Battle of the standards: Risk, Security, Safety, Quality, and more on the way.

The world war for standards, victory and universal dominance is growing. 

Europe, the USA, the UK, the UN, Canada and Australia are vital contributors, combatants and power bases. 

Imperialistic or colonial undertones therefore emerge. 

Not only are countries waging war over standards but a growing number of institutions, organisations and representative bodies. 

Multinational companies are now also surfing the wave and paying for standards, brand association and representative contributors. 

To the winner goes the spoils. 

Victory translates to regulatory capture, endless revenue, a tribe of devotees, countless offshoots and a global market of auditing and compliance practitioners and providers. 

Standards are a parallel ideology for many professions. 

Each one claims dominance, superior results, more significant followers and more competent technical or professional contributors. 

Power, politics, discipline and control radiate throughout all the standards and promotions. 

Just like any other core ideology or world view, individuals are fiercely defensive or extremely vocal on which standard they endorse, embrace or insist upon. 

If you thought religion, climate change or politics were polarising and invoke strong human responses, try discussing standards, alternatives or shortfalls with devotees and you are likely to encounter the same level of passion, aggression or adversarial arguments. 

A great example of cognitive dissonance.

Even worse if a regulatory group or company has committed to one of the many standards. 

That’s right. 

The best thing about standards is that there are so many to chose from!

Standards are not a substitute for technical, academic and qualitative professions. 

You don’t walk into your doctor’s office and insist on them practising medicine in accordance with your preferred ‘standard’.

Most professions not only meet but far exceed standards. 

It is the entry-level and single-loop learning levels that are the most staunch advocates of standards, templates and formulaic systems. 

Professionals use models, theories and frameworks which present as or are confused as ’standards’ to observers or outsiders. 

Standards are the end result of many influences, people, cultures, languages, agendas and technical competencies. 

Standards often lack universal, clear or translatable definitions. 

Standards that aren’t considered ‘auditable’ top this list. 

Standards are a consensus of all these factors. 

Standards are not accepted as definitive or absolutes by the courts either. 

A growing body of academic research is emerging exploring, highlighting and even discrediting many of these ‘standards’.

Standards are increasingly commercial outcomes. 

Inputs, inclusions, exclusions and promotion is dependent upon only those in power or representative of related or parallel agendas. 

If you get a standard endorsed or accepted by a regulator, government body or corporation, then everyone has first to purchase the standard. 

The fact you have to pay for the standard should be the first red flag that standards are not objective or independent. 

Think pharmaceutical patents and begin to understand the commercial nature and objectives of standards. 

Licensing, agents, marketing, distribution and certification become secondary revenue streams. 

An entire industry of ‘auditors’ then emerges.

Standards become currency.

Auditors and devotees then make money on extracting membership and continued access from companies. 

Companies operating globally then become besieged or obliged to adopt, embrace or comply with multiple standards. 

Regulatory capture then becomes a mode of economic inhibitor for those who can’t afford or sustain all these apparent, mandatory costs. 

Which ’standards tribe’ do you belong to?

If the hallmark of an educated mind is the ability to listen to any viewpoint without wholesale acceptance or rejection of the information prior to exploring the topic, perhaps this needs to be noted on standards. 

If the purpose of the scientific argument is to progress the topic, not victory; then perhaps that phrase needs to be included in auditor and compliance training. 

The battle lines have already been drawn up in the standards war. 

New recruits and munitions are arriving daily. 

More standards are under development and revenue or auditing budget forecasts are also being devised. 

Combatants often proudly display their ‘colours’ or affiliation via code words and numerical designators for each standard. 

Where do you stand? 

Are you a combatant, collateral or neutral observer? 

Tony Ridley

Enterprise Security Risk Management and Security Science