Long-term Actions

  • Issue a public “notice of withdrawal” using multiple ways to reach people and share it with relevant community groups.
  • Ask for input on how the withdrawal could affect people, especially equity-denied groups, and give enough time to respond.
  • Let affected individuals and groups influence the decision before it is finalized.
  • Use multiple accessible channels to share withdrawal notices, like email lists, newsletters, websites, community networks, accessible PDFs, ASL/LSQ videos, and direct outreach to known users.
  • Create a searchable public archive of withdrawn standards, including:
    • Why each standard was withdrawn
    • What has replaced it (if anything)
    • How to access older versions if needed
  • Make all materials easy to understand in plain language and accessible formats.
  • Keep the process transparent so communities know their feedback is considered.

Examples

  • UK – British Standards Institution (BSI) BSI includes withdrawal updates in newsletters and stakeholder mailing lists, ensuring professionals, advocacy groups, and local authorities are informed. For high-impact standards, they also issue press releases and guidance on alternatives or replacements.
  • Kenya – Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) KEBS uses radio and community networks to spread the word about withdrawn or updated standards, particularly in areas with limited internet access. They also collaborate with NGOs to reach disability groups and rural communities.
  • Sweden – Swedish Institute for Standards (SIS) SIS ensures that any withdrawn standards with potential social impact are accompanied by targeted outreach. Notices are shared not only on their website but also through associations and public sector partners, so no key user group is left unaware.

Barriers these actions address

No clear or inclusive process for retiring standards

Why is this a problem?

Standards can be withdrawn without clear rules, public consultation, or timely communication. Decisions may focus mainly on technical reasons, without considering social impact or the needs of affected communities.

Without a transparent and inclusive process, standards may be removed too soon, kept for too long, or withdrawn without people knowing. This can reduce transparency, accountability, and trust in the standards system - especially for people whose rights or access depend on those standards. It can also cause confusion, mistakes, or harm.

Common problems include:

  • No clear or transparent criteria for deciding when a standard is outdated
  • Little or no consultation with affected communities, including D/deaf and D/disabled communities
  • Decisions focused only on technical details, not real-life impact
  • Important protections or accessibility guidance being removed
  • No clear public notice that a standard is being withdrawn
  • People continuing to use an outdated standard without knowing
  • Policies or contracts still referring to a withdrawn standard
  • No clear information about what replaces the standard

Ways to address the barrier

  • Co-develop criteria for withdrawal
  • Create an opportunity for public feedback before withdrawal
  • Offer opportunities to request revisions rather than removal
  • Use clear, accessible, and open language in withdrawal notices

Lack of public awareness of the standards feedback process

Why is this a problem?

Many people don’t know they can give input on standards during the enquiry stage. When people don’t know how or when to provide feedback, participation is low, and standards may not meet everyone’s needs.

Common problems include:

  • People being unaware of when public consultation periods happen.
  • Drafts being published online but without outreach, so few people see them.
  • Less contribution because of missed notifications.

Ways to address the barrier

  • Allow anonymous feedback opportunities
  • Create an opportunity for public feedback before withdrawal
  • Establish continuous feedback loops
  • Measure the developed standard's impact with affected communities
  • Provide more than one way to give feedback

No way to track the real-world impact of a standard

Why is this a problem?

Organizations often do not have tools to know if a standard is being used, understood correctly, or making a difference. Without ways to measure impact, standards may not reach their goals or serve all communities they intend to.

Common problems include:

  • No data on who is using the standard and how.
  • Difficulty improving standards because real-world effects are unknown.
  • No feedback on challenges or barriers in applying the standard.
  • Limited understanding of unintended negative impacts on marginalized groups.

Ways to address the barrier

  • Create an opportunity for public feedback before withdrawal
  • Establish continuous feedback loops
  • Make published standards free and easy to access
  • Measure the developed standard's impact with affected communities