International Organization for Standardization

Underappreciated Fact

ISO's 25,000+ standards cost money to access, creating a 'paywall on public goods' paradox—standards increasingly mandated by governments become de facto law, yet citizens cannot freely read them. The OOXML scandal (2008) exposed how Microsoft allegedly orchestrated 20+ countries joining ISO solely to approve Office XML, with Sweden and Norway documenting vote-buying concerns. National standards bodies pay membership fees based on GDP/trade, but votes are equal—Liechtenstein theoretically equals China. ISO earns ~$200M annually, with 70%+ from standard sales that undercut accessibility. The organization has no enforcement—any company can claim 'ISO compliance' without third-party verification unless certification is mandated by regulation.

Power Dynamics

Formal Power

Develops voluntary international standards through 172 national members. One member per country. Technical work done in 332 technical committees with 850+ subcommittees

Actual Power

ISO standards are 'voluntary' but become de facto mandatory when governments reference them in regulations, procurement, or trade agreements. The WTO TBT Agreement pressures members to adopt international standards. However, developed countries dominate technical committees—90% of ISO secretariats held by Europe/North America. Developing countries lack resources to participate meaningfully. Industry players with resources to send delegates shape standards favoring their technology (Microsoft OOXML, DRM standards)

Veto Points

National standards bodies vote on Draft International Standards
2/3 approval + <25% negative votes required
Large countries dominate technical committee participation
Paywall limits developing country access to draft standards
Industry coalitions can flood voting process (OOXML precedent)

Key Relationships

ANSI (US member, major funding)
BSI (UK, oldest standards body)
DIN (Germany, technical leadership)
AFNOR (France)
JISC (Japan)
SAC (China, growing influence)
IEC (electrotechnical partnership)
ITU (telecommunications coordination)

Revenue Structure

International Organization for Standardization Revenue Sources

Standard sales and licensing 70% →
Member subscriptions 20% →
Certification and training 10% ↑

25,000+ standards sold through national bodies and ISO directly

172 national bodies pay GDP-based fees

ISO 9001/14001 training materials and programs

Key Vulnerability

Business model depends on standards remaining copyrighted and paywalled. Open-source standard movements (Creative Commons, W3C free standards) threaten revenue. If governments required free access to referenced standards, revenue collapses. EU accessibility directives creating pressure. Some national bodies (BSI) earn more from ISO standard sales than ISO itself—misaligned incentives

Comparison

IETF: free standards, volunteer-run. W3C: free web standards. IEEE: mixed model. ISO's paywall increasingly anachronistic as competitors offer free alternatives

Decision Dynamics at International Organization for Standardization

Typical Decision Cycle 3-5 years from proposal to publication. Six-stage process: Proposal, Preparatory, Committee, Enquiry, Approval, Publication

Fast Slow

Fastest

COVID-related standards (PPE, hand sanitizers): fast-tracked in months during pandemic using Publicly Available Specification (PAS) process

Slowest

ISO 26000 (Social Responsibility): 10+ years, unprecedented 450+ experts from 99 countries, explicitly non-certifiable because consensus impossible on enforcement

Key Bottleneck

Technical committee consensus among competing industry interests. Large standards (ISO 9001) require managing 1M+ certified organizations' expectations. Ballot reconciliation can take years when major markets object

Failure Modes of International Organization for Standardization

Historical

OOXML controversy (2008): Microsoft allegedly manipulated voting process, 20+ countries joined solely to approve, Sweden/Norway documented irregularities. Damaged ISO credibility on IT standards
Developing country exclusion: <5% of technical committee secretariats held by developing countries despite 50%+ of membership
Standard capture: industry players use ISO processes to lock in proprietary technology as 'international standard'

Structural Weaknesses

Paywall vs public good: government-mandated standards inaccessible to citizens
Resource asymmetry: developed country delegates dominate committees
Industry capture: companies with most resources shape technical outcomes
No enforcement: 'ISO compliant' claims unverifiable without mandated certification
Slow process: 3-5 year cycles obsolete for fast-moving technology

Crisis Scenario

If open-source standards movement accelerates and governments mandate free access to referenced standards, ISO's paywall business model collapses. If China's SAC continues expanding influence and technical committee participation while Western engagement declines, standards may shift toward Chinese technology preferences

Biological Parallel

Behaves Like Coral reef ecosystem where competing species must cooperate to build shared calcium carbonate structure—each organism contributes according to its resources while the reef itself becomes essential infrastructure others depend on

Like coral reefs, ISO aggregates contributions from 172 national bodies (species) into shared standards infrastructure (reef structure). Larger, resource-rich participants (developed countries, major corporations) contribute more material and occupy prime positions. The resulting structure becomes essential habitat—businesses, governments, and trade all depend on ISO standards like marine life depends on reef. But the coral metaphor also captures vulnerability: bleaching (industry capture), invasive species (proprietary technology imposed as standard), and acidification (open-source competition eroding foundation). The 3-5 year standard development mirrors coral's slow growth.

Key Mechanisms:

path dependencenetwork effectshorizontal gene transfercostly signaling