The Sun Cannot Rise: Japan Surrounded by Asian Rivals and the Risk of Missing the ASTM Certification “Passport”

Japan’s additive manufacturing industry stands at a critical crossroads. Beyond lagging in ASTM certification acquisition—the global “passport” for AM—a more fundamental problem exists: the absence of organized participation in international standards development. While China, South Korea, and Singapore pursue standardization strategies at the national level, Japan relies on crisis-aware individuals acting on personal initiative. Without organizational participation in rulemaking, Japan’s AM industry has no future.

What is ASTM and Why Does It Matter?

ASTM International, founded in 1898, is one of the world’s largest standards organizations, publishing over 12,575 technical standards. More than 30,000 experts from over 150 countries participate. But ASTM means more than just “technical standards”—it is the rulebook that determines the future of industries.

The 1995 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act legally requires the U.S. federal government to prioritize privately developed consensus standards like ASTM. Major OEMs including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Ford, and GM require ASTM compliance from suppliers. “ASTM compliance” serves as the common language of international trade; without it, companies face disadvantages in product liability litigation and exclusion from global supply chains.

In the AM industry, the ASTM F42 committee was established in 2009, and in 2011, a cooperation agreement with ISO/TC 261 was signed. Today, over 1,000 experts from 28 countries participate. In regulated industries such as aerospace, medical devices, and automotive, ASTM/ISO compliance is effectively mandatory.

But ASTM’s essential importance extends beyond external credibility. It also provides internal “assurance.”

AM fundamentally differs from conventional manufacturing methods (casting, machining, forging). The layer-by-layer material deposition process presents problems absent in traditional methods: residual stress, anisotropy, powder management. Can existing inspection standards be applied? How much verification is sufficient? Field engineers operate in the dark.

In Japan, companies validate processes based solely on their own judgment. Consequently, they cannot bear full responsibility and cannot proceed to the next step. This is inevitable. The experience gap between the world and a single company is overwhelming. It takes time. It costs money.

ASTM standards provide criteria premised on AM-specific processes. Standards created through discussions among over 1,000 experts (material manufacturers, equipment makers, user companies, research institutions, regulatory authorities)—this represents not individual or single-company judgment but industry collective intelligence. It provides clear answers to field concerns: “What should be verified?” “How much is sufficient?”

ASTM standards introduced the innovative concept of “process qualification.” While traditional quality assurance inspects finished products, AM parts have complex internal structures making complete inspection difficult. Therefore, through IQ/OQ/PQ (Installation/Operational/Performance Qualification), thorough initial verification qualifies the process. After qualification, parts made with the same process yield the same quality, requiring only sampling inspection. This balances inspection speed with quality assurance.

However, a critical question emerges: “Can we truly rely on ASTM standards?”

Who Makes the Rules: Who Sits at the Table?

The ASTM F42 committee has over 1,000 members. ISO/TC 261 includes 26-27 participating countries. Japan participates. But the “quality” of participation matters.

In 2023, China became an ASTM strategic partner through BLT (Bright Laser Technologies)—the first such achievement in Asia. This represents not individual participation but organized corporate and national strategy. ASTM established a China office with Mandarin-language infrastructure.

Singapore saw ST Engineering Land Systems obtain early AMQ certification in 2023, with A*STAR (the government research agency) providing organized support for standardization activities.

South Korea’s KATS (Korean Agency for Technology and Standards) engages organizationally, hosting AM certification seminars at SIMTOS 2024. ASTM International’s Andy Lu has conducted over 100 training sessions across Japan, South Korea, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and India.

Meanwhile, Japan? JAMPT obtained ISO/ASTM 52920 certification via TÜV SÜD in January 2024, and training was held at Nikon headquarters. But overall efforts remain extremely limited.

METI provides generous subsidies for equipment purchases but virtually zero budget for international standardization activities. J3DPA (Japan 3D Printing Industry Technology Association) lacks budget, personnel, and authority. Universities conduct excellent individual research but lack organized engagement in international standardization. Large corporations think “our own standards suffice,” while SMEs “don’t know about ASTM”—or rather, “don’t try to know.”

Japanese individuals participate in ISO/TC 261 and ASTM F42. However, organized support structures remain unclear. Cases where crisis-aware individuals participate through goodwill and sense of mission are likely not uncommon. If institutional support is limited, individuals attend overseas meetings twice annually at their own expense and time. When personnel transfers change responsible parties, activity continuity becomes precarious. Whether young professionals can afford participation remains doubtful. Whether information is adequately shared within organizations, let alone industry-wide, remains opaque.

This represents an asymmetric battle: “organized strategy vs. crisis-aware individuals.”

The Risk of Losing the Right to Define “Necessary Quality”

ASTM certification standards define “necessary quality for each application.” Aircraft engine parts require strict standards; prototypes do not. Yet Japanese companies tend to demand maximum quality for everything.

Consider televisions. Electronic components deteriorate or become obsolete in 5-7 years, yet Japanese manufacturers provide screws with 30-year durability and housings with 20-year quality. When electronics fail and require replacement, the housing remains pristine. In other words, unnecessary quality drove costs. The same applies to computers—3-5 years until functional obsolescence, yet 10-year housing durability.

This dedication created the “Made in Japan myth.” Japanese products don’t break, they last—this was fact and strength. But simultaneously, overquality cost inflation reduced price competitiveness. It exceeded the “necessary and sufficient quality” the market demanded.

ASTM standard development debates this “necessary quality.” Strict for aerospace parts, efficiency-focused for prototypes. Western companies think “OK if data proves it,” while Japanese companies take safety margins “considering worst cases.” Neither approach is wrong—it’s cultural difference.

But without Japanese participation, standards proceed according to criteria different from what Japan considers necessary. Aerospace parts feel insufficient; prototypes continue demanding excessive quality. Either way results in high costs and lost competitiveness.

If Japan participates organizationally in ASTM certification standard development, it can reflect Japanese rigor in international standards for aerospace parts while learning to avoid overquality standards for prototypes. And through discussions with world-leading members, Japan can learn and present what is necessary and to what extent. Balanced quality strategies become possible.

Without participation, the choice becomes: pursue overquality in everything, or maintain independent standards distrusting international norms—either way leads to Galapagos isolation.

PCs, LCD TVs, mobile phones, semiconductors, cloud computing—Japan held technological advantages yet repeatedly lost in standardization and ecosystem building. Repeating the same defeat is foreseeable, and Japan walks that path. The difference: this time it’s not “organization vs. organization” but the more asymmetric battle of “organized strategy vs. crisis-aware individuals.”

AM Insight Asia Perspective

Japan’s AM industry faces triple crises.

First, the risk of global supply chain exclusion due to delayed ASTM certification acquisition. Second, insufficient influence in international standard development. Third, and most critical: the absence of organized support structures and dependence on crisis-aware individuals.

In this sense, the lack of AM strategy by government, ministries, and corporations represents Japan’s fatal challenge.

Does Japan even provide opportunities for executive and decision-making layers to learn about ASTM certification importance and Japan’s challenges? At AM exhibitions, such layers seldom appear. While the field senses crisis, without decision-making authority engaged, organized strategy cannot emerge.

Japanese manufacturing and AM media report mere 3D printer specifications and case studies but almost no articles on AM ecosystems or strategy. Simply put, media quality is too low. Therefore, executives remain uninformed.

In Japan, company fields validate based solely on their own thinking. Consequently, they cannot bear full responsibility and cannot advance. Naturally so. The experience gap between the world and a single company is overwhelming. It takes time. It costs money.

Japanese engineers and researchers are not incompetent. Rather, their struggle through crisis awareness alone without organized support is, in a sense, heroic. But heroism cannot win international standardization wars. National futures cannot be entrusted to individual goodwill.

Like China, South Korea, and Singapore—where government, corporations, and universities collaborate to dispatch personnel continuously, secure budgets, share information, and reflect national technology and knowledge in international standards—such systems must be built immediately.

What’s needed is no longer individual effort. It’s organized support structure construction.

Japan’s “manufacturing dedication” becomes strength in fields like aerospace and medical devices where failure is unacceptable. But without reflecting this strength in international standards, it’s merely seen as “overquality” and “inefficiency.”

Organized participation in ASTM certification standard development allows reflecting Japanese rigor in critical applications while avoiding overquality in non-critical applications. Opportunities exist to leverage strengths and overcome weaknesses.

Otherwise, Japan remains forever a “rule-taker.” Even with technology, losing in standardization means losing markets. While depending on crisis-aware individuals’ goodwill, Japan cannot compete against countries with organized strategies. And Japan’s AM industry becomes “Galapagos” again.