Interconnected global challenges like the green transition and the acceleration of digital technologies need governance frameworks that align solutions globally while supporting country specific needs, and innovation. This is where standards and quality assurance systems’ (i.e. the QI system) ability to connect with the market and with policymakers, co-operate internationally to recognise good practice, and adaptable governance solutions can be utilised to tackle these global challenges. This chapter explores the role that QI and regulation interactions can play in helping to develop solutions through strategically and efficiently using the collaboration mechanisms embedded within the QI system, helping to foster innovation, while reducing burdens on businesses and regulators. This chapter also explores areas where innovation and reform of the existing QI system can enable it to better support regulation for global challenges.
Reinforcing Regulatory Frameworks through Standards, Measurements and Assurance
Abstract
Governments should use QI’s international co-operation mechanisms to build inclusive, consensus-based, flexible, and internationally applicable governance frameworks to reduce fragmentation of governance approaches in global challenges. For example, this could mean using the international standards system to develop consensus-based understanding of best practices in AI safety or using accredited conformity assessment to enable trading in the carbon market.
Governments should use QI strategically to connect expertise form voluntary and corporate action to regulatory frameworks, aligning action across the national economy and across global markets.
QI systems need to mobilise and proactively prepare innovative and faster solutions that can support policy challenges of the modern day. QI systems should assess the readiness of their tools and systems for policymaking in a digital future, and reform processes to simplify, harmonise and enable faster quality assurance.
There is a need to build capacity in national QI systems to increase effective participation of low- to middle-income countries and maximise the impact of QI tools through increased inclusivity. Participation in the development of international QI tools, such as international standards, requires the capacity and resources of national QI systems and their stakeholders, which can be challenging for emerging economies.
There are diverse interconnected global challenges facing governments today, from biodiversity loss and nature protection to health challenges from extreme weather, and the future of work in the context of AI (OECD, 2025[1]). Broad unknowns on the effect such global challenges will have on society and the planet in the long term (IPCC, 2021[2]) require governments to take an anticipatory approach to making well designed regulation.
There is also continued action in the market to address social and environmental governance to build trust with consumers, as shortcomings on governance can lead to widespread criticism even if the product or service itself is of high quality. This shift is aligned to the market’s expanding focus from product quality to a more comprehensive "broad quality" approach, addressing product quality, operational efficiency, environmental sustainability, social issues, and governance across the entire value chain (UNIDO, 2024[3]).
Though global in nature, the impacts of global challenges and transformations on people and environments will vary greatly across the world. The diversity of policy approaches to a given issue can risk fragmentation across global markets. s (OECD, 2024[4])). For example, fragmentation can be seen in the proliferation of voluntary best practice like standards, guidance and governance mechanisms related to the environment via non-government organisations (NGO’s), orchestration campaigns, and businesses (Hale et al., 2024[5]) (M. Becker et al., 2024[6]). As governments look to utilise and codify best practices in both digital and environment related policies, the varied governance landscape can be confusing for policymakers to navigate.
In this context of global challenges, QI systems including the standards and quality assurance mechanisms, are an important strategic policy tool that can facilitate scaling of accountability mechanisms, market access and trade through international co-operation and fostering interoperability (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 3). QI systems can also provide flexibility and options on governance pathways, as there are tools and services within the QI system that can operate quicker than regulation (e.g. fast track standards can be developed quicker than legislation), or alleviate burdens on regulators (e.g. accreditation of certification bodies).
However, it is important to consider that QI systems vary with their national contexts (Chapter3) and their resources, capacity and expertise may vary with the remit and mandates by government. Although QI systems vary by country, they have commonalities in objectives, such as the role of QI systems in enabling trade and economic growth. This chapter explores the two key features of the QI system which are a commonality across countries – QI’s role in providing agile, flexible alternative pathways to regulation and QI’s international co-operation mechanisms – to discuss how QI can be utilised to enable effective solutions that meet business and policy objectives on global challenges. The chapter also discusses areas of improvement in how QI bodies and governments can interact more effectively, to simplify market governance related to global challenges.
Voluntary governance approaches can be more flexible than regulation and provide governments tools to foster innovation in the market while still protecting consumers and achieving the desired policy outcome (Blind, 2023[7])). The QI system can offer tools and processes, such as standards and assurance, for governments to utilise to support a more flexible regulatory framework that still protects citizens and the environment. For example, in a recent country review, the OECD recommended to the Netherlands that they look at international standards on hydrogen to inform the process of developing their regulatory framework, which would allow market development, while ensuring adequate safety measures (OECD, 2023[8])).
Building consensus on best practice faster
In national and international standards development aligned to the WTO Six principles (World Trade Organisation, n.d.[9]), consensus building is a key aspect of the process to enable diverse stakeholder input. There is no definition of international standards universally recognised across international organisations, and various international organisations develop international standards (Box 1) using different models of consensus building. In organisations like ASTM International, development of standards is through direct participation of experts regardless of geography. Whereas, across international multilateral standard organisations like ISO or IEC, with member countries having opportunities to nominate experts to working groups developing standards, stages for member countries to comment on the drafts. Both models may contain opportunities for an open public consultation. These mechanisms together give experts and countries an opportunity to raise issues through their national standard bodies or through direct participation, enabling consideration of the diverse needs of stakeholders around the world in the standard development process.
However, due to the iterative consensus building process, traditionally international standards development has taken significant time compared to development of private standards (e.g. ISO standards can take up to 36 months to develop). This lengthy period required for consensus based international standards means the international standards system can be slower to respond to urgent market needs, with examples in some sectors (e.g. forestry – see Chapter 2) where industry coalitions or NGO coalitions can respond and build standards faster. However, the international standards system has signalled changes to explore more efficient ways of meeting the needs of the market. For example, ISO is reviewing its products portfolio to make standards more efficient to develop (ISO, 2024[10]) while still being informed by consensus. National Standard bodies, such as in Germany and the UK have also developed new products that take less time to develop but continue to utilise consensus building.
Although fast-track standard deliverables have not been solely developed to support agile policymaking, they can build consensus quickly and iteratively on best practice, which can be a tool to provide trust in continually evolving products and services, while ensuring there is room to change as the market develops. Some examples of such fast track deliverables from the international and national standards system are provided in Box 4.1, that illustrate that standards are not a homogenous tool, but rather a suite of different tools to deliver against emerging challenges and markets.
ISO and IEC now have multiple pathways of standardisation, including fast-track products (ISO, n.d.[11]) )that can be delivered in a shorter timescales compared to traditional international standards, but remain built on stakeholder consensus. Having a diversity of ways to reach consensus and set guidance is imperative to be able to meet global challenges on environment like biodiversity goals, where local and context specific effects are crucial to meeting internationally agreed climate goals. For instance, the resources at the disposal of an SME in a low to middle income country will vary when compared to a global large-scale corporation, and the approaches they can proportionately take to reach their environmental goals will be different. Innovative pathways of codifying best practice, such as faster track standards like International Workshop agreements can allow for large-scale global consensus building in a short period of time to meet urgent needs, with room to evolve product to become a full standard eventually. Collaboration and alignment will be particularly critical when it comes to national fast-track standards, to ensure it does not create undue barriers to trade through the existence of different types of standards for the same market across jurisdictions.
Examples of fast track deliverables in international standards
ISO/IEC Publicly Accessible Specification (PAS): A standard that can be verified against but is developed in 12-24 months and can also be converted into a full standard. An example includes guidance on energy management and energy savings (ISO, 2023[12]).
ISO International Workshop Agreement (IWA): These can be developed to meet urgent market need in less than 12 months. The ISO Net Zero Guidelines IWA 42 (ISO, 2022[13]) is an example developed in under 6 months, with input from over 1200 participants, to be a document which brings together guidance on the different stages of net zero under one single source. IWA’s can be converted to standard, a process which has now begun for the net zero standard (ISO, 2022[13]). ISO is also currently developing an IWA on ESG frameworks (ISO, 2024[14]) aimed at harmonising the current landscape on ESG reporting, and will be usable for organisations of any size.
ISO/IEC Technical Specifications: A Technical Specification addresses work still under technical development, where there is no consensus yet but future possibility of agreement on an International Standard. It is published for immediate use, and is a means to obtain feedback on an evolving issue, and can become a full international standard. Examples include a Technical Specification (ISO, 2020[15]) on carbon dioxide capture, transport and geological storage, and one on climate adaptation for local governments (ISO, 2020[15]).
Fast- track standard deliverables from National Standard Bodies
United Kingdom – British Standards Institution – Flex: An iterative standard development process in situations where ideas are still developing (BSI, 2022[16]). Versions of the standard are made available for public comment, and the guidance can be adapted according to the market need. Examples include a Net Zero focused Flex for SME’s (BSI, 2024[17]).
Germany – DIN SPEC (DIN, 2024[18]): A SPEC can be rapidly developed in smaller working groups, with no obligation to reach a consensus, to be able to deliver for an urgent market need. These can go on to be used as a basis for a full standard. Examples of such agile guidance related to climate change include guidelines for stakeholder engagement in climate change related decision making (DIN, 2014[19]) and sustainability assessment for startups (DIN, 2020[20]).
By offering a more flexible approach to rule-setting in this policy space, fast-track international and national public standards could help governments leverage the value of consensus-based processes to respond to consumer and market needs quickly. Governments can collaborate with their national standards bodies, and through the regulatory co-operation in international standards forums to develop such “quicker” standards which are still based on consensus.
Specifically, consensus building process within multilateral international standards forums requires countries to nominate experts who will give their time to develop standards aligned to best practice. The difficulties related to low participation from developing countries is already well established (Valery et al., 2017[21]), and World Bank has noted that emerging economies are more likely to concentrate their resources to participating in the development of standards of most relevance to them (World Bank, 2025[22]). Some changes are being implemented to increase efficiency and reduce time needed on participation, such as digitizing the traditional standard making process to enable faster consensus-building, such as “Online Standards Development Tool (OSD)” which was launched by ISO and IEC in 2025 (ISO and IEC, 2025[23]).Further digitisation and capacity building could also enable increased pace of consensus based standards.
At a very simple level, the participation variance across different topics of standardisation can be seen in public data from ISO and IEC on participation of member countries in committees. ISO’s membership comprises of 174 countries around the world, but the participation in standards development can vary. For example, ISO’s committee on Information Technology (ISO/IEC JTC 1) has 43 participating members and 62 observing members, while ISO’s environmental management committee (ISO TC207) has 87 participating members and 39 observing members (ISO, 2025[24]). Similarly, IEC’s membership is 89 countries, but its committee on Environmental standardization for electrical and electronic products and systems (TC111) has 25 participating members and 10 observing members (IEC, 2025[25]). This highlights again that the reach of international QI bodies is global, but participation variance in thematic areas may be dictated by interest, resources, challenges and other parameters specific to member countries. There is a need to urgently address any barriers and challenges for countries in participating in international QI forums, particularly low to middle income countries, whose input on QI tools will be essential for ensuring economic transitions on the environment or digital are just and fair.
International standards, metrology and accreditation organisations already have capacity building programmes in place to empower members to participate and use international QI tools like standards, such as the ISO Action Plan for Developing Countries produced by ISO’s Capacity Building Unit (ISO, 2024[26])). In other QI pillars, capacity building programs are also led by international equivalents such as training resources from IAF in accreditation (IAF, 2024[27])), and BIPM’s capacity building and knowledge transfer program in metrology (BIPM, 2024[28])). Regional or thematic networks of QI bodies also exist to aid knowledge transfer and co-ordination outside of international organisations, such as the Pan African Quality Infrastructure Network (PAQI) (PAQI, 2024[29])) and The Commonwealth Standards Network (CSN, 2024[30])). There is a pressing need to leverage these existing capacity building mechanisms, and mobilise actors to address participation issues proactively, including through foster effective collaboration between governments, QI bodies, businesses, and multilateral organisations. Particularly in the context of global challenges, it will be critical to ensure that diverse audiences are building the standards and governance mechanisms utilised to tackle them, and it is imperative to invest in extensive stakeholder engagement, and encourage collaboration to harmonise fragmented governance landscapes to support smoother policy delivery.
Keeping pace with the market and technological advances
Review and iterative improvement is built into QI tools like standards, which when referenced within or interacting with regulation, can help keep regulation relevant to the current market dynamics and aligned to the current technological and scientific knowledge. For example, ex post evaluation of standards allow for adjusting standards to suit the requirements of stakeholders in the current market and support new industries. ISO, for example, reviews international standards whenever necessary or every 5 years, technical specifications every 3 years, and technical reports as required (ISO, 2024[31]). The review process determines whether the standard should be retained, updated, or withdrawn, allowing public consultation to align with market demands. Similarly, IEC publications are regularly reviewed to stay relevant (ISO, 2024[31]) while regional bodies like CEN-CENELEC review standards at least every 4 years (CEN, 2025[32]), ensuring timely updates based on stakeholder needs.
The wider QI system, such as metrology, accreditation and conformity assessment, also by extension undergo reviews. For example, if an international standard undergoes a review after 5 years, the process of review includes public consultation, enabling other QI pillars to have sight of the updated standard, and update their own assessment procedures to account for any changes. Alongside, QI tools are often developed aligned to standards, such as ISO and IEC standards on conformity assessment procedures (ISO, 2024[33]). These standards are also updated as per the review periods of the standard organisations, again enabling continuous update of the QI tools which use these standards to develop and deliver their services.
In terms of scientific progress, QI can help keep pace through the National Metrology Institutes, which are highly technical organisations, often pursuing advanced research agendas aimed at enhancing measurement techniques. Innovations in areas such as air quality measurements pioneered by such institutes can provide valuable insights to regulators (Box 2.3), enabling them to refine regulations for existing technologies.
Alignment to scientific progress can also help address challenges posed by emerging technologies, such as Quantum technologies. The growth of quantum technologies has introduced new measurement challenges, requiring innovative solutions to build a new quantum standard (Box 4.2) to enable the measurement of electrical parameters like electrical resistance. Enabling highly precise measurements is critical to enable policymakers and businesses to fully utilise the positive impacts of such new technologies and create regulatory frameworks that keep pace with the needs of these technologies.
Quantum technologies refer to a new class of innovations that exploit the unique properties of quantum mechanics—such as superposition, entanglement, and quantum tunnelling – to develop highly precise tools and systems for various applications, including computing, communication, and measurement.
Quantum technologies have transformed the way we measure electrical quantities, such as resistance and voltage, underlining how precise measurement (metrology) can support scientific and industrial progress.
Before 1990, electrical resistance, expressed in ohm, was measured using wire-wound reference resistors. These were not very stable over time, leading to inconsistencies between different countries' measurements and making it difficult to ensure long-term accuracy. This created problems for industries and researchers that needed precise and reliable measurements.
A breakthrough came in 1990 when a quantum effect, called the quantum Hall effect, was internationally recognised to set a new standard for the ohm. This quantum standard is far more stable and reliable because it is based on fundamental physical constants rather than physical objects that can degrade or change. This solved the problem of drift and variation across national standards.
In 2019, with new definitions for the ampere (unit of electric current) and kilogram (unit of mass), these quantum standards were fully integrated into the International System of Units (SI). Now, electrical resistance, voltage, and soon even electrical current can be measured based on these quantum effects, ensuring unprecedented levels of accuracy and consistency worldwide.
This shift highlights how advancements in metrology – driven by quantum technologies – are essential for innovation, enabling industries like electronics, telecommunications, and power systems to develop with confidence in the precision of the measurements they rely on.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on inputs from BIPM.
However, as mentioned previously, QI systems can be slower to respond, particularly to innovation or emerging challenges, due to their longer stakeholder-based consensus building processes, specific remit or mandates (often assigned by government), and formalised processes of interacting at international level. This can mean that businesses, industry led initiatives, or NGO’s can be the first movers and innovators in emerging areas. Guidance, frameworks and governance mechanisms have often been initially developed and tested in the private sector, while the QI system has been utilised in building consensus once early best practice is established to reduce fragmentation, harmonise guidance and bring different actors together (Hale et al., 2024[5]) (Hale, 2022[34]). However, this means that in tackling global challenges, there can be the risk of proliferation of private and public standards as different actors mobilise at different times. Standards developed by private actors (e.g. businesses, industry or NGO’s) and public actors (QI bodies, governments) at or near the same time causes rising fragmentation leading to severe consequences for the economy, reduced clarity for citizens, businesses and governments, and ultimately creates barriers to tackling global challenges. There is a need to ensure that private and public actors developing governance mechanisms co-operate and co-ordinate to avoid duplication and siloed development of similar norms.
Crucially, this highlights the need for actors across the economy to co-operate and collaborate to enable harmonisation. QI’s role in the market may be more geared to scaling and codifying governance rather than breaking boundaries, as it sits as a bridge between the market and policy, helping to build consensus on best practice to enable harmonisation and reduce fragmentation. Although QI’s processes have benefits for international co-operation and consensus building, the same processes can make it slow as a system to respond to market changes. It is important for the QI system and governments to consider how the QI system and its interactions with regulation can be adapted to increase efficiency and be fit for the future. Examples of changes already happening include the development fast track standards in the QI system, but this can be built upon to create a QI system ready for a more digital world. However, QI systems need to catalyse their reforms to become fit for the future, and specifically concentrate on simplifying their processes and solutions, utilising digital innovations to make their consensus building and international co‑operation agile and efficient. Governments and QI bodies can utilise our Practical Checklist to assess areas of strengths and gaps in their National QI systems, and its participation in international co-operation.
Recognition of best practice without regulation
In the context of limited regulatory resources, and balanced with cost of compliance, QI tools such as standards, accreditation and certification can help industries earn recognition from the regulator, while reducing burdens on the regulator and on government departments.
It is up to regulators to decide which certificates to accept in their market, and QI tools like accreditation can guarantee technical equivalence between certificates, enabling regulators to recognise compliance while reducing the implementation burden.
For instance, within the UK energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS), (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Environment Agency and Department for Business, 2014[35]) if a company has certification via an accredited body to the ISO energy management standard (ISO 50001), then it isn’t required to have an audit as it is considered to be demonstrating compliance already. This reduces the burden on regulators and governments by utilising QI services like accredited conformity assessment to give businesses earned recognition through voluntarily undergoing certification.
Such earned recognition can be a powerful tool for global challenges, enabling governments to delegate and free up resources, as well as reducing cost of compliance. OECD’s guidance on regulatory impact assessments (OECD, 2020[36]) encourages the exploration of such alternatives to regulation during the policy design phase to enable the most effective regulatory pathway.
National QI systems can vary in in their institutional setup and where in the public-private space they are situated with respect to government (Chapter 3), dependent on countries’ institutional context and history and their approach to risk (WTO Committee for Technical Barriers to Trade, 2024[37]). This means that QI systems operate in national contexts, but crucially, can be a bridge across borders through the international co-operation mechanisms in which they participate.
Numerous multilateral international bodies have been set up to support the co-operation on QI services across countries to facilitate international co-operation on standards, measurement and assurance. Examples include the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and International Electrochemical Commission (IEC) in standardisation, Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) in metrology, and International Accreditation Forum (IAF) and International Laboratory Accreditation Co‑operation (ILAC) in the accreditation space. There are also direct participation forums bringing together technical experts or associations of private firms on standards and conformity assessment, , such as the Independent International Organisation for Assurance (IIOA), ASTM International, EUROCRAE, IEEE Standards Association and others.
Alongside such international QI forums, agreements also exist between national, regional and international QI organisations, to enable regional interoperability and alignment. For example, an agreement exists between the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and ISO to enable co-operation and joint development of standards to align between international and European standards, with a similar agreement existing between the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC) and IEC. Examples of regional networks on QI span all continents and QI pillars (INETQI, 2025[38]) such as the Pan African Quality Infrastructure network, European Association of Metrology Institute (EURAMET), Pan American Standards Commission (COPANT), European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA), among others.
This established international and regional co-operation across QI pillars makes QI a useful tool for tackling global challenges because it can help governments and regulators develop globally aligned governance pathways (Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), 2024[39]) such as consensus based international standards, recognised certification across borders, and alignment across measurement methodologies, all of which are necessary to scale governance of global challenges.
Reduce barriers to international trade through using international instruments
The use of international instruments such as international standards is already encouraged across the economy to prevent unnecessary barriers to trade stemming from divergence or duplication in regulatory asks. For instance, under the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement, technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures should be based on international standards that are developed following principles of transparency, openness, impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance, coherence, and alignment to development needs (WTO, 2024[40]). As a result standards already support regulation at regional and international levels, such as in the EU where 30% of European standards support EU directives already (CEN and CENELEC, n.d.[41]), , or the example of ASTM International’s standards being referenced within EU legislation such as directives, and within case law (OECD, 2021[42]). These examples demonstrate that there is already a close partnership between the European standard setting and regulatory landscapes.
The OECD also recommends more broadly the use of international regulatory co-operation throughout domestic rulemaking, precisely by considering existing international instruments when developing regulation (OECD, 2022[43]). For example, by utilising international standards, countries can proactively harmonise regulations (Figure 4.1) and benefit from accessing standards that were developed through extensive consultations with experts from around the world, reducing the pressure on governments to produce regulation locally and having to reinvent the wheel every time they face a policy challenge. Some OECD countries already consider international standards as an alternative to regulation during the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) process (OECD, 2021[44]). For example, as part of their rulemaking process, as measured in 2020, 18 out of 38 OECD Members considered binding international instruments (up from 9 in 2017), while only 11 considered non-binding international instruments (up from 4 in 2017) (OECD, 2021[44]).
The existing mechanisms in the standards and quality assurance system of co-operating regionally are particularly important where global consensus or alignment on best practice is critical to achieving policy outcomes. This system’s international co-operation mechanisms also offer another avenue of international co-operation that can develop detailed best practice aligned to higher level policy goals and complement higher level multilateral initiatives such as negotiations at COP. There is an opportunity to utilise the multilateral QI fora, such as international standards or accreditation organisation, more strategically to ensure international governance instruments for global challenges are based on consensus and co-operation.
However, there is a need to have a well-functioning National QI system which is resourced to participate internationally and can support its national experts to effectively participate in the development of standards, measurement and assurance. As highlighted, capacity and resourcing of QI systems vary by country, and it is important for the QI bodies, international QI forums and governments to work together to build capacity and reform processes to enable effective and strategic use of QI services in international co-ordination.
Mutual recognition of assurance
In a globalised market, consumers, businesses, and regulators rely on proof of assessments such as certifications, to make informed decisions about products and services with global supply chains. This assurance is especially important in areas with significant safety, health, or environmental implications, such as medical devices, electrical equipment, construction materials, food safety, and environmental testing. The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated that of 60% SMEs and 77% of larger companies in the UK said that standards have increased their capacity to export in 2022. The same study indicated that 23% of all UK GDP growth since 2000 is estimated to be attributable to standards. Having products and services that follow the same rules across borders can facilitate this access to global markets, as countries can mutually recognise good practice in each other’s domestic markets, while reducing costs, alongside providing trust to consumers.
The recognition of assurance practices across borders is often facilitated by a mutual recognition practices such as Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA), and the WTO TBT Agreement already encourages members to introduce mutual recognition of the results of each other’s conformity assessment procedures in order to avoid duplicative tests and reduce the costs of conformity assessment. Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) support regulatory co-operation by expediting administrative procedures for countries having different regulations in place (OECD, 2016[45]) and are most used in the context of trade in goods, or potentially services or professional qualifications, and a number of such international multilateral, bilateral, and regional Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA’s) exist between governmental and non-governmental bodies – see Annex A and (OECD, 2016[45]).
Standards and quality assurance services can facilitate the non-governmental type of MRA, such as through recognition of the work of conformity assessment, such as testing laboratories, inspection agencies, and certification organisations, across borders via accreditation. The basis for this mutual recognition of conformity may be the use of the same standard across borders, as Figure 4.2 demonstrates. For example, when an accreditation body is recognised under international frameworks, such as the agreements of International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), the European Accreditation (EA), or the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) (IAF, n.d.[46]) (ILAC, 2024[47]), its member bodies' accreditation results are more likely to be accepted across borders, reducing the need for duplicative assessments or tests, and enabling more efficient flow of goods and services across borders.
In practice, MRA’s are often concluded between countries that trust each other’s respective regulatory regimes, and are thus already partners in other contexts, such as already having a preferential trade-agreement in place, share the same language, or are in geographic proximity or share all of these elements (Juan A. Marchetti and Petros C. Mavroidis, 2011[48]).
International organisations like the OECD also facilitate sharing of technical data and tools, which can foster acceptance of results or checks across borders. For instance, OECD estimates that its harmonised technical tools save industry and governments about EUR 309 million annually in chemical testing, with most of the savings via the Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD) system (Box 4.3), which allows chemicals to be tested once under OECD standards instead of multiple times under different national or regional rules.
The OECD hosts a specific Mutual Acceptance of Data system (“MAD system”),1 a multilateral agreement which allows participating countries (including non-members) to share the results of various nonclinical tests done on chemicals using OECD methods and principles. This reduces duplicative testing, allows governments to work together when assessing chemicals, and saves government and industry resources. The foundation of the MAD system is the approximately 150 OECD Test Guidelines (methods), the OECD principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and additional guidance on GLP and compliance monitoring. Member countries and non-members who are part of the MAD system, work through the OECD to continuously update the Test Guidelines and GLP documents, and they monitor how each country complies with the requirements of MAD. This approach provides governments with confidence that non-clinical test data generated under the MAD system, anywhere in the world, can be used in regulatory assessments. Its legal underpinning is the OECD Decision on Mutual Acceptance of Data in the Assessment of Chemicals [OECD/LEGAL/0194] which is part of the OECD System of Mutual Acceptance of Data in the area of chemicals.2
The MAD system helps governments and industry save more than EUR 309 million per year through reduced chemical testing and the harmonisation of chemical safety tools and policies across jurisdictions (OECD, 2019[49]). In addition, the co-operation has brought less quantifiable benefits, such as the health and the environmental gains from governments being able to evaluate and manage more chemicals than they would if working independently; the avoidance of delays in marketing new products; the pooling of know how to develop new and more effective methods for assessing chemicals.
2. See case study on the process to develop the MAD system and its key features: (OECD, 2013[50]).
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
The ability to utilise the standards and quality assurance systems, commonly known as QI systems and their existing international co-operation, can give National governments another important tool for international regulatory co-operation. In the case of global challenges, the solutions often require alignment globally to agreements, or to enable innovation at pace. In this context, the co-operation within QI systems, such as the ability to create international standards, harmonise measurement across borders, and facilitate recognition of compliance of products across borders, can be a strategic tool for the governance of global challenges. Alongside the existing evidence that international co-operation can enhance economic development through enabling access to markets, governments can also tap into the international co-ordination that their QI bodies already participate in, to complement the co-operation conducted by governments in multi-lateral fora, to enable the development of practical standards and assurance mechanisms for global challenges.
Tackling governance gaps in environmental action
While there is a move in both the market and the policy landscape towards collective action on environmental goals, there remain risks of fragmented approaches and a lack of alignment across market and policy actors. There is an opportunity to utilise interactions between standards and quality assurance (commonly known as QI or quality infrastructure), and regulations strategically to co-ordinate voluntary and policy action more effectively, and harmonise approaches to environmental governance around the world. QI services and tools like standards and assurance utilise extensive stakeholder engagement and consensus building, which can provide a useful mechanism for including emerging economies, small to medium businesses, or other under-resourced market actors. As discussed however, the same consensus building processes can be lengthy, and alongside strategically utilising QI, governments and QI bodies need to consider how their processes can become faster and more agile, while retaining the key strengths around consensus building, international co-operation and managing conflicts of interest.
Standards, measurement, and quality assurance bodies around the world, and via their international co-ordination forums, are increasingly developing strategies and tools for enabling environmental action in their remit. Examples include:
In the standards space, the development of the first ISO 14060 Net Zero Aligned Organisations standard (commonly known as ISO Net Zero Standard) and Transition Planning for Financial Institutions standard and dedicated committees for environmental aspects of electrotechnology.
In the metrology space, BIPM and World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) have collaborated on the role of accurate measurement in supporting environmental monitoring needs (World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and BIPM, 2010[51]).
In the accreditation space, IAF have also made clear their commitment to the assurance of the interoperability of sustainability practices across borders (International Accreditation Forum (IAF) et al., 2023[52]).
The QI system can help build consensus on best practice and reduce fragmentation
Typically an agreed international policy goal can be set by international instruments, but how those goals are implemented in national policy and regulation are left to the context of national policies. OECD’s own analysis shows this is the case for global environmental policies and targets which compliance can be demonstrated (OECD, 2024[53]). (OECD, 2024[4]), (Hale et al., 2024[5])I (European Comission, 2025[54])) (Alexandra Klass et al., 2022[55]) (Addison et al., 2024[56]).
This continued fragmentation in “what good looks like” for governance in the environmental space can create regulatory divergence negatively impacting trade. For example, the World bank dashboard on carbon pricing shows carbon price varies between USD 0.46 to USD 167 globally in 2025, with 75 instruments on carbon pricing around the world, 35 crediting mechanisms in place with 11 under development (World Bank, 2024[57]). This variance in pricing around the world in the number of instruments is a risk to administrative and compliance costs, particular for SME’s and low-middle income countries. WTO has also previously (WTO, 2021[58]) set out the importance of using the same yardstick, i.e. using aligned accounting methodologies for emissions reductions, to enable an interoperable market, reduce unpredictability and enhance trade, and allow for global tracking and comparisons.
This is where the standards and quality assurance (QI) system can be a strategic lever in mitigating risks of fragmentation through the existing consensus building mechanisms and fostering co-operation in governance mechanisms (e.g. assurance) across borders. Mechanisms such as development of international standards (Box 1) can be utilised to develop a common understanding and framework of measurement and tracking of critical parameters such as carbon accounting (e.g. aligned carbon accounting methodologies). As highlighted, the QI institutions are already developing tools and services to harmonise environmental governance approaches such as through development of international standards, including sector specific standards such as on energy and hydrogen among others.
It is therefore important to connect QI’s levers of enabling consensus building to existing NGO, business and policymaker led initiatives. For example,multilateral dialogues like the OECD’s the Inclusive Forum for Carbon Mitigation Approaches (IFCMA). Better connecting expertise and innovation from market led approaches (e.g. industry led initiatives) and using the QI system to codify best practice through multilateral dialogues across countries, and bringing in expertise and experience from around the world, to ensure governance tools like standards are applicable around the world and globally aligned.
In the absence of harmonisation, WTO also highlights the need for regulatory co-operation and dialogue to ensure national differences in capability do not hinder development. Regional and international co‑ordination is critical, (WTO, 2023[59]) which QI is already well set up to do through its regional and international co-ordination forums across all pillars. QI’s international co-operation processes across its key pillars can support the existing multi-lateral engagements conducted by international organisations such as UNFCCC, OECD, WTO, and others, where higher-level policy negotiations are conducted with central government participation. For instance, international agreements reached at the multilateral level can be supported by the development of detailed best practice (E.g. standards, assurance, measurement) through the multilateral engagement processes of QI. This is where QI tools such as mutual recognition agreements (Box 4.3, Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2) of accreditation and conformity assessment could help foster recognition across borders and manage a governance landscape where frameworks and guidance ovary, reducing burdens on regulators and governments, while fostering cross-border trade and enabling growth.
The QI system can support aligning between corporate and policy action
Many nations have in place overarching policy strategies. For example, national climate strategies and long-term low emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) take a variety of forms and scopes, with a key focus being emissions reductions, guidance on sectors such as built environment, transport and energy, and ambition for economic development. They also vary as to the emissions reductions timeline and are underpinned in many cases by further sectoral strategies or implementation plans. However, the QI system remains an underutilised tool and poorly referenced in such strategies and roadmaps. These strategies often reference standards, but they rarely connect the delivery of these strategies to national QI bodies like standard bodies, or the international QI system.
This lack of consistent connection between QI and high-level policy strategies remains a key gap as QI bodies operate in the market and support businesses in demonstrating their good practices (e.g. through certification), support policy implementation, hold government recognised positions, and co-operate internationally with their counterparts across jurisdictions to enable trade. As shown in the example of the forestry sector in Chapter 1, utilisation of QI by policy has depended on the policy and market approaches that have developed over time in a somewhat organic way, leading to differences in utilisation of QI by private actors. This is as development of governance approaches often occurs in the business and NGO spheres can and which are quicker to respond than public policy, leading to gaps being filled by private standards more quickly than public standards.
However, as action in a given policy area moves from voluntary to mandatory, the private standards and other governance mechanisms that may be developed in the market require tools to scale their governance globally, and again can take a range of approaches, including organically utilising QI services to do so (Chapter 1). Therefore, there is a strategic opportunity to leverage QI from the outset in emerging market governance areas to mitigate the risk of a fragmented voluntary landscape converting to a fragmented mandatory governance landscape (Hale et al., 2024[5]).
To enable this strategic use of QI to scale governance mechanisms, it is important to connect these governance delivery bodies like National QI bodies on standards, measurement and accreditation bodies to NGO and business led governance approaches. National QI bodies are usually government recognised, and already operate in the economic contexts of their countries, working within the market, and supporting policy implementation. Strategically linking QI bodies to other stakeholders in the market early on can use this placement of QI to its advantage, enabling cross-pollination of new ideas on effective governance with existing policy delivery mechanisms. This can scale new ideas on governance faster, without duplication or recreation of existing governance pathways.
To enable this cross pollination of policy, QI, businesses and NGO’s, governments can foster increased collaborative action across their national departments, regulators and QI bodies who are actively working on environmental governance and supporting businesses. This can include strategically planning for using QI-regulation interactions to enable alternatives to regulation, consensus building on best practice, and co-ordination across borders, helping deliver wider economic and environmental goals (see Chapter 5 for a toolkit which includes how to consider capacity in QI services).
The future of QI-Regulation interactions in environmental governance
A well-developed National QI landscape, and effective co-ordination between QI and regulation can support effective participation in global markets (World Bank, 2025[22]), co-ordination in the international QI forums, enabling the development of more effective and comprehensive standards, certification and policies that foster progress towards policy goals. At the national level, this will require better linkage between the institutional frameworks of QI and policy design and delivery (e.g. regulatory impact assessments) to high-level sectoral policy strategies on global challenges. At the international level, this will require scrutinizing processes of co-ordination and co-operation in the QI system, how they connect to multilateral dialogues and deliver for global policy needs.
There is an opportunity here to scrutinise the QI system and evolve it to ensure it is fit for the future, taking advantage of innovation like digital technologies to make processes more efficient, and enable increased agility and pace. As already discussed, the strengths of the QI system lie in the connection it can make between the market and policy, codifying and scaling and harmonising best practice to enable global alignment. The processes to do so can be lengthy (E.g. consensus building on standards can take months (ISO, 2024[31]) (IEC, 2024[60])), agreements on mutual recognition and QI systems have not always kept pace with innovation or needs of the market, as QI processes can be slow to change. There are signs within the QI system of changes towards more agile processes (e.g. fast track standards, Box 4.1), and this type of initiative should be supported and catalysed to enable wider systemic changes to make the QI system agile, proactive and keep pace with future challenges.
Alongside considering how the QI system can be reformed to be futureproof, there is also a need to consider the roles of market actors, QI bodies and policymakers in supporting governance when tackling global challenges. In some cases, like the landscape of environmental governance, NGO and business led initiatives have been the first movers in developing governance like guidance or standards, rather than QI bodies. However, QI bodies are now codifying and readying their processes to scale governance practices, including those developing in the market. QI bodies have a range of processes which govern their mandate, as well as managing conflicts of interest, such as ensuring conformity assessment and standards development are separate. This means QI bodies may not respond as fast as NGO and business initiatives, but rather their expertise and processes are useful in scaling and codifying the best practices developed by such NGO and business led initiatives (Hale et al., 2024[5]) (Hale, 2022[34]).
Governments can consider how to better understand and strategically use their QI systems for global challenges like environmental governance using the Practical Checklist in Chapter 5, which provides insights for governments and regulators on considering their QI landscape, and how it can help deliver for their national priorities and emerging challenges.
Tackling governance gaps in existing and emerging AI technologies
Due to the rapid evolution of AI technologies, the regulatory landscape is tackling not just AI’s effect on society currently, but also its impact on both existing regulations and policies and considering the need for new regulations to protect citizens and use AI to deliver positive impacts for society (World Economic Forum, 2024[61]).
Furthermore, the advent of AI technologies opens up new governance challenges, coupled with a diversity of challenges faced by users and consumers of AI products. Safety of AI products and services is paramount in protecting consumers, and if not properly governed could lead to compromising safety of users, such as the privacy of their data, bias and discrimination, and accountability. Conversely, the challenges will also be faced by those implementing AI tools, such as businesses of different sizes may face differing challenges when utilising AI across complex structures or supply chains, or conversely, having too little resource to accommodate responsible AI practices in the timescales needed, which will again affect the safety of AI services. Some of the key themes that affect AI safety include (OECD, 2024[62]) (SP Global, 2023[63]) (United Nations University, 2025[64]) (OECD/KDI, 2021[65]):
Transparency, Bias and fairness: Transparency in AI refers to the clarity and openness with which AI systems operate. It involves making the processes, decisions, and underlying algorithms of AI systems understandable to users, developers, and stakeholders. If complex AI models are opaque, governance challenges can arise in ensuring accountability when errors are identified. AI systems can unintentionally perpetuate or exacerbate inequalities and discrimination, based on the subjectivity and human input in their development or existing biases in training data. It is therefore critical for such biases to be understood and tackled during development, and for governance frameworks to ensure AI products are fair in how they operate, serving the interests of all citizens.
Privacy, copyright, intellectual property and data protection: AI systems rely on a vast amount of data, much of which may be personal or sensitive. Protecting citizen’s fundamental rights related to privacy and security in the usage of such data by AI systems is critical to ensuring ethical use of AI. Further, the vast array of training data utilised for AI also highlights issues with copyright and intellectual property, with potential for copyright infringement, a lack of compensation for creators of data utilised by AI, and uncertainty on the ownership of outputs produced by AI systems (World Economic Forum, 2024[61]).
Encouraging interoperability while balancing objectives of multiple regulatory regimes: Despite the global interconnectedness of AI governance challenges, regulatory and ethical standards can vary widely across countries. Effective governance of AI requires international collaboration to ensure interoperability of solutions tackling the major challenges of AI governance while protecting consumers.
The QI system’s remit in the digital transformation
While regulation can establish legal frameworks that outline ethical principles for AI (fairness, accountability, transparency), QI services can support regulation through ethical impact assessments/standards that promote ethical considerations and privacy of consumers. Several international QI institutions have already recognised QI’s role in ensuring safe and ethical AI products (IAF, 2024[66]), including assuring AI on its own and as part of systems or products are operated aligned to best practice, such as those set out in standards. Standards and quality assurance institutions have already mobilised in the QI space, for instance, in developing principles and standards on development, utilisation and lifecycle of AI technologies (ISO, 2025[67]) (IEC, 2025[68]).
QI bodies are also setting up co-ordination fora such as the AIQI consortium (AIQI, 2025[69]), and testing the new tools being developed within QI to better understand how QI tools can operate and help the market. Such an example is the pilot of accreditation conducted by the Standards Council of Canada against the ISO Artificial Intelligence Management system standard (Standards Council Canada, 2022[70]), which sets out a framework covering areas such as ethics, accountability, transparency and data privacy in relation to an organisation’s use of AI. Through this early pilot, Standards Council of Canada attempted to understand the challenges of assuring AI systems and inform future accreditation schemes on AI management.
Governance of AI in international organisations, governments and businesses
Businesses have rapidly mobilised to develop mechanisms to demonstrate good practice of AI. Google’s SAIF is a conceptual framework that monitors the inputs and outputs of generative AI systems. If an AI system was to present an anomaly in its usage, this framework would assess the threat of this anomaly and respond accordingly.
Similarly, international organisations have also developed principles and frameworks on AI. The OECD (OECD, 2023[71]) has developed a set of principles consider the first intergovernmental standard on AI. These principles aim to promote human centered AI that respects democratic values, providing governments with as flexible set of recommendations for AI usage in their national contexts. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has also established multiple frameworks aimed at imposing standards for AI-based products and machine learning. Among the standards, the ITU-T Y.3173 is a framework that evaluates the intelligence of future networks. This framework establishes a reference point for vendors, operators, and any participants in the industry for the planning and development of future networks and network technology features using AI.
Governments are also setting out their own frameworks for AI usage. For instance, Singapore’s Model AI Governance Framework establishes a set of clear standards and guidelines for private sector organisations to address key ethical and governance issues when deploying AI solutions. The framework encourages reviewing risks associated with AI, how they may affect individuals, who may be most vulnerable and how they can be protected from the risks the AI system poses. It also emphasizes the need for periodic review and monitoring of these systems to ensure they maintain the ethical guidelines originally set out.
The future of QI-regulation interactions in AI
QI institutions are already mobilising to develop tools such as standards, conformity assessment, metrology and accreditation suitable for managing the risks and challenges arising from the use of AI. There is a need to delve further into how the interactions of QI and regulation could enable the ambitions of businesses and governments around the world, while protecting consumers and the environment.
QI institutions can particularly help regulation to address some of the key challenges facing AI today such as transparency, interoperability, fairness, consumer protection among others. This is because QI institutions bring together diverse stakeholders and develop tools based on the needs of businesses, citizens and policymakers to enable governance frameworks that do not just work in one context but work for all. The transboundary nature of the risks posed by AI puts international QI institutions in a unique position to develop interoperable governance tools that support cross border trade, supporting policymakers in their national contexts, while ensuring international alignment to best practice.
As noted there is also an opportunity here to transform how QI operates and interacts with regulation, using digital technologies like AI to transform and increase efficiency across QI-regulation interactions, such as live ongoing assurance, or developing digital standards that can be effectively utilised in digital systems. There is a need to explore this area with market actors like businesses, QI bodies and governments. Governments can utilise the Practical Toolkit to better understand their National QI systems, and use that as a stepping stone to consider how digital technologies can enable optimisation of their QI use.
References
[56] Addison, R. et al. (2024), “Towards the green transition: Stimulating investment and accelerating permits for low emissions infrastructure”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 68, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fc97f64e-en.
[69] AIQI (2025), The AIQI Consortium, https://www.aiqi.org/.
[55] Alexandra Klass et al. (2022), Grid Reliability Through Clean Energy, https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/05/Klass-et-al.-74-Stan.-L.-Rev.-969.pdf.
[28] BIPM (2024), BIPM Capacity Building Programme, https://iaf.nu/en/iaf-documents/training-materials/.
[7] Blind, K. (2023), Maximizing the impact of standards and regulation to drive transformative innovation: a new approach, https://our2050.world/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Maximizing-the-impact-of-standards-and-regulation-to-drive-transformative-innovation_Final-Version_V1_0.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2024).
[17] BSI (2024), BSI Flex 3030:2024 v1.0 Net Zero Transition Plans – Code of Practice, https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/insights-and-media/insights/brochures/bsi-flex-30302024-v1-0-net-zero-transition-plans-code-of-practice/ (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[16] BSI (2022), Principles of BSI Flex, https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/insights-and-media/insights/brochures/bsi-flex-0-principles-of-bsi-flex-standardization/ (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[32] CEN (2025), Review of European Standards, https://boss.cen.eu/maintenance/reven/pages/.
[41] CEN and CENELEC (n.d.), CEN and CENELC, https://www.cencenelec.eu/european-standardization/cen-and-cenelec/.
[30] CSN (2024), Commonwealth Standards Network, https://www.commonwealthstandards.net/.
[35] Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Environment Agency and E. Department for Business (2014), Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS), https://www.gov.uk/guidance/energy-savings-opportunity-scheme-esos.
[18] DIN (2024), DIN-SPEC, https://www.din.de/en/innovation-and-research/din-spec-en.
[20] DIN (2020), DIN SPEC 90051-1:2020-11, https://www.dinmedia.de/en/technical-rule/din-spec-90051-1/329926946 (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[19] DIN (2014), DIN SPEC 35810:2014-11, https://www.dinmedia.de/en/technical-rule/din-spec-35810/223284082 (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[54] European Comission (2025), Commission proposes to cut red tape and simplify business environment, https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/commission-proposes-cut-red-tape-and-simplify-business-environment-2025-02-26_en.
[34] Hale, T. (2022), The Net-Zero Governance Conveyor Belt, https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/the-net-zero-governance-conveyor-belt/ (accessed on 11 June 2025).
[5] Hale, T. et al. (2024), Turning a groundswell of climate action into ground rules for net zero, Nature Research, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01967-7.
[66] IAF (2024), AI Priorities for Accredited Assurance Bodies.
[27] IAF (2024), IAF Training Materials, https://iaf.nu/en/iaf-documents/training-materials/.
[46] IAF (n.d.), Accreditation: A global tool to support Public Policy, http://www.publicsectorassurance.org.
[68] IEC (2025), IEC Artificial intelligence, https://www.iec.ch/ai.
[25] IEC (2025), IEC National Committees, https://www.iec.ch/national-committees.
[60] IEC (2024), IEC Stages of Standard Development, https://www.iec.ch/standards-development/stages.
[47] ILAC (2024), ILAC, https://ilac.org/.
[38] INETQI (2025), INETQI Members, https://www.inetqi.net/about/members/ (accessed on 2 July 2025).
[52] International Accreditation Forum (IAF) et al. (2023), Joint Statement on Sustainability Assurance, https://iaf.nu/en/news/joint-statement-on-sustainability-assurance/.
[2] IPCC (2021), Climate Change 2021 Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policymakers, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ (accessed on 10 July 2025).
[67] ISO (2025), ISO Artificial intelligence, https://www.iso.org/sectors/it-technologies/ai.
[24] ISO (2025), ISO technical committees, https://www.iso.org/technical-committees.html.
[26] ISO (2024), ISO Capacity Building, https://www.iso.org/capacity-building.html.
[33] ISO (2024), ISO CASCO Toolbox, https://casco.iso.org/toolbox.html.
[31] ISO (2024), ISO Developing Standard, https://www.iso.org/developing-standards.html.
[10] ISO (2024), ISO Optimised Deliverables Project, https://www.iso.org/fr/home/about-iso/strategy-2030/key-areas-of-work/improved-development-process/optimized-deliverables.html.
[14] ISO (2024), ISO/WS ESG Framework for the Implementation of Environmental, Social and Governance Principles, https://www.iso.org/fr/committee/10278813.html (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[12] ISO (2023), ISO/PAS 50010:2023 Energy management and energy savings — Guidance for net zero energy in operations using an ISO 50001 energy management system, https://www.iso.org/standard/51873.html (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[13] ISO (2022), Net Zero Guidelines, https://www.iso.org/netzero (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[15] ISO (2020), ISO/TS 14092:2020 Adaptation to climate change — Requirements and guidance on adaptation planning for local governments and communities, https://www.iso.org/standard/68509.html?browse=tc (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[11] ISO (n.d.), ISO deliverables, https://www.iso.org/fr/deliverables-all.html.
[23] ISO and IEC (2025), ISO Online Standards Development Platform, 2025, https://www.iso.org/OSD (accessed on 2 July 2025).
[48] Juan A. Marchetti and Petros C. Mavroidis (2011), “The Genesis of the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services)”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 22/3, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1081/ (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[6] 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).
[1] OECD (2025), Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy: A Comprehensive Foresight Methodology to Support Sustainable and Future-Ready Public Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bcdd9304-en.
[4] OECD (2024), Climate Action Dashboard, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/climate-action-dashboard.html.
[62] OECD (2024), “Governing with Artificial Intelligence: Are governments ready?”, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 20, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/26324bc2-en.
[53] OECD (2024), Insights for designing mitigation elements in the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/insights-for-designing-mitigation-elements-in-the-next-round-of-nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs_b70a88ef-en.html (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[71] OECD (2023), OECD AI Principles, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/ai-principles.html.
[8] OECD (2023), Risk-based Regulatory Design for the Safe Use of Hydrogen, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/46d2da5e-en.
[43] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on International Regulatory Co-operation to Tackle Global Challenges, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0475.
[44] OECD (2021), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/38b0fdb1-en.
[42] OECD (2021), The Case of ASTM International, http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/irc.htm.
[36] OECD (2020), Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a9638cb-en.
[49] OECD (2019), Saving Costs in Chemicals Management: How the OECD Ensures Benefits to Society, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311718-en.
[45] OECD (2016), Trade-Related International Regulatory Cooperation: A Theoretical Framework.
[50] OECD (2013), International Regulatory Co-operation: Case Studies, Vol. 1: Chemicals, Consumer Products, Tax and Competition, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264200487-en.
[65] OECD/KDI (2021), Case Studies on the Regulatory Challenges Raised by Innovation and the Regulatory Responses, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8fa190b5-en.
[29] PAQI (2024), Pan African Quality Infrastructure, https://www.paqi.org/.
[39] 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).
[63] SP Global (2023), The AI Governance Challenge, https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/special-reports/the-ai-governance-challenge (accessed on 15 July 2025).
[70] Standards Council Canada (2022), Standards Council Canada AI Accreditation Pilot, https://scc-ccn.ca/areas-work/digital-technology/ai-accreditation-pilot.
[3] 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).
[64] United Nations University (2025), The Algorithmic Problem in Artificial Intelligence Governance.
[21] Valery, C. et al. (2017), “Adopting ISO Management Standards in Africa: Barriers and Cultural Challenges”, in Measuring Operations Performance ((MEOP)), Springer, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-65675-5_4 (accessed on 11 June 2025).
[22] World Bank (2025), STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT Concept Note, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2025 (accessed on 11 June 2025).
[57] World Bank (2024), State and Trends of Carbon Pricing Dashboard, 2024, https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/ (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[61] World Economic Forum (2024), Governance in the Age of Generative AI: A 360º Approach for Resilient Policy and Regulation, https://www.weforum.org/publications/governance-in-the-age-of-generative-ai/ (accessed on 15 July 2025).
[51] World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and BIPM (2010), WMO-BIPM Workshop on Measurement Challenges for Global Observation Systems for Climate Change Monitoring: Traceability, Stability and Uncertainty, https://www.bipm.org/fr/bipm-workshops/wmo-bipm-workshop (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[9] World Trade Organisation (n.d.), Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations.
[40] WTO (2024), Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.
[59] WTO (2023), Trade Policy Tools for Climate Action, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/tptforclimataction_e.htm (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[58] WTO (2021), Trade and Climate Change: Information Brief No. 6, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news21_e/clim_03nov21-6_e.pdf.
[37] WTO Committee for Technical Barriers to Trade (2024), Guidelines for Conformity Assessment Procedures, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/TBT/54.pdf&Open=True (accessed on 3 October 2024).