Round Table: How much consensus will there be within the IEC in the future?

DKE: The consensus approach is the fundamental principle of decision-making processes in standardization. It aims at creating workable solutions even without reaching unanimity. This is a well-tried but also time-consuming process. With that said, do you view the consensus principle as negotiable? If so, what are the resulting lines of conflict?

Rüddenklau: The principle of consensus is one of the most important principles in committee work as it is essential to the quality of standardization. However, consensus and quality are in opposition to the time factor. This defines the line of conflict along which we will discuss the issue. How much consensus can be sacrificed, keeping the same quality, in favor of speed?

When viewing the bigger picture, I can see that industrial forums operating outside the public context function differently. There are propositions, there are discussions, and then, there are target deadlines that will be met. The exact procedures are specified in articles of corporation as are the voting majorities and similar details.

In this context, my answer is yes, the consensus principle is and must be negotiable, in order to become faster and keep the same quality – while it is our shared responsibility to define the process leading to the required result. In my opinion, the qualification of the presentation and the definition of clear rules play a key role.

Thonet: For the IEC as an organization, consensus is one of the key principles. Therefore, my argument would slightly differ from Uwe’s statement insofar as: The aim of reaching consensus is non-negotiable. But I agree that the procedure can be adapted.

We have developed a robust process that is the foundation for the trust in standards. This trust, too, is non-negotiable even though the robustness of the process sometimes interferes with the desired speed. Therefore, rather than compromising consensus, we should accelerate the process by using new technologies. 

Dopichaj: I would express it yet more strongly than Gilles because, in my view, the consensus principle is non-negotiable. The debate among the experts on the road to consensus is very important and worth defending.

In my perspective, less debate and less consensus would lead to less know-how being incorporated and more mistakes being made. What is to be gained when extensive corrections are required at a later point? If any, I can see the potential for increasing efficiency rather in the administrative superstructure than in the negotiation of consensus.

DKE: In Germany, a DKE survey among newsletter subscribers led to the conclusion that two thirds of the readers identify speed as the decisive aspect even if it reduces the available time for reaching consensus. When evaluating the consensus principle, what are the regional differences and where is the common ground?

Rüddenklau: From my experience, it is always a great challenge to unite the perspectives from the U.S.A., South Korea, Japan, China and Europe under one roof. This equally applies to the different opinions on the consensus principle and the related questions in this context. Is it, for example, possible to streamline processes as it would lead to faster decisions but leave less time for finding those decisions? These are the questions we need to answer. Standardization processes can be improved, and work is already underway to this. Not everybody will eventually agree with the results. But this neither is the meaning of consensus. Consensus means to decide on an acceptable compromise following a thorough discussion.

Thonet: As Uwe stated earlier, people throughout the world participate in the process of standardization. This involves different personalities, cultures, and negotiation strategies. Some countries take more time for building consensus while others take less. And in many countries, the working language is not English. Therefore, more time may be necessary for translating and evaluating a document and not every participant might find it easy to debate in English. We must consider all these particularities when developing new solutions. Because it remains our goal to hear all voices from all over the world.

... and clarifying the definition of consensus

Dopichaj: In this context, we should perhaps ask whether the term of consensus has a sufficiently clear definition – as can be seen in our discussion. I think that different people, wherever they live, will come to different conclusions. Presumably, those conclusions would be of a greater variety within Germany than between Germany and China as national entities. Therefore, the issue of evaluating the principle of consensus is closely related to our understanding of the term. 

IEC General Meeting 2026

The DKE is honored to host the annual event for international electrotechnical standardization. Under the title “Global Development. Driven by Standards.”, around 3,500 guests are expected in Hamburg in November 2026.

DKE: One issue to be discussed at the IEC General Meeting is the question as to whether it is possible to revise the consensus principle and define different rules for majority decisions. In your view, what are the actual options?

Rüddenklau: In conventional industrial project management, there are specified time frames. At time X, a well-educated project leadership will make a decision based on everything available even without consensus being reached. Schedules are usually met even at the risk of causing any disadvantage.

In the context of standardization, this would mean that we adjust the decision-making process, are prepared to accept a compromise as a consensus after a thorough discussion and make standards available faster. Any necessary improvements would be made by subsequent updates. 

Another option are different voting majorities. In industry-driven organizations, there is a simple majority of 51 percent and, for specific issues, there are qualified majorities of 75, 85 or even 100 percent. This could be discussed along with the question of whether such majorities would apply to interim votes or only to the final vote at the end of the process. 

… tools and formal requirements

Thonet: I have a slightly different opinion. When we as the IEC examine ways to speed up, I see two options. On the one hand, we can develop new rules which will apply upon approval by our members. On the Standardization Management Board, for example, we are discussing whether the IEC might publish other deliverables. Those could be available faster, provide orientation, and be transformed into standards later on. On the other hand, we should improve the tools we use – I see an enormous impact on our work there. 

As far as voting majorities are concerned, I have not yet heard of any plans for their alteration. Nor am I sure whether such changes would offer any advantages. As I mentioned earlier, I would rather introduce new deliverables than lowering the approval threshold for an internationally applicable standard.

Dopichaj: On the issue of voting majorities, I have a similar, perhaps even more strict opinion. As we again encounter the question of what consensus actually means. Is it still a consensus if there are opposing votes? One of my main objectives is unanimity – at least on the working level. Opposing votes should not be overruled but heard and incorporated – even if this takes time. We have tools and rules to solve this differently but I am not in favor of that.

I would rather save time for formal parts. I will give a straightforward example from the world of CENELEC and European standardization. When we submit a standard, it is subject to comprehensive formatting rules up to and including the design of graphic elements. Should experts take on such editorial tasks? My answer is no and it costs us an incredible amount of time. 

A similar situation is the harmonization of standards by HAS assessment in Europe. A large amount of work that could be done elsewhere is passed back to the experts which costs a lot of time on the road to the standard. 

DKE: Would an subject-based differentiation be useful – that is, defining the subjects where consensus is more important and those that can do with less?

Rüddenklau: When discussing critical subjects such as safety or security within the IEC, we must define the qualified majority that is to be applied. Likewise, certain fields such as medical or automotive technology where technical malfunctions pose a danger to life and health cannot be regulated by simple majorities. The situation is different in other sectors where non-critical subjects such as physical questions can but might not need to be discussed in every last detail – in many of those cases, we could certainly reach the goal on an easier path.

Dopichaj: I do not think that this is a solution. Although sometimes perhaps, if we are being honest, we may not be all that interested in finding a genuine consensus. But it is our responsibility to create an environment where everybody feels safe to express their opinion – even if it is difficult. We also need to treat those opinions with due diligence, whatever the subject.

Thonet: I rather see the solution in new deliverables that can be used wherever possible or necessary as long as safety is not relevant. Some countries have already put this into practice, in the UK, for example, an initial result is presented after only six months. If a country has something of that kind available on a subject, we could publish it internationally as a pre-standard in order to provide orientation to all – not yet a standard, but significantly more than nothing.

Digitization of standardization

Alongside politics, science and business, the digital transformation is also a future-driving factor in standardization: digital standardization is an essential component of its future strategy.

The vision: For standards to increasingly shape digital processes, content of standards has to be machine-usable and interpretable. With the IDiS initiative - the network group for digital transformation in the DKE - the DKE is making a significant contribution to driving forward the digitization of standardization and paving the way for digital standardization.

DKE: When rethinking decision-making and the consensus principle: What technologies, methods, or platforms might be helpful?

Rüddenklau: Digitalization plays a major role, the Online Standards Development (OSD) has already been established in some parts. OSD is a good tool and the necessary training programs are already in progress. Furthermore, artificial intelligence can be used to enhance quality and save time in many situations if we as the IEC define the conditions for its utilization.

Dopichaj: Both of these are useful but I would also like to address another issue. Many meetings are held online these days which is reasonable as it saves time, energy, and costs. However, meetings with many participants offer a frontal presentation or bilateral talks at best. In comparison to in-person meetings, the many parallel interim votes are lost. I would organize online events such that, for example, each person is represented by a dot on a map and able to engage with another person in their own meet where they can try new concepts in order to enable and improve exchange.

Thonet: As far as OSD and artificial intelligence are concerned, I agree with Uwe. Another point I find important is the time that is spent on the voting process. Depending on infrastructure and language, we hear from some countries that the available time could be reduced and from others that it is insufficient. In the future, modern tools might help us to save time here, too. All in all, I would tweak any available adjusting screw – tools, technologies, processes – but not the consensus itself.

DKE: Hitherto, the consensus principle had a clear definition. Now, a new basis is needed for increasing the speed – but what exactly is that supposed to mean?

Rüddenklau: In order to form an opinion on this, we must take the entire process into account. Harmonized European Standards on average take five years: one year until political authorities issue the request, three years for the standardization process, and one year for review by political authorities and for publication. If I want to pick up speed, I can – as already outlined – readjust the triangle of time, quality, and consensus and define different voting majorities and decision-making processes. 

It is also helpful to leverage synergies as generated by ISO and IEC by means of the PASS process. For this purpose, standards by other organizations are reviewed, adapted and implemented thus reducing the three years required for the standardization process to one year.

Thonet: The IEC average for a standard is about 32 months, i.e. under three years. Some take a little less, others a little longer. Even so, time is relative as its relevance depends on the subject. Standards on electrical safety exist, for example, and are subjected to careful maintenance and revision. I do not consider it relevant how long that takes. In the field of AI, we see new developments more or less weekly which means that time is of enormous relevance there.

And finally, one more important point: Timeliness is more important than time. If we say that a standard will be finished by time X, then it must be finished by that date. 

Dopichaj: I am glad you said that, Gilles. The five-year period mentioned by Uwe does cover the time from the first idea until the finished standard. Two of those five years are spent outside our range of influence as standards developers. I consider three years as fast for an entirely new standard – the situation is, of course, different with a security patch which needs to be issued immediately. 

Since speed is so important, however, one final thought on it because AI has been mentioned earlier: We, the IEC, will really gain some speed if, instead of working with generative large language models, we create our own model and feed it with our own data. This would give us a monopoly position, as standards may not be fed into generative models. This would clearly generate added value for the industry as it would create high efficiency from the protocol to the commentary phase while also enhancing quality.

Editorial note:

The responses reflect the interviewee’s personal views and opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the DKE.

The original English-language article appeared on https://www.gm2026.iec.ch/

Standardization and strategy: Shaping the future together

Digitalization is advancing and the world is growing together. We take this into account by launching different thrust areas and attending important target projects.

Our goal is to further develop standardization and to make our contribution as a standardization organization in business, society and politics.