On 6 October 2026, the European Commission presented its proposed regulation on European standardisation, COM(2026) 780. At the date of this article, it is a proposal rather than an adopted replacement for the existing framework. [1] It provides an opportunity to examine a form of influence that often receives less attention than public announcements: contributing evidence before technical choices are settled.
For businesses, meaningful participation connects engineering, industrial strategy and public affairs. Our argument is that the quality of a contribution depends on whether it helps others understand a collective choice. Attendance is not enough. Organisations need to explain alternatives, effects and the interests they represent.
Separate law, standards and evidence
The Commission explains that harmonised standards can support demonstration of compliance with relevant EU legal requirements, while their use remains voluntary. Other technical solutions can be used to demonstrate compliance. [2] A public account should preserve that distinction instead of treating every standard as a compulsory law.
The implications still need to be checked for the relevant product and legislation. A specification may affect design, documentation or testing. But neither participation in its development nor a general statement about standards establishes that a particular product can enter the market. Those conclusions require their own assessment.
Turn technical choices into understandable questions
A test method can affect the information needed, the equipment used and the ability of different businesses to demonstrate performance. Explaining those consequences is not the same as removing the technical details that make the comparison meaningful.
Consider a hypothetical choice between two test methods. One needs scarce equipment; the other has limits in repeatability. A credible contribution would compare reliability, access, cost and operating conditions. It should not simply recommend whichever option is cheapest for the company making the submission. The broader question is how to produce a useful and workable result.
Enter the discussion while evidence can still help
The most visible announcement is not always the moment when technical input can have the greatest value. Businesses should identify the relevant work programmes, consultations and competent organisations, then keep that map current. A static list of contacts is not a participation strategy.
Technical teams can document effects, public affairs can situate the process, and communications can make the contribution understandable. If these functions operate separately, the result may be a political message without evidence or a technical paper that fails to explain why the issue matters beyond the author’s own product.
Make representation explicit
A coalition can gather experience that one company cannot provide. It should also explain whose interests it represents, how its position was developed and whether members face different effects. Multiple signatures do not automatically establish that a proposal works equally well for every participant.
Smaller businesses may need to concentrate limited expertise on a few decisions. Their experience should not disappear merely because larger organisations have more capacity to attend meetings. The practical question is how participation channels allow relevant evidence to be heard, rather than simply how many organisations appear on a membership list.
Build a contribution around options and evidence
A useful dossier can state the public problem, compare technical options and explain the assumptions behind cost or performance estimates. Transition expenditure should be distinguished from recurring costs. A company example should not become a sector-wide claim without an explanation of its representativeness.
Uncertainty can justify a trial or further work. Hiding it inside an apparently precise number weakens the argument when the assumptions are examined. A communications team’s contribution is therefore to improve traceability and clarity, not merely to sharpen the final line of opposition or support.
For non-European businesses, translation is only a first step
Companies entering France or expanding in Europe need to compare the rules, standards and assessment methods relevant to their actual activity. Similar terminology across markets does not establish equivalence. A headquarters presentation should be connected to the evidence local partners will need.
In a hypothetical market-entry project, engineering, quality and public affairs teams could maintain a shared account of existing tests, unresolved questions and responsibilities. The communications task is to explain that route without announcing universal compliance before the necessary checks. This gives European partners a clearer basis for discussing the project and its remaining conditions.
Expertise should lead, but consequences must be explainable
Standards work should not be replaced by a communications contest. Specialists need to retain a central role. Their choices can nevertheless affect interoperability, user protection and smaller businesses, so their consequences should be understandable to people beyond the immediate technical group.
Good public affairs connects expertise with the objectives being pursued. It does not promise to secure a favourable result by bypassing the technical process. An argument becomes stronger when it identifies the evidence that could change its conclusion and the compromises its preferred option involves.
Leave a record of the position defended
We suggest four parts for a practical contribution: the precise question, the evidence, the alternatives, and the interests and limitations of the position. This structure makes it easier to update a submission when new information arrives and to keep explanations consistent across audiences.
Afterwards, a company should be able to describe what was retained, changed or rejected without claiming ownership of every development. Influence is also measured by the usefulness of information supplied and the coherence of the position under scrutiny. The October proposal is a reason to bring this work onto the leadership agenda: technical detail and the conditions of doing business belong in the same strategic conversation.
Sources and context
Read in another language
These editions address the same subjects with context adapted for their readers.