Whose Standard Is the Industry Standard in the Outdoors?

Steve Smith
Nov 4
4 min read

by Christopher Bartram, Associate Consultant

Dr. Erik Rabinowitz (Appalachian State University) and I began our first spirited discussions on the topic of industry standards as I stepped into my first position as an Assistant Program Director at a university. I had high hopes and high expectations for the program and wanted to do my best to ensure our students had access to the resources and training they needed for us to provide safe and successful programs. I immediately fell into the trap that most young professionals do—seeing the many things that could be improved in the program. Overwhelmed with where to start, Erik and I discussed which industry certifications, accreditation, and best practices would add the most value to the program.

After a year of increased training, certifications, and development of internal systems to support our students, we were finally getting to where I wanted to be. The student leaders were preparing to lead a winter ascent of Mt. Katahdin, a three-day trip involving mountaineering, winter camping, and outfitting a group of six to be successful on one of New England’s coldest and most extreme peaks. While out, the trip went well, with a successful summit attempt, and all the instructors and participants returned with all their fingers and toes. But I couldn’t help but ask myself, “What if it hadn’t gone well?” I hear the words of my graduate school professor, Dr. Jim Lancaster, who would say, “Repeat after me: ‘I will be sued,’” his comical approach to the reality of our legal system.

The only other organizations leading winter Katahdin ascents were climbing and mountaineering guide services, with guides who are professionally trained and certified. If we had a major incident and were called into a court of law, I was afraid that the expert witness who might testify would argue that all of their guides are professionally trained and certified, while ours only had Wilderness First Responder certifications and in-house training. I was frustrated that it felt like certifying agencies were determining the level of professional training required of all people who offered climbing and mountaineering in the outdoor industry. I was left feeling like the only reasonable response was to increase training and certification of staff.

But were the certifying bodies actually determining that standard for the whole outdoor industry? Was I right to be afraid of litigation due to differences in levels of staff training? Had I missed the mark in my approach to rebuilding the outdoor program?

After reflecting over the last few years, I would say yes—I had missed the mark. A more effective approach would have been starting with curiosity, asking the other administrators and students:

What does the best version of this program look like?
What is our risk tolerance?
- What risks do we want to avoid?
- What risks do we feel are beneficial?
What are the goals and outcomes we hope to achieve?

This is the approach we take at Experiential Consulting. We listen to your program’s history and learn about your needs, goals, and values. If I had taken this approach to my work at the university, I might have come to the conclusion that we didn’t need to lead trips up Mt. Katahdin in the winter to achieve the outcomes we were looking for. Maybe the answer was to pivot in a mission-aligned way instead of doubling down on more training and certifications.

Our article, “Whose Standard Is the Industry Standard in the Outdoors?” also fell prey to some of the same traps that my early program management brain did. We examined the multitude of standards in the outdoor recreation industry and highlighted the problems and difficulties this caused for the industry. We noted that the standards in camping, guiding, and outdoor education were all quite different, leaving us frustrated that there wasn’t a standard of practice for professionals to follow.

Our solution was to determine the standard for the industry in order to increase professionalism and grow the outdoor industry. We even suggested the outdoor community adopt industry-wide guidelines for professional practice that have minimum qualifications outlined to match roles and responsibilities.

However, after some reflection, we concluded that we were seeking an overly simplified solution to a complex problem. Forcing every challenge course facilitator to become a Certified Rock Guide won’t ensure that our program meets its outcomes. In fact, the time and financial resources spent obtaining the certification could distract us from making changes that could actually lead to our organization’s mission and goals.

Dr. Rabinowitz and I will further explore the idea of “industry standards” as it relates to the outdoor industry at the Association for Experiential Education Conference. We will be facilitating a discussion that will ask the questions:

What do you see as the future path of standards within our industry?
What do you perceive as the optimal balance of certification, accreditation, and informal benchmarking?
What challenges or barriers does your organization face in relation to industry standards?
How do we professionalize the industry without exclusion?
Where do standards fall when many organizations are in triage mode just to stay afloat?