Engineering graphics and technical drawing represent the primary formal communication medium of manufacturing systems, conveying dimensional specifications, tolerances, surface conditions, and geometric intent across the full production chain. Despite their central role in industrial communication, persistent deficiencies in graduate CAD literacy and standards compliance are associated with reported production consequences, yet empirical, multi-stakeholder evidence documenting these associations remains scarce. This study investigates the engineering graphics competency gaps observed in recent engineering graduates and documents their perceived consequences for industrial performance across three national manufacturing contexts. A dual-phase methodology was employed: first, a structured review synthesizing peer-reviewed sources from Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC; and second, a cross-national mixed-methods case study conducted in Türkiye, Austria, and Hungary, engaging 632 participants, 444 students, 100 educators, and 88 manufacturing and design professionals through validated multi-group questionnaires analyzed via descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and thematic content analysis (Cohen’s κ = 0.82). Among the 88 industry respondents surveyed, 79.55% reported having experienced production delays attributable to drawing-related errors, 73.86% reported scrap generation, 78.41% reported rework costs, and 72.73% reported material wastage as perceived consequences of graduates’ technical drawing deficiencies. Graduate proficiency in dimensional tolerancing was rated adequate by only 26.14% of industry respondents, and standards/symbol compliance by merely 14.77%. Spatial visualization, ISO/GD&T literacy, and production-ready documentation were consistently identified as the most critically underdeveloped competencies. These findings establish a multi-stakeholder, cross-national evidence base documenting reported associations between engineering graphics instruction quality and manufacturing performance and provide actionable criteria for standards-aligned curriculum co-design between academia and industry.