Standards Spotlight: Consensus-Based vs. Non-Consensus-Based Standards How Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) Shape Trust and Credibility
In our previous Standards Spotlight, we introduced the vital role of standards development organizations (SDOs) in creating standards that make products compatible, services reliable, and systems safe across industries. Building on that foundation, this article explores how standards are developed—specifically comparing consensus-based and non-consensus-based approaches—and why the distinction matters for credibility, adoption, and long-term impact.
What Is a Consensus-Based Standard?
Consensus-based standards are created through a formal process that brings together stakeholders from across an industry or field to collaborate on a shared document that reflects broad agreement. Typical participants include technical experts, industry leaders, regulators, consumers, and other affected parties.
The defining features of a consensus process include:
- Openness: Procedures allow anyone with a stake to join and participate
- Balance of interests: No single group dominates decision-making
- Due process: Rules govern how decisions are made and documented
- Appeals: Participants can challenge decisions through an impartial process
This collaborative method ensures that a standard reflects a broad range of views and technical expertise. For example, many consensus standards developed by bodies like the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) rely on these principles to foster broad support and credibility.
When consensus standards are developed through accredited procedures, such as ANSI’s Essential Requirements, they often become voluntary consensus standards that serve as widely accepted benchmarks for quality, safety, and interoperability.
What Is a Non-Consensus-Based Standard?
In contrast, non-consensus-based standards are typically developed by a single organization, group of companies, or internal team without a formal consensus process. For example, a company may create proprietary product specifications or internal guidelines tailored to specific organizational needs without broad stakeholder input.
These standards can be useful where rapid development or a specialized context is required. Because they do not require broad stakeholder involvement, non-consensus standards can be developed more quickly and updated more frequently. However, the lack of a structured consensus process means these standards may not carry the same level of external credibility or broad acceptance, particularly for conformity assessment or regulatory reference.
Benefits and Challenges: A Side-by-Side View
Consensus-Based Standards
Benefits
- Broad stakeholder input creates greater legitimacy and trust.
- Often recognized internationally and referenced in regulations.
- Strong foundation for accreditation and conformity assessment.
Challenges
- Process can be lengthy and resource-intensive due to wide participation and formal procedures.
- May take longer to update as industries evolve.
Non-Consensus-Based Standards
Benefits
- Developed quickly and tailored to specific organizational needs.
- Helpful as internal guidelines or early iterations of emerging practice.
Challenges
- Less likely to be adopted universally or recognized by regulators or accreditation programs.
- May lack transparency and broad stakeholder support.
Why SDOs and Consensus Matter
SDOs exist, in large part, to manage the consensus process so that standards are developed transparently, fairly, and reflect the needs of diverse stakeholders. When an SDO follows an accredited consensus process, the resulting standards are often seen as more robust, objective, and defensible both inside and outside a given industry.
These attributes are particularly important for accreditation. Accreditation bodies, including those accrediting continuing education and training, rely on consensus standards because they provide assurance that requirements are developed through broad participation and reflect best practices that have been vetted by stakeholders.
Complementary, Not Competing, Approaches
Rather than seeing consensus and non-consensus methods as conflicting, it is useful to view them as complementary. Non-consensus standards can serve as agile vehicles for innovation or internal needs, while consensus standards developed by SDOs help formalize and scale those innovations for wider adoption.
In practice, a non-consensus standard may inspire broader consensus work, eventually maturing into a widely recognized standard through an accredited SDO process.
About the Author
Sherard Jones is the President of Strategic Futurist Consulting, an organization whose mission is to provide global leadership in Credentialing, Accreditation and Standards Development. Sherard has over 15 years of experience with IACET Accreditation in various roles and is committed to applying his expertise to support IACET in meeting its strategic goals. Sherard is currently a Lead Assessor for the ANSI-CAP program, has worked as Vice President of Education and Training for IAPMO, and was a past Chair of the IACET Commission. Sherard has 10+ years of experience in strategic program development and has partnered with clients having business needs varying from creating international workforce development programs to build capacity through training and credentialing -- to creating and overseeing organizational restructuring plans.