对话英国标准协会（BSI）大中华区负责人：变合规为引领，企业应积极参与行业标准制定与应用
专题：跨国企业在中国
文 | 新浪财经 李欣然
在全球经济格局深度调整、科技创新加速迭代的背景下，标准化工作正成为支撑可持续发展、引导产业转型、塑造国际竞争新优势的关键力量。当前，面对绿色转型、数字化浪潮以及中国企业全球化布局等趋势，标准如何既促进创新又防控风险、既推动协同又尊重差异，成为各方关注的焦点。为此，新浪财经与英国标准协会（British Standards Institution，简称BSI）大中华区董事总经理石慕澜（Dr.Tatiana Schmollack-Tarasova）展开深度对话，探讨标准在快速变化时代中的角色演变、实施挑战与未来方向，以期为正在寻求高质量发展与国际化突破的企业提供启发。
以下为访谈原文：
新浪财经：BSI 作为全球标准制定的核心机构之一，近年来持续在绿色转型、数字化等前沿领域推动标准建设。在您看来，标准制定应如何平衡技术快速迭代与标准体系稳定性之间的关系？尤其是在AI和ESG等新兴议题快速发展且尚未完全定型的背景下，标准制定过程应重点关注哪些方面？如何通过标准的设计，既营造有利于创新和可持续发展的市场环境，又避免对企业经营造成不必要的限制？
石慕澜：客观来看，技术发展向来快于标准制定。回顾约150年前，正是欧洲工业化时期的技术突破，最初催生了对标准化的需求。BSI的标准化之旅，始于125年前伦敦的电车轨道。
如今的核心挑战在于技术发展的速度及其对世界和人类影响的广度。从BSI的视角看，我们认为标准并非创新的障碍，而是护栏——它们确保创新能够产生积极而非有害的结果。
以AI为例，BSI倡导围绕安全与伦理使用的基础原则，以确保透明度、问责制、诚信与公平。由于技术日新月异，标准无需固守某一具体技术，而应着眼于指引企业如何达成诸如ISO/IEC 42001《人工智能管理体系》等基线标准中所确立的基础原则核心要求。与所有其他管理体系标准一样，它不会给出组织应使用何种技术来改进成果的答案，但会就如何运用其选择的技术来交付合乎伦理、安全且旨在产生积极影响的成果，提供非常清晰的指引。
根据我个人在标准领域的经验，我清楚地记得大约15年前的一个案例：一家机器人外骨骼制造商希望获得安全认证以进入欧洲市场。当时的挑战在于，标准和地方法规中关于机器人外骨骼安全性的规定非常有限。因此，我当时所在的合格评定机构的安全专家们，决定以艾萨克·阿西莫夫的“机器人三定律”为框架，查找并映射当时所有可用安全标准的相关条款，以满足这三条基本规则。这恰好印证了我刚才提到的观点：标准是实现预期成果的基础性指导原则。
当然，我们必须承认，围绕AI以及可持续发展/ESG的标准框架，在不同地区和国家的发展速度和关注重点可能存在差异。中国、欧盟和美国的方法各有不同，这一点众所周知。因此，标准制定的关键重点应始终围绕利益相关方参与和国际合作。我们应继续搭建桥梁，连接创新者、监管机构、实践者和用户，共同建立实用、包容且面向未来的标准。如今更常见的情况是，组织乃至整个行业都渴望建立自己的标准框架，而不是等待国内或国际标准的出台。在BSI，我们通过提供PAS和FLEX等平台支持此类行动，鼓励行业先行者与其他利益相关方合作，更快地制定标准。
设计标准的通用方法是始终以成果和影响为导向。毕竟，标准即最佳实践。标准的应用范围越广，采用它的利益相关方越多，最终产生的影响就越大。因此，适用性、可采纳性和影响力是关键。
新浪财经：我们了解到，BSI 服务过众多不同规模和行业的企业。企业在标准落地时往往面临认知与资源的双重挑战。基于您所接触的案例，您认为当前企业在践行国际标准或行业规范时，最亟待突破的认知误区或资源瓶颈是什么？ 此外，不同行业在标准实施路径上有何差异？从这些跨行业的实践中，有哪些普遍意义的启示，可帮助更多企业实现从“合规”到“价值创造”的跨越？
石慕澜：人们有时会对标准存在一种误解，认为它是障碍，是用于创建审核清单的工具，而遵守某个标准被视为企业进入全球市场的负担。在BSI 125年的历史中，我们曾为全球成千上万家企业提供服务，这些企业将标准视为战略赋能工具，真正将质量、健康安全、环境控制、信息安全、数据隐私等基本原则融入日常运营，从而实现了全球化发展和商业目标。
将标准整合到运营流程中的最大价值在于持续改进。改进之路永无止境。每年在内部或外部审核中，总会发现一些可以改进的机会。关键不在于陷入形式主义的“打勾清单”式做法，而应关注如何能带来更好的结果。
ESG双重重要性评估就是一个很好的例子。制定上百个ESG指标仅仅为了获得更高的ESG评级，可能收效甚微甚至毫无作用。更有效的方式是通过双重重要性评估，识别出对企业的长期价值最为关键的ESG议题（即财务重要性），以及企业对环境和社会最重大的影响（即影响重要性）。这个过程并不简单，但它能真正推动企业从被动应对上百个指标，转向主动管理15-20个真正产生影响力的核心议题。
我们在与企业接触中发现，最显著的差异体现在组织文化和领导力上。这首先取决于领导者如何看待标准采纳和国际认证。如果企业高管仅将标准和国际认证视为合规要求，整个组织就会将其当作“打勾清单”任务。我们看到有些企业的领导层积极将标准融入业务框架——无论是基于ISO 9001的质量管理体系，还是基于ISO 37001的反贿赂管理体系。但我们也遇到过一些企业领导层将其视为不得不应付的合规负担。这种认知差异显著影响着企业对最佳实践的吸收方式与标准要求的落实深度。
从这个角度来看，BSI对中国国家认证认可监督管理委员会（CNCA）近期实施的新规表示欢迎。根据CNCA新规，组织的最高管理者不仅必须亲自参加认证审核的首、末次会议，还需深刻理解组织通过审核认证旨在实现哪些改进。这一要求具有积极意义。
新浪财经：随着中国企业加速全球化布局，海外市场的合规压力日益凸显。在您接触的中国企业中，最常见的海外合规误区是什么？您对中国出海企业的国际履约有哪些建议？您觉得企业在出海过程中应如何系统性管理跨国标准差异？
石慕澜：首先，我由衷钦佩中国企业的创业精神与开拓海外的勇气。看到中国品牌凭借卓越品质、高性价比和竞争优势在海外市场获得认可，确实令人赞叹。从本质上说，中国企业当前的国际化路径，与西方企业昔日全球扩张时期的历程颇有相似之处。BSI作为标准与认证机构，曾见证并支持国际品牌及中国供应链伙伴从这里走向全球，因此如今观察到中国企业出海过程中的某些相似轨迹，显得尤为有趣。我们知道，以史为鉴方能避免重蹈覆辙。
关于最常见的认知误区，或许有三点较为突出。其一，部分企业可能将遵守国际标准和认证视为一次性项目——获得ISO 37001或ISO 37301证书似乎就满足了基本要求。我刚刚提到，这种认知在其他管理体系中也常见存在，而我们坚信持续改进才是价值所在。
事实上，建立有效的合规管理体系或任何其他管理体系（如质量、环境、信息安全等），是经过时间验证的、可助力业务规模化发展的工具。正是通过这样的体系，业务流程才得以标准化并具备可扩展性。
其二，部分中国企业倾向于将国内思维直接套用于海外市场，低估了文化、法律、宗教或认知层面的差异。去年我曾受邀参加一家中国跨国企业举办的研讨会，其全球子公司健康安全环保部门的代表均在场。我结合我们在审核中的经验，探讨了不同市场对健康安全规则的理解差异——在越南被认为安全的操作，在德国可能完全不被允许。安全指示的制定方式、传达形式及执行标准皆会有所不同：有些国家员工更易接受图示说明，有些则需要配有流程图的详细文字指引；有些地方通过邮件发送指南即可，有些则需每日重复强调基本规范。这听起来显而易见，但在日常执行中我们仍观察到许多实际困难。研讨会上多位参与者坦言，在日常运营中他们偶尔也会忽略这些细节。
最后但同样重要的是，一些中国企业在拓展海外市场的初期，存在过度依赖外部机构的倾向——将业务流程构建、团队组建及管理体系搭建等基础工作全盘外包，却未能同步投入资源培育自主运营能力，也未能通过系统性培养本土人才来实现企业核心基因的跨文化传承。从业务连续性与知识传承的角度看，必须在企业内部积累知识，并在所有市场从零开始建设核心能力。标准与管理体系正是这一过程中的重要助力。
新浪财经：展望未来五年，您认为在AI治理、循环经济、生物多样性保护、低空经济等新兴领域中，哪些最有可能催生具有行业重塑意义的突破性标准？面对这些潜在的标准化趋势，您对企业尤其是中国企业，在战略规划与能力部署方面有哪些具体建议，以更好地把握先机，提前做好合规准备？
石慕澜：从BSI的角度，我们希望所有新兴领域的利益相关方能继续保持开放交流与合作，从而共同建立起公众对技术突破的信任，创造一个公平、可持续的未来。
AI治理仍将是热点议题，相关讨论将超越通用的AI管理体系标准，更聚焦于偏见检测、算法审计等具体领域的技术对齐，并有望建立全球认可的AI认证框架，以支持技术安全、可靠地跨境流动。中国必将成为这些讨论的重要贡献者，我们也期待与中国相关方深化合作。
在低空经济领域，中国凭借其技术实力与市场规模，完全有能力成为该领域的标准制定者。从无人机配送、农业应用到城市空中交通试点的当前发展速度来看，这些技术将快速规模化，因而迫切需要适用于国内外的相关标准。这项工作并不简单，需要在空域管理、通信协议与互操作性、网络安全乃至基础安全等方面与国际标准和规范进行对接。
至于脱碳、循环经济、生物多样性标准等领域，则蕴含着全球协作与加速规模化的巨大潜力。这些议题具有超越地缘政治的中立性，是所有国家的共同目标。BSI中国团队观察到中国相关方对此表现出强烈的参与意愿，我们对此表示支持。
对于这些新兴领域的企业——尤其是那些在供应链中具有广泛影响力的领军企业，我的建议是：不必等待全球标准的成型。应当主动成为标准制定者，并尽早与各方利益相关方开展协作。标准可以自下而上生长，先作为企业内部或行业的最佳实践，在企业生态系统内逐步推广。
简而言之，此刻正是这些新兴企业塑造未来市场规则的绝佳时机。
以下为英文原文：
Q: As one of the key global organizations in standard development, BSI has been actively promoting standards in frontier areas such as green transition and digitalization in recent years. In your view, how should standard development balance the rapid pace of technological innovation with the stability of standard systems？ Particularly in emerging fields like AI and ESG, where frameworks are still evolving, what should be the key focuses during the standard development process? How can standards be designed to foster an innovative and sustainable market environment while avoiding unnecessary constraints on business operations？
A: To be fair, technology has always been faster than standards. If we look back 150 years or so, it was technological breakthrough during industrialization in Europe that initially created a need for standardization. At BSI our journey in standardization started with tram tracks in London 125 years ago．
The central challenge now is the speed of technology and the magnitude of the impact it brings to the world and humanity. From BSI perspective we believe that Standards are not obstacles to innovation, they are guardrails that enable innovation to bring outcomes that are going to do good rather than harm．
If we take AI as an example, BSI advocates foundational principles around safety and ethical use to ensure transparency, accountability, integrity and fairness. Instead of locking into specific technology, which is evolving as we speak, standards can guide businesses on how to meet core requirements of the foundational principles set in the baseline standard such as ISO/IEC 42001 - AI Management Systems. Like every other Management System standard, it will not give answers which technology an organization should use to improve the outcomes, but it will give very clear guidance on how to use the technology of their choice to deliver outcomes that are ethical, safe and aiming at positive impact．
From my personal experience in the world of standards, I vividly remember a case around 15 years ago when a manufacturer of a robotic exoskeleton was aiming to achieve safety certifications for their product to enter the European market. The challenge back then was that there was not much written in standards and local regulations about safety of robotic exoskeletons. So back then the safety experts of the conformity assessment organization I worked at that time, decided to take the Three Laws of Robotics from Isaac Azimov as a frame and look up and map all relevant clauses of all kinds of safety standards available back then to fulfil those three basic rules. This illustrates the point I just mentioned regarding standards as foundational guiderails for the desired outcomes．
Of course, we must acknowledge that the standard frameworks around AI and also Sustainability/ESG may develop at different paces and with different levels of focus in different regions and countries. China, EU and US have slightly different approaches as we know. Therefore, the key focus during standards development should remain around stakeholder engagement and international collaboration. We should continue building bridges and connecting innovators, regulators， practitioners and users together to establish standards that are practical, inclusive and future-ready. What we see now more often is that organizations and sometimes whole industries are eager to develop their own standard framework rather than waiting until domestic or international standard is created. At BSI we support such movements by providing platforms such as PAS and FLEX that encourage industry-first movers to cooperate with other stakeholders to build standards faster．
The universal approach in designing standards is having outcomes and impact in mind．After all, standard is best practice．The wider the scope of application and the more stakeholders will adopt the standard, the bigger the impact is at the end．So, applicability, adoptability and impact are key．
Q: We understand that BSI has served a wide range of enterprises across different scales and industries. Enterprises often face challenges related to both understanding and resources when implementing standards. Based on the diverse cases you have encountered, what are the most critical misconceptions or resource bottlenecks that enterprises need to overcome when adopting international standards or industry norms? Additionally, how do implementation paths differ across industries? What universal insights have you gained from these cross-industry practices that could help more enterprises transition from "compliance" to "value creation"？
A: There is sometimes a misconception that standards are roadblocks， something that is used to create audit check lists, and compliance to a certain standard is seen as a burden for the business to enter global markets. In our 125-year history, BSI has served thousands of businesses worldwide who used standards as their strategic enablers, who genuinely integrated quality, health and safety， environmental controls, information security, data privacy and other foundational principles into their daily operations in order to achieve global scale and business targets．
The biggest value of integrating standards into operational processes is continuous improvement. There is no end to the improvement journey. Every year during internal or external audits there will be some findings for improvement opportunities. The key here is not to fall into a formalistic check-the-box-approach but rather look for what can bring better outcomes．
ESG double materiality assessment is a good example. There might be little to no impact from formulating a hundred of ESG targets just to achieve a better ESG rating． It proves more valuable to conduct a Double Materiality Assessment and identify the ESG issues that are most significant to your business's long-term value (financial materiality) and your most significant impact on society and the environment (impact materiality). This is not an easy process, but it truly moves organizations from reacting to 100 indicators to proactively managing 15-20 core issues that actually create impact．
The most noticeable difference between organizations that we encounter is in the organizational culture and leadership. It starts with how the leadership sees standards adoption and international certifications. If the top leader sees standards and international certifications just as a compliance requirement, then the whole organization will just perceive it as a check list exercise. We see organizations where top leadership is engaged into integrating standards into the canvas of the business – be it basic quality management system based on ISO 9001 or anti-bribery management system based on ISO 37001. We also sometimes see organizations where leadership looks at these rather as a necessary pain to go through just to tick the compliance box. It makes a huge difference in terms of how all levels of the business will adopt best practices and live up to the standard．
From this perspective, BSI is welcoming the new CNCA regulation supervising certification industry in China that came in force recently. According to the new CNCA rules it is mandatory that senior leadership is not only attending opening and closing meetings during certification audits personally but also demonstrates deep understanding on what improvements the organization is aiming to achieve through auditing and certification．
Q: As Chinese enterprises accelerate their global expansion, compliance pressures in overseas markets are becoming increasingly prominent. Among the Chinese enterprises you have engaged with, what are the most common misconceptions regarding overseas compliance？ What recommendations do you have for Chinese enterprises in fulfilling international compliance obligations？ How should enterprises systematically manage differences in multinational standards during their global expansion？
A: First of all, I sincerely admire Chinese enterprises for their entrepreneurial mindset and courage to set on the journey overseas. It is truly amazing to see Chinese brands gaining recognition in overseas markets for their superior quality， affordability and competitive edge. Essentially, what Chinese businesses are doing now is somewhat that Western businesses have done during their times of global expansion. BSI as Standards and Assurance organization has experienced that past journey first-hand by supporting global brands and Chinese supply chain partners to export globally from here. Therefore, it is quite interesting to see some similar patterns now during Chinese businesses going and settling overseas. We know that learning from the past helps to avoid making the same mistakes．
Regarding most common misconceptions, probably three are quite prominent． Sometimes, organizations may see adherence to international standards and certifications against compliance requirements as a one-off project. You get an ISO 37001 or ISO 37301 certificate and that's enough to fulfil the basic requirement． I already mentioned that this is sometimes a common misconception towards other management systems, whereas we believe that the value is in continuous improvement．
In fact, establishing an effective compliance management system or any other managements system such as quality, environmental management, information security and so on, it is one time-proven tool to scale your business. That's how processes get standardized and scalable．
Another prominent pattern is that some Chinese organizations tend to apply domestic Chinese mindset overseas, underestimating cultural, legal, religious or perceptional nuances. Last year I was invited to a workshop ran by a China-based MNC where representatives of HSE function from the global subsidiaries were present. I talked about how health and safety rules are perceived differently in some markets based on the experiences we gained through our audits. What people may consider safe in Vietnam might be a "no go" in Germany etc. The way safety instructions are drawn up and communicated and the way they are adopted will also differ． In some countries people will follow pictures, in some countries they need a very detailed text with the process charts. In some places it is enough to send an email with instructions, in other places basic rules must be repeated every day． This may sound obvious, but when it comes to daily execution, we see a lot of struggles. During that workshop many participants admitted that during their day-to-day operations they overlook these simple things sometimes．
Last but not least, one common feature we see, especially at the very beginning of the expansion journey is somewhat overreliance on external consultants. Some Chinese businesses may delegate the initial journey of building business processes， staffing and management system foundation to externals rather than focusing on building own competences overseas also transporting company DNA throughout the process of growing and empowering local talent. From the business continuity and knowledge transfer perspective it is essential to grow knowledge in-house and build competencies in all markets from the ground. Standards and management systems help in this process too．
Q: Looking ahead to the next five years， which emerging areas—such as AI governance, circular economy, biodiversity conservation, or low-altitude economy—are most likely to give rise to groundbreaking standards with industry-transforming potential？ In light of these potential standardization trends, what specific strategic planning and capability deployment suggestions do you have for enterprises, particularly Chinese companies, to seize opportunities and prepare for compliance in advance？
A: From BSI perspective we hope that stakeholders in all these emerging areas will continue open exchange and collaboration so we can collectively achieve public trust in technological breakthroughs, fair and sustainable future for all．
AI governance will remain a hot topic and discussions will continue beyond generic AI management system standards focusing on more specific alignment regarding bias detection， auditing algorithms and hopefully setting up globally recognized AI certification framework that can support technology moving across borders in a safe and secure manner． China will certainly be one of the leading contributors in these discussions and we hope to cooperate more with the Chinese stakeholders．
Regarding low-altitude economy, China has the ability and scale to become a truly standard-setter in this domain. Looking at the current pace of development in drone delivery, agriculture applications and pilots in urban air mobility we can foresee these to scale fast and hence demanding standards for use within and outside of China. This is not trivial and will require alignment to international standards and protocols in airspace management, communication and interoperability, cybersecurity not to mention basic safety．
As for decarbonization, circular economy, biodiversity standards – these areas present enormous potential to join forces on global level and scale faster. These topics are neutral to any geopolitical tensions, and this is where all nations share a common goal. At BSI China we observe huge desire from the Chinese stakeholders to engage and we support it．
For the businesses in these emerging areas, especially leading ones with broader impact along supply chain, my recommendation is not to wait until global standards are set. Become standard setter yourselves and engage with stakeholders early. Standards can grow bottom-up, first as internal or industry best practice which can be adopted within enterprise ecosystem．
Simply put, it is a perfect moment for these emerging businesses to shape standards that will shape their markets in the future．
新浪财经ESG评级中心简介
新浪财经ESG评级中心是业内首个中文ESG专业资讯和评级聚合平台，致力于宣传和推广可持续发展，责任投资，与ESG（环境、社会和公司治理）价值理念，传播ESG的企业实践行动和榜样力量，推动中国ESG事业的发展，促进中国ESG评估标准的建立和企业评级的提升。
依托ESG评级中心，新浪财经发布多只ESG创新指数，为关注企业ESG表现的投资者提供更多选择。同时，新浪财经成立中国ESG领导者组织论坛，携手中国ESG领导企业和合作伙伴，通过环境、社会和公司治理理念，推动建立适合中国时代特征的ESG评价标准体系，促进中国资产管理行业ESG投资发展。
文章来源于网络，若侵犯了您的合法权益，请来信通知我们，我们会及时删除，给您带来的不便，我们深表歉意。 |
特别提示：
本站不为所提供数据的错误、残缺、延迟或因依靠此信息所采取的任何行为负责。本股票网提供的所有内容仅供参考，不构成投资建议，投资者据此操作，风险自担。若侵犯了您的合法权益，请来信通知我们，我们会及时删除，给您带来的不便，我们深表歉意。
