Blog Article

Standards Spotlight: Understanding Voluntary vs. Mandatory Standards

In our last Standards Spotlight post, we looked at consensus-based vs. non-consensus-based standards—how standards are developed and the benefits and tradeoffs of broad stakeholder agreement versus faster, more narrowly governed approaches.

This month builds on that foundation by exploring a different (but related) question: how are standards used? A standard may be developed through a consensus process, yet still be voluntary to adopt. Or it may become mandatory—sometimes without the standard itself changing at all—because it gets referenced in a rule, directive, or contract.

What “voluntary” really means (and why organizations still adopt standards)

In many sectors, standards are voluntary by default. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), for example, describes the U.S. system as a voluntary consensus framework, where diverse stakeholders participate in standards development through accredited bodies. Internationally, ISO’s own consumer education materials emphasize that standards are generally voluntary, with mandatory force typically coming from external legal or policy mechanisms.

So why do organizations adopt voluntary standards anyway?

1. Market trust and customer expectations A standard can function like a shared language. It tells customers, partners, and learners, “Here’s what ‘good’ looks like, and here’s how we measure it.” In some industries, voluntary standards become the baseline expectation—especially in B2B relationships—because buyers want consistency and reduced risk.
2. Operational improvement and risk reduction Voluntary standards often codify best practices: repeatable processes, clearer documentation, and more reliable outcomes. That can reduce defects, incidents, and rework—benefits that matter whether or not a regulator is watching.
3. Alignment across a value chain When suppliers, manufacturers, service providers, or education partners align with the same requirements, handoffs get smoother. Voluntary standards can become the “glue” that keeps complex ecosystems functioning.
4. A head start on compliance Sometimes the best time to adopt a standard is before you are required to. Voluntary adoption can build a compliance-ready culture and reduce the need to scramble later if new rules arrive.

This is where the previous post’s theme—consensus vs. non-consensus—shows up again. Many organizations prefer consensus-based standards for external credibility because they reflect balanced input and due process. But in fast-moving fields (technology, cybersecurity, emerging training modalities), non-consensus standards or specifications can provide speed and clarity—then later evolve into broader consensus efforts as adoption grows.

When standards become mandatory (and who makes them so)

Here’s the key distinction: standards themselves don’t usually “decide” to be mandatory—other authorities do. A government agency, regulator, purchaser, or accreditation/program owner may require compliance with a standard as a condition of operating, selling, bidding, or being recognized.

In the U.S., federal policy encourages agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in place of government-unique standards when practical, rooted in the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and implemented through OMB Circular A-119. This is an important nuance: even when the government is involved, the standards referenced may still originate in voluntary, multi-stakeholder processes.

Mandatory force often comes from one of these pathways:

1. Incorporation by reference into laws or regulations A regulation may reference a standard (sometimes a specific edition), making compliance with that standard legally required for the scope of the rule.
2. Contractual requirements A customer contract can make a standard mandatory for that business relationship. For many organizations, contract terms are where “voluntary” becomes “required by Monday.”
3. Procurement and policy requirements Standards can be mandated through internal policy, government procurement rules, or sector programs—even when not explicitly written into law.
4. “Co-regulatory” models where standards remain voluntary, but are the easiest compliance route The European Union offers a clear example: harmonized standards are generally voluntary, but using them can provide a “presumption of conformity” with mandatory legal requirements—meaning they become the practical path of least resistance.

The practical takeaway: “Voluntary vs. mandatory” is often situational

In day-to-day decision-making, the most useful question isn’t “Is this standard voluntary?” but:

• Voluntary to whom? A regulator? A customer? An accreditation program? Your own leadership team?
• Mandatory in what context? Selling in a market, bidding on a contract, issuing credentials, operating a facility
• What proves conformity? Test results, audits, certifications, documented processes

This is also where accreditation and conformity assessment matter for IACET’s community. When training providers and education organizations align with standards—whether voluntarily to strengthen quality or because a program requires it—conformity assessment mechanisms (audits, evaluations, documented evidence) become the bridge between intent and trust.

A simple way to explain it internally

If you need a one-sentence explanation for your team, try this:

Standards are usually voluntary, but they become mandatory when a law, contract, procurement rule, or program requirement says you must follow them—or when the market treats them that way.

In future posts, we’ll continue to connect these dots: how standards move from idea to adoption, how conformity assessment makes “compliance” meaningful, and how organizations can engage in the process rather than just react to it.

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.