By Richard Taffet and Chris Borges
Competition among nations for technological and economic leadership is intense, especially between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The PRC has followed a decades-long, targeted strategy focused on leadership in critical and emerging technologies (CETs), and, according to some, it has already surpassed the United States in several. To maintain technological leadership, the United States should define and implement a strategy featuring investment and advocacy in basic and applied research and development (R&D), advanced manufacturing by U.S. firms, and the development of a technology savvy and well-equipped workforce. A critical component of such an effort must be a clear and consistent strategy for the private sector-led and market-driven development of technical standards.
The PRC understands this well. The PRC has long recognized that technology standards are a strategic priority; Chinese policymakers often stress that third-tier companies make products, second-tier companies design technology, and first-tier companies set standards. The PRC has thus strategically invested substantial state resources to lead in the development of global technical standards in key sectors, including mobile communications, robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and quantum computing.
In response, the White House issued the United States Government National Standards Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technology (USGNSS) in May 2023, followed by an implementation roadmap in July 2024. The strategy, broadly supported by the private and public sectors, correctly recognized that active, strategic engagement is now required to maintain U.S. leadership in global standards development and maintain U.S. technology leadership overall.
Implementation of the USGNSS, however, has stalled, and it is unclear whether it remains on the radar of the current administration. Failure to pursue a national standards strategy would be another head wind limiting the United States’ ability to compete in the technology race. Ultimately, without such a strategy, the United States risks ceding leadership in global standards development to China, weakening its ability to define the technologies of the future and allowing China to challenge the current industry-led, market-driven approach to voluntary consensus-based standardization.
The United States should implement and build upon the objectives of the 2023 USGNSS and aggressively pursue a U.S. national standards strategy that champions industry-led, market-driven, and consensus-based voluntary standards development. This strategy should include strengthening U.S. government advocacy and coordination in support of the national standards strategy; expanding financial and policy tools to support investment in innovative technologies that are contributed to standards; participation in standards development by all stakeholders, including start-ups and small and medium sized entities; and aligning broader policies with the standards strategy, particularly with respect to intellectual property, antitrust, and workforce development.
The Standards Development Ecosystem
Technical standards—sets of widely accepted specifications, guidelines, or protocols within a particular field of technology—are a long-standing domain of economic and geopolitical competition. Ubiquitous products such as websites and televisions depend on standardized technologies to function, while numerous CETs—from energy and mobile communications to AI and quantum computing—are increasingly defined by standards.
Incorporation of a technology into a standard, consequently, confers enormous economic benefits to the technology owner. For instance, if a firm’s technology is embedded in a widely adopted standard such as 5G, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi, that firm can earn significant licensing and sales revenue. It can then reinvest that revenue in R&D and innovation, while also gaining influence over the evolution of critical technological infrastructure.
Technical standards are also powerful instruments of geostrategic advantage. The ability to control, or even just guide, the development of technical standards may grant a country the ability to favor their own domestic industries and may bestow upon them a technical advantage that has significant national security implications. A standard that defines mobile device interoperability, for example, can also dictate requirements for data retention, encryption, and location tracking.
Given the stakes, the integrity of the standards development process is paramount. Currently, the global model for standards development organizations (SDOs)—groups of stakeholders who convene to develop standards—is robust. The most prominent SDOs largely share a set of core principles pioneered by the United States: technical decisions are industry-led and driven by principles of openness, balance, and consensus to produce voluntary, non-binding standards. This approach guards against any single interest forcing its vision or priorities (commercial or otherwise) on others. It also produces more optimal technical solutions, as decisions are driven by market demand and stakeholder input rather than top-down government mandates.
The success of the prevailing global voluntary standards model is evident in its adoption by leading SDOs. These include the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)—a collaboration of regional standards organizations from the United States, Europe, Japan, Korea, China, and India—as well as non-governmental organizations composed of subject matter experts such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). These organizations are instrumental in harmonizing standards across regions, enabling broad market access and competition, expanded manufacturing capabilities, and the development of skilled workforces. Firms are thereby incentivized to contribute their technology to standards, as global adoption allows them to realize a proper return on their R&D investment and re-invest in new technologies. Consumers, meanwhile, benefit from enhanced competition which results in lower prices and higher quality products and services.
China’s Standards Strategy
In contrast to the U.S.-originated, bottom-up approach now common to global standardization, China historically has pursued a top-down approach closely aligned with state technology and industrial policy priorities. Although recent initiatives and policy statements by the PRC have advocated for a greater role for industry, Chinese standardization remains directed by the state and oriented toward national strategic goals.
The PRC has implemented its top-down standards strategy through a number of state-driven initiatives and investments. These initiatives are directed specifically to increase the participation of Chinese firms and influence the work of the leading global standards bodies, including 3GPP, ISO, and ITU. For example, in 2015 the PRC adopted its “Made in China” initiative, which identified ten technology sectors of national priority and directed state-funds for development in those sectors, including standards development. Also in 2015, the PRC announced its Standarization Reform Plan and Five-Year Plan for Standardization. And, in 2018, the PRC officially launched its China Standards 2035 initiative, followed by the release of its implementation plan in 2021.
Common to each of these initiatives are state-directed objectives of, among other things, establishing PRC technology leadership, raising the level of Chinese-owned technology contributed to SDOs, increasing Chinese firms’ participation in global standardization, and strengthening China’s participation in SDO leadership positions. These initiatives are consistent with the PRC’s efforts to internationalize its domestic standards, especially among Belt and Road Initiative partners, to extend its geopolitical and technological reach.
While the impact of these efforts is still emerging, and the United States still leads the PRC in SDO participation, there are nonetheless signs of growing PRC influence. Chinese firms have significantly increased their presence in international SDOs, including by recruiting individuals with SDO experience and promoting them to SDO leadership positions. There are troubling reports that Chinese firms are engaged in practices to manipulate the standards development process, such as through bloc voting and state-subsidized submissions of low-quality proposals, to institutionalize Chinese technology in international standards.
At bottom, the PRC’s strategic intention to promote Chinese norms in global standardization governance with the goal of establishing Chinese technologies as the basis for global standards is clear. These activities pose a structural challenge to the development of industry-led, market driven standards that reflect the best technical solutions available regardless of political bias.
Building on a Strong Foundation: The U.S. Government National Standards Strategy
To maintain its technological leadership, the United States should adopt and execute its own well-defined national standards strategy. The 2023 USGNSS provides a firm basis for such a strategy as it reaffirms the United States’ commitment to a rules-based, consensus-driven, and industry-led model of standards development. It correctly acknowledges that strategic competitors are working to distort international standards processes to favor their domestic technologies and political priorities. And, critically, it focuses not on excluding Chinese participation or otherwise managing the structure and processes of SDOs, but rather supporting U.S. innovation and SDO participation to ensure that new U.S. technologies are globally competitive.
While the specific implementation of a national standards strategy based on the USGNSS could be refined, as established by industry and other comments, strong support exists for the USGNSS’ four objectives:
To meet these objectives, the United States should prioritize three areas that will be essential to effectively compete for durable global technology and economic leadership.
Strengthen U.S. Government Advocacy and Coordination
To remain a leader on the global stage, the U.S. government must speak clearly and consistently in support of the private-sector led, consensus-based, market-driven model of standardization. This includes contrasting the U.S. approach with top-down state-directed systems that elevate political priorities over technical merit. U.S. advocacy, both at home and abroad, should unambiguously demand respect for the rules-based approach to voluntary and consensus-based standards development to ensure that outcomes are not biased by strategic manipulation of processes.
More concretely, the federal government can elevate U.S.-based private sector initiatives in CETs. For example, the Next G Alliance, which develops 6G standards, should be promoted as the primary driver of such standards throughout the world. Other domestic initiatives focused on AI, quantum computing, and semiconductors should also be featured as international standards leaders, such as NIST’s recently released post-quantum encryption standards.
This advocacy must be underpinned by structural coordination. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), representing the public and private sector respectively, have a long history of collaboration that has led to U.S. standards development leadership. In particular, NIST’s role as a central hub for public-private and interagency coordination on standards policy should be reinforced, especially to ensure that government strategies follow market-driven priorities and that disparate agencies speak with one voice domestically and abroad.
Expand Financial and Policy Tools to Support Participation
Standards development is resource intensive. For many U.S. firms—especially startups and small and medium sized enterprises—the costs of participating in international SDOs can be prohibitive. For instance, full participation in 3GPP costs an average of $300,000 annually per engineer.
Direct and indirect federal funding can help bridge this gap by supporting R&D and SDO participation. Direct federal funding for pre-standardization and transitional research, for instance, can help U.S. technology remain competitive in the market-driven standards setting process. Indirect financial incentives, such as tax credits for R&D and participation in standards development, could provide firms with stronger incentives to invest in both innovation and the dissemination of their technologies through formal standardization processes. One simple way to achieve this could be extending the R&D tax credit to cover expenditures related to international standard setting.
Indeed, NIST has already begun some of this work, launching the Standardization Center of Excellence in 2024 to support U.S. firm participation in international SDOs and to accelerate the development of industry-driven standards in CETs. This program could serve as a platform for expanding federal support for U.S. standardization efforts. However, as a first step, Congress should fully appropriate the funds authorized in the CHIPS & Science Act for standards research and grants for participation in international SDOs.
Further, the United States could expand its position as the global hub for standards development by actively courting SDO activities and streamlining visa processes for international experts attending SDO meetings. By hosting more SDO meetings domestically, the United States will reduce the time and cost of participation for U.S. firms and experts, thereby boosting participation.
Align Broader U.S. Policy with Standards Goals
Among the largest threats to a successful U.S. standards strategy is inconsistent government policy. A standards strategy that fails to align with broader U.S. defense and innovation policy is unlikely to succeed. Accordingly, a common policy focus across government agencies and departments should be adopted and, ideally, directed by an office with appropriate authority.
Key policy areas to consider include:
Conclusion
Technology standards shape the rules of global commerce and innovation. They determine which technologies scale, which firms lead, and which values are embedded in the digital infrastructure of the future. The United States cannot afford to be passive in this arena.
The 2023 USGNSS provides a strong starting point. It has galvanized attention and established a shared framework. But more is needed. A fully implemented national standards strategy should combine diplomatic advocacy, interagency coordination, targeted funding, and supportive policy reforms. And, critically, it should not alter the industry-led, market-driven approach to voluntary consensus-based standardization, but instead reinforce it.
Richard Taffet is a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP and has addressed issues involving technical standards development for over 40 years, representing standards development organizations and standards development participants, and has written and spoken widely on such matters. Chris Borges is an associate fellow with the Economics Program and Scholl Chair in International Business at CSIS. The views expressed in this article are those solely of the authors.
This piece was originally published on July 16th with the Renewing American Innovation Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
