ABSTRACT
This chapter aims to explore how the core concepts of this anthology, risk and standardization, relate to one another, starting from the meanings of these concepts in dictionaries and everyday language use (semantics), rather than the more or less specialized definitions in use within various fields of risk research (pragmatics). Semantic and pragmatic meanings of the two concepts are discussed with a view to how they match or do not match, on their own and in relation to one another. Both risk analysis and standardization start from the premise that performing such tasks forms a basis for improvement of some sort – or else there would be no reason for the activity. This seems to lead to the assumption that combining them for risk governance purposes can only implicate further improvements. The present chapter problematizes this assumption by asking: Is standardization of risk-related issues always as beneficial as is apparently taken for granted, or are there reasons to be sceptical?
