The International Automotive Federation (IAF) has published an expanded portfolio of automotive standards and technical frameworks covering vehicle safety, sustainability, digital integrity, connected mobility, quality management, vehicle evaluation, parts integrity, resource efficiency, process compliance, charging infrastructure and occupant wellbeing.
The portfolio creates a shared, evidence-oriented foundation for organisations working across an increasingly connected mobility ecosystem. IAF is inviting manufacturers, suppliers, laboratories, regulators, researchers, technology providers, infrastructure operators and other qualified stakeholders to review the documents and submit structured technical comments.
Review the portfolio. Test the assumptions. Help strengthen the evidence.
Comments may be sent to standards@iaf.com using the technical comment guide below.
Covering vehicles, components, organisations, digital systems and infrastructure.
Designed to link scope, requirements, controls, evidence and accountable decisions.
Technical input is requested at clause, table, method or annex level wherever possible.
A connected standards architecture for modern mobility
Automotive performance can no longer be assessed through isolated disciplines alone. A safety decision may depend on software behaviour, cybersecurity controls, charging conditions, human factors, supplier evidence and lifecycle governance. In the same way, a sustainability claim is only useful when its scope, boundaries, data quality, calculation method and decision owner are clear.
The IAF portfolio is therefore being developed as a connected architecture rather than a collection of unrelated checklists. Across the documents, recurring principles include a declared scope, proportionate controls, traceable evidence, transparent assumptions, recorded limitations and decisions that can be reconstructed by an independent reviewer.
Identify the vehicle, component, site, organisation, digital service or infrastructure within scope—and what remains outside it.
Connect activities, risks and responsibilities to the clauses, methods and evidence that genuinely apply.
Maintain controlled records, data provenance, test conditions, decision criteria and known limitations.
Document who decided, what evidence was considered, what changed and when reassessment is required.
The published portfolio
Each portfolio page provides a concise public overview and direct access to its full technical document. The edition labels below reflect the current publication pages and may change as controlled review, consultation and validation progress.
| Framework | Primary technical focus | Current label | Access |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAF AUTOSAFEWhole-vehicle safety | Human factors, crash avoidance, occupant protection, energy hazards, software integrity and rescue. | First Edition | OverviewPDF |
| IAF SEAutomotive sustainability | Lifecycle carbon, circularity, environmental performance, human rights, governance and resilience. | Working Draft 0.3 | OverviewPDF |
| IAF DSIDigital systems integrity | Cyber resilience, secure development, software and update integrity, privacy and recovery. | First Edition | OverviewPDF |
| IAF SMXSmart mobility | City readiness, V2X, journey experience, charging interaction, accessibility and automation. | First Edition | OverviewPDF |
| IAF AQMSQuality management | Auditable governance linking organisational scope, operational controls, evidence and decisions. | Working Draft | OverviewPDF |
| IAF VEAVehicle evaluation and assurance | Identity, physical condition, mechanical systems, software, energy systems and inspection limits. | Working Draft 0.2 | OverviewPDF |
| IAF PARTSAutomotive parts integrity | Product quality, source approval, authenticity, fitment and traceability across distribution channels. | Working Draft 0.1 | OverviewPDF |
| IAF ARESResource and efficiency | Measured energy, material and water performance linked to useful output and reviewable evidence. | Working Draft 0.1 | OverviewPDF |
| IAF APCSProcess and compliance | Lifecycle process architecture connecting obligations, risks, controls, evidence and release decisions. | Working Draft 0.1 | OverviewPDF |
| IAF ECIASEV charging infrastructure | Electrical protection, interoperability, charging sessions, cybersecurity, accessibility and grid integration. | Technical Text 0.2 | OverviewPDF |
| IAF AHESHealth and ergonomics | Inclusive user coverage, physical and cognitive ergonomics, cabin exposure, comfort and health functions. | Working Draft 0.2 | OverviewPDF |
| IAF CVESConnected vehicle ecosystem | Connectivity, message meaning, timing, trust, interoperability and resilience across connected services. | Technical Text 0.2 | OverviewPDF |
What the current publication status means
Publication supports transparency and informed technical review. It does not mean that every document has completed the same maturity stage. “First Edition”, “Working Draft” and “Technical Text” labels should be read together with the status statement and limitations contained in the relevant document.
The document has an identifiable edition and public technical text that stakeholders can examine and reference.
Clauses, indicators, evidence expectations and assessment methods may evolve through review and validation.
Any implementation must respect the document’s scope, normative status, transition rules and stated limitations.
These publications do not replace applicable law, type approval, homologation, regulatory testing or competent-authority decisions. Publication alone does not create a certificate, rating, label authorisation or market-access decision. Where an assessment or recognition programme is introduced, its governance, competence requirements, methods and transition arrangements must be separately defined.
Technical comment guide
High-quality comments are specific, reproducible and connected to a proposed resolution. General expressions of support are welcome, but clause-level submissions with evidence are more useful to technical reviewers. Contributors are asked to submit each issue as a separate numbered comment and include the following information.
Subject: Technical Comment – [Standard Code] – [Clause]
Contributor: Name, role, organisation and country/region
Reference: Edition, clause/table/annex and page
Comment: Issue, rationale and practical impact
Proposed resolution: Exact text, method or evidence requirement
Evidence: Source links or attached non-confidential material
Contributors should avoid sending confidential, personal or export-controlled information unless an appropriate submission route has been agreed in advance. Receipt of a comment does not guarantee adoption, endorsement, committee appointment or a specific response date.
How technical input supports controlled revision
The comment is logged against the relevant publication and reference.
Scope, completeness, duplication and supporting evidence are reviewed.
The issue may be routed to the relevant committee, working group or document owner.
The proposal may be accepted, revised, deferred, rejected or retained for validation.
Who should take part
Effective standards require more than one institutional viewpoint. IAF particularly welcomes technically grounded input from vehicle manufacturers, component and software suppliers, charging operators, testing and inspection bodies, certification and accreditation specialists, regulators, universities, research institutes, consumer and accessibility organisations, emergency-response professionals, fleet operators and independent subject-matter experts.
Participation is most valuable when contributors can connect requirements to real operating conditions: test repeatability, data quality, supplier interfaces, cybersecurity dependencies, regional infrastructure, human use, lifecycle impacts and the practical limits of verification.
Help shape safer, more sustainable and more trustworthy mobility
Organisations and professionals seeking sustained participation can explore IAF membership and committee pathways. Membership does not determine the outcome of a technical comment; technical proposals are considered on their relevance, evidence and fit with the applicable governance process.
The portfolio will develop through transparent publication, disciplined technical review and evidence from real-world application. IAF encourages stakeholders to read the full documents, identify where requirements can be made clearer or more robust, and contribute practical knowledge to the next controlled stage of development.
State the standard code, title, edition or draft label and publication date shown on the document.
Reference the clause, subclause, table, figure, formula, indicator or annex. Use one comment per technical issue.
Mark it as technical, editorial, evidence-related, implementation-related or a conflict with another recognised requirement.
Describe the ambiguity, safety concern, unintended consequence, verification problem, regional constraint or implementation burden.
Provide a concrete revision, calculation, threshold, evidence rule or alternative text—not only a description of the problem.
Cite test data, peer-reviewed research, field experience, recognised standards or regulatory sources, and disclose relevant interests.