21 January 2026
Every industry relies on standards.
They exist to create consistency, reduce friction, and provide a baseline for decision-making. In complex environments, they can be useful shortcuts, particularly where time, expertise, or continuity is limited.
Strata is no exception.
The problem is not that standards exist.
The problem is what happens when they persist without explanation, and when the phrase “industry standard” is used to end a conversation rather than inform one.
When a standard stops being examined
In strata, “industry standard” is often offered as reassurance.
It is usually said with good intent, to signal that a practice is common, accepted, or widely used. For committees navigating complexity, that reassurance can feel helpful. It suggests safety. Familiarity. Precedent.
Over time, however, the phrase can begin to substitute for something more important: understanding.
When a committee is told that a process, structure, or arrangement is “industry standard”, the implicit message is often that further questioning is unnecessary. The label becomes the justification.
At that point, the reasoning behind the standard matters less than the standard itself.
What was once explained becomes assumed.
What was once deliberate becomes automatic.
Why standards rarely get challenged
Most unexamined standards do not persist because they are optimal.
They persist because they are familiar.
Several structural factors make challenging them difficult:
-
Committees change, while systems and contracts remain
-
Knowledge asymmetry is built into the model
-
Questioning established practice can feel uncomfortable or confrontational
-
Many people are reluctant to appear uninformed or difficult
In a governance environment with rotating decision-makers, continuity often lives in documents and process rather than people. Over time, repetition hardens into norm.
This is not a failure of individuals.
It is a predictable feature of governance in complex systems.
But predictability does not make it harmless.
The governance risk of unquestioned norms
Good governance relies on judgement.
When reliance on “industry standard” replaces explanation, that judgement weakens. Decisions become harder to defend, not because they are wrong, but because the reasoning behind them has faded.
Unchecked norms quietly erode accountability. They shift attention away from whether an arrangement is appropriate for a particular scheme, and toward whether it is simply common elsewhere.
In that environment, precedent replaces scrutiny.
Governance becomes procedural rather than deliberate.
And when issues eventually surface – as they often do – the absence of a clear rationale becomes the problem, not the decision itself.
Where this shows up in practice
This dynamic appears across strata more often than many realise.
-
Contract structures that are renewed without revisiting suitability
-
Service arrangements justified by familiarity rather than fit
-
Financial practices accepted because “everyone does it”
-
Processes followed because they’ve always been followed
None of these are inherently improper.
But when explanation is absent, committees are deprived of the context they need to exercise informed judgement. Transparency technically exists, yet understanding does not.
That gap matters.
What a healthy standard actually looks like
A healthy standard is not one that goes unquestioned.
It is one that holds up when questioned.
In practice, a healthy standard is:
-
explainable in plain English
-
capable of review over time
-
defensible at an AGM
-
open to reasonable challenge without defensiveness
A standard that cannot be explained should not be relied upon.
Consistency has value, but only when it is supported by clarity.
Reframing the phrase
“Industry standard” should not be the end of a discussion.
At its best, it should be the beginning, an invitation to explain why a particular approach exists, what alternatives were considered, and whether it remains appropriate for a specific scheme.
Transparency does not require abandoning standards.
It requires understanding them.
Final thoughts
Standards shape outcomes. That is precisely why they deserve scrutiny.
When explanation gives way to assumption, governance erodes quietly.
When standards are understood, reviewed, and defended thoughtfully; trust is strengthened.
Transparency is not about rejecting norms.
It is about refusing to rely on them unquestioned.
JM
Founder + Managing Director
Bettr Strata