Standardisation Education in Dutch Higher Education

An assessment of the current situation, opportunities for structural strengthening, and alignment with the Pan-European Certificate

Executive Summary

Standardisation determines who has influence over technological norms, who enters markets, and who is left on the sidelines. Europe has explicitly identified it as a strategic instrument in the European Standardisation Strategy of 2022, in the High-Level Forum on European Standardisation, and in its response to China’s targeted standardisation policy. Companies such as Philips and ASML actively manage it. And yet virtually no Dutch student learns about it.

This report maps the state of standardisation education in Dutch higher education, identifies opportunities for structural strengthening, and examines how the Netherlands can align with the Pan-European Certificate for Standards and Standardisation that is currently under development. The research is based on 27 semi-structured interviews with Dutch and international universities and universities of applied sciences, European and national standardisation organisations, policymakers at the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and representatives of the business community.

The picture: present but not embedded

Standardisation is not absent from Dutch higher education. It surfaces in courses on IT law, innovation strategy, data governance, and European regulation. But it is rarely present as an identifiable learning objective, and almost never as something a programme has adopted as its own. Its presence almost everywhere depends entirely on a single motivated lecturer. When that person leaves, the topic quietly disappears.

Four patterns emerge from the interviews that characterise this landscape: standardisation is substantively recognisable but institutionally invisible, person-dependent and therefore fragile, limited in reach (even the strongest Dutch initiatives reach tens to at most a few hundred students per year), and not driven by external incentives. There is no accreditation requirement, no policy measure, and no visible labour market demand that compels or invites institutions to act.

The context: urgency is rising, capacity is not

Outside the educational institutions, the picture is sharper. Philips describes standardisation expertise as a core competency that develops over years and that the company now has to build up itself. VNO-NCW positions standardisation as an instrument for technological sovereignty. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy identifies a structural knowledge deficit among central government officials as a contributing cause of the persistently weak compliance with the ‘Comply or Explain’ principle.

European standardisation organisations have not been idle. AFNOR developed a free MOOC with over two thousand enrolments. DIN has organised an annual European teachers’ conference for years and offers students an official certificate jointly with TU Berlin. ILNAS in Luxembourg built up a full master’s programme, starting from a University Certificate for professionals. Austria included standardisation education in its national standardisation strategy of 2024. The Netherlands does not yet have comparable initiatives.

In addition, the standardisation community is ageing. A significant share of the current generation of experts will retire within five to ten years. Informal knowledge transfer through committee work is less effective for younger generations. Without targeted education, there is a risk of a structural capacity shortage in European standardisation structures.

The opportunities: LLL as a starting point, institutional incentives as the key

The most promising short-term route is through Lifelong Learning (LLL) and professional training. Professionals who encounter standardisation issues in their work recognise its relevance immediately. Institutional barriers are lower than in regular education, and there is proven industry demand: an in-company pilot by TU/e and Tilburg University at NXP, with participants from ASML and Philips, demonstrated this. A successful LLL programme can then act as a catalyst for integration into standard curricula.

In parallel, supporting existing teacher-champions has an immediate effect: providing them with ready-made teaching materials, case studies, and guest lecturers reduces the barrier to embedding the topic in existing courses to virtually zero. Framing is important here; standardisation lands better as innovation strategy, European law, or data governance than as a stand-alone topic.

For structural anchoring in the longer term, institutional incentives are indispensable. Embedding in accreditation frameworks, linking to major policy dossiers on AI, quantum, and the energy transition, and performance agreements between ministries and universities, modelled on the Austrian national standardisation strategy, are the levers by which loose initiatives are turned into a coherent offering. The national platform SOONS was established for precisely this purpose but has effectively become inactive; reactivating it is a priority step.

The Pan-European Certificate: catalyst, not endpoint

The Pan-European Certificate for Standards and Standardisation, developed under the responsibility of CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI and based in part on the EU Horizon project Edu4Standards, is seen by virtually all interviewees as a promising instrument. Provided it is used as a catalyst and not as an end in itself. For students, its direct labour market value is as yet unproven. Its value lies elsewhere: it gives lecturers an argument to put to programme directors, gives professionals European-recognised proof of the knowledge they have acquired, and gives policymakers a concrete instrument.

Three implementation routes are realistic for the Netherlands. Linking the certificate to existing courses through a ‘presumption of conformity’ model, whereby a pass mark automatically leads to the certificate being awarded, is the most structural route; TU/e stands ready as an early adopter. An online route offers a solution for institutions where standardisation is covered in only a few classes. LLL and professional training represent the fastest and most impactful starting point.

Five conditions are critical for success: timely and clear learning outcomes, flexibility in didactic design, industry recognition, a low administrative threshold in the initial phase, and European safeguarding combined with national implementation via NEN.

Recommendations

Forum Standaardisatie is well placed to put standardisation education on the agenda at governance level, with educational leaders, with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and in the political debate on digital sovereignty. Linking it to existing skills ecosystems around AI, quantum, and the energy transition turns an educational initiative into a policy-relevant instrument. The model of the Battery Academy in the Net Zero Industry Act shows how this works in practice.

NEN is recommended to start with an LLL pilot that links directly to the Pan-European Certificate, to communicate actively about the standards access through NEN Connect (largely unknown among lecturers), to extend access to universities of applied sciences as soon as possible, to revitalise SOONS as a national platform, and to fulfil the bridging function between the European certificate development and Dutch practice.

Forum Standaardisatie and NEN jointly can have the greatest impact by actively supporting lecturers who already provide standardisation teaching with materials and guest lecturers, making existing initiatives visible so that institutions can learn from one another, and organising an annual meeting event modelled on the DIN teachers’ conference that the German standardisation organisation organises every year.

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy can position the certificate as part of the broader capacity-building agenda, explore the possibilities for performance agreements with universities on the Austrian model, reactivate the weakened intermediary function of trade associations vis-à-vis SMEs, and address the weak compliance with the ‘Comply or Explain’ principle through targeted training pathways for central government officials.

The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science can contribute to stimulating standardisation education through indirect policy instruments, such as programmes comparable to Npuls, sector advisory councils, and administrative agreements, without undermining the autonomy of institutions. In addition, the positioning of the Pan-European Certificate deserves attention: careful communication is needed to prevent it from inadvertently functioning as an implicit admission requirement for the labour market.

Educational institutions are encouraged to explore LLL as a first step, to protect existing teacher-champions and broaden their knowledge to colleagues, to leverage the link with the European certificate as an internal argument to programme directors and accreditation committees, and to frame standardisation in the language of their own discipline.

Act now, or join later

The foundation is in place: there is substantive expertise, there are motivated lecturers, a European instrument is under development, and there is support among policymakers and the business community. What is missing is the connection between these elements and the institutional anchoring needed to move from loose initiatives to a coherent offering.

The learning outcomes for the Pan-European Certificate are being developed now. European funding is running. Political attention for standardisation is at a historic high. The Netherlands can co-design the system now and claim an active role, or connect later to a system that has already been shaped.

Introduction

Background

Standardisation plays a central role in the functioning of the European internal market, in innovation policy, in digital infrastructure, and in geopolitical strategy formation. Yet knowledge about standardisation and the standardisation process is barely present in Dutch higher education. Students who later work at companies, governments, or knowledge institutions where standardisation plays a role typically learn about it on the job, or not at all.

This is not a new phenomenon, but its urgency is increasing. Europe has explicitly identified standardisation as a strategic instrument in the European Standardisation Strategy of 2022, and within the framework of the High-Level Forum on European Standardisation (HLF), agreement has been reached on the development of a Pan-European Certificate for knowledge about standards and standardisation processes. At the same time, the standardisation community itself is signalling an ageing problem: a new generation of experts who understand the importance of standardisation and can actively contribute is urgently needed.

Earlier research into Dutch participation in European and international standardisation, commissioned by Forum Standaardisatie, also pointed to the need for capacity building. Education is an indispensable link in this: without basic knowledge in education, the inflow of well-equipped professionals will remain structurally inadequate.

Aim of this research

This research maps the current state of standardisation education in Dutch higher education, identifies opportunities for structural strengthening, and examines how the Netherlands can align with the Pan-European Certificate. In doing so, it aims to provide a factual basis for policy choices and follow-up steps.

Specifically, three questions are addressed:

1. What is the current state of standardisation education in Dutch higher education?
2. Where are the opportunities to strengthen it structurally?
3. How can the Netherlands align with the Pan-European Certificate, and is there a need for this?

The Pan-European Certificate as context

An important framework for this research is the development of the Pan-European Certificate for Standards and Standardisation. This certificate is being developed under the responsibility of the European Standardisation Organisations CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI, partly on the basis of the learning outcomes being developed in the EU Horizon project Edu4Standards. The certificate is intended as a low-threshold entry level for a broad audience (e.g. students, professionals, and civil servants) and will be valid in all Member States.

For the Netherlands, this initiative is both an opportunity and a challenge. An opportunity, because it offers a European-recognised instrument to make standardisation visible in education and on the labour market. A challenge, because successful implementation requires support from educational institutions whose curricula are full and which accept little external direction. This is not unwillingness but a structural given: institutions have formal autonomy over their teaching, and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science does not prescribe what is taught in programmes. Implementation will therefore have to proceed via indirect routes: through stimulation, collaboration, and policy programmes, not through obligation.

Scope

This research focuses on higher education in the Netherlands: research universities and universities of applied sciences. Senior secondary vocational education and secondary education fall outside the scope. In addition, for comparison, interviews were conducted with institutions and organisations in other European countries, to draw lessons from more advanced approaches elsewhere.

The research is exploratory and qualitative in nature. The findings are based on interviews and provide a representative picture of the situation, but are not statistically generalisable to all Dutch educational institutions.

Reading guide

Chapter 2 describes the research design and the parties interviewed. Chapter 3 provides a picture of the current state of standardisation education in the Netherlands. Chapter 4 presents the perspectives of standardisation organisations, the business community, and government: parties with their own agendas and initiatives that shape the broader ecosystem. Chapter 5 analyses the opportunities for structural strengthening. Chapter 6 addresses the Pan-European Certificate specifically: awareness, support, and implementation possibilities. Chapter 7 concludes with conclusions and recommendations.

Methodology and justification

Research design

This research was designed as a qualitative exploration based on semi-structured interviews. The interview questions focused on three themes: the current position of standardisation in the teaching of the institution or organisation in question, the opportunities and barriers for structural strengthening, and the attitude towards the Pan-European Certificate.

The interviews were conducted between December 2025 and April 2026, and lasted approximately one hour on average. A detailed interview report was prepared for each conversation. These reports form the primary data source for the analysis and are included as appendices to this report.

The analysis was carried out in two steps. In a first step, the core of each interview was summarised and relevant statements were categorised per research question. In a second step, the findings were thematically analysed across all interviews, looking for patterns, similarities, and divergent perspectives.

Selection of interviewed parties

For the selection of interviewees, the aim was to achieve broad and representative coverage of relevant stakeholders. The selection comprises five categories.

Dutch research universities and universities of applied sciences form the core of the research, as they are the primary target group for the implementation of standardisation education and the Pan-European Certificate. Institutions with a variety of profiles were interviewed: technical universities, law-focused and policy-focused universities, a business school, and two universities of applied sciences.

European and national standardisation organisations were interviewed to gain insight into the design and progress of the Pan-European Certificate, and to draw lessons from approaches in other countries.

Policymakers at the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy were involved as the department responsible for the standardisation system in the Netherlands.

The business community and trade associations are represented via Philips, as a company with an outspoken and strategic standardisation practice, and VNO-NCW, as a cross-sectoral representative of the Dutch business community.

International academic institutions were interviewed as a comparative reference point. TU Berlin, the University of Graz, and the University of Belgrade show how standardisation education has developed further elsewhere in Europe and what lessons can be drawn from this.

Overview of interviewed parties

Overview of interviewed parties

Justification and limitations

The Dutch institutions interviewed are not statistically representative of higher education as a whole: the selection focused on institutions where it was plausible beforehand that standardisation plays, or could play, a role in teaching. Institutions where the topic is completely absent and where there is also no awareness are therefore under-represented. This means that the findings reflect the picture of the most engaged and aware institutions, and that the actual situation in higher education at large may be even less developed than this research suggests.

In addition, the quality and depth of the interviews depended partly on the position and level of knowledge of the interviewees. In most cases, these were individual lecturers or policy officers with a personal affinity for the topic, not necessarily the formal decision-makers on curricula. Their perspectives are informative and valuable, but do not always represent the institutional position of their organisation.

Justification for the use of AI tools

AI tools were used in two ways in the preparation of this report. The interviews were transcribed using Whisper, a locally running speech recognition model that was executed entirely offline on a dedicated device. No audio recordings or personal data were shared via the internet. In addition, a commercial language model was used during the writing of the report to edit sentences.

The substantive analysis, the interpretation of the interview data, the structure of the report, and all conclusions and recommendations are entirely the work of the researcher. The use of AI tools was limited to supporting tasks and did not take over substantive responsibility. The researcher vouches for the accuracy and completeness of the content.

Translation and language justification

The interviews for this research were conducted in both Dutch and English, depending on the preference and background of the interviewee. For the reporting, the choice was made to produce the main report and the interview summaries in Dutch, with an English-language parallel version for international readers. This entails two types of translation movements that merit mention.

First, the English-language interviews were translated into Dutch for the Dutch report. In this translation, the aim was substantive fidelity rather than literal translation: discipline-specific terms from the English-language standardisation discourse were retained in English where possible, because a Dutch translation would be insufficiently precise or would carry a different connotation. Where a common Dutch equivalent exists, it was used. Quotations and specific formulations by interviewees have been kept as close as possible to the original meaning, but have inevitably passed through the translation.

Second, for this English-language parallel version, the entire report has been translated from the Dutch, including the Dutch-language interviews. Here the opposite risk applies: Dutch policy, educational, and administrative terms do not always have an exact English equivalent.

In both directions, translation is not a neutral act. For the critical interpretation of specific statements by interviewees, the original language of the interview is therefore authoritative. The researcher has checked the translations for substantive consistency between the two versions, but readers are advised, in case of doubt about specific formulations, to consult both versions side by side or to contact the researcher for clarification.

Standardisation education in Dutch higher education: the current state

General picture

As a topic, standardisation is not absent from Dutch higher education, but it is rarely present as an identifiable and stand-alone learning objective. The topic surfaces in courses on innovation strategy, IT law, market dynamics, governance, and data architecture, but as context or example, not as a core subject. Almost everywhere, the presence of the topic depends entirely on individual lecturers with a personal affinity. When they leave or change their teaching, standardisation often quietly disappears from the programme.

This pattern is consistent across all the institutions interviewed: there is substantive recognition and sometimes genuine interest, but no structural anchoring. The explanations for this are multiple. Curriculum changes take time, sometimes five to ten years, and require broad internal support. Standardisation moreover spans multiple disciplines: it is neither exclusively technical, legal, economic, nor administrative, and thus belongs naturally to no single department or programme. Finally, an external incentive is lacking: there is no accreditation requirement, no policy measure, and no visible labour market demand that compels or stimulates institutions to include the topic structurally.

Research universities with a technical profile

At the technical universities, standardisation is most recognisably present, but here too the anchoring is fragile and person-dependent.

TU/e (Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences) has a relatively rich history on this subject. Dr Paul Wiegmann (assistant professor and standardisation researcher) taught for years within the USE learning line (User, Society & Entrepreneurship), with both an introductory and an in-depth course featuring guest lectures and a report assignment. Topics such as charging connectors for electric vehicles, central heating boilers, and quantum standards made the subject concrete and accessible. That learning line has since been abolished, leaving a temporary gap in the offering. On a positive note, TU/e is working on a successor: an elective course of five ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System), open to all bachelor’s students from all faculties, with as its core design generic process knowledge combined with a domain-specific application assignment. The assessment will consist of a final exam, a group assignment, and a serious game focused on consensus-building. Wiegmann is also active in EURAS (European Academy for Standardisation) and involved in Edu4Standards, which makes alignment with the European certificate promising.

TU Delft (Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management) addresses standardisation structurally, particularly within the Master's programme Management of Technology (MOT). Dr. Geerten van de Kaa (Associate Professor of Innovation Management) does not approach it as a stand-alone technical subject, but as a strategic instrument within industry and market dynamics. Central themes include network effects, path dependency and dominant designs. Classic cases such as the development of Wi-Fi through IEEE illustrate how standardisation processes unfold in practice, including the interests surrounding patents, collaboration and competition. The scale is limited, however, ranging from a few dozen up to around a hundred students, and the structural presence is currently closely tied to Van de Kaa's expertise. Van de Kaa is explicit about the fundamental inadequacy of the current situation: individual courses, guest lectures and personal initiatives are valuable, but insufficient for structural European capacity building. He argues for top-down incentives through accreditation and quality assurance systems, and sees geopolitical issues as potential catalysts for raising the topic higher on the administrative agenda.

Law-focused and policy-focused universities

At universities with a strong legal or administrative profile, standardisation is likewise present, but through the lens of regulation, market ordering, and European governance. Here too the picture is consistent: substantively relevant, institutionally invisible.

Utrecht University (Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance) offers the most developed teaching practice among the non-technical institutions interviewed. Dr Olia Kanevskaia Whitaker (assistant professor of European law and standardisation) organises an international summer school on standardisation, which has now been held twice with a third edition in preparation. The content varies each year and ties in with current themes such as China and governance, AI, and quantum. The summer school is organised in cooperation with the bureau of Netherlands Standardisation Forum, NEN, ETSI, and experts from the European Commission. In addition, she teaches short three-week elective courses on specific aspects such as Standard Essential Patents, in which students work towards a presentation or paper with external stakeholders as the audience. Finally, she integrates standardisation into regular compulsory courses, such as a master’s course on market regulation. A significant bottleneck is that there is no faculty-wide strategy: all initiatives are personally driven and vulnerable to budget cuts and shifting priorities.

University of Groningen (Faculty of Law) addresses standardisation indirectly in IT law, where ISO standards such as ISO 27001 and 27002 come up tangentially as specifications of open norms in privacy law. Dr Mathieu Paapst (assistant professor of IT law) devotes one separate lecture to the distinction between standard, norm, and harmonised standard, and to the legal, political, and competition law dimensions of the standardisation process, including the geopolitical dimension of China’s strategic focus on international standards. Structural embedding in the regular curriculum is considered hard to achieve: the programme has a full agenda and priority goes to the core areas of law. The most promising route lies in postgraduate education and in-company training, provided there is demonstrable market demand. The interviewees emphasise that demand often arises only when professionals concretely encounter standardisation issues in their work. Without this felt urgency, it is difficult to stimulate participation. They also argue for inter-university cooperation: it is inefficient for every law faculty to develop an offering separately; a nationwide course programme would be more effective.

Tilburg University (Tilburg Law School and Tilburg School of Economics and Management) has several researchers with substantial expertise at the intersection of standardisation, law, and economics. Professor Panos Delimatsis (professor of EU and international economic law) and Dr Stephanie Bijlmakers (assistant professor of law and standardisation) are both active in international networks, including Edu4Standards and SOONS, and conduct research on topics such as ISO 26000, supply chains, semiconductors, critical raw materials, and WTO trade agreements (TBT/SPS). In regular teaching, standardisation is present in fragmented form: no separate course, but references in courses on WTO law, cybersecurity, and AI. Bijlmakers is developing an elective course on semiconductor supply chains with an explicit session on standardisation and the Chips Act. In addition to regular teaching, Tilburg also has proven experience with professional training: a three-day course for the Belgian Electrotechnical Committee (12 hours in total, around 20 participants including judges) demonstrated the added value of a certificate for professionals as a CV credential and as recognition of the knowledge acquired. The in-company pilot within Edu4Standards together with TU/e and NXP (with participants from ASML and Philips) is concrete evidence that industry demand and LLL can be combined. Delimatsis argues for a coalition approach: a joint fund from public and private partners (e.g. €30–50k per year per position) would finance a limited number of centres of excellence (technical, legal, economic/management) through a tender mechanism, each contributing their expertise and making materials widely available. He criticises the limited involvement of large Dutch companies such as ASML and Philips compared to international players.

University of Amsterdam (Faculty of Humanities, European Studies programme) fits standardisation into governance and policy programmes, in particular European Studies. Dr Niels ten Oever (assistant professor of digital governance and standardisation) addresses standardisation as part of European technology and governance issues. Attempts to integrate comparable content into Media Studies proved considerably more difficult. Ten Oever points to the slow formal decision-making via the Education and Examination Regulations (OER) and, for the short term, advocates a bottom-up approach through teacher-champions (pioneers in standardisation teaching) supported by ready-made teaching materials.

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Faculty of Law) has expertise at the intersection of public regulation and private standard-setting, but teaching on this is almost exclusively post-initial and postgraduate. Professor Richard Neerhof (professor of administrative law and standardisation) teaches an intensive one-day course for legislative and policy officials through the Academy for Legislation and the Academy for Government Lawyers, with participants from all ministries. The course addresses the legal embedding of standardisation in policy and regulation: European and national references to standards, conformity assessment and notified bodies, and legal risks around market access and competition. A concrete example is building regulation following the Environment and Planning Act (2024): the shift of control from municipalities to private quality assurers illustrates the hybrid public–private regulation in which knowledge of standardisation is directly relevant. In regular teaching at VU Amsterdam, the topic returns at most tangentially. Neerhof is cautious about a stand-alone course: too few students, unless it is promoted nationally. He sees more merit in modest embedding through existing courses, with guest speakers not only from NEN but also from certification bodies and the Dutch Council for Accreditation.

Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus University, Department of Strategic Management) has weakly anchored standardisation: effectively dependent on a single elective course that is barely being kept alive after the departure of the previous chair holder. Dr Eugene Pyun (assistant professor of innovation strategy) deliberately approaches the topic not as standardisation but as an underlying theme in innovation strategy and platform dynamics. This deliberate reframing has proven effective: students who take the course generally become enthusiastic once they understand the role of standardisation in innovation and platform dynamics, even if they had no prior idea of it. Earlier collaborations with TU Delft and Leiden in a joint minor were valued by RSM and helped legitimise the programme internally. Pyun sees the certificate primarily as a structural instrument: not to attract students directly, but to strengthen the institutional position of standardisation education and to reduce its vulnerability to staff turnover. He does, however, raise a caveat: a certification framework must not lock lecturers too tightly into prescribed learning outcomes, since the flexibility to frame the topic attractively itself, is essential.

Open Universiteit occupies a distinct position in the Dutch university landscape through its modular teaching model: students take individual courses rather than a fixed annual package. Professor Rogier van de Wetering (professor of Digital-Driven Transformation and Vice-Dean) and Frank Niesten (enterprise architect) indicate that standardisation probably comes up in several courses, but as a building block within broader subject matter rather than as a self-standing learning objective. The subject lands most naturally within computer science and information science, where interoperability and technical infrastructure already play a substantive role. The Open Universiteit has experience with focus programmes, thematic bundles of courses with an overarching certificate, particularly in the context of continuing education. This model offers a concrete point of entry for an LLL route: a standardisation certificate could in future function as part of a focus programme, provided its level, scope, and labour market relevance are clear.

Universities of applied sciences

HAN University of Applied Sciences (Academy of ICT & Media Design) has ample experience with teaching on interoperability, data, and ICT architecture, fields in which standardisation is implicitly present. Dr Erwin Folmer (professor of open standards and linked data) and Timo de Laat (Project Leader HAN) emphasise that raising awareness already yields a great deal, provided the topic is offered in a context- and sector-specific manner. Students appreciate the content but are primarily focused on the diploma; a stand-alone certificate has limited appeal in regular teaching. They see the most promising route in the LLL offering of the university of applied sciences, where professionals experience direct added value from concrete practical questions on data, AI, and interoperability. A successful ongoing LLL course can later serve as a flywheel for progression to regular higher professional education modules, without requiring major curriculum changes. Microcredentials are seen as potentially interesting, but currently have limited recognition in the business community; a European-recognised certificate has more potential value for professionals. Preconditions for success are cost-neutrality of the LLL offering, active promotion, and support from NEN and Forum Standaardisatie for reach and legitimacy.

Windesheim University of Applied Sciences (School of Business, Media and Law and School of Engineering) is in a transitional phase: the institution is orienting itself more explicitly towards societal transitions and European cooperation, including through the European University Alliance DIVERSE. Standardisation is implicitly present in technical programmes and in HBO-ICT (GDPR, NEN 27001), but there is no explicit course on the standardisation process. Anneke Spijker (lecturer in technical business administration and digitalisation) emphasises that students work with standards every day without any insight into how they come about and who has influence over them. She considers reflection on the emergence and impact of standards, especially in healthcare, digitalisation, and oversight, where standards are often normative and ethically loaded, to be precisely valuable for students. Eelke Pruim (ambition director for societal transitions) points to the curriculum logic of universities of applied sciences: programmes have around 20–30% room for local interpretation, but new themes only find their way in when urgency is high, when there are concrete practical questions, or when they fit into LLL pathways.

International comparison

The conversations with three international institutions provide a frame of reference and show what is possible when standardisation education is further developed.

TU Berlin (Faculty of Economics and Management) has worked closely with DIN for many years in a dedicated course in which students receive both academic credits and a DIN certificate, officially presented in a ceremony at the end of the semester. Professor Knut Blind (professor of innovation economics and standardisation) emphasises that the primary function of the certificate is to bring students into contact with standardisation. He identifies the same structural vulnerability as in the Netherlands and argues not only for scaling up but also for actively protecting existing initiatives.

University of Graz (Faculty of Law) offers an interdisciplinary approach that combines legal, philosophical, and economic perspectives. Professor Elisabeth Staudegger (professor of ICT law and legal informatics) and Dr Barbara Reiter (lecturer in philosophy and ethics) are closely involved in Edu4Standards and develop learning outcomes that cover knowledge, skills, and attitudes. An important driver is the Österreichische Normungsstrategie of 2024, which explicitly calls on universities to strengthen standardisation education.

University of Belgrade (Faculty of Organisational Sciences) shows what a well-developed individual initiative can grow into. Professor Ivana Mijatović (professor of standardisation and innovation management) now offers her course to a cohort of over 400 students as a compulsory course, using gamification, AI tools, and a Moodle environment. Funding through Erasmus+ and Horizon/COST networks contributes to continuity. She identifies the main bottlenecks as limited teaching capacity for large cohorts and the high cost of access to standards.

Summary: four structural patterns

Four consistent patterns emerge from the interviews that characterise the current landscape of standardisation education in the Netherlands.

Pattern 1: Substantively recognisable, institutionally invisible. The topic fits many disciplines and is recognised as relevant, but it is nowhere formally the property of a department or programme.

Pattern 2: Person-dependent and therefore fragile. The presence of standardisation in curricula almost everywhere depends on one or a few motivated lecturers.

Pattern 3: Limited reach. Even the most developed Dutch initiatives reach tens to at most a few hundred students per year.

Pattern 4: External incentives are lacking. There is no accreditation requirement, no policy measure, and no visible labour market demand that structurally stimulates institutions.

Perspectives of standardisation organisations, the business community, and government

Introduction

In addition to the educational institutions, standardisation organisations, policymakers, and representatives of the business community were also interviewed for this research. Their perspectives are not merely of service to the question of how education can be improved; they also have their own agendas, their own initiatives, and their own bottlenecks that shape the broader standardisation education ecosystem. This chapter presents those perspectives thematically, so that they can serve as a self-standing source of insight alongside the findings from the educational institutions.

The themes addressed in this chapter are: the strategic importance of standardisation and the geopolitical context, existing initiatives and approaches of the standardisation organisations, the position of SMEs as a bottleneck, the role of trade associations and government as system players, and the ageing of the standardisation community as an urgent precondition for education.

Standardisation as a strategic instrument: geopolitical context

A consistent theme in the interviews with Philips, VNO-NCW, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is the growing strategic and geopolitical importance of standardisation. Standardisation is no longer seen as a purely technical or administrative instrument, but as a means of determining market positions, technological sovereignty, and trade policy influence.

Jos Remy (Director of Standardisation at Philips and Vice President Technical at CENELEC) describes standardisation as a core part of market strategy and competitive position, organised along three tracks: formal standardisation via standardisation bodies such as ISO, IEC, CEN/CENELEC, ITU, and ETSI, closely related to regulation and market access via presumption of conformity; consortium standardisation as market-driven cooperation with an IP dimension; and strategic ecosystems in which standards make markets function better. He introduces an analytical framework of four maturity levels at which companies can leverage standardisation: from passively monitoring to actively steering at governance level. Effective standardisation expertise, he emphasises, develops over several years and requires, alongside process knowledge, above all negotiation skills, political sensitivity, and strategic judgement.

Irvette Tempelman (Director of European and International Affairs at VNO-NCW) likewise positions standardisation at a strategic and policy level: as an instrument for technological sovereignty in domains such as AI, quantum, and encryption. The central question is not whether the Netherlands wants to participate in standardisation processes, but whether the Netherlands is at the table on time and exerts influence on the dossiers that are relevant for the country.

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (Competition and Consumer division) confirms this picture and adds a concern: the strategic focus on standardisation within the business community has weakened in recent years. Trade associations have dropped standardisation as a priority, which means that structural alignment within sectors is lacking. The renewed interest, partly due to geopolitical developments and the European Standardisation Strategy 2022, offers an opening, but requires active reactivation.

Remy also places a critical note on European practice itself. Europe historically had a strong model: legislation with essential requirements, standards for technical specification; but European practice has become heavier through additional layers and control mechanisms. The HAS review mechanism (harmonised standards system) and the slow processes around ‘standardisation requests’ and publication in the Official Journal are a drag on the system. A considerable portion of the total lead time for standards development sits in the stages before and after the actual standardisation work, which makes the European Commission partly a cause of the slowness it criticises. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy participates in the HLF and draws up the National Standardisation Agenda (NNA), for which feedback is gathered within the Dutch government. From this role, the Ministry recognises and shares this frustration and sees a role for the Netherlands in exerting pressure on the European Commission to make the process workable and faster, precisely now that the standardisation legislation is being revised.

Existing initiatives of standardisation organisations

The standardisation organisations interviewed, CEN-CENELEC, ETSI, AFNOR, DIN, ILNAS, and NEN/SOONS, are not passive in the area of education. Each has developed its own initiatives, with varying approaches that offer valuable lessons for the Dutch context.

CEN-CENELEC: from research to broad programme

CEN-CENELEC has not considered education a strategic priority for a long time, but this has changed due to increased political attention at EU level. Within CEN-CENELEC, education is approached from an ‘external relations’ perspective: connecting standardisation with research, innovation, industry, and education. The assumption is that researchers and professionals can deploy standardisation more effectively if they have been exposed to it during their education.

The Horizon Europe project Edu4Standards has delivered ‘Intended Learning Outcomes’ (ILOs) and a network of academic champions (pioneers in standardisation education and research). CEN-CENELEC is now launching a three-year EU-funded follow-up project that addresses standardisation education more broadly, with the following components: development of teaching materials, internship modules at national standards bodies, support for young professionals entering technical committees, and capacity building for national members in their relationship with educational institutions.

Andreea Gulacsi (Director, Policy & External Affairs CEN-CENELEC) is explicit about the political dimension: if Europe wants to deploy standardisation strategically, greater public investment is necessary. Raising awareness, education, and continuity require structural support. The certificate could, with sufficient support from the European Commission, be promoted more widely, comparable to other EU educational initiatives.

ETSI: from textbook to supporting lecturers

ETSI has been active in education since 2018. A task group produced a comprehensive handbook on standardisation, later updated and made available under a free licence. Claire d’Esclercs (Director of Education and Knowledge at ETSI) is honest about the limitations of this approach: a traditional 360-page handbook no longer fits how students learn, and ETSI lacked the resources to promote it systematically. Reach was fragmented and ad hoc.

The key lesson ETSI draws is structural: the problem is not a lack of content but reaching the right intermediaries. ETSI cannot reach students directly; the key players are universities, faculties, and lecturers. Many lecturers themselves have little or no background in standardisation, which makes it difficult to ask them to integrate it into their courses. This creates a structural bottleneck that individual initiatives struggle to break.

D’Esclercs therefore argues for a shift in focus to supporting lecturers, who act as the middle layer between policy and students. Toolkits, ready-made materials, and guidance for lecturers are in her judgement more effective than approaching students directly. ETSI sees promotion as a core task: through its industry members, ETSI can disseminate messages via websites and press channels, and through national standards bodies this can be expanded to national industries.

AFNOR: mass awareness via MOOC

AFNOR opts for a pragmatic approach: mass awareness as the first priority. Earlier attempts to create a dedicated diploma in standardisation failed due to low enrolments. AFNOR drew the conclusion that the threshold was too high and that the topic was not attractive enough as a stand-alone programme.

With more than 3,500 higher education institutions in France, direct reach is unrealistic. AFNOR approached federations and networks of universities, engineering schools, and management schools. The response was consistent: they recognise the importance but cannot prescribe curricula. The French Ministry of Higher Education advised: deliver a ready-made product that lecturers can adopt.

This led to the development of a four-hour MOOC (Massive Open Online Course), concluded with a quiz. Participants with a passing score receive an open badge, an awareness certificate. The MOOC is structured in four modules: what a (voluntary) standard is and the benefits of standards; the relationship between standards, regulation, certification, and innovation; how standards are developed at national, European, and international level; and how to read a standard and monitor relevant standards. The MOOC quickly reached more than two thousand enrolments from students, lecturers, and professionals, proof, for AFNOR, of interest in a short, free, and accessible entry-level course.

Alongside the MOOC, AFNOR offers guest lectures at universities and engineering schools (2 to 12 hours), focused on the strategic role and practical application of standardisation. An important instrument is ‘Cobaz Education’, a platform through which educational institutions gain access to French standards on favourable terms, a model comparable to the NEN Connect offering in the Netherlands.

DIN: lecturers as the lever point

Amelie Leipprand (project coordinator Young Professionals and Education & Outreach at DIN) emphasises that standardisation is structurally absent from higher education, even in technical programmes, and that this is not neutral but harmful. Standardisation is confused with legislation or imposed rules, which creates mistrust and makes the European self-regulation model vulnerable to political intervention.

DIN’s central approach is investing in lecturers as the lever. Many lecturers recognise the relevance of standardisation but do not know how to teach it or lack suitable materials. Leipprand has therefore organised, for several years, a European annual conference specifically for lecturers who teach standardisation, a train-the-teacher mechanism that simultaneously facilitates community building. The conference reassures lecturers that they are not alone, facilitates exchange of teaching formats such as case studies, serious games, and interactive assignments, and stimulates cooperation between institutions.

Leipprand argues for small, low-threshold interventions: two to five minutes of explanation within existing lectures, guest lectures of 30 to 90 minutes, and explicitly naming the standardisation process when standards are used. In practice, this has proven feasible and effective. She also develops innovative formats, such as publicly accessible technical committee sessions in which students follow and discuss one clearly delineated topic, an approach inspired by BSI (British Standards Institute).

ILNAS: from pilot to structural programme

The Luxembourgish ILNAS offers the most highly developed example of what a national standards body can achieve if it actively invests in education. ILNAS has built up standardisation education through a phased approach in cooperation with the University of Luxembourg: starting with a University Certificate of 18 ECTS for working professionals, expanded to a full master’s degree (started February 2021) focused on ICT, standardisation, and technopreneurship.

The choice of professionals as the primary target group is substantively motivated: standardisation is easier to understand when students already have organisational and practical context. Students in initial education lack these reference points, which makes shorter and more targeted interventions more effective than extensive curriculum components.

ILNAS takes an active role in approaching universities, supported by its position as a public institution. Formal cooperation agreements with the University of Luxembourg make direct interaction with academic leadership possible. Standardisation education is embedded in a broader national strategy that is aligned with the Ministry of the Economy. ILNAS also co-finances doctoral and postdoctoral research at the University of Luxembourg, with researchers actively participating in standardisation committees, a two-way flow between research results and standardisation processes.

NEN and SOONS: catalysts with a dormant platform

Gertjan van den Akker (Director of Standards at NEN and member of Forum Standaardisatie) explicitly positions NEN as a catalyst: raising awareness, building networks, and creating preconditions, without abandoning the European self-regulation model. SOONS functions as a knowledge and network platform, with funding of endowed chairs as its spearhead, previously at Erasmus University, currently again at Rotterdam School of Management. The ambition is expansion towards universities of applied sciences.

Van den Akker is cautious about taking a directive role vis-à-vis educational institutions: curricula are full, changes take time, and universities are autonomous. NEN can stimulate, facilitate, and connect, but cannot compel. He is also realistic about funding: broad, generic chairs funded by the business community he considers difficult to achieve without a clear sectoral interest.

An urgent practical point concerns access to standards. All Dutch universities have reading rights via NEN Connect, but this is unknown to many lecturers, a communication problem that requires attention. For universities of applied sciences, this access does not yet exist, but this is under discussion. Finally, Van den Akker emphasises the ageing of the standardisation community: many current experts will stop within a few years, which makes education urgent in order to train a new generation that understands the importance of standardisation and can put it on the agenda.

Jolien van Zetten (Head of Professional Development and Processes, NEN) supplements this from an operational perspective. NEN already has concrete educational content that is substantively close to the learning outcomes of the Pan-European Certificate: a set of seven e-learning courses for new committee members on the standardisation process, the division of roles, and expectations. These are currently only internally available, but could be made more widely available after being recalibrated against the ILOs of the certificate. In addition, NEN has developed a serious game that simulates the full consensus process in around two hours, including negotiation, diverging interests, and public consultation. The game is now also used internally for the onboarding of consultants and new committees; NEN is exploring whether it can be made more broadly available to educational institutions. On the certificate, Van Zetten was initially sceptical: a certificate only has value if companies and governments recognise it. That scepticism has diminished since market needs have been explicitly considered in the HLF context, but she still identifies ownership at European level, who is actually taking the lead, and market recognition as the two main thresholds for implementation.

The SME participation issue

A theme raised specifically by VNO-NCW and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, which lies outside the direct scope of educational institutions, is the structurally weak position of SMEs in standardisation processes. This is relevant to this research because it has direct implications for the question of who benefits from standardisation education and which target groups deserve priority.

Tempelman makes clear that the financial argument is not the primary barrier to SME participation. The real barriers are capacity (small companies cannot spare an FTE for lengthy standards committees), timing (SMEs are often only involved when a standard is already advanced), and a lack of practical participation moments in the process. The question is not whether SMEs want to contribute to standards development, but how meaningful and efficient forms of participation can be organised.

Tempelman suggests that the current model of committee participation does not fit small businesses well, and argues for targeted consultation moments and less frequent but well-prepared participation slots. Education is a first step in this, raising awareness of the importance of standardisation, but is not enough: a second step, practically organising accessible participation, must follow.

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy adds that the role of trade associations as an intermediary vis-à-vis SMEs has weakened in recent years. The former standardisation platform of VNO-NCW, where trade associations aligned their positions on standardisation dossiers, no longer exists. There is renewed interest, partly due to geopolitical developments and the European Standardisation Strategy, but this requires active reactivation, not a wait-and-see attitude.

Government as a system player: the Ministries of Economic Affairs and Education

Linking to policy dossiers as a lever

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy sketches a clear picture of the policy logic around standardisation education. As the department responsible for the system, the Ministry itself has little budget for direct educational intervention. Large-scale movement only arises when standardisation education is linked to major policy dossiers with substantial resources.

The mechanism the Ministry describes is relevant: when European or national strategies set requirements for skills and employment, training is structurally included. The Battery Academy in the Net Zero Industry Act illustrates how a training driver in regulation leads to ecosystems in which educators can join with recognised programmes and certificates. If standardisation knowledge, and the accompanying certificate, is positioned as an integral part of existing skills ecosystems around AI, quantum, hydrogen, or the digital transition, a structural funding basis emerges.

The Ministry also identifies an internal bottleneck: with open standards, compliance with the Comply or Explain principle is structurally weak. The principle is mandatory, but enforcement is absent: compliance hovers around 50 per cent, the mandatory explanations rarely appear in annual reports, and there is no supervisory authority that enforces compliance. This is caused in part by culture and the long-term outsourcing of ICT, which means that knowledge about standards is not structurally present in government. Without knowledge, ownership, and incentives, standardisation is seen as a ‘last-minute compliance add-on’ rather than part of the design. This makes central government officials a relevant additional target group for standardisation education.

For the bureau of Netherlands Standardisation Forum, the Ministry primarily sees a role in evangelism and concretisation: a clear narrative with practical examples and a clear ‘why now’ explanation is needed to move standardisation out of the technical niche and into the geopolitical arena.

Indirect steering within autonomous institutions

Bastiaan van Vliet (senior policy officer Higher Education & Student Finance) and Raijsa Balasingham (policy officer Higher Education & Student Finance) at the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science emphasise that the ministry does not determine what is taught in programmes. That responsibility lies with the institutions themselves. The Ministry’s role is system-oriented: ensuring that public money is spent efficiently and that the education system as a whole functions well.

The Ministry has four steering instruments at its disposal: funding, communication (putting policy priorities on the agenda), administrative agreements, and legislation. In practice, this means that the Ministry can give direction and set preconditions, but does not prescribe what content must be in a programme, except in cases where legislation sets professional requirements. Direct steering of standardisation teaching through a curriculum requirement is therefore not on the cards.

However, the Ministry can indirectly stimulate themes through programmes, subsidies, and support structures. A relevant example is the Npuls programme, focused on digitalisation in post-secondary education, in which institutions are supported through Centres for Teaching and Learning (CTLs). A comparable route is conceivable for standardisation: not imposing content, but creating preconditions. A second point of entry is the sector advisory councils that bring education and the labour market together, particularly in higher professional education. If employers explicitly name the relevance of standardisation knowledge through these channels, that can feed through into programme profiles.

Regarding the Pan-European Certificate, the interviewees raise an important point: certificates are never entirely neutral. As soon as a certificate gains value on the labour market, it influences access to jobs and thereby the competition between candidates. A certificate that is widely recognised by employers can ultimately function as an implicit admission requirement. For the standardisation certificate, which is deliberately not intended as an admission requirement for a profession, careful positioning is therefore important.

Ageing and continuity: an urgent precondition

A theme raised by several standardisation organisations is the ageing of the standardisation community. Van den Akker (NEN), d’Esclercs (ETSI), and Remy (Philips) all point out that a significant share of the current generation of standardisation experts will stop within five to ten years. The knowledge transfer that historically took place informally, experienced delegates mentoring younger colleagues within committees, is less effective for younger generations, who have different expectations of careers and learning environments.

This gives education an urgency that goes beyond the broader societal interest: without an inflow of well-prepared new experts, a structural capacity shortage in the European standardisation structures is looming. CEN-CENELEC describes this as a European shortage of new standardisation experts, while at the same time standardisation is increasingly being deployed as a strategic instrument for trade, geopolitics, regulation, and innovation.

The certificate, as a low-threshold entry level, can contribute to lowering the initial threshold for new experts. But Remy emphasises that the certificate will not produce senior experts: in-depth expertise develops through years of practical experience, network-building, and strategic action. The certificate shortens the learning curve and enlarges process knowledge, but it is the beginning of a journey, not its endpoint.

Summary

Geopolitics and strategy: Standardisation is being explicitly identified as a strategic instrument by the business community, trade associations, and government. The urgency is high, but Dutch capacity, particularly among SMEs, is insufficient.

Own initiatives: The standardisation organisations have developed varying approaches that offer concrete lessons for the Netherlands:

• AFNOR (FR): A free four-hour MOOC with an open badge as its conclusion, more than two thousand enrolments in a short time from students, lecturers, and professionals.
• DIN (DE): An annual European conference specifically for standardisation lecturers as a train-the-teacher platform, supplemented by a joint course with TU Berlin in which students receive an official DIN certificate.
• ILNAS (LU): A full master’s programme for working professionals, built up from a University Certificate of 18 ECTS as evidence of demand, embedded in the national strategy and linked to doctoral research.
• University of Graz (AT): A summer school that has grown into a multi-track capacity programme for lecturers, researchers, and technology transfer offices, supported by the Austrian national standardisation strategy.

SME participation: The SME participation issue goes beyond education: it also requires process reform and active intermediaries through trade associations.

Government as a lever: The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy has limited budget of its own but is well placed to link standardisation to major policy dossiers. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science steers indirectly through programmes such as Npuls, sector advisory councils, and administrative agreements, not through a curriculum requirement. Both ministries offer points of entry, but require a route that fits the autonomy of institutions.

Ageing: The inflow of new experts is urgent. The certificate is a useful entry-level instrument, but real expertise requires years of practice.

Opportunities for structural strengthening

Introduction

The preceding chapters have presented two perspectives side by side: the picture from education (chapter 3) and the picture from standardisation organisations, the business community, and government (chapter 4). This chapter brings those two perspectives together and translates them into concrete opportunities.

From the education side, the picture is clear: standardisation is present but not embedded, person-dependent, and not scalable. There is no external incentive that compels institutions to include the topic structurally, and there is no shared ownership.

From the business community and government, the message is equally clear: standardisation is strategically important, capacity is insufficient, and urgency is increasing due to geopolitical developments. But here too an owner is lacking: everyone benefits, no one feels naturally responsible.

Those two diagnoses are each other’s mirror image, and together they define the opportunities. The opportunities for structural strengthening lie at the intersections:

• Companies such as Philips and ASML need employees who understand standardisation processes, but currently train them internally. That is a labour market demand that education can answer, but only if education knows that demand exists and is actively made aware of it by NEN and Forum Standaardisatie.
• The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is well placed to link standardisation knowledge to major policy dossiers with budget and urgency, but needs education as an executing partner to do so. That connection does not currently exist.
• VNO-NCW sees awareness as a necessary first step for better SME participation. LLL provision by universities of applied sciences and universities can provide that step, but only if there is concrete articulation of demand from the business community.

The opportunities described in the following sections are therefore not only opportunities for education; they are opportunities that arise when education, the business community, and government work together.

Lifelong Learning and professional training as a starting point

The most consistently mentioned promising route is through Lifelong Learning (LLL), postgraduate education, and professional development. This applies to both universities of applied sciences and research universities, and is endorsed by virtually all Dutch institutions interviewed.

The reasoning is consistent: professionals who encounter standardisation in their work experience direct added value from knowledge about processes, roles, and strategic implications. They have concrete practical questions, are more open to certification, and do not need to be convinced of its relevance.

Concrete examples substantiate this. VU Amsterdam has long provided an intensive one-day course for legislative and policy officials through the Academy for Legislation and the Academy for Government Lawyers. The University of Groningen sees scope for a course programme on standardisation, provided there is demonstrable market demand. Tilburg and TU/e jointly conducted an in-company pilot at NXP with modules for engineers both at the start of and mid-career, with participation from professionals at ASML and Philips.

The Open Universiteit offers, through its focus programmes, an existing modular model in which thematic bundles of courses conclude with an overarching certificate; this model is explicitly designed for continuing education and offers a concrete infrastructure for a future standardisation offering.

An additional advantage of the LLL route is the flywheel effect: when a course proves relevant and runs well, this provides a concrete argument to programme directors to include the topic in regular programmes as well.

Embedding in existing courses via teacher-champions

A second route, which can be deployed in parallel with LLL, is the bottom-up strengthening of regular education through individual lecturers. The core of this approach is to support lecturers who already give teaching in which standardisation logically fits, and enable them to actively take up the topic without major additional effort.

Ten Oever (UvA) advises: offer lecturers ready-made teaching materials, slides, lesson plans, and case studies, so that the threshold is minimal. DIN representative Leipprand adds that many lecturers recognise the relevance of standardisation but do not know how to teach it. The problem is not unwillingness but a lack of tools.

Wiegmann (TU/e) describes an adoption logic in which the first step is not the certificate but the conviction that standardisation is worth teaching. NEN and Forum Standaardisatie should therefore start by activating lecturers who are already involved in standards committees.

Framing as a precondition for adoption

A recurring insight is that the term standardisation itself creates a barrier. Students associate it with dry regulation, technical specifications, or bureaucratic processes. When the same subject is addressed using case studies and presented as governance, innovation strategy, market dynamics, or geopolitics, interest increases significantly.

RSM already applies this explicitly: the elective course is not offered as standardisation but as innovation and platform strategy, with standardisation as the underlying mechanism. Students who take the course generally become enthusiastic once they understand the role of standardisation in the context of innovation and platform dynamics. TU Delft uses classical cases such as the emergence of Wi-Fi via IEEE to show that standardisation is about interests, power, and strategy, not about filling in forms. TU Berlin links the topic to sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals, thereby connecting with the strong societal engagement of the current generation of students. Wiegmann (TU/e) uses charging connectors for electric vehicles and quantum technology as concrete entry points. Mijatović (Belgrade) always starts her course with an industry analysis, in which students work as consultants for an imaginary company, standardisation then becomes a lens through which to understand problems, actors, and governance, not an end in itself.

This finding has direct implications for the communication and marketing strategy of NEN and Forum Standaardisatie: communication towards lecturers and students should not start from the standardisation system itself, but from the societal and economic issues in which standardisation plays a role. The principle Leipprand (DIN) formulates is useful for this: the minimum a student needs to understand is that standards do not come about on their own and that everyone can and must contribute to shaping them.

Top-down incentives as a structural lever

Almost all interviewees agree that bottom-up initiatives are insufficient for structural and scalable anchoring. Sustainable embedding also requires institutional incentives from outside the individual lecturer.

Van de Kaa (TU Delft) points to accreditation and review systems as a powerful lever: if knowledge of standardisation is explicitly included in the assessment criteria for programmes, institutions must address the topic regardless of individual preferences. He notes that this mechanism works indirectly but effectively, and has parallels with how valorisation and patenting have by now been included in academic assessment criteria, whereas participation in standardisation committees has not.

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy points to linking with major policy dossiers that have substantial budgets. The Battery Academy in the Net Zero Industry Act illustrates how a training driver in regulation leads to ecosystems in which educators can join with recognised programmes. If standardisation knowledge is positioned as part of skills agendas around AI, quantum, hydrogen, or the digital transition, a structural funding basis emerges that individual educational initiatives do not have. The Ministry also emphasises the possibility of bringing central government officials into contact with standardisation through structured training pathways, the course by Neerhof (VU Amsterdam) at the Academy for Legislation shows that concrete demand exists.

Blind (TU Berlin) refers to Austria and Spain, where standardisation activities are indirectly stimulated through KPIs and performance agreements between universities and ministries. The Austrian national standardisation strategy of 2024, which explicitly calls on universities to strengthen standardisation education, is the most concrete example of this. The Netherlands does not yet have this mechanism for standardisation, but the model exists: similar agreements have been made around valorisation and societal impact. This offers a point of entry for the Ministries of Education and Economic Affairs to introduce standardisation into existing policy instruments for higher education.

For the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, a similar logic applies, but with a different angle. The Ministry does not steer directly on curricula, but does have policy instruments through which themes can be stimulated indirectly. The Npuls programme for digitalisation in post-secondary education illustrates how a ministry can give direction through funding, knowledge sharing, and support structures, without prescribing content. A comparable approach for standardisation education is among the possibilities. In addition, sector advisory councils, where education and the labour market come together, provide an entry point via the labour market: if employers explicitly name the relevance of standardisation knowledge, that organically feeds through into programme profiles.

Inter-university cooperation and a national platform

Several interviewees emphasise that it is inefficient for every institution to develop an offering separately. The University of Groningen suggests inter-university cooperation between law faculties. Tilburg argues for a coalition model in which a joint fund finances several centres of excellence that each contribute their expertise and make materials broadly available.

SOONS (Foundation for Research and Education in Standardisation) was established for precisely this purpose, but according to several interviewees has effectively fallen dormant. Reactivation or re-establishment is seen by several parties as a priority step.

Access to standards as a precondition

Standards are expensive: one standard can cost more than a textbook. Van den Akker points out that all Dutch universities have reading rights on standards through NEN Connect, but that this is unknown to many lecturers. For universities of applied sciences, this access does not yet exist. Luxembourg (ILNAS) and France (AFNOR via Cobaz Education) already have operational models for broad access to standards for education.

Role of NEN and Forum Standaardisatie

A consistent picture emerges from the interviews of what is expected from NEN and Forum Standaardisatie. No steering or prescriptive role is expected vis-à-vis curricula. However, an active facilitating and connecting role is expected in four areas:

1. Legitimising and agenda-setting: making standardisation education a subject of discussion at the level of programme directors and policymakers.
2. Supporting lecturers: making ready-made teaching materials, guest lecturers, case studies, and access to standards available.
3. Connecting existing initiatives: organising knowledge sharing and linking the Dutch network with European developments.
4. Bridging function: translating the learning outcomes and certificate requirements of the Pan-European Certificate to the Dutch context.

Summary: a phased approach

Short term: LLL pilots, support for teacher-champions, communication about NEN Connect, revitalisation of SOONS.

Medium term: Linkage to major policy dossiers and skills agendas, embedding in accreditation frameworks and policy programmes, coalition-building with institutions and businesses.

Long term: Institutional anchoring through performance agreements, recognition of standardisation activities in academic assessment criteria, sustainable connection with the European certificate.

The Pan-European Certificate: need and implementation

Introduction

The Pan-European Certificate for Standards and Standardisation is the most concrete European instrument currently under development to strengthen standardisation education. This chapter describes what the interviewed parties know about the certificate, how they assess the need for it, which implementation routes they see, and what conditions they place on a successful roll-out.

Awareness and initial reactions

Awareness of the Pan-European Certificate differs markedly between the parties interviewed. Awareness is high among the European standardisation organisations and among researchers active in Edu4Standards. For most Dutch educational institutions, awareness is limited to general.

Initial reactions are predominantly positive but nuanced. The certificate is seen virtually unanimously as a meaningful instrument, provided it is positioned in the right way. Rejection does not occur. However, the same caveats are consistently raised: a stand-alone certificate has limited value in regular initial education, its labour market value has yet to be proven, and it must not become a rigid content straitjacket.

European design and state of play

CEN-CENELEC and ETSI describe the certificate as an instrument still in an exploratory phase. The heart of the task is finding a balance between European comparability and national flexibility. CEN-CENELEC explicitly positions the certificate as a low-threshold entry level: a shared European reference point for basic knowledge, not as a detailed harmonised qualification.

CEN-CENELEC is launching a three-year EU-funded follow-up project, which includes the development of teaching materials, internship modules at national standards bodies, support for young professionals, and capacity building for national members.

ETSI emphasises that the certificate must be viewed as a coordinating instrument, not as a rigid harmonisation tool. A clear common framework combined with flexibility in the way it is realised is the only way to do justice to the diversity of national education systems.

Three implementation routes

Three routes emerge from the interviews that can be deployed in parallel.

Route 1: Linking to existing courses through presumption of conformity

The most structural route is linking the certificate to existing or new courses, where a pass mark for the course leads to automatic awarding of the certificate. Wiegmann (TU/e) describes this as a presumption of conformity model. TU/e stands ready as an early adopter to apply this model to the new elective course. The precondition is timely and clear specification of the learning outcomes by the European Standardisation Organisations.

Route 2: Add-on via online assessment

For institutions where standardisation is covered in only one or a few classes, Tilburg and RSM describe an alternative: students follow an introduction within an existing course and can then obtain the certificate via an online route. AFNOR has shown with its MOOC and accompanying badge that this model works: the MOOC reached more than two thousand enrolments within a short time.

Route 3: LLL and professional training

For the short term, the LLL route is the most promising and realistic implementation route. The in-company pilot of Tilburg and TU/e at NXP shows that there is demand from industry. Philips confirms that basic knowledge can shorten the learning curve for new employees and accelerate entry into standardisation committees.

Need and support per target group

Students in initial education are the least self-evident target group. They are primarily focused on their diploma, barely know standardisation, and have no direct labour market incentive to pursue the certificate. The certificate has indirect value for them: it can help get standardisation into curricula as a topic, and offers students who do become interested visible recognition. Blind puts this clearly: the certificate does not have to attract students directly; it must give lecturers and institutions an argument to offer the topic. Kanevskaia Whitaker (UU) emphasises that once students understand the relevance, standardisation as a lens on how European regulation, technology, and market dynamics hang together, their appreciation grows. The core challenge is framing, not resistance.

Professionals and LLL participants are the most receptive target group. They have concrete practical questions, understand the relevance, and appreciate European-recognised proof of the knowledge they have acquired. The in-company pilot at NXP with participants from ASML and Philips illustrates this: multiple modules for both young and mid-career engineers were successfully completed. Philips (Remy) confirms that basic knowledge can shorten the learning curve for new employees, although he emphasises that in-depth expertise arises through years of practice, network-building, and strategic action, the certificate is the beginning of a journey, not the endpoint.

Civil servants and policymakers form a specific but relevant target group that is explicitly mentioned in the interviews. Neerhof’s (VU) course for legislative and policy officials shows that there is concrete demand for insight into the legal and governance dimensions of standardisation. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy identifies the opportunity to make standardisation knowledge more structurally available for central government officials. The weak compliance with the comply or explain principle is partly explained by a lack of knowledge and ownership; an accessible certificate can be a first step here. Neerhof does, however, add a nuance: policy officials need functional knowledge for their work, not a qualification to participate in standardisation committees themselves, the certificate fits at most as a supplementary deepening route, not as the direct conclusion of his course.

Lecturers are emphatically named by ETSI (d’Esclercs), DIN (Leipprand), and the University of Graz (Staudegger, Reiter) as the most strategic target group. Lecturers who obtain the certificate themselves or are equipped through a train-the-teacher programme become multipliers who transfer the topic to hundreds of students every year. DIN has for years organised a European annual conference for standardisation lecturers as a community-building platform and knowledge-sharing environment. The University of Graz has transformed its summer programme into a multi-track capacity programme that also reaches technology transfer offices, a group that is increasingly called upon in standardisation processes but itself has little knowledge.

Conditions for successful implementation

Five conditions are consistently named as critical to the success of the certificate.

1. Clear and timely learning outcomes. Lecturers can only align their teaching with the certificate if the learning outcomes are clear and stable.
2. Flexibility in design. The certificate must offer a common framework, not detailed content prescriptions.
3. Industry recognition. Without visible appreciation from employers, motivation for students and professionals remains limited.
4. Low administrative threshold. Minimal bureaucracy in the first phase, with an emphasis on broad and rapid roll-out.
5. European safeguarding combined with national implementation. The certificate is safeguarded at European level through CEN-CENELEC and ETSI, but implemented nationally through the national standards bodies.

Points for attention and minority positions

Alongside the broad support, there are also critical voices and specific points for attention that deserve their place in the analysis.

Kanevskaia Whitaker (UU) places caveats on an overly generic set of learning outcomes: what is meaningful for lawyers differs substantively from what is relevant for engineers. An overly uniform certificate risks losing its meaning; an overly specialist certificate is off-putting. She argues for a layered approach with a basic level supplemented by domain-specific deepening.

Neerhof (VU) is cautious about the direct applicability for his target group of policy officials. They need functional knowledge for their work, understanding when and how standardisation, certification, and accreditation can be deployed as a policy instrument, not a formal qualification for participation in standardisation committees. The certificate fits at most as an optional deepening route.

Tempelman (VNO-NCW) warns that the certificate must not become a threshold for participation in standards committees. Substantive expertise and engagement are leading, not formal qualifications. Its value lies in raising awareness and reducing the need for explanation within organisations.

Pyun (RSM) points to the risk of content rigidity: if a certification framework locks lecturers too tightly into prescribed learning outcomes, they lose the flexibility that is precisely needed to frame standardisation attractively for students.

Staudegger and Reiter (Graz) point to an institutional tension: universities may resist the outsourcing of the certification of academic learning to external organisations, because academic assessment is embedded in university rules and legitimacy. An EU certificate can be a useful supplementary signal, but must not undermine or replace academic quality assurance.

Mijatović (Belgrade) poses a practical but important question that is also relevant for the implementation of the certificate in the Netherlands: does the certificate apply exclusively to EU Member States, or also to EU candidate countries? This touches on the broader positioning of the certificate as a European instrument that can have strategic value outside the EU as well. She has already held discussions about this with the Serbian standards body and is willing to act as a regional amplifier, provided there is clarity about the geographical scope.

Van Vliet and Balasingham (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science) raise a point that goes beyond the education system itself: certificates are never entirely neutral. As soon as a certificate acquires broad labour market relevance, it influences access to jobs and can unintentionally function as an implicit admission requirement. The standardisation certificate was deliberately not designed as a formal admission requirement for a profession, its aim is awareness-raising and knowledge-building. Careful positioning and communication are important to prevent it from nevertheless acquiring that role through the labour market. In this connection the question is also relevant as to what exactly is being certified: programmes or individuals. Both have different policy implications for recognition, regulation, and access.

Summary

The Pan-European Certificate is broadly seen as a promising and valuable instrument, provided it is deployed as a catalyst and not as an end in itself. The most realistic implementation routes for the Netherlands are the presumption-of-conformity linkage to existing courses, an online add-on route, and professional training through LLL as the fastest starting point. The key role for NEN is threefold: as the recognised issuing body, as an active facilitator vis-à-vis educational institutions, and as a link between European development and Dutch practice.

Conclusions and recommendations

This report was commissioned to map the current state of standardisation education in Dutch higher education, to identify opportunities for structural strengthening, and to examine how the Netherlands can align with the Pan-European Certificate for Standards and Standardisation. The conclusions below answer each of those three questions on the basis of 27 semi-structured interviews with educational institutions, standardisation organisations, policymakers, and the business community (see chapter 2 for a full overview of the parties interviewed). The recommendations that follow are addressed to the parties with the greatest leverage, and build directly on the findings from chapters 3 through 6.

Conclusions

Question 1: What is the current state of standardisation education?

As a topic, standardisation is present in Dutch higher education, but not as a recognisable and structural learning objective. Its presence is almost everywhere dependent on individual lecturers with a personal affinity, and disappears when they leave or change their teaching. Even the most developed initiatives reach only tens to hundreds of students per year, while the institutions in question educate thousands of students. There are no external incentives, through accreditation, policy, or the labour market, that stimulate institutions to include the topic structurally. See chapter 3 for a full overview per institution and the four structural patterns that flow from it (§3.6).

Question 2: Where are the opportunities for structural strengthening?

The opportunities are there, but require a phased and multi-track approach. For the short term, most opportunities lie in Lifelong Learning (LLL) and professional training: institutions such as TU/e, HAN, and Tilburg University have proven experience and are willing to take a leading role (§5.2). In parallel, embedding in existing courses can be strengthened by supporting teacher-champions with materials and access to standards via NEN Connect (§5.3 and §5.7). For structural anchoring in the medium and long term, top-down incentives are indispensable: linking to accreditation frameworks (compare how valorisation and societal impact have by now been included in academic assessment criteria), embedding in national skills agendas around AI, quantum, and the digital transition, and reactivating the national platform SOONS (§5.5 and §5.6).

Question 3: How can the Netherlands align with the Pan-European Certificate?

There is broad support for the certificate as a catalyst and legitimising instrument: it is seen as a means to get standardisation into curricula and to strengthen awareness among professionals and civil servants, not as an end in itself. See chapter 6 for a full discussion of awareness, support, and implementation possibilities. The most promising implementation routes are:

• the ‘presumption of conformity’ linkage, whereby a pass mark for an existing course automatically leads to awarding of the certificate, TU/e stands ready as an early adopter to apply this model first (§6.4.1);
• an online ‘add-on’ route for institutions where standardisation is covered in only a few classes, modelled on the AFNOR MOOC with more than two thousand enrolments in a short time (§6.4.2 and §4.3);
• LLL training as the fastest and most impactful starting point, with the in-company pilot of TU/e and Tilburg at NXP, in which professionals from ASML and Philips also participated, as a concrete reference point (§6.4.3 and §5.2).

Recommendations

For Forum Standaardisatie

• Put the issue on the governance agenda. Use the position of Forum Standaardisatie to make standardisation education a subject of discussion with educational leaders, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and politicians, linked to broader policy ambitions around digital sovereignty, innovation policy, and strategic autonomy. Supporting Edu4Standards activities in the Netherlands offers a direct connection to the ongoing initiative (see §4.3 for the role that CEN-CENELEC and ETSI play in this).
• Link standardisation to major policy dossiers. Actively seek the connection with existing academies and skills ecosystems around AI, quantum, hydrogen, and the digital transition, in cooperation with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy and the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) as the implementing organisation. The model of the Battery Academy, a training driver embedded in the Net Zero Industry Act that leads to ecosystems with recognised programmes and certificates, offers a concrete point of entry (see also §4.5 for the policy logic from the Ministry’s perspective).

For NEN

• Start with LLL as the first implementation route. In cooperation with early adopters, develop a pilot LLL course that links directly to the Pan-European Certificate. The in-company pilot of TU/e and Tilburg at NXP (with participation from professionals at ASML and Philips) demonstrates that industry demand and LLL can be combined (§5.2 and §6.4.3).
• Communicate actively about NEN Connect. Many lecturers do not know that all Dutch universities have free reading rights on standards via NEN Connect, a communication problem that requires attention (see §4.3). A targeted campaign aimed at lecturers and library staff is a simple but impactful step. Extend access to universities of applied sciences as soon as possible. Comparable models at European counterparts, such as Cobaz Education of AFNOR in France and the standards access policy, show that broad access lowers the threshold for education (see §4.3 for the AFNOR approach).
• Revitalise SOONS as a national platform. Use SOONS as the place where lecturers, researchers, and policymakers find each other, share materials, and coordinate the implementation of the certificate, with explicit involvement of universities of applied sciences. SOONS was established for precisely this purpose but is currently effectively inactive (§4.3 and §5.6).
• Fulfil the bridging function between Europe and the Netherlands. Ensure timely translation of European learning outcomes to the Dutch context, and actively represent the Dutch perspective in the European development of the certificate. DIN offers an inspiring example here: by investing structurally in lecturers as intermediaries and by building an active community through an annual European teachers’ conference, DIN has created a sustainable bridging function. Use the experiences of European counterparts such as DIN and AFNOR as a guide for the Dutch approach (see §4.3).

For Forum Standaardisatie and NEN jointly

• Set up a working group and facilitate. A working group with key parties, educational institutions, government, and the business community, would help to translate the findings into concrete implementation steps and to organise support.
• Actively support lecturers and existing initiatives. Forum Standaardisatie and NEN can play a concrete role as connecting parties vis-à-vis education, without taking a steering position. In practice, that means:
• actively approaching lecturers who are already providing standardisation-related teaching with ready-made teaching materials, case studies, and guest lecturers;
• making existing initiatives visible so that institutions can learn from one another;
• organising an annual meeting event, modelled on the DIN teachers’ conference and preferably in cooperation with Edu4Standards, at which on the one hand Dutch lecturers and researchers working on standardisation meet each other and exchange materials, and on the other hand those not yet familiar with standardisation can come into contact with it (see §4.3 for the DIN example).

For the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy

• Position the certificate as part of the capacity-building agenda. Link it to larger policy dossiers with budget and urgency, such as the AI Act, the Digital Product Passport, quantum technology, and the energy transition, thereby creating the policy lever that individual educational initiatives cannot generate. The model of the Battery Academy in the Net Zero Industry Act illustrates how a training driver embedded in regulation leads to ecosystems in which educators can join with recognised programmes and certificates (see §4.5 for the policy context and the Ministry’s position).
• Explore the possibilities of performance agreements. Following the examples of Austria and Spain, performance agreements between ministries and universities can be used indirectly to stimulate standardisation activities. The Austrian national standardisation strategy of 2024, which explicitly calls on universities to strengthen standardisation education, offers the most concrete example of this mechanism (§3.5 for the international comparison and §5.5 for an explanation of how this type of incentive operates in the Dutch context).
• Strengthen the role of trade associations. Restoring a standardisation platform within VNO-NCW can help to put standardisation back on the agenda as a strategic theme within Dutch industry sectors and among SMEs. The current weakening of this intermediary function constitutes a structural bottleneck (§4.2 and §4.4).
• Address the weak compliance with the ‘Comply or Explain’ principle. The structurally low implementation of this principle, compliance hovers around 50 per cent, is partly a consequence of a knowledge gap and a lack of ownership among officials (§4.5). Link the certificate to training pathways for central government officials, such as legislative lawyers, as a concrete first step. The course by Professor Neerhof (VU Amsterdam) for legislative and policy officials through the Academy for Legislation demonstrates that there is demonstrable demand for precisely this type of teaching (§3.3).

For the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

• Explore indirect stimulation through existing policy programmes. The Ministry has no direct influence on curricula, but it can stimulate themes through programmes such as Npuls and through Centres for Teaching and Learning. A comparable support structure for standardisation education, with guidance, knowledge sharing, and possibly financial resources for institutions, fits within the existing policy logic.
• Use sector advisory councils as a point of entry. In higher professional education, education and the labour market are coordinated through sector advisory councils. If NEN and Forum Standaardisatie succeed in mobilising employers to explicitly name the relevance of standardisation knowledge in these structures, a bottom-up incentive arises that fits the autonomy of institutions.
• Safeguard the positioning of the certificate. A certificate that gains broad labour market relevance can grow into an implicit admission requirement for the labour market, with consequences for equality and fair access that fall outside the original objective. Careful communication about the purpose of the certificate, awareness-raising and knowledge-building, not access regulation, is important.

For educational institutions

• Explore the possibilities of LLL and professional training. The investment is limited, the target group is receptive, and it quickly yields insight into demand and support. TU/e, HAN, and Tilburg University are concrete examples of early adopters willing to cooperate (§5.2 and §6.4.3).
• Support and protect existing teacher-champions. The greatest immediate risk factor for standardisation education is the departure of motivated individual lecturers (§3.1, §3.4 for concrete examples at TU Delft, TU/e, UU, and RSM). Organise knowledge sharing, involve multiple colleagues, both within and outside the institution, with the topic, and base succession profiles in part on continuity of the theme.
• Use the link to the European certificate as an internal argument. The fact that an existing or new course automatically gives students a European-recognised certificate is a concrete and persuasive argument vis-à-vis programme directors and accreditation committees. It also makes standardisation more visible for the labour market (see §6.5 for an explanation per target group).
• Frame standardisation in the context of the discipline. Students do not choose ‘standardisation’, but they do choose innovation strategy, European law, market dynamics, or data governance. Lecturers who embed standardisation as an instrument within a recognisable issue reach more than lecturers who offer it as a stand-alone subject, this principle applies across all disciplines (see §5.4 for concrete framing examples from RSM, TU Delft, TU Berlin, and the University of Belgrade).
• Make use of existing cooperation possibilities. Inter-university cooperation, for example for postgraduate legal education or for in-company pilots, reduces the individual burden and increases the scale. Make contact with NEN and SOONS to explore where connections are possible (see §5.6 for the proposed role of SOONS as a national platform).

In closing

The foundation for structural strengthening of standardisation education in the Netherlands is in place: there is substantive expertise, there are motivated lecturers, a European instrument is under development, and there is support among policymakers and the business community. What is missing is the connection between these elements and the institutional anchoring needed to move from loose initiatives to a coherent and scalable offering.

The Pan-European Certificate offers a unique opportunity to make that connection. Not as an endpoint, but as a starting point: a common reference framework that gives lecturers an argument, offers students recognition, and hands policymakers an instrument to give the Netherlands a recognisable position in the European standardisation education landscape.

The coming years will be decisive. The learning outcomes are being developed now, European funding is running, and political attention for standardisation is at a historic high. The Netherlands can co-design now and take a leading position, or connect later to a system that has already been shaped without Dutch input.

Appendices

The complete appendices to this study are included in the PDF document.

List of abbreviations

List of abbreviations