The positive benefits of transaction standardisation have been too well canvassed to need much discussion here. They include streamlined business operations, efficiency gains in dealing with customers, improved data accuracy and reliability, reduced infrastructure, and inter-organisational links for the transmission and sharing of data (Weill and Broadbent, 1998; Parker and Benson, 1988). When standardisation is coupled with the installation of autonomous systems that can be operational around the clock, further benefits come from the reduction or elimination of time dependencies. As the technical problems inhibiting systems integration are progressively solved, there seems no reason to doubt that further efficiency benefits will continue to materialise.

The instrumental impacts of the ISBL on power relations are, however, more problematic and await empirical research. While the range of possibilities is extensive, the linguistic perspective suggests at least two directions for analysis that are likely to be fruitful. These are, first, the consequences of attempts to extend the compass of the ISBL as a standard language of interaction and, second, the implications of limiting the vocabulary available to people wishing to conduct various types of transaction. Each of these appears to have some negative social implications.

A further issue is the possibility that the use of the ISBL as an instrument in support of power-seeking behaviour carries with it some hidden risks to the adopting organisations. These arise essentially from the loss of flexibility that is entailed. The extent of this risk is not easily assessed; what is argued here is that the widespread adoption of the ISBL would represent a commitment to stability tending to inhibit systems change.