical perspective. Whether that results in stronger standards depends on the quality of the evidence, the range of views represented and how the final standard is implemented.
Who Shapes Technological Rules When Enterprises Do Not Participate?
Standards are shaped by the people and organisations that participate in the process. For example, technical experts may home in on sound engineering principles and workable specifications. Company executives may focus on new product development, compatibility, costs and market needs. Governments bring public policy, security or national economic priorities to the table.
These interests do overlap but in the end they’re not always the same. One company may favour an approach that best fits its existing products, while another company may prefer a different technical solution that suits their unique needs. A government body may emphasise resilience or security, while developers are concerned about how feasible something is and how much implementation costs. The job of the standards bodies is to bring these perspectives together to reach an agreed-upon outcome.
When a business does not participate, that process continues without its direct input. Other contributors may raise the issues they consider most important, and the resulting standard may still work well for the organisation. Non-participation isn’t automatically irresponsible, and taking part does not mean a business controls the outcome.
The strategic question is whether the organisation has a material interest that isn’t being represented. If a standard could shape a core product, infrastructure dependency or long-term investment, leaders may want to understand who is contributing, what priorities are being discussed and whether the business has relevant expertise to add. If the standard has little bearing on its direction, monitoring and implementing it may be entirely reasonable.
Standards Participation: A Form of Enterprise Stewardship
Enterprise responsibility for shared technology often focuses on funding, maintenance and responsible use. Standards participation adds another possibility: helping shape the technical rules that guide how shared technologies develop.
This isn’t a blanket obligation. It is a question of stewardship where an organisation’s dependence on a technological foundation gives it a meaningful interest in how that foundation evolves. Businesses that contribute useful evidence or implementation experience can bring practical perspectives into a process whose outcomes may affect a wider ecosystem.
Standards are more than rules to follow after decisions have been made. They are shared foundations that influence future technological capabilities. For enterprises that depend on emerging technologies, the strategic question is when their expertise and interests make it worthwhile to help shape those foundations rather than simply adapt to them.
Explore more perspectives on the technologies and systems that are shaping tomorrow in EM360Tech’s Emerging Technologies feed.
Comments ( 0 )