Standards and standardization: Blind trust

Technologies are becoming increasingly complex, while skepticism toward institutions is growing. In this environment, trust is becoming a new form of currency. And standards are becoming the foundation on which it can be built.

By Martin Schmitz-Kuhl

Trust is perhaps the most important resource of modern technology – and at the same time the most invisible. No one checks the safety mechanisms of a heat pump before switching it on, measures the voltage at a public charging station, or takes apart a battery storage system before it is installed in the basement. Even engineers rely every day on systems whose operation they do not understand down to the very last detail. And that is a good thing. Because progress and innovation would not be possible if something else did not take the place of our own individual checks: the implicit trust that things will work as they are supposed to.

This trust is neither gullible nor naive. It is based on a system that reduces uncertainty long before a product reaches the market. Risks are analyzed, requirements defined, testing procedures developed, compliance demonstrated, and much more. Behind almost every technical feature we take for granted is a network of standards, specifications, and testing procedures that often goes unnoticed in everyday life. “That is precisely where its strength lies,” says Florian Spiteller, a member of the DKE Executive Management. “The infrastructure of trust works most reliably when no one has to think about it.”

But this taken-for-granted nature is coming under pressure. Technologies are developing faster than ever, software is increasingly replacing hardware, artificial intelligence is making decisions in a “black box” that is often difficult to understand, and digital content can be generated or manipulated with deceptive realism. At the same time, trust in institutions and information is declining. The key question is therefore increasingly less whether a technology works, but why it should be considered trustworthy.

A topic that was taken for granted in standardization for decades is thus moving into the spotlight itself. “Trust is no longer merely a prerequisite for standardization; it is becoming a central task in its own right,” says Spiteller. Those who develop standards today must not only create viable solutions, but also demonstrate why their results deserve to be trusted.

Standards are often understood as technical detail work, as sets of rules governing connectors, voltages, or testing procedures. In reality, they primarily create a common framework of expectations. Manufacturers can trust that components from different suppliers will fit together, testing organizations work according to consistent criteria, and markets function because technical requirements do not have to be renegotiated over and over again. This trust does not arise from authority, but from the process: through transparency, the participation of different stakeholder groups, and the willingness to find workable compromises.

Illustration: Ceasar Zeppelin, Material: stock.adobe.com / splitov27

How successful this process is becomes apparent precisely where its failure would have the most serious consequences: electrical safety. Dr. Christian Rückerl from the Institute for the Investigation of Electrical Accidents at BG ETEM has been studying electrical accidents and their causes for years. His field of work begins where technology fails – and for precisely this reason, he knows how remarkable today’s safety standards actually are. “When people buy an electrical product today, they take it for granted that it is safe,” says Rückerl. “This trust has been built over many decades.” Behind this seemingly simple statement lies a development that is easy to overlook. The greatest achievement of safe technology is that it has become unremarkable. No one is surprised that a hair dryer, a wall box, or a defibrillator works reliably. It is only when something goes wrong that standards, testing, and conformity assessments enter our awareness at all.

Safety, however, is not a state that was achieved at some point and has remained unchanged ever since. With every new technology, it has to be established anew. Rückerl therefore sees standardization as a consistently preventive process. The goal is not to make improvements after accidents have occurred, but to systematically eliminate potential hazards during the development process itself.

What effects does electric current have on the human body? What temperatures can materials withstand over the long term? How must safety mechanisms be designed to ensure that they function reliably even under exceptional loads? Insights like these give rise to standards, which in turn form the basis for requirements for specific products – from electric shavers to fast-charging stations. This is time-consuming and requires patience. However, it prevents consumers from involuntarily becoming part of a technical experiment. Because risks are identified and controlled as far as possible before a product enters the market, the kind of trust we now take for granted can develop.

The extent of this safety improvement becomes clear when we look to the past. Around 100 years ago, more than 400 people in Germany died every year as a result of faulty electrical devices or installations. Today, fatal electrical accidents outside the workplace are extremely rare. Rückerl emphasizes that this success cannot be attributed to any single standard. Rather, it is the result of the continuous development of safety standards, protective concepts, and testing procedures. At the same time, this development shows how fragile that progress remains. Products that fail to meet safety requirements, or that bear testing marks without actually complying with the underlying requirements, continue to make their way onto the market. Such cases are not evidence of poor standards, but rather of how important their consistent implementation and effective market surveillance are. Trust does not arise from good rules alone, but from ensuring that they are followed.

There is another factor to consider: modern technologies are no longer developed within national borders. Components come from different countries, software is developed around the globe, and products are sold worldwide. For them to work together reliably nonetheless, common rules are needed instead of individual national solutions. Trust therefore also has to work across national borders. International standardization creates the conditions for this.

“Transparent processes are key to maintaining trust in international standardization over the long term.” Tariq Maqbool, expert in technical standardization and regulatory affairs at Bosch

| Robert Bosch GmbH

For Tariq Maqbool, an expert in technical standardization and regulatory affairs in the field of radio technologies at Bosch, this trust begins long before the finished standard. What matters is not only the result, but also the process that leads to it. “Inclusivity and transparency are indispensable when it comes to trust in standardization,” he says. Inclusivity means that it is not only large industrial companies sitting at the table, but also small and medium-sized enterprises, research institutions, government authorities, and other stakeholders. Transparency is equally important. Trust does not arise because a small number of stakeholders adopt a standard, but because it remains clear and understandable how technical decisions are made and why a particular solution ultimately prevails. Only in this way can standards gain the broad acceptance they need for worldwide application.

Anyone who has experienced international standardization knows that consensus rarely means unanimity. Different economic interests, technical approaches, and national priorities collide directly here. Maqbool therefore sums up the process with a phrase that has become almost proverbial in many standardization committees: In the end, you have to “make everyone equally unhappy.”

Behind this tongue-in-cheek saying lies a serious insight. The legitimacy of an international standard does not come from the strongest market players prevailing. Rather, it arises because all participants can trust that they have been heard and treated according to the same transparent rules. In standardization, consensus therefore rarely means the ideal solution. It means finding a compromise that everyone can support because the process of reaching it was fair.

Against the backdrop of geopolitical tensions, this trust is becoming even more important. The more technological standards become the subject of economic or political interests, the greater the responsibility of organizations such as the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission). Its task is not to resolve political conflicts, but to ensure that they do not displace technical consensus. If this fails, the result could be isolated technical solutions, duplicated development efforts, and barriers to innovation – with consequences extending far beyond electrical engineering. “Trust must remain the central benchmark in the future as well,” says Maqbool. Only if the standardization process is perceived as independent, transparent, and balanced can international standards fulfill the role they have in an interconnected world: serving as a common technical language for innovation.

This brings us full circle. Trust begins with the willingness to bring different interests to the same table. It grows through safety requirements that minimize risks long before a product reaches the market. And it ultimately proves itself in transparent international processes that develop common technical solutions from many different perspectives. Standards and specifications are therefore far more than technical documents. They provide guidance in a world where technologies are becoming increasingly complex. Precisely because they operate in the background, they are often underestimated. In reality, however, they form one of the essential infrastructures of modern industrial societies. “Where people use technologies without having to understand every detail, they have already fulfilled their most important task,” says Spiteller of DKE. “They have created trust.”

Standards and standardization: Blind trust

“Trust was built up over a long period of time”