Clear Objectives

In early results from the Code survey, respondents have identified the need for clear objectives as the most important requirement in the Standard-Setting Code, with more than two thirds of respondents identifying this as important.  This is followed by meaningful stakeholder participation and having written procedures.

Ensuring that a standard has clear objectives is one of the core pillars of an effective standard.  The Code currently requires that the social, environmental and/or economic objectives of a standard shall be clearly and explicitly specified.  There are a number of reasons why this is critical.  First and foremost, it provides the guiding framework for the standards development – do the criteria contribute directly to pursuit of the objectives.  Secondly, they ensure that the standard is not creating undue barriers to trade or to access.  They also provide a basis for comparison with other standards and for greater harmonisation.  And finally, they provide a marker for assessing progress over time – how well is the standards system complying with its objectives.

So the question is then, why do standard-setters generally have such a hard time defining and applying clear objectives?  There is a tendency to combine objectives that focus on social and environmental issues (e.g. healthy biodiversity) with functional objectives (e.g. an accessible standard-setting process).  While both aspects are important, the functional objectives are only a tool to achieve the social and environmental objectives.

The biggest challenge seems to be that once initial objectives are defined, they are put aside as aspirational goals during the standard drafting process itself.  Good practice should see integration of these goals into the drafting process through the inclusion of a clear logical framework, where the goals are broken down into principles, with each principle broken out into its component criteria and their respective indicators.  One proposal for good practice is to prepare impact statements about the link between each principle and the overarching goals.  This will also help in framing the impacts monitoring and evalution program that all good systems should have in place.

Proposed revisions to the Code include additional guidance on developing clear objectives in clause 6.2.  Do you think this is necessary?  Is more guidance needed?  Comment on this blog post.

Patrick Mallet