It is simply an example of poor writing, including a typo (‘on averaged’) that you understandably do not reproduce.
The writer’s intent is obvious enough, of course: individual organisations have different requirements, so (he claims) the attempt to refine a uniform approach across contexts would be misguided. He strongly implies that such an attempt has been proven to fail, although he does so by using the overwrought phrase that you mention rather than giving actual evidence. He strives to convey the impression of an informed historical overview and of inconclusive-or-destructive results, but does not actually provide either.
Cursory inspection of this article reveals many other infelicities created by the author and/or his editor. If you plan to cite the article in support of some kind of case, I would suggest carefully paraphrasing the writer’s general view rather than direct quotation. On the other hand, direct quotation would be a good idea if you plan to give an example of an opinionated argument that advertises its own lack of evidence by trying to disguise it.
[Edit]
Obfuscatory—that’s the word I was groping for. The writer hopes that you will leave with a sense of of his preferred case having been made, behind the smokescreen of the kind of construction you have quoted, when he has actually established nothing at all.