Integrating the standards and quality assurance system (often called quality infrastructure or QI) into the regulatory policy cycle is essential for developing effective, evidence-based regulations and ensuring their consistent implementation. This chapter examines how standards and quality assurance can enhance both regulatory design and regulatory delivery. In the design phase, the QI system provides the technical foundations—such as standardisation, metrology, conformity assessment, accreditation, and market surveillance —that support the creation of clear, enforceable, and outcome-driven regulations. In the delivery phase, QI tools ensure compliance, monitor performance, and promote continuous improvement through market surveillance and accreditation processes. By embedding standards and quality assurance throughout the policy cycle, governments can strengthen regulatory quality, improve stakeholder trust, and foster a more predictable and efficient regulatory environment.
Reinforcing Regulatory Frameworks through Standards, Measurements and Assurance
Abstract
Policymakers should enable flexible regulatory frameworks by utilising standards and quality assurance (QI) tools that can be more responsive to market innovations and stakeholder needs than legislation. This can be achieved by referring to standards, utilising accredited conformity assessment schemes and the scientific expertise of National Metrology Institutes to foster innovation.
Governments should make use of regulatory impact assessment to anticipate the standards and quality assurance services needed to demonstrate compliance. Guidelines on regulatory impacts assessment should include how standards, metrology, accreditation, and conformity assessment are required to implement regulations, and a requirement to assess their capacity building needs and costing. As part of completing a regulatory impact assessment policymakers could systematically consider whether market-led or voluntary approaches, which often use QI tools, are sufficient or whether regulation is required. Policymakers should consult quality infrastructure bodies when drafting regulations.
Policymakers should help “close the loop” between regulatory design and delivery by leveraging standards and quality assurance services. Governments can assess data and insights from inspections, conformity assessment, and market surveillance to inform new or updated regulations and standards. Policymakers should enable technical capacities to collect, store and assess data, and foster data integration with CABs and market surveillance bodies.
Regulations have the objective of managing public concerns, from ensuring public health and safety, environmental protection, competitiveness, and economic growth, among others. Typically, regulations reflect public values and should be created through public deliberation, offering public authorities the tools they need use to deliver against policy objectives. When properly created and implemented, regulations provide the fundamental basis to ensure safety while promoting economic activity by creating certainty and a level playing field.
Well-designed and periodically reviewed regulations are critical to ensure regulations remain relevant and fit for purpose, and businesses and citizens do not face additional burdens related to compliance with regulations. Regulatory policy comprises the set of rules, procedures and tools introduced by government to improve the design, delivery and ex post assessment of such regulations and seeks to ensure regulation achieves the public policy goals. For instance, regulatory impact assessments (RIA) are a useful regulatory policy tool in analysing a proposed regulation for its effectiveness and for also identifying alternatives, including alternatives offered by the standards and quality assurance system (OECD, 2009[1]). RIA can provide a systematic approach to regulators and policymakers to assess the negative and positive effects of a proposed regulation and help identify non-regulatory alternatives, through ex-ante impact assessments which can provide analysis ahead of legislative action of potential impacts of policy initiative. The same applies for existing regulations which can be assessed for effectiveness through periodic ex post assessments, as the direct, indirect and unintended effects of regulations can be fully assessed only after implementation.
The regulatory, standards and quality assurance (QI)systems are often presented as separate, whereas in reality, they are closely interlinked. The two “systems” have a large intersection in their objectives, including ensuring product safety, protecting human health and the environment, and driving international trade. For this reason, many components of the QI system are used to achieve public policy objectives, and vice versa, regulations and public policies are often used to define the governance and services of QI bodies. QI tools and regulation can also become conflated. For instance, the terms “standards” and “regulation” are sometimes used interchangeably (Lydgate et al., 2025[2]), with some literature describing both as standards, or using technical regulation and standards as synonyms (see Box 1 for different meaning of standards). This in part may arise from commonalities in the objectives of regulations and QI tools (World Bank and PTB, 2019[3]) (UNIDO, 2024[4]), includes some of their objectives as well as differences, showing the overlap of QI and regulation within product safety, trade and competitiveness especially. The objectives more broadly show that general regulation has broader public policy goals as objectives, but the to achieve positive policy outcomes to those objectives, the tools and services that standards and quality assurance offers, such as facilitating compliance and interoperability across borders, are needed.
Source: Author’s elaboration.
The close relationship between the regulatory, standards and quality assurance systems can be seen in Figure 2.2. Elements of the system like standards and metrology provide the technical foundation needed to shape evidence-based, outcome-oriented regulations, and provide alternatives to regulation during the policy design phase. During implementation, measurement, conformity assessment and accreditation play a crucial role in ensuring that regulatory requirements are met consistently and can help reduce the enforcement burden on government authorities if tasks are delegated. Within the monitoring, enforcement and ex post evaluation phase, data sharing between QI bodies and government, and intel from market surveillance can help assess whether regulations are achieving their intended objectives and provide data-driven insights for future policy adjustments.
However, the ways in which QI bodies support the regulatory policy cycle can be somewhat under the radar, as well as dependent on the capacities and resources available in the national context. This chapter explores ways in which QI has been integrated into the regulatory policy cycles, and explores how more efficient and strategic QI-regulation interactions can enhance regulatory quality, foster innovation, and build trust in the system’s ability to deliver on public policy goals.
Voluntary standards and assurance tools as an alternative to regulation
The WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement follows the distinction that standards are voluntary and regulations are mandatory, relating to the different development processes, governance and oversight behind standards and regulations. Generally, a voluntary standard is developed following market-driven engagement and approaches, whereas mandatory regulations entail development via government and public authorities. Both public standards developed by government recognised bodies, and private standards developed by actors like NGO’s or industry (see Box 1) can be developed following market-driven need from stakeholders, and are crucially voluntary. This also means that if co-operation and collaboration between private and public actors is poor, duplicative standards and norms could be created. This report will mainly focus on the development and use of public standards, which are developed through government recognised standards bodies or multilateral processes. However, the report will also touch upon the interactions of private standards with the QI system, as public and private standards development and use interact across market and policy and are not isolated from each other.
Due to the broad alignment in objectives of QI and regulation, policymakers can introduce high level policy objectives, and then use voluntary QI tools like standards and assurance, alongside a spectrum of regulatory options, as an actionable pathway to ensuring compliance. In fact, the OECD guidance on RIA encourages countries to explore all plausible alternatives to solve policy issues (Figure 2.3), including non‑regulatory instruments, to enable proportional policy approaches (OECD, 2020[5]). These alternatives to regulation include mechanisms such as promoting self-regulation by the industry or incentivising voluntary action like certification as a means to encourage competitiveness, developing codes of practice through co-regulation with industry, earned recognition through the use of recognised certification schemes, among other options (OECD, 2020[5]).
Note: Summary of the range of regulatory approaches available to policymakers from OECD’s guidance on regulatory impact assessments. Source: Author’s elaboration on OECD’s Regulatory Impact Assessment Guidance (OECD, 2020[5]).
For example, as an alternative to command-and-control type regulations, Governments could choose to regulate via high-level policy objectives (e.g., environmental performance) and then refer to technical standards on environmental performance that can earn recognition from a regulator if that standard is prevalently used in the market or recognised by policy guidance. Governments could also choose to not regulate, but set high-level policy objectives only, allowing industry and the market to self-regulate their environmental performance based on consumer demand through organic use of QI tools like accredited conformity assessment, such as certification, inspection and labelling. The choices that governments make will be dependent on their risk management needs, and assessing these different regulatory pathways can lead to balancing the effectiveness of policy interventions while imposing the lowest possible burden, enhancing regulatory efficiency and fostering innovation and collaboration between public and private sectors.
An example from the United Kingdom is illustrated by the common objectives of standards and regulation in Box 2.1. Once commonality of objectives is acknowledged, national QI systems can be developed or enhanced further, and provided with the remit, mandate and capacity necessary to support regulatory policy in achieving priority policy objectives. Using QI tools like standards and quality assurance in this way can drive innovation by providing a clear yet flexible framework that encourages industry-led solutions, while remaining aligned to policy objectives.
More generally, the voluntary nature of standards can allow businesses to experiment, adapt, and improve technologies. For many industries, adhering to such voluntary standards, and utilising tools such as certification to demonstrate compliance can be seen as a good investment to attract new consumers or to adhere to ambitions on social sustainability and environmental impact. Examples of frequently used voluntary standards include the prevalent use ASTM International’s standards in sustainable aviation fuels such as Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels, which is used internationally to comply with meeting the specification for conventional jet fuel (OECD, 2021[6]). Another example is the ISO Quality Management System standards (ISO, 2015[7]), which demonstrates alignment to best practices within products and services to meet consumer expectations in any sector. Similarly, there is a prevalence of private standards in the forestry sector, where industry driven standards have gained dominance across the market and are integrated into policy around the world. Furthermore, applying standards may help industries monitor and reduce liabilities. For instance, in case of health and safety and worker’s rights, globally accepted guidance from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) (ILO, 2025[8]) may be used, which sets out best practices related to labour rights, which existing social and environmental impact guidance prevalent in the market may already align with. This connection of QI services with the market means standards and assurance tools can evolve market practices offering governments alternative tools to regulation to enable flexible regulatory pathways, mitigate risks and continue to protect citizens and the environment (OECD, 2018[9]) (OECD, 2020[5]).
ISO 45001 as a standard to support UK’s Occupational Health and Safety Processes
The ISO 45001 standard supports organisations in establishing safe and healthy work environments by minimising the risk of work-related injuries and consistently enhancing occupational health and safety (OH&S) performance. It promotes a culture of trust, empowers employees, boosts organisational resilience, reduces staff absences, and reinforces adherence to regulatory and industry standards. It also helps businesses implementing the standard strengthen their legal and regulatory compliance while reducing business losses.
On the other hand, the UK Health and Safety Executive (regulator) provides advice to businesses wanting to implement or those already implementing this standard. It is interesting to note that the HSE guidelines include a consideration of the practical implication of implementing the standard including audit and certification and the complexity small businesses would face.
It must also be noted that the HSE uses compliance with this standard as one of the types of evidence towards occupational health and safety performance. In other words, full implementation of a standard could demonstrate conformity and suggest general compliance with regulatory requirements, but other approaches of showing compliance could also be taken. This approach to regulating health and safety is an example of risk-based approaches to regulatory delivery.
Voluntary standards can become mandatory through legislation or become a popular choice as a result of market behaviour
Although standards are voluntary by nature, they can become mandatory de jure (if referred to in legislation or as basis for technical regulation) or de facto (if they become a requirement to enter a market). Voluntary standards (which encompasses both public and private standards - can gain traction in the market as a result of the need to signal adherence to a value or principle, such as sustainability, or due to a need to consistently meet requirements across a global supply chain. If a standard becomes dominant in this voluntary manner, not adhering to these standards could lead to a loss of competitiveness for the business should the standard not be used. In that case, standards can become a means to access markets and increase trade.
However, when developing policy, governments need to consider disproportionate effects and barriers to market access for SMEs and suppliers in low to middle income LMI countries before utilising such de facto standards (World Bank, 2025[10]), whether they are private or public standards. If using such de facto standards, governments can consider support for suppliers and businesses affected, with Box 2.2 highlighting an example of how Ghana’s government incentivises adherence to standards to enable increased market access to SMEs (de Vries et al., 2009[11]).
The needs of SME’s and suppliers of LMI countries should also be taken into consideration within the standards development process. For public standards, such as international standards, this may be through the national standard bodies of those countries participating in fora such as ISO and IEC (ISO, 2024[12]). In industry led private standards, this may be harder to mandate, but the considerations of SME’s particularly can come into play via SME led industry associations or SME specific standards such as for sustainability (EFRAG, 2025[13]). Although this traction for inclusivity is likely to happen outside of policy development, governments or regulators should monitor market conditions and aim to consider the costs associated with standards or QI tools, including engaging their National QI bodies, and making recommendations on best practice as appropriate.
In Ghana, the government's support for Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) includes offering rebates as an incentive for compliance with quality standards. This initiative aims to encourage MSMEs to adhere to certification requirements by providing financial rebates once they meet these standards. The rebate structure consists of an initial percentage payback after certification is achieved, followed by an additional percentage payback after three years if the MSME has successfully maintained its certification.
When formulating technical regulations, the Ghanaian government plans to take into account the specific challenges faced by micro enterprises. This may involve lowering the regulatory requirements or, in some cases, waiving them altogether, provided that such leniency does not result in widespread deceptive practices. However, it is important to note that health and safety regulations will not be compromised under these considerations, ensuring that fundamental consumer protections remain intact. This approach balances the need to support small businesses with the necessity of maintaining standards that protect consumers and the integrity of the market.
Early identification of costs of compliance
QI services, including standards, metrology, accreditation, and conformity services, are often utilised somewhat organically or invisibly for the implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of regulations. Examples include the use of certifications across economy which can provide earned recognition or be a pathway to demonstrate compliance to regulations, such as regarding emissions, sustainability, food safety, electrical safety, and environmental performance labelling. In practice, complying with regulations can give rise to numerous, often overlooked costs (World Trade Organization, 2016[15]) related to testing, certification, or upgrading the necessary QI (especially NMIs and testing labs). Failure to adequately account for QI costs can result in regulatory burdens and place a strain on both the public sector and private companies, impeding their ability to enter, innovate, invest, or compete effectively in the market.
It is therefore essential, when policymakers design regulations, to assess the needs of the national QI services to deliver policies. Failing to account for these services can affect economic activity, lead to inefficiencies, hinder compliance, and weaken the intended impact of regulations. On the other hand, considering QI services early on in regulatory policy-making processes can lead to proportionate, outcome focussed and risk-based regulation, avoiding highly prescriptive or process-oriented approaches where possible. The voluntary levers available through QI services can also assist Governments in reducing the cost of implementing regulation. For instance, while evidence suggests that producers/suppliers do receive better prices and profits when participating in standards compared to non-certified alternatives, this outcome is not consistent across all cases (Trade Centre - ITC, n.d.[16]). The outcome can depend on the industry sector, size, and the regional regulatory and QI framework, and compliance with standards can also be costly (International Trade Centre, 2011[17]).
Policymakers should consider the costs of QI tools during policy development, and guidance on costs and ensuring that QI services are generally available from international QI organisations. For instance, standards bodies such as ISO and IEC (ISO and IEC, 2016[18]) and CEN-CENELEC have published guidance to make standards more accessible to SMEs. This guidance recognises the unique needs of SMEs and provides mechanisms to assess the impact of standards on them, including cost assessments that an SME could incur while implementing a standard and any associated conformity assessment, and provides options to minimise the negative impacts of standards on an SME. Assessing the costs of QI tools is essentially to ensuring barriers to business participation and economic growth are considered, and alternatives sought as needed.
Regulatory delivery is the process of implementing and enforcing regulations in a way that ensures their intended objectives—such as safety, quality, and fair competition—are effectively achieved. It involves a wide range of activities, including monitoring compliance, conducting inspections, providing guidance, and taking enforcement actions when necessary. An essential aspect of regulatory delivery is its focus on outcomes rather than just procedural compliance, ensuring that regulations deliver real benefits to society and the economy.
QI services, such as standards, measurement, quality assurance and market surveillance, can play a crucial role in this process by providing the tools needed for ensuring the reliability of products and services, and maintain trust in the regulatory system. QI is already embedded into regulatory delivery within governments and has traditionally been seen as a way to enhance efficiency, minimise administrative burdens, and foster a more predictable and transparent regulatory environment. However, to enable these positive impacts, the standards and quality assurance system needs to operate optimally with regulation and with the wider market governance frameworks.
Well-functioning standards and quality assurance systems can enable efficient, proportional and risk based regulatory approaches
A risk-based approach is another important aspect of regulatory delivery that helps prioritise regulatory resources based on the assessment of risks to public health, safety, and the environment. This method enhances efficiency by focusing on higher-risk areas, ensuring that regulatory efforts are proportional to the potential impact of non-compliance. A risk-based approach can help regulators foster compliance by supporting industries which are low-risk and/ or take proactive steps to reduce risks from their business activity. The various pillars of QI, like standards, measurement and assurance, can play a pivotal role in supporting risk-based regulatory delivery (see Figure 2.4) through providing reliable data for informed decision-making, facilitating international trade through harmonised standards or mutual recognition of accreditation of conformity schemes, and support proportional regulation by aligning efforts with risk levels. By providing a clear framework for risk assessment and compliance, the standards and quality assurance system can allow regulators to tailor their interventions based on the severity and likelihood of risks.
Note: Market Surveillance is another core pillar of standards and quality assurance, known as quality infrastructure (QI), which underpins the four pillars showcased here, by monitoring and ensuring market compliance, which can also take a risk-based approach, informed by the risk-based approaches of the 4 pillars presented in the diagram.
Source: Author's own elaboration.
This proportional approach to regulatory delivery ensures that regulatory efforts are commensurate with the level of risk, avoiding over-regulation in low-risk areas while concentrating resources on higher-risk activities, and utilising proactive innovative. For instance, QI services such as metrology already pursue scientific innovation aligned to public policy goals, such as exploring improvements to air quality measurements (Box 2.3) which can be used by governments to inform policy choices and manage risk. Fostering such collaboration between QI bodies and government brings clarity in regulatory processes by reducing burden on regulators.
The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) measurements of particle number concentrations in ambient air over more than 15 years have provided the evidence base for the UK Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to make and benchmark policy decisions for the reduction of emissions from vehicles and provide a robust evidence base for the future redefinition of UK particulate matter air quality targets.
These measurements are not mandated by UK or EU air quality regulation, but NPL developed a method to measure particle number concentrations in ambient air using National Measurement System funding. This method was adopted by Defra and was included in a UK research air quality network which NPL now operate with full funding on behalf of Defra and the Environment Agency. As a result, NPL have produced, for over 15 years, accurate, stable and comparable measurements of particle number concentrations at important UK roadside and urban monitoring stations.
The data produced in London has provided the evidence base for UK Government policy to be developed, tested, and refined. The data produced by NPL on particle number concentrations in ambient air is provided to the Government and is freely available on a UK air quality data repository. The data are used by a variety of interested parties to assess the changing UK pollution (academics, government, regulatory authorities, pressure groups). In the example shown in the figure, the data produced by NPL was used to demonstrate the effectiveness of EC and UK policy in reducing the particle load in London and improving air quality.
Source: case study submitted by the National Physical Laboratory, United Kingdom; https://www.npl.co.uk/air-quality-aerosol-metrology; https://www.npl.co.uk/products-services/gas/air-quality-monitoring.
QI pillars can be used in their voluntary form or combined with mandatory regulation to enable a proportional mix of risk reduction that allows for innovation and simultaneously develops trust in new processes and products. For example, QI services like certification or testing can bring increased streamlining to resource heavy policy compliance areas like permitting and licensing. Permitting and licensing allows regulators to control the quality of products and infrastructure before being deployed, but is traditionally a complex and costly process for businesses and governments to navigate. This is as in sectors such as building construction and energy infrastructure, industry must comply with multiple permits managed by different authorities (e.g., environmental impact assessment, land use permit, technical project approval, etc.). One of the most significant challenges in infrastructure and construction projects is the delay caused by permitting processes. These delays often arise from the limited capacity and resources of public regulatory bodies tasked with reviewing and approving permits.
This is where QI tools and services like standards and accredited conformity assessment could alleviate burdens on regulators and alleviate bottlenecks, for instance by delegating certification and inspection duties to practitioners and QI bodies. For example, Box 2.4 illustrates OECD’s recommendations on utilising construction practitioners and their voluntary conformity assessment mechanisms to reduce regulatory inefficiencies in the construction sector in Lithuania. As certification leverages the expertise and efficiency of specialised firms, it can enable faster processing times and reduce the backlog that public agencies may face. By involving reliable (e.g. accredited) certification and inspection firms, regulators can focus on setting clear requirements and conducting audits, rather than managing the day-to-day review of individual projects. This division of labour could allow a streamlined and efficient permitting process, as private firms such as certifiers may also be able to adapt quicker to varying project demands and provide specialised knowledge in specific sectors. However, governments should assess parameters such as cost and safety, and take an active role in ensuring that delegation continues to maintain quality and safety of products and services. This is where market surveillance and ex post assessment of regulations and standards can be utilised to ensure iterative improvements to policy implementation.
The OECD worked with Lithuania to increase the efficiency of construction regulation. The country faced the challenge of having a heavily regulated construction sector. Construction does give rise to potential impacts on safety, the environment and urban planning. However, the supervision and enforcement system of Lithuania was mainly focused on bureaucratic requirements rather than effectively addressing public risks.
One of the proposed solutions was to delegate supervision activities to construction professionals, instead of placing the entire inspection burden solely on government. To ensure the private certification system was reliable, the OECD recommended that Lithuania:
Simplify the certification scheme for construction professionals, to ensure a higher degree of competition.
Update examination requirements to make them more practice-oriented and reflective of new emerging risks
Evolve the supervision of certified professionals form “paper-checks” to auditing approaches that measure actual performance.
Market Surveillance ensures continuous monitoring of compliance to protect consumers
Market surveillance is a critical function of public authorities for ensuring that products and services available in the marketplace comply with established regulations and standards (UNIDO, 2024[4]). Where conformity assessment processes and accreditation ensure scrutiny over compliance of products and services with standards and regulations ex ante, market surveillance is their crucial corollary to oversee compliance ex post.
In practice, market surveillance is typically provided by regulatory bodies and entities appointed by them at national, regional and local levels. It can involve a range of functions to ensure compliance ex post, such as monitoring, inspecting, and testing products to verify that they meet safety, quality, and environmental requirements set by regulatory bodies. By conducting these checks, market surveillance authorities protect consumers from potentially harmful or substandard products, thereby upholding public safety and maintaining consumer trust. This process also helps identify non-compliant products early and manage risks, preventing widespread issues and ensuring that corrective actions can be taken promptly. Key aspects of market surveillance include:
Monitoring: Regulatory bodies continuously monitor the market for products that are offered for sale, including both domestically produced and imported goods. This involves collecting information about the products available, including their labelling, documentation, and compliance with relevant standards and regulations.
Inspection and Testing: Products are inspected and tested to verify that they meet the required standards and regulatory requirements. This may include physical inspections, laboratory testing, and checking for proper certification or labelling. Government laboratories can use accreditation to provide technical competence and impartiality.
Consumer Protection: Market surveillance plays a crucial role in protecting consumers from unsafe or non-compliant products, thereby preventing harm and ensuring that products in the market meet minimum safety and quality standards.
Support for Fair Competition: By ensuring that all products on the market adhere to the same standards, market surveillance helps create a level playing field for businesses, preventing unfair competition from non-compliant products.
Risk analysis and management plays an important role in market surveillance, such as proportional approaches to defining the sampling criteria, or inspection requirements, and frequency at which surveillance must be undertaken.
An effective market surveillance system acts as a supervision system and a deterrent against non-compliance, encouraging manufacturers and suppliers to adhere to regulations. It ensures a level playing field where companies cannot gain an unfair advantage by cutting corners or disregarding safety and quality standards. This is particularly important in highly regulated industries, such as pharmaceuticals, food, and electronics, where non-compliance can have serious consequences. Moreover, market surveillance supports fair competition by identifying and penalising those who do not comply with regulations, thereby preventing the sale of inferior or unsafe products that might otherwise undercut compliant products on price alone. Given the extent of products in the market, complexities arising from changing export behaviour, the ever-expanding scope of the marketplace (online and offline), or emerging needs such as circular economy practices, market surveillance has evolved into a complex regulatory function. QI tools that enable market surveillance operations can be a bridge between policymakers and industry which can support continuous regulatory improvement, including fostering effective and reliable public and private sector collaboration to reduce bottlenecks (e.g. permitting and licensing, Box 2.4).
Depending on the jurisdiction, market surveillance can be carried out by a QI body placed within a Ministry or by one or several regulators, and Box 2.5 outlines some examples of market surveillance states in different regions of the world.
India has a developing market surveillance framework, for electronics, toys, and medical devices. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) plays a central role in this system. The BIS conducts market surveillance through inspections and testing of products to ensure they meet Indian standards (IS). For example, electronic products and toys are subject to compulsory certification and market surveillance under various regulatory orders.
Brazil has a structured market surveillance system managed by National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology (INMETRO). INMETRO is responsible for the surveillance of various non-food products, including electrical appliances, toys, and automotive components. The agency conducts inspections and testing to ensure products comply with Brazilian standards and regulations. INMETRO's market surveillance activities include random sampling and testing of electrical appliances to verify compliance with safety standards.
Mexico has a market surveillance system for non-food products, overseen by the Federal Consumer Protection Agency (PROFECO) and other regulatory bodies. PROFECO conducts inspections and testing of various non-food products, such as electronics, toys, and household goods, to ensure they comply with Mexican Official Standards (NOMs).
South Africa's market surveillance for non-food products is overseen by the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) and the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). The NRCS monitors compliance with compulsory specifications for various products, including electrical goods, automotive components, and personal protective equipment (PPE). SABS also conducts market surveillance to ensure that products meet the required standards.
Market surveillance in the EU is conducted by national authorities co-ordinated by the European Commission. In Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) leads market surveillance, supported by sector-specific bodies. In the US, the federal agency Consumer Product Safety Commission oversee market surveillance.
Source: https://casco.iso.org/key-considerations.html; https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/goods/building-blocks/market-surveillance_en; https://www.services.bis.gov.in/php/BIS_2.0/BISBlog/indian-standards-on-toys-ensuring-your-childs-safety /; https://www.gov.br/inmetro/pt-br/assuntos/regulamentacao/modelo-regulatorio-do-inmetro/inmetro-regulatory-model-published-march-2022.pdf; https://www.sabs.co.za/Sectors-and-Services/index.asp.
Market surveillance authorities can monitor and recall non-compliant products from the market, and some public online platforms of product recalls are available (see Box 2.6). The stages of conformity assessment, such as testing and inspections of these products and the product recall data can provide insights into the level of compliance with standards and regulations. Although some public data is available, a systematic feedback loop of data sharing between market surveillance authorities and regulators is not frequent practice. Fostering information sharing on non-compliance between regulators, market surveillance authorities, conformity assessment bodies, and governments can improve policy outcomes and proportionality. This information can highlight gaps, emerging risks, or areas where regulations may need to be updated or tightened. By analysing trends in compliance and non-compliance, regulatory bodies can adapt and evolve their rules to better protect consumers and respond to new technological developments or market dynamics. In this way, market surveillance not only enforces existing regulations but can also inform the development of more robust and relevant regulatory policies.
Product recall platforms are systems designed to help companies communicate and co-ordinate product recalls efficiently and raise awareness amongst consumers of faulty products. These platforms streamline the process of identifying and managing the removal or correction of defective and/or unsafe products from the market.
ASEAN Product Alerts compiles information on all recalled products that are traded in the regional block. This allows consumers to view information on safety concerns of products when shopping in the region. This increases consumer confidence in the region aligning with the goals of the ASEAN Strategic Action Plan for Consumer Protection.
Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) is an EU system to ensure exchange of information between member countries to support swift reaction by food safety authorities in case of risks to public health resulting from food safety issues. There is an online database with public access as well which can be accessed by non member countries.
The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) is the product regulator for the United Kingdom. They focus on promoting trade and growth through preventing consumer and business discontent. They regulate throughout the product lifecycle, and are responsible for product safety, legal metrology, standards, and accreditation.
The OECD GlobalRecalls Portal combines product recalls from around the world into one database. It highlights both mandatory and voluntary product recalls that have been notified or issued to the respective Government authorities. The scope of product recalls, and duration of product recalls on the platform is dependent on the information provided by the Government of the nation producing the product. The GlobalRecalls Portal is shared across jurisdictions, aiding regulators to correct product regulations, consumers to ensure safe purchases, and businesses to prevent marketing hazardous products.
Safety Gate produces information on any measure taken against non-food products that are dangerous to consumers and disseminates it to the national authorities of product safety in single market countries. A national authority sends an alert to Safety Gate with information on the defective product, which is then forwarded to other states, that can regulate the product on their market accordingly. Any country that has a dangerous product on their market that has been flagged on Safety Gate has the requirement to reveal the dangerous information on that product to its own market.
Source: RASFF - European Commission.
Hence, the quality of market surveillance can benefit from robust collaboration between market surveillance authorities and other QI bodies, enabling better management of risks and refinement of approaches to align to market and consumer needs. With the advent of new technologies, innovation in monitoring, verification and reporting can enable increasingly efficient data collection and analysis from assurance that allow regulators to respond faster to issues and build increased trust in products and services Integrating market surveillance insights into the regulatory cycle can create a continuous feedback loop, allowing regulators and QI bodies to assess the effectiveness of existing guidance, regulation, standards, measurement and assurance tools, refining them to enhance consumer protection and keep pace with technological advancements and market shifts. This iterative approach ensures that regulatory frameworks, standards and quality assurance mechanisms remain responsive, efficient, and aligned with evolving industry needs.
The QI system often operates as a bridge between facilitating national policy delivery, with standards and quality assurance bodies working with businesses at the forefront of innovation (Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), 2024[19]) and helping them demonstrate their value, and aligning markets across borders (UNIDO, 2024[4]) In many ways, QI and regulatory bodies are working towards the same shared objectives of enabling an innovative market that is safe for consumers and the environment. However, the role QI plays in connecting the market to policy and regulation, and in enabling policy implementation can often fly somewhat under the radar. Conversely, the slower pace of QI processes, such as standards development, can also mean solutions may be developed by private actors faster to meet market needs, leading to fragmentation. However, when such private governance initiatives scale across the world, they are using QI services such as assurance bodies or accreditation bodies, or relying on international standards on how assurance should be done.
An example of this is the sustainable forestry market, which is critical to a range of everyday products used by citizens around the world, like furniture, notebooks, clothes and construction materials. Many different public and private, national and international actors operate with different objectives, expertise and added values within the sustainable forestry sector. This has resulted in development of diverse guidance from different types of actors that coexist, such as multilateral initiatives like the OECD Business Handbook on Deforestation and Due Diligence in Agricultural Supply Chains (OECD/FAO, 2023[20]) as well as industry led initiatives (often called Voluntary Sustainability Standards – VSS’s) that have proliferated across the market over the years (Andrew Lang and Gregory Messenger, 2024[21]). Out of these, two dominant private standards - Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (Box 2.7) – have scaled and been adopted into policy and regulatory regimes around the world, through utilising the QI system (Table 2.1).
PEFC and FSC are dominant private standards and interact with QI to scale their frameworks
Over time two parallel consortia of interested stakeholders from businesses, NGO’s and civil society, created two dominant market-based certification schemes (private standards) to meet global sustainable forestry objectives – Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), with the public standards such as those developed by ISO/IEC playing a secondary supportive role (Andrew Lang and Gregory Messenger, 2024[21]).
Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC): PEFC was founded in 1999, by forest owners and users and NGO actors in forestry (PEFC, 2024[22]), specifically to meet the forest management needs of small to medium forestry owners. To meet this objective, it established an umbrella programme which endorses national forest certification schemes based on its own requirements but tailored to national and regional contexts (PEFC, 2024[23]). They state their core work as “endorse national forest certification systems developed through multi-stakeholder processes and tailored to local priorities and conditions. We believe that forest certification needs to be local; this is why we choose to work with national organisations to advance responsible forestry”. PEFC uses accreditation bodies under the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) (PEFC, 2024[23]) implementing their certification requirements through bodies operating in compliance with ISO standards on conformity assessment and accreditation. This approach means PEFC is linked explicitly into the international standards, conformity assessment and accreditation aspects of national QI institutions.
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC): FSC was founded in 1993 by environmentalists, community leaders and businesses (FSC, 2024[24]) in response to the perceived failures of the Rio Earth Summit to tackle global deforestation. FSC mission is to “promote environmentally sound, socially beneficial and economically prosperous management of the world's forests”. It does so by defining its own principles and criteria for forest management, including its own system of granting authority to organisations carrying out audits and certification. Local and national standards for forest management have to be specifically aligned to FSC principles and criteria. FSC uses a range of conformity assessment bodies to provide certification services (FSC, 2024[25]) around the world, accredited to Assurance Services International (ASI) (ASI, 2024[26]), which is a private accreditation body, a member of the ISEAL alliance (ISEAL, 2024[27]). This pathway of governance is not explicitly linked to national accreditation bodies (i.e members of IAF) or international standards on conformity assessment and accreditation. However, this pathway still relies on conformity assessment services, which is a pillar of QI.
In the case of forestry, there is no dominance by a single initiative, but two dominant private standards interacting with different national standards and schemes, policy and regulatory approaches around the world. Examples below from four countries demonstrate the diverse policy approaches to sustainable forestry and the diverse interactions of these dominant private standards, QI and regulation:
United Kingdom – both PEFC and FSC integrated into policy but use QI differently: The UK woodland Assurance Standard is an audit protocol based on and recognised by both PEFC and FSC, drawing on the UK Forestry standard (UK Forestry Commission, 2017[28]), which defines the approach of governments in the UK to sustainable forest management. The UK government considers PEFC and FSC to be compliant with its sustainable forestry products policies, and as a result accepts certification from either as a proof of compliance (Department for Environment, 2013[29]). Both PEFC and FSC in this context are recognised in policy, despite their different governance mechanisms, and crucially the differences in how they utilise QI systems.
Gabon – National certification scheme recognised by PEFC, and forestry permits conditioned on FSC: The government of Gabon announced in 2018 that forestry permit holders will be required to hold an FSC certification, therefore conditioning a national policy on the requirements set out within FSC guidance, and linking national policy with FSC’s governance mechanisms (United Nations Forum on Sustainability Standards (UNFSS), 2020[30]). Alongside this there is the Pan African Forest Certification (PAFC) (PAFC, 2024[31]), a regional collaboration of several African national organisations which are members of PEFC. The PAFC Gabon branch was recognised by PEFC in 2009 and is managed by an association under Gabonese law. It is not clear how the two schemes have been interacting since the 2018 announcement on conditioning forestry permits on FSC solely. However, the presence of both these schemes means Gabon’s forestry market is an example of QI supporting private sector standards (VSS’s) in different ways within policy and policy adjacent programs, even within the same country.
EU – no direct recognition of PEFC and FSC in deforestation policy: The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) provides guidance on requirements to demonstrate sustainable sourcing of wood. While the EUDR does not directly reference the PEFC or FSC initiatives, it does allow evidence of compliance via recognised certification schemes (European Union, 2024[32]) (European Union, 2018[33]). Currently PEFC’s application to be in the recognised schemes is being reviewed and PEFC’s website notes the standards will be updated to align with EUDR requirements (FSC, 2024[34]). FSC does not appear in the recognised scheme list by the EU Commission (European Union, 2024[32]) but highlights that the FSC regulatory module can support certificate holders in aligning to EUDR (FSC, 2024[35]). In any case, the link to QI will be dependent on the European member in which EUDR is being implemented, with PEFC requiring accredited conformity assessment bodies who are signatories to ILAC (likely to be the national accreditation body), and FSC certification available via ASI accredited bodies.
Japan –- Voluntary register for companies. A voluntary register for companies that can demonstrate their responsible sourcing of legal timber is in place. The voluntary register comes with associated government recognition which is valuable for businesses. Both PEFC and FSC certification operates in Japan, with PEFC recognising the national Sustainable Green Ecosystem Council (SGEC), accredited through Japan’s national accreditation body (Japan Accreditation Board), and FSC certification provides accredited through ASI.
Note: The above examples of policies are by no means exhaustive, but illustrative of different forestry policy approaches. There are also numerous product-specific, and nation specific guidance and standards that interact with PEFC and FSC. Examples include Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) primarily applicable to North America, Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) specific to sourcing of palm oil, and Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) related to sourcing of biomass as a secondary product from forestry around the world.
The range of policy approaches within sustainable forestry (Table 2.1) demonstrate the diverse ways in which governments can choose to tackle the same issue, ranging from voluntary registers through to binding regulation. However, the key underlying lever here that has allowed the guidance to be utilised and recognised across borders is the QI systems that have supported scaling of PEFC and FSC across markets. Both PEFC and FSC are utilising conformity assessment bodies to deliver their certification, however, FSC uses a private accreditation service outside of the QI system for certification, while PEFC utilises the national accreditation bodies which are signatories to mutual recognition agreements via IAF‑ILAC. The standards pillar of QI also provides secondary support to these private standards, firstly through standards for conformity assessment which are utilised by accreditation bodies for assessing organisations certifying against PEFC standards. Secondly, product specific standards (e.g. ISO Chain of Custody of Wood Products standard) and Environmental Management Systems Standards, which many organisations utilise (ISO 14000 series), provide support to these private standards, as well as ISO/IEC standards on conformity assessment supporting accreditation of certification bodies. This demonstrates the interwoven nature of the QI system with the existing market, and how pillars of QI alone, and together, can support scaling of best practice developed by industry somewhat organically in a sector.
The development of the FSC and PEFC standards via non-government consortiums (Box 2.7) also shows how industry and civil society stakeholders can mobilise to fill gaps in existing governance, and can coalesce around separate governance approaches that take different implementation pathways in relation to utilising QI. However, despite convergence on best practice on forestry through alignment across policy to dominant private standards, the multiplicity of scaling pathways for sustainable forestry governance could also be seen as a fragmented approach to tackling an inherently global issue. Indeed, there remain stakeholder concerns, such as from civil society and NGO-led organisations on sustainable forestry practices on the ground. (M. Becker et al., 2024[36]). The QI system has a powerful role to play when leveraged strategically for current challenges, such as regulating for new technologies, to utilise its existing role in connecting diverse stakeholders between the market to policy, to develop globally consistent approaches towards progress global policy goals. However, co-ordinated action is required to overcome the fragmentation and proliferation of standards and guidance in certain policy areas to overcome issues of misalignment and foster interoperability.
References
[21] Andrew Lang and Gregory Messenger (2024), The Standards-Regulation Nexus: Mapping the Ecosystem of Standardisation, https://www.bsigroup.com/siteassets/pdf/en/insights-and-media/insights/white-papers/the-standards-regulation-nexus_mapping-the-ecosystem-of-standardisation_fv.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[26] ASI (2024), Assurance Services International (ASI), https://www.asi-assurance.org/s/find-a-cab.
[11] de Vries, H. et al. (2009), SME access to European standardization Enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to achieve greater benefit from standards and from involvement in standardization, Rotterdam School of Management, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259005422_SME_access_to_European_standardization_Enabling_small_and_medium-sized_enterprises_to_achieve_greater_benefit_from_standards_and_from_involvement_in_standardization (accessed on 2 July 2025).
[29] Department for Environment, F. (2013), Timber Procurement Policy (TPP): prove legality and sustainability, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/timber-procurement-policy-tpp-prove-legality-and-sustainablity.
[13] EFRAG (2025), EFRAG Sustainability Reporting Standards for SMEs, https://www.efrag.org/en/sustainability-reporting/esrs-workstreams/smes (accessed on 2 July 2025).
[32] European Union (2024), Voluntary schemes, https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/bioenergy/voluntary-schemes_en#voluntary-schemes-under-the-revised-renewable-energy-directive.
[33] European Union (2018), Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32018L2001.
[35] FSC (2024), FSC and regulatory framework, https://connect.fsc.org/certification-system/regulatory-framework.
[25] FSC (2024), FSC Certification process, https://anz.fsc.org/become-certified.
[24] FSC (2024), FSC History, https://fsc.org/en/our-history.
[34] FSC (2024), PEFC and EUDR, https://www.pefc-france.org/pefc-votre-allie-dans-le-rdue/.
[8] ILO (2025), International Labour Organisation Standards, https://www.ilo.org/international-labour-standards (accessed on 2 July 2025).
[17] International Trade Centre (2011), The Impacts of Private Standards on Producers in Developing Countries: Literature review series on the impacts of private standards – part II, https://www.intracen.org/resources/publications/the-impacts-of-private-standards-on-producers-in-developing-countries (accessed on 2 July 2025).
[27] ISEAL (2024), ISEAL Alliance, https://www.isealalliance.org/.
[12] ISO (2024), ISO Developing Standard, https://www.iso.org/developing-standards.html.
[7] ISO (2015), ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems — Requirements, https://www.iso.org/standard/62085.html#:~:text=What%20is%20ISO%209001%3F,demonstrate%20their%20commitment%20to%20quality.
[18] ISO and IEC (2016), Guidance for writing standards taking into account micro, small and medium-sized enterprises’ needs ISO in brief, https://webstore.iec.ch/en/publication/24306#:~:text=ISO%2FIEC%20Guide%2017%3A2016%20provides%20guidance%20and%20recommendations%20to,the%20market%20and%20the%20distortion%20of%20fair%20competition. (accessed on 2 July 2025).
[2] Lydgate, E. et al. (2025), Organizational standards, Trade and the Net Zero Transition 0 The authors are grateful for peer review and advice from Frank Faraday, https://citp.ac.uk/publications/changing-firm-behaviour-trade-and-global-decarbonization (accessed on 2 July 2025).
[36] M. Becker et al. (2024), Governing Net Zero: assessing convergence and gaps in the voluntary standards and guidelines landscape, https://www.bsigroup.com/siteassets/pdf/en/insights-and-media/insights/white-papers/onz-standards-mapping-report-2024.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[14] Ministry of Trade and Industry (2022), National Quality Policy of Ghana.
[6] OECD (2021), The Case of ASTM International, http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/irc.htm.
[5] OECD (2020), Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a9638cb-en.
[9] OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303959-en.
[1] OECD (2009), Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Tool for Policy Coherence, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264067110-en.
[20] OECD/FAO (2023), OECD-FAO Business Handbook on Deforestation and Due Diligence in Agricultural Supply Chains, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c0d4bca7-en.
[31] PAFC (2024), Pan African Forest Certification, https://pafc-certification.org/.
[23] PEFC (2024), PEFC Compliance, https://www.pefc.org/standards-implementation/assuring-compliance.
[22] PEFC (2024), PEFC History, https://www.pefc.org/discover-pefc/what-is-pefc/history.
[19] Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) (2024), A more sustainable future: The role of the quality infrastructure in scaling net zero, https://rse.org.uk/programme/advice-paper/the-role-of-the-quality-infrastructure-in-scaling-net-zero/ (accessed on 30 October 2024).
[16] Trade Centre - ITC, I. (n.d.), When do Private Standards Work? Literature Review Series on the Impacts of Private Standards - Part IV, https://www.intracen.org/fr/nouvelles-et-evenements/nouvelles/when-do-private-standards-work-en (accessed on 2 July 2025).
[28] UK Forestry Commission (2017), The UK Forestry Standard, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uk-forestry-standard.
[4] UNIDO (2024), Tackling Climate Change: Fostering trust in climate action through quality and standards, https://www.unido.org/news/tackling-climate-change-quality-and-standards (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[30] United Nations Forum on Sustainability Standards (UNFSS) (2020), Scaling up Voluntary Sustainability Standards through Sustainable Public Procurement and Trade Policy, https://unfss.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/UNFSS-4th-Report_revised_12Oct2020.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[10] World Bank (2025), STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT Concept Note, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2025 (accessed on 11 June 2025).
[3] World Bank and PTB (2019), Ensuring Quality to Gain Access to Global Markets: A Reform Toolkit.
[15] World Trade Organization (2016), “Trade, Testing and Toasters:: Conformity Assessment Procedures and the Tbt Committee”, Economic Research and Statistics Division, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201609_e.pdf.