This text is translated with the assistance of UiO GPT.
?
– It may look as if international cooperation is coming apart. At the same time, we have thousands of almost invisible technical standards that set the rules for how we interact, says Solveig Bj?rkholt.
She recently defended her thesis The Politics of International Standardization for her doctorate at the Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.
Bj?rkholt points out that we are seeing a fragmentation of international cooperation: Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization, while raising tariffs and signalling a possible trade war.
Focusing on the technical
According to Bj?rkholt, international standards can serve as an alternative platform for cooperation because the focus is on technical solutions rather than political negotiations.
Bj?rkholt has studied the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which develops international standards for everything from the appearance of tools, programming languages and medical equipment, to the dimensions of containers that revolutionised world trade, and to standards for corporate responsibility and environmental management.
One key finding in the thesis is that standards that often appear technical and neutral can in fact have political consequences. Standardisation can help shape the distribution of resources and benefits in society, even if that influence is not always obvious.
– Many of these standards have, in practice, political implications, but because they operate in a somewhat different arena than, for example, UN negotiations, they often fly under the radar, says Bj?rkholt.
She explains that the main actors are often experts from different countries – usually industry specialists – who work in large and small companies. The experts come together to find common solutions to technical challenges, which they formalise as international standards.
An international push with a standard for container ships
Bj?rkholt points to the use of containers on the world’s oceans as one example of this kind of standardisation.
– Standardising containers was a huge boost for world trade. The dimensions had to be coordinated worldwide, and every port had to agree on how ships should be configured, how containers should fit ships, and all the surrounding infrastructure, says Bj?rkholt.
She describes an enormous collaborative project that revolutionised world trade, and which would probably not have happened without the creation of international standards.
Bj?rkholt notes that standardisation work often takes an objective, technical approach.
– Rather than bringing together politicians to discuss high-level principles, you bring in experts who are close to the field to discuss what it takes to reach a common standard, for example in technologies for emissions reduction, she says.
She emphasises that many of the international standards that are agreed upon have political implications in practice, but they do not attract the same level of public attention as political negotiations.
Sustainability and social responsibility as standards
Solveig Bj?rkholt finds it particularly interesting that sustainability and corporate social responsibility are concepts increasingly present in ISO’s work.
– ISO is increasingly dealing with the softer topics, such as how to govern a company in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way, and what creates a good social environment in the workplace, says Bj?rkholt.
Some of these types of standards have sparked significant debate.
– When ISO developed a specific standard for corporate social responsibility, they faced strong opposition from the ILO (International Labour Organization), which felt that ISO was stepping on their turf. There was more tug-of-war than usual. Nevertheless, ISO managed to create such a standard, Bj?rkholt recounts.
The researcher stresses that international standardisation can also favour some countries over others.
– In Norway, for example, we lead many ISO committees that work on aluminium, and that can give us an advantage because we are already strong in that technology, says Bj?rkholt.
Norway has the infrastructure and the technology in place, which makes it easier to set a standard based on its own solutions, she points out.
– For other countries, which may have to replace what they already have, it can be both challenging and expensive, says Bj?rkholt.
She adds that Norway is also at the forefront of developing an international standard for diversity management.
– Playing a role in defining what diversity means internationally is no small task.
China in the lead, the US and EU close behind
Solveig Bj?rkholt finds it particularly interesting that the world’s major actors are increasingly interested in international standardisation work. China has prioritised this work heavily over the past ten to twenty years. The US and Europe have become more involved in the past couple of years.
– China has its own strategy for international standardisation and is currently leading almost a hundred standardisation processes. In response, both the US and the EU have become highly engaged, says Bj?rkholt.
She points out that these three actors have quite different philosophies about how they want to regulate the world through international agreements. Bj?rkholt uses climate as an example:
– In China we see a willingness towards fairly comprehensive regulation in line with the state’s own goals. Chinese authorities have an explicit aim to pursue sustainable development and reduce emissions, and there must be a balance there, says the researcher.
Bj?rkholt believes the US will prefer more sector-specific regulation — no overarching guidelines and as little regulation as possible, to create minimal obstacles for business.
– They want to be able to innovate on their own terms, she says.
– In the EU we can expect a stronger willingness to regulate and a greater desire to protect important values. Ethics plays a bigger role in thinking around standards here. There is also more concern for consumer protection.
From technical to political
Solveig Bj?rkholt emphasises that standardisation is being discovered as a political opportunity space. She envisages two scenarios for the future:
1. That standardisation work continues to focus on technical details and that a great deal can be achieved politically through that focus.
– This means agreements need not be overly broad, but can nonetheless secure wide consensus, for example on emissions reduction. The Paris Agreement sets an aim to limit global warming to "well below 2 °C", which is quite vague, says Bj?rkholt.?
– A standard that provides concrete guidelines on how to implement carbon capture solutions is far more specific, she argues.
2. That the regulations implied by standards expand – so that in a few years we might also have standards for issues such as disarmament.?
– That in itself would be very positive, but the further standardisation work moves into politically sensitive areas, the more politicised it risks becoming. Then you lose the advantage of operating at a detailed technical level that flies under the political radar, says Bj?rkholt.