Strengthening the Compliance of the OIC Member States
to International Standards
33
are correspondent members—effectively observers, with the right to attend meetings, but not to vote on
adoption of ISO standards. Only nine OIC member states have no relationship with ISO at all.
However, it is important to dig further into the available information to examine the real and effective
extent of different countries’ participation in ISO’s deliberations on standards. ISO’s work largely takes
place in Technical Committees (TCs), each of which has a particular sectoral scope. Participation in these
bodies is crucial if a country is to weigh in effectively on the content of ISO standards. Here, Table 1
shows that there is a wide variety of effective participation by OIC member states. Iran participates in
518 committees, Turkey in 391, Egypt in 310, and Indonesia and Malaysia in over 200. The most active
ISO members, like France, the UK, Germany, China, South Korea, and Japan all participate in over 700
committees, so even the leading OIC member states are clearly being somewhat selective in their ISO
participation.
At the other end of the spectrum, Guyana, the Kyrgyz Republic, Niger, Suriname, and Turkmenistan do
not take part in any Committees, so even though they have a relationship with ISO, their ability to make
their concerns felt during the development phase of international standards is extremely limited. The
same is true for a range of other countries that participate in very few committees, presumably in
sectors of greatest economic interest to them. The evidence in Table 1 suggests that real and effective
participation in the international standardization process—as opposed to membership of the relevant
organizations—is a significant problem for many OIC member states, particularly those at lower income
levels. As previously noted, such countries also have the constraint of technical capacity to deal with:
even if they see the economic interest in participating in a particular committee, they may lack
personnel with sufficient technical knowledge to properly advance the country’s interests.
Given the reliance that some OIC member states place on international standards within their own
quality infrastructures, it is striking that some are not in a position to exercise effective influence over
the development of those same standards. There is therefore a real risk that international standards
may not adequately reflect conditions prevailing in lower income OIC member states. It will be
important to examine ways of supporting the participation of those countries in the work of
international standards bodies, looking beyond membership to real and effective participation. To do
that, it will be necessary to deploy technical assistance and capacity building among national standards
bodies within the OIC. There is a clear role for those countries with higher income levels and more
developed national quality infrastructure to share experience with other countries and support them in
their efforts to take part in international standardization.
Alongside the issue of participation in ISO’s Technical Committees is that of its Policy Development
Committees (PDCs), also noted in Table 1. Where TCs develop standards in particular sectors, PDCs deal