An IDRC Project An Inclusive Design Research Centre Project

Long-term Actions

  • If a standard is outdated but still useful, let affected communities suggest updates or improvements instead of withdrawing it completely.
  • Provide clear instructions on how to request revisions for standards and what kind of changes can be made.
  • Use multiple accessible channels for submitting revision requests, such as online forms, email, phone, or mail.
  • Share outcomes of revision requests publicly to show how input influenced the standard.
  • Track and report revisions to show continuous improvement and maintain trust with communities.

Examples

  • Sweden – Swedish Institute for Standards (SIS) SIS includes public comment periods in the review of aging standards. This allows communities, including those historically excluded, to weigh in on whether a standard should be updated, maintained, or retired based on its ongoing social utility.
  • UK – British Standards Institution (BSI) BSI includes a public consultation step before withdrawing key standards. They notify affected communities, including disability organizations, and publish justifications for proposed withdrawals. This allows for feedback on potential social or accessibility impacts before a final decision is made.
  • South Africa – South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) SABS involves civil society groups through stakeholder forums where standard withdrawal proposals are discussed. These forums ensure that people impacted by the standards, including D/deaf and D/disabled communities, can voice concerns or highlight continued relevance before withdrawal.
  • Netherlands – Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut (NEN) NEN uses online platforms to post withdrawal notices and collect public comments. If significant objections are raised, especially from equity-denied groups, the process is paused and reviewed further, ensuring greater accountability.
  • Germany – German Institute for Standardization (DIN) DIN labels withdrawal announcements as “proposals” and opens them for a 60-day public consultation. The format includes reasons for withdrawal and invites input from user communities, including those with accessibility concerns.
  • India – Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) BIS has started using online portals where draft withdrawal notices are posted for public viewing. Users can submit objections or suggest revisions, and BIS outlines how such feedback may influence the final decision.
  • Norway – Standards Norway Norway uses plain language in withdrawal notices and publicly commits to reviewing input before finalizing the decision. They also send notices to relevant community groups to ensure those most impacted have a chance to respond.

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