INNI

Overview of the drafting process
This past November, ISO's Social Responsibility Working Group (SR WG) held its fifth plenary meeting in Vienna, Austria. The meeting had two main objectives: to resolve enough key topics that emerged from comments submitted on the third Working Draft (WD3) in order to produce the draft to follow the Vienna meeting; and to progress the operational framework of the Working Group in order to further enhance participation, accountability and efficiency of the process. While the Working Group made progress on both of these objectives, particularly in resolving various issues in the WD3, the experts decided not to proceed to the Committee Draft (CD) phase as initially planned. Instead, they opted to develop another Working Draft (WD4). Although some expressed concerns that this will extend the drafting process by almost one year, the delay will give the Working Group an opportunity to solidify the operating procedures for decision making at the national level before moving to the CD phase-a phase during which comments and votes will be based on national consensus positions. The immediate Working Group work plan consists of two rounds of drafting and commenting on the WD4 before the next plenary meeting in Santiago, Chile in September 2008.

Key topics and issues
With WD3 having received about 7,000 comments from the experts, numerous drafting teams within Task Groups 4, 5 and 6 have been working (even prior to Vienna) to incorporate them into the next draft. In addition, the Liaison Task Force (LTF), a stakeholder-based body established to address issues that cut across the scope of several Task Groups (TG), identified a number of major issues that were discussed at the Vienna meeting. The two of the more significant meeting outcomes were:

1) Moving forward, how to address cross-cutting issues more effectively and improve the consistency among various parts of the standard more efficiently.

2) How to address existing voluntary Social Responsibility initiatives in the standard.

A contentious issue since the early stages of the standard's development, many experts in the labor and industry stakeholder groups have opposed referencing voluntary SR initiatives in the main body of the standard. Although the general decision to include such references had been made at the WG's previous meeting in Sydney, the question of exactly which initiatives and how and where to make reference to them remained unsettled.

To help resolve this issue, the Working Group established an ad hoc group on voluntary SR initiatives. The interim group will develop general guidance for the IDTF on how to address issues relating to voluntary SR initiatives in the drafting of WD4, including the nature of reference, where it would be referenced (i.e., within the main text, the appendix, or in help boxes), the selection criteria for inclusion, and the definition of international norms. The ad hoc group will also consider issues such as how to reference these initiatives without suggesting endorsement and how to distinguish intergovernmental instruments from voluntary market-based initiatives. Membership of the ad hoc group is based on the stakeholder principle - up to three representatives per stakeholder category, one from ILO, one from UN Global Compact, and the IDTF convener.

Operating procedure for balanced participation at the national level
November's Working Group meeting took a significant step in bringing the principle of balanced stakeholder participation to the national level. Within ISO, the Working Group has been at the forefront of establishing formal mechanisms and procedures to ensure full and balanced stakeholder participation and decisionmaking in its standard setting activities. However, prior to the Vienna meeting, these procedures focused on the activities within the Working Group itself, leaving very little guidance regarding stakeholder balance at the national level. The importance of stakeholder-based decisionmaking in national mirror committees became more pronounced as the ISO 26000 standard approached the Committee Draft stage. During the Working Draft phase, national member bodies simply compile and transmit the comments as they are developed by individual experts. In the Committee Draft stage however, commenting, as well as voting, either to approve or disapprove the draft standard, are based on national consensus positions developed within the mirror committee. If national mirror committees do not operate under the same principle of balanced stakeholder decisionmaking as required for Working Group activities, minority groups could loose their voices in the decisionmaking process.

In order to help ensure full and balanced stakeholder participation at the national level, the Working Group developed and approved operational guidance for national mirror committees. The guidance provides detailed instructions intended to help ensure minority voices at the national level are heard and transmitted to the Working Group. Some of the guidance provisions include:

In addition to the operating procedure, the Working Group asked ISO's senior management body (the TMB) to remind national member bodies that representatives of each of the stakeholder groups need to be included in the ISO 26000 process and, that national positions should be defined in full consideration of the interests of these stakeholders.

This operational procedure on national input marks a significant milestone for not only the SR Working Group, but also for ISO generally, which has long-preferred a decentralized approach based on national member body sovereignty concerns as opposed to top-down guidance. This positive development in the SR WG could provide momentum for other ISO committees to adopt such rules, such as Technical Committee 207 for Environmental Management, which has been pursuing possible mechanisms that can help broaden stakeholder participation with its work.

A Research Paper Examines the Implication of WTO Rules for ISO SR Standard [12/18/2007]

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) released a report that examines how the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) can affect ISO 26000 and other international instruments. The study analyzes the WTO rules to assess if and how WTO could require member countries to use ISO SR standard as a basis for domestic measures, and thus limit the application of other, more detailed or more rigorous international instruments.

Overview of the Drafting Process
ISO's Social Responsibility Working Group (SR WG) held its fourth plenary meeting at the end of January 2007 in Sydney. The main objective of the meeting was to resolve comments and issues identified through the review of the second Working Draft of the standard and to provide a solid foundation for the preparation of Working Draft 3 (WD3). Numerous drafting teams were created at the Sydney meeting to work on discrete sections of the guidance standard. Once complete, the work of the drafting teams will be amalgamated into WD3, which will then be circulated to the participating members in July 2007 for review. Comments submitted on WD3 will be discussed at the next SR WG plenary meeting to be held in early November in Vienna, Austria.

Progress on the Contents of the Standard
At the Sydney meeting, the WG finalized the seven SR Core issues to be included in the standard: Environment; Human Rights; Labor Practices; Organizational Governance; Fair Operation Practices; Consumer Issues; and Community Involvement/Society Development.

The provisional definition of SR produced in Sydney (and the one that will be included in WD3) reads: "Social responsibility is the responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethical behavior that: is consistent with sustainable development and the welfare of society; takes into account the expectations of stakeholders; is in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international norms of behavior; and is integrated throughout the organization."

Key Topics and Issues
The SR WG Liaison Task Force (LTF), a stakeholder-based body established to address cross-cutting issues in the standard, has been tasked with providing preliminary feedback to the Task Groups' drafting teams midway through the WD3 preparation period so that some issues can be resolved before finalizing the WD3. The issues identified so far include:

- Need for harmonization among the different parts of the standard, in terms of content, presentation, length, level of details, and tone;
- Relationship between issue specific requirements in clause 6 (guidance on core SR issues) and general implementation requirements in clause 7 (guidance for organizations on implementing SR);
- Inconsistent understanding and application of definitions for "social responsibility" and "stakeholder";
- How and whether to delineate "minimum requirements" of the standard; and
- How (and what) to reference with regard to third party initiatives.

The LTF is having a face-to-face meeting in South Africa May 28-30, 2007 to discuss and propose methods of addressing these topics.

Another controversial and still unresolved subject plaguing the WG is the issue of management systems standard (MSS). This topic has been under constant discussion since the very early stages of the SR standard development process, largely driven by industry representatives and some other experts who are strongly opposed to the idea of creating another MSS in the area of Social Responsibility. The SR WG leadership and ISO's senior management have issued several formal communications to confirm that the ISO SR standard should not be an MSS. Most recently, the LTF issued a clarification document to reiterate that the ISO SR standard is not an MSS, but that some MSS language may be necessary to provide useful guidance on how to operationalize social responsibility. Despite such efforts to clarify the issue, disagreements about whether the standard is "too close to an MSS" continues to derail the drafting process whenever an MSS-related concept or language arises. The increasingly tired debates have prevented the drafting groups from having a constructive discussion about how to provide the most useful and effective guidance to implement social responsibility.

ISO's prohibitions barring a systematic management-based approach have already been the source of frustration for numerous experts and have even been cited as reasons for the resignation of a key NGO. In a letter to the WG leadership on April 24, Amnesty International UK announced its withdrawal from the ISO SR process, explaining that with the complete ban on an MSS approach, the ISO SR standard will not be able to provide systematic guidance on social responsibility and its integration into organizational management. The resignation letter also points out that the constraints on the formulation of the standard in general and the Human Rights section in particular have led Amnesty International to believe that the standard will not be able to state clearly enough and with sufficient rigour the actions required of governments and of other parties to comply with their human rights responsibilities.

Progress on Working Group Procedures and Operations
On the procedural side, the Working Group continued to focus on issues related to balanced participation. For instance, the ISO SR Trust Fund, a mechanism to raise and provide funding for under-resourced stakeholders, is now officially operational. An ISO SR Trust Fund Committee has been established to review and monitor sponsorship criteria and allocate funding. The Task Group responsible for media relations is presently developing a detailed guidance on how to communicate with stakeholders and the general public to raise awareness and increase effective participation in the standard's development. And lastly, the Working Group has decided to work closely with the UN Global Compact and its Networks to improve stakeholder participation at national mirror committees on WG SR.

The European Parliament Passes a Resolution to Strengthen CSR Policy [5/20/07]

On March 13, the European Parliament passed a new resolution on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which among many other things, makes reference to ISO's Social Responsibility standard. The relevant statement in the resolution focuses on the possibility of developing parallel methods of external assessment and certification for ISO's 26000 SR guidance whose scope was explicitly decided "not to be intended for external certification". The resolution was the Parliament's response to the European Commission's March 2006 Communication on making the EU a "pole of excellence" for CSR, and proposes concrete policies and implementation suggestions, including a shift of emphasis from "processes" to "outcomes." The main issues covered in the resolution include CSR instruments, the link between CSR and competitiveness, EU's contribution to global CSR, and balance of voluntary and mandatory approaches. Some of the most notable provisions include: suggestions to develop schemes similar to EMAS in the area of labor, social and human rights; proposal to establish a mandatory reporting requirement for companies to disclose their social and environmental impacts; better integration of CSR in trade policies; and consideration of the impact of CSR policies in global supply chains.

UN Report on Mapping International Standards in Corporate Responsibility and Human Rights [5/20/07]

On March 28, John Ruggie, the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General on business and human rights, released his report summarizing the findings of a two-year study and consultation process geared toward providing a mapping of international standards and voluntary initiatives in the area of corporate responsibility and human rights. The goal of the effort was to identify the best methods of addressing corporate activities in relation to human rights. The report "Business and Human Rights: Mapping International Standards of Responsibility and Accountability for Corporate Acts" reviews a wide spectrum of tools ranging from state mandate to self-regulation, and argues that despite the substantial expansion of corporate voluntary initiatives, and international norms and standards in the area of human rights, a lack of clear and binding international standards, as well as undefined state duties and accountabilities in international human rights violations, create a considerable protection gap for victims. The report calls for further discussion and multi-stakeholder consultations to identify practical solutions that incorporate a broad array of measures including both voluntary and mandatory initiatives.
Update on ISO's Water Management Standards
ISO's Technical Committee on water management (TC 224) finished the preparation of the close-to-final versions of its three-part water management standards: ISO 24510, ISO 24511, and ISO 24512. These drafts were sent to the ISO Central Secretariat in April for final editing and printing, and will be circulated to the entire ISO member countries for two-month ballot in August. The results of voting will be available beginning of November. Approval of the FDISs is fairly likely, and the final standards are expected to be published by the end of 2007.

Following the last plenary meeting in Lisbon in May 2006, ISO's Social Responsibility (SR) Working Group began developing its second Working Draft (WD2) of the standard. The Task Groups (TGs) responsible for drafting of the standard (TGs 4, 5, and 6) implemented the discussions and decisions made at the Lisbon meeting, and released the WD2 to the Working Group membership for review in October 2006. Participating experts submitted over 5,000 comments - more than twice the number of comments on the first draft. The Working Group will discuss these comments at its next plenary meeting in Sydney, Australia at the end of January 2007.

In preparation for the Sydney meeting, the Working Group's leadership and Liaison Task Force (LTF) - a stakeholder-based body established in Lisbon to address cross-cutting issues in the standard - have been reviewing the comments to identify key conceptual issues to be addressed at the face-to-face meeting. The Working Group is planning to develop the next version of the draft standard (WD3) subsequent to the Sydney meeting.

Key Topics and Issues

The expert comments on WD2 indicate that a number of fundamental issues regarding the structure and contents of the standard will require further discussion and consensus within the Working Group. It is noteworthy that many of these high-level issues have been raised by the industry stakeholder group, which has been particularly displeased with the WD2 (Crosslands Bulletin provides a more detailed discussion of industry's opinion of WD2). Based on a thorough analysis of the overarching themes in over 1,200 pages of expert comments, the LTF has identified 10 key topics to be discussed in a joint session at the outset of the Sydney plenary (before the individual Task Groups begin their work). The list of key topics has been circulated to the Working Group's six stakeholder groups, as a means of encouraging advanced discussions and possibly inducing specific proposals for moving forward (Download the list of 10 topics and summary of comments and preliminary comments from stakeholder groups).

The outcomes of the discussions on some of these key topics at Sydney could have significant consequences on the contents and credibility of the future SR standard. Below is a summary of some of the most salient issues for discussion.

1) What are the principal objectives, and who is the primary end-user, of ISO 26000?

According to the New Work Item Proposal, the enabling document that defines the purpose of the standard, all organizations are intended users of the standard. Industry experts, however, have expressed concern that the current text has a predominant orientation toward their sector.

The Working Group has previously debated the issue of applicability of guidance to all organizations versus the risk of diluting issues that are only/particularly relevant for business or other specific organizations. The Institute believes any SR issue that applies to any kind of organization should be a candidate for coverage by the standard, and that the balance between generic versus specific guidance can be achieved by including detailed provisions for specific types of organizations in relevant sections of the document. If the standard were to be purely generic and could only include the issues that apply to all types of organizations, many important SR issues (such as supply chain) could face omission from the standard.

ISO 26000 is intended to be a guidance document, and thus is not supposed to contain any mandatory requirements in the text. However, in order for this standard to become meaningful, it will likely have to provide information on what are considered to be the minimum requirements for the organizations to be "socially responsible." Such requirements could be both process-based (such as mandating measurement and reporting of SR performance) or performance-based (such as legal compliance and adherence to international norms). Without having a clear framework on what constitutes baseline expectations regarding social responsibility, organizations could pick and choose cursory options from the standard and deem it sufficient to be socially responsible.

3) How should the SR implementation clause be drafted bearing in mind ISO Geneva's directive that ISO 26000 is not intended to be a Management System Standard (MSS)?

Some experts, especially business representatives, have expressed concern that Clause 7 (SR Implementation) too closely resembles a prescriptive management system. Industry has always been wary of having another MSS that could create yet another third-party certification burden in addition to the ones posed by ISO 14000 and ISO 9000. Responding to the concern, ISO's senior management, the Technical Management Board passed a resolution to clarify that the Working Group on SR shall not develop an MSS. We believe that the discussion (and standard itself) should focus on how to provide useful guidance that can effectively steer organizations toward becoming better SR performers, instead of having to constantly check if the standard is too close to ISO's self-conceived notion of an MSS. Such guidance should include how organizations can systematically identify and address their SR issues, which inherently will include management elements, but without being a formal MSS.

Initiatives to Promote Balanced Participation

On the procedural side, the Working Group has focused on a number of issues relating to balanced participation.

Following the resolution from the Lisbon meeting, the Working Group Social Responsibility Trust Fund was officially launched and the solicitation for contributions began in September 2006. The Trust Fund will serve as a short-term funding mechanism to help support participation by underrepresented stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries. The first funding support will be awarded to two or three experts to sponsor their participation in the next Working Group plenary meeting in Sydney. The Trust Fund plans to raise enough funding to sponsor up to 50 experts for coming plenary meetings. Detailed information on the eligibility and application/selection process for the funding are finalized and can be found in SR Trust Fund document.

As an effort to make this standard development process truly international and accessible to those who are non-native English speakers, the SR Working Group created four Translation Task Forces (Spanish, Arabic, Russian, and French) and TG 2 (responsible for media issues) has been encouraging the member countries to translate the material into their own language. However, language barriers became visible at the previous plenary meetings where non-native English speakers - who are often from developing countries - could not fully and actively participate in the meeting discussions. In order to tackle this problem at the next plenary meeting in Sydney, a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) submitted a letter to the Working Group Secretariat to propose a simultaneous interpretation in Sydney meeting for the four Task Force languages, with possible funding support from the SR Trust Fund. The reply from the Secretariat was that such an effort would be very costly, and that the allocation of the Trust Fund money is set only for travel support and capacity building programs. The Secretariat, however, agreed to raise this issue during the Sydney meeting to see if solutions could be developed in advance of future meetings.

ISO SR Working Group Media Policy

The issue of whether to allow media representatives in the Working Group's working meetings has been debated for more than a year (click here to read the previous discussions). In particular, the Working Group struggled to find the balance between promoting transparency (allowing maximum media participation as advocated by consumer groups) and ensuring an environment for open and honest discussions among experts (not allowing media to the meetings, as advocated by industry organizations). The Working Group finally reached an interim agreement, manifested in the form of a media participation policy produced by Task Group 2, the subgroup responsible for communication issues within the Working Group. For the time being, media representatives will not be allowed to attend plenary, Task Group, CAG, or ad hoc Task Force meetings, but may attend workshops and stakeholder group meetings with the consent of the participants. The Working Group will also hold pre- and post-plenary press conferences at the meeting.

ISO and UN Global Compact Sign Memorandum of Understanding on SR Standard Development

In October 2006, ISO signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United Nations Global Compact Office regarding their cooperation in development of ISO's SR standard. The Global Compact is a UN-initiated voluntary international corporate responsibility instrument focused on promoting 10 business principles in the areas of human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption, among others.

Under this MOU, ISO has agreed to ensure that its future SR standard is consistent with and complementary to the Global Compact 10 principles, to address any concerns raised by the Global Compact (and through it, other UN agencies including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Environment Programme, and UN Office on Drugs and Crime, among others) in the development and promotion of the ISO SR standard, and to seek the full and formal backing of the Global Compact and core UN agencies for the final draft of the SR standard. The MOU also gives the Global Compact a special status among other 34 liaison organizations participating in the ISO SR Working Group by agreeing to have a Global Compact representative serve on the Chair's Advisory Group (CAG), an advisory body for the SR Working Group's leadership. The only other liaison group that has mandatory organizational representation on the CAG is the International Labour Organization (ILO).

This MOU is the second such agreement ISO has established with a UN organization in relation to this SR initiative, the first being signed with the ILO in March 2005. There were some concerns that having too many individual arrangements could restrict the contents of the standard. However, it has been suggested the overarching goals behind these MOUs are consistent with the growing consensus that more alignment and collaboration are needed among the existing CSR initiatives.

Survey on the Current and Future CSR Landscape [01/25/07]

The Pacific Institute, in collaboration with the ISEAL Alliance, AccountAbility, Global Reporting Initiative, and International Institute for Sustainable Development, has completed a survey on the current and future desired landscape for the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) movement. The purpose of the survey was to gather the views of civil society groups and other stakeholders on the current status of the various global voluntary CSR instruments and initiatives, and to use this information to serve as a foundation for developing a common vision of a desired CSR landscape. Eighty-eight organizations and individuals responded to the survey, the preliminary findings of which were presented to convening of NGOs in Berlin in October (Read more about the Berlin meeting in the passage below).

The Institute found that the survey participants hold a high degree of consensus on the current and future picture of the CSR landscape, regardless of stakeholder group or geographical region represented. In particular, respondents mostly agreed on the challenges associated with the existing CSR initiatives (i.e., lack of funding and resources for effective participation and lack of clear definition of the CSR landscape), as well as the future direction of CSR landscape (i.e., more involvement of business and governments, greater role of voluntary CSR standards and initiatives). Click here for a more detailed analysis of the survey results.

NGO Meeting on Framing the CSR Landscape [01/25/07]

Representatives of more than 20 leading sustainability and corporate accountability initiatives - including standards and certification programs, reporting initiatives, best practice platforms, and NGO research and advocacy organizations - gathered in Berlin in October 2006 to discuss the current and desired role of voluntary CSR instruments. The topics examined during the meeting included:

The group decided to continue the discussion to develop a common vision of the desired future CSR landscape. More information on the meeting can be found in the summary report.

The Task Groups responsible for the development of the standard's contents (TGs 4,5, and 6) have each been assigned specific sections (clauses) of the standard:

0. Introduction (TG 4)
1. Scope (TG 4)
2. Normative References (yet to be assigned)
3. Terms and Definitions (TG 4 for select terms)
4. The SR context in which organizations operate (TG 4)
5. SR principles relevant to organizations (TG 4)
6. Guidance on core SR subjects/issues (TG 5)
7. Guidance for organizations on implementing SR (TG 6)
8. Annex, Bibliography (TG 4 taking lead)

In preparation of the Lisbon meeting, the TG 4-6 leadership analyzed and grouped into key topics the 3000-plus comments received on the first WD.

One key outcome of the Lisbon meeting was provisional text for the standard's scope, which now has ISO 26000 providing "guidance to organizations on:

The Pacific Institute believes that if this tentatively agreed-upon scope for the standard remains unchanged, and if the guidance provided in the subsequent clauses of the document actually delivers on this scope, ISO 26000 will be the most significant and meaningful standard ISO has ever produced.

TG 4 experts also tentatively defined Social Responsibility as follows: The actions of an organization to take responsibility for the impacts of its activities on society and the environment, where these actions:

TG 4 also reached agreement on the general content and structure of the SR Context section (Clause 4) and drafting of the actual text has started. As for SR Principles (Clause 5), TG 4 developed criteria and guidance on how to identify and select SR Principles, and established a drafting team. In addition, TG 4 accepted to take a lead on (and has begun drafting) the standard's introduction and annex.

The major accomplishment on this section is that TG 5 experts reached consensus on provisional list of subject areas:

Drafting groups were formed to start composing the text for the seven subject areas. TG 5 identified three issues - economic aspects, health and safety, and supply chain - as cross-sectional topics that should be addressed in each relevant subject area.

In addition, the WG charged TG 5 with resolving a few high-level topics raised in the WD 1 comments.

TG 6 mainly worked to resolve 20 key issues identified by the TG leadership subsequent to a review of the comments submitted on the first WD. Two ad hoc groups were created: one responsible for developing a structure for Clause 7, and the other for drafting actual text for the section. Below is the provisional structure developed by the first ad hoc group. (For a more detailed outline of Clause 7, click here.) As of August 1, 2006, the drafting ad hoc was in the midst of its work.

7.1 Analyzing the context in which the organization operates
7.2 Integrating SR into Organizational Vision, Policies and Strategies
7.3 Working with Stakeholders
7.4 Integrating SR into Organization's Daily Practices
7.5 Reviewing Performance Improvement
7.6 Communication with respect to SR

TGs 4, 5, and 6, working in conjunction with the WG Editing Committee, will prepare the second version of WD by October 2006. The draft will be circulated for comments, which will be discussed during the next WG plenary meeting in Sydney, Australia, January/February 2007. The detailed project plan leading up to the early 2007 Sydney meeting is as follows:

Based on a review of progress to date, the WG in Lisbon has postponed to early 2009 the anticipated publication date for the standard.

NGO Sign-on Letter

Just prior to the Lisbon meeting, a group of 12 NGOs participating in ISO SR initiative sent a letter to the ISO Central Secretariat expressing their concern over the status of stakeholder participation in the process. The letter raised two issues: 1) lack of transparency over actual stakeholder participation to date, particularly at the national level, and 2) lack of funding/support to enable adequate civil society participation in the ISO SR standard's development. The letter points out that ISO's senior management and an advisory body for the initiative (ISO/TMB Strategic Advisory Group on SR) set several preconditions and recommendations to ensure full and balanced stakeholder participation in the SR standard development. Those preconditions, however, have not been met more than two years into the process. To date, there has been no effort from ISO management to make sure that national member bodies are fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure full participation of affected stakeholders. Rather, domestic stakeholder involvement is being considered by ISO as a "national sovereignty" issue, and many countries remain unwilling to provide information on the membership of their mirror committees.

The NGO coalition asked ISO's senior management to look into these issue and take necessary action. The groups also proposed (and were granted) a side meeting at the Working Group plenary in Lisbon. Perhaps the most significant outcome of the side meeting among NGOs, ISO officials, and the WG leadership was the momentum it provided for the launch of the WG's SR Trust Fund (discussed below).

Debate on Media Access and Operational Procedures Regarding Expert/Observer Participation in the WG

One of the most contentious issues within TG 3 was the debate surrounding the media participation policy (or lack thereof). Shortly before the Lisbon meeting, Consumers International released a position paper and press release on the lack of transparency and media access to the ISO SR process. The position paper argued that industry was blocking direct media observation of the process, and thus undermining the legitimacy of the standard development process and the public's access to information. Despite a significant amount of discussion, no consensus could be reached during the Lisbon meeting on this issue, and TG 3 and the WG decided to halt the discussion on procedural changes to media participation. Instead, the WG will focus on gaining experience through trying to implement its media outreach strategy through TG 2 and continue a more general discussion on transparency in all three operational Task Groups (i.e., TGs 1, 2, and 3).

The WG finalized and approved two important operating procedures (developed by TG 3) in the areas of 1) balanced participation and rules concerning observers and special advisors; and 2) registration of experts and observers. TG 3 also identified several issues that will require the development of additional operating procedures, including stakeholder balance on liaison organizations and the decision-making process for advancing WG documents (WD, CD DIS, FDIS). Although ISO has a process and procedures on advancement of the standard development stage, the SR WG requires additional clarification, since the participants in the standard development act as experts in a respective field and not as country representatives as in other ISO committees. However, according to the regular ISO process for the next standard development stage, Committee Draft (CD) needs to go through country-based voting (with each country voting "approve," "disapprove," or "abstain").

Funding and Stakeholder Involvement (TG 1)

TG 1 worked on its Strategic Framework to improve stakeholder involvement in SR WG, and it released a final version of the document immediately after the Lisbon meeting. The Strategic Framework aims to provide guidance for member countries and stakeholder groups on how to effectively raise funding for WG participation. As for higher-level funding programs, the WG is still awaiting formal ISO approval to establish a global funding mechanism to support under-funded groups, and the delay in such programs has raised concern among stakeholder groups (see discussion of NGO sign-on letter above). Thus at the Lisbon meeting, TG 1 decided to establish a short-term funding mechanism within the WG on a pilot basis and to solicit contributions to help support participation by underrepresented stakeholders, particularly those from developed countries. TG 1's proposal to create an ISO SR Trust Fund was approved by the WG at its closing plenary. To view a working document describing how the SR Trust Fund will operate, click here.

In an effort to learn more about the balance of stakeholder representation at the national level, TG 1 is going to survey experts and national member bodies about current practice in the operation of mirror committees. TG 1 is conducting its survey of national standards bodies despite its unsuccessful effort to get ISO's senior management body (known as the TMB) to play a supporting role. The TMB's response to the WG's memorandum requesting support with the survey was simply a provision in a February 2006 resolution stating that the TMB "notes the [WG's] suggestions with respect to national mirror committees but recalls that the organization of involvement by all concerned parties at the national level is the exclusive responsibility of the ISO member bodies."

In addition to developing communication and outreach materials such as the SR WG newsletters and an ISO SR brochure, TG 2 has been working to institutionalize and streamline the information dissemination system for the WG. Examples of this include TG 2's "Registered SR Presenter System and the creation of a standardized presentation kit to be used by these official presenters. In order to expand the geographical reach of its work, the WG added an Arabic Translation Task Force (TTF), the third TTF along with French and Spanish. Member bodies are also asked to translate and disseminate the major WG documents into their local languages. Such translations are also posted on the main ISO SR website.

Update

After two meetings in March and September 2005 to lay the groundwork for developing its international standard on social responsibility (SR), ISO's Working Group (WG) responsible for the task has started to draft the contents of the new standard. At its last face-to-face meeting, the WG finalized an annotated outline of the future standard, and created three sub-groups to draft designated clauses. The leadership of these groups - dubbed Task Groups (TGs) 4, 5, and 6 - was selected and approved in December 2005, and the start-up meeting of the new TG leadership was held in Stockholm in mid-January 2006. Since then, experts in the three TGs have been developing their first Working Drafts (WDs). The groups have a very ambitious schedule to finish the first versions of their documents by March 27, and then circulate them to the WG membership for comment. The TGs are planning to discuss and resolve comments and to create a second iteration of the WDs at its next face-to-face meeting in Lisbon, Portugal May 15-19, 2006.

TG1: Funding and Stakeholder Involvement
TG1 has been developing a "Strategic Framework" on how ISO SR WG can increase participation by under-funded stakeholder categories. The Framework has identified three overall objectives: 1) to improve understanding among under-funded stakeholders as to how the international standards development process works; 2) to support an adequate balance of stakeholder participation and influence in the WG SR itself, including in the leadership of the WG and TGs and activities of the WG SR; and 3) to ensure that the interests of small and medium sized enterprises are incorporated into the international standard and that the standard will be useful to these entities once it's complete. Historically, ISO's programs for improving stakeholder involvement have focused on developing versus industrialized country balance. The WG's attempt to look beyond geographical balance, and also address stakeholder/interest categories and various sizes of organizations in the user community, is a step forward for ISO.

In addition, TG1 is considering a strategy to ensure that the funding raised will not only support participation at WG meetings, but also involvement at the national mirror committee level. As a part of its fund-raising efforts, the TG1 leadership organized a meeting with potential donors (mostly national and international development agencies and standardization bodies) in Geneva in November 2005.

TG2: Communication
Based on the terms of reference and the strategy adopted during the Bangkok meeting, TG 2 developed a set of action items in the areas of networking, development and dissemination of media material, and communication support programs. The group has decided to prioritize its external communication on developing countries and small and medium sized enterprises. One of the strategies is to make more effective use of existing stakeholder networks and other organizational resources, as well as to make use of national standards bodies by utilizing their local language capacity and distribution mechanisms in the transmission of particularly important communications. TG2 is also establishing criteria regarding which printed and electronic material is considered to be official output of the WG and also which material is appropriate to disclose. Currently most of the major official WG and TG documents can be downloaded at: http://www.iso.org/wgsr

TG3: Operational Procedures
TG3 is currently working on two operational procedures; balanced participation in working meetings and a policy on media participation. The group has prioritized finalizing its draft procedure on participation so that it can provide guidance to member bodies in time for the Lisbon WG meeting. The procedure provides rules and guidance to ensure balanced participation at the TG level. It also includes rules that limit the number and role of observers allowed to the WG and TG activities, so that the WG's attempt to achieve stakeholder balance with the national delegations is not jeopardized by having too many observers from a particular country or interest group attend meetings. At the same time, the procedure creates a new participant category "Special Advisor" to allow experts who are not registered "expert" delegates to participate in the standard's development in case there is a gap in expertise.

On the issue of media participation policy, the Industry Stakeholder Group issued a statement opposing media participation in the WG's activities during the last meeting in Bangkok. The NGO and Consumer Stakeholder Groups on the other hand are in favor of increased media participation as a means to improve external communication and to promote transparency within the standard development process. TG3 has not been able to reach consensus thus far, and has decided to further discuss this issue in Lisbon.

TG4: Scope, SR context, and SR principles
TG4 is tasked with drafting the clauses relating to the standard's precise scope, the SR context in which organizations operate, and SR principles relevant to implementing organizations. The group is also assigned the task of defining "Social Responsibility", and is currently developing an outline of the key elements of a definition for SR to be discussed by the WG in Lisbon.

TG5: Guidance on core SR subjects/issues
TG 5 is tasked to create a section that provides separate guidance on a range of core subject/issues, and relates them to organizations. The guidance will include background, challenges and opportunities, trends, existing initiatives, stakeholder relationships and references for each core subject. TG5 is currently selecting core issues to be included in the standard, and will present their proposal at the Lisbon meeting. Considering the diversity of the issues encompassed in social responsibility, the challenge of coming up with a manageable and meaningful set of "core issues" is formidable.

TG6: Guidance for organization on implementing SR
TG6 is responsible for the section that provides practical guidance on implementing and integrating SR in the organization, including, policies, practices, approaches, issue identification, performance assessment, reporting and communication. The group is currently compiling ideas for various methods and activities to implement SR programs, which will serve as a basis for further discussion in Lisbon.

TMB resolution
At its January 2006 meeting, ISO's central management body, the Technical Management Board (TMB), issued a resolution relating to the WG on SR. TMB resolutions typically confirm and/or communicate decisions made at the ISO technical committee or working group level, but also clarify the intention or interpretation of past decisions in cases where questions or concerns arise. The following topics were included in the latest TMB resolution on SR WG.
- The TMB will send a letter to all ISO member bodies to invite participation and circulate the definition of stakeholder categories to help them nominate the experts,
- It will encourage member bodies to approach their government for financial support,
- It confirms that it is the exclusive responsibility of each member bodies to ensure the involvement of stakeholders at the national level, and
- It asks WG SR to categorize liaison organizations in order to avoid duplication and overrepresentation of a particular stakeholder category.

The third item raises a bit of concern since it could diminish the influence of WG's effort to ensure the balanced participation not only at the WG meetings but also at the national level.

ISO member bodies forming national mirror committees for ISO SR standard [3/7/2006]

Since the establishment of ISO Working Group (WG) to develop international Social Responsibility (SR) standard in March 2005, ISO member countries have been working to assemble national mirror committees. Although the WG encourages member countries to establish a "well-balanced national mirror committee comprising a balance of all national interests and stakeholder categories," it is up to each member body how to implement such a goal. For instance, the recently formed US national mirror committee does not have any mechanism to support under-represented/funded stakeholder groups. The tiered membership fee structure proposed by consumer and NGO representatives (i.e. higher fee for well-represented/funded groups and lower fee for under-represented/funded ones) could not gain enough support within the committee, and the group decided to use a flat fee of $500/year for all six stakeholder categories.

WG SR's Task Group 1 recognizes the importance of balanced representation at the national level, and is exploring the funding and other mechanisms to achieve the balance. At the same time, the recent TMB resolution confirmed that the organization and decision of national mirror committees is exclusively the national member body's responsibility. Although this WG has been establishing new procedures that did not exist in other ISO committees (such as introducing a strict stakeholder category quota for national delegates), it is yet to be seen how much influence WG can exert at the national level.

ISO Takes Incremental -Yet Essential- Step Forwardon on Social Responsibility [10/17/05]

By most accounts, the recent meeting of ISO's Working Group on Social Responsibility (WG SR) was a notable success. The key achievement of the group's second plenary meeting, held in Bangkok September 26-30, was the approval of a design specification. (The design specification is basically an annotated outline of future standard's main clauses, as well as guidance for the standard's drafters as to the general contents of each clause.) In addition to completion of the design specification, the Group's Swedish-Brazilian co-leadership had set two other main objectives for the Bangkok meeting, both of which were procedural in nature, and both were accomplished by meeting's end. The first was the establishment of sub-entities within the WG (known as Task Groups) that will be responsible for actually drafting designated clauses of the standard. (Three such Tasks Groups were formed by resolution of the WG, and they compliment three pre-existing "operational" Task Groups, making six in total.) The second outcome was agreement on a process for establishing the permanent leadership of the newly formed Task Groups. The nomination/selection process, which will take two to three months based on various contingency scenarios, was approved at the WG's closing plenary session.

Most WG experts (including NGOs) expressed some degree of satisfaction with the outcomes of the meeting, and the final design specification in particular, while simultaneously pointing out that the document was written broadly enough to obscure outstanding (and potentially fundamental) differences that remain among the stakeholder groups. After considerable debate over the course of the week, it was recognized that due to limited time, a number of the more contentious issues could not be resolved in Bangkok, and instead would have to be deferred to the Task Groups charged with developing the standard. Among those issues were:

- how to reference other international SR instruments, norms, and conventions in the ISO standard;
- what exactly will be the nature and scope of the "SR principles" that will constitute Clause 5 of the standard, and;
- the extent to which (and how) the range of voluntary versus legally binding aspects of SR will be addressed in the standard.

The WG did resolve one controversial topic, and that was how the standard will address the issue of stakeholder engagement, at least at the most general level. After lengthy discussion, it was agreed by consensus not to have a stand-alone clause on stakeholder engagement, but instead to address the issue in the relevant parts of other clauses. Some NGOs remain concerned that taking such an approach runs the risk of having the critical issue of stakeholder engagement "lost" in scattered form throughout the document. Other NGOs, as well as a large majority of the WG experts as whole, felt the issue was so essential to the concept of SR that it had to be addressed in numerous areas of the standard. In part to mollify those who preferred a stand-alone clause on stakeholder engagement, but also to ensure that other key SR concepts that transcend individual clauses of the standard are handled effectively and efficiently, the WG agreed to establish a formal liaison mechanism among the three Task Groups developing the standard.

Improving Balanced Stakeholder Participation
The WG also made a number of key decisions on procedural issues. To address the problem of inconsistent approaches taken by national standards bodies when assigning experts to stakeholder categories, the WG developed consensus definitions for the six stakeholder groups operating within the WG (i.e., government, industry, consumer, labor, NGO, and other). The definitions, first drafted by the respective stakeholder groups themselves during caucus meetings, were approved with minimal amendments by the full WG at its closing plenary. The WG Secretariat will disseminate the definitions to national standards bodies and liaison organizations, along with a cover memo requesting that they be used for expert stakeholder category re-classification (if necessary), as well as for future nominations of expert and observer delegates to the WG.

A related concern was raised by NGOs (and other experts) that quite a few national delegations at the Bangkok meeting were not adhering to the ISO Technical Management Board's directive that each national delegation consist of no more than six experts (one from each stakeholder category), and that no more than two experts from any single category be included on a national delegation. In recognition of this problem, the WG leadership at the closing plenary requested national delegations to more strictly adhere to the TMB's guidance for balanced stakeholder involvement in the ISO SR standard-setting process. The leadership also pledged to play a more significant oversight role during the registration process for future WG meetings.

On the heels of only limited success in 2005 with fundraising to support developing country and balanced stakeholder participation in its work, the WG SR passed a resolution requesting the ISO Central Secretariat and the Technical Management Board to allocate necessary resources, and to collaborate more closely with the WG in working to secure future funding. The WG's fundraising success to date has largely been linked to pre-existing mechanisms within ISO oriented toward providing financial assistance to developing country participants. However, there also remains a need for funding for under-resourced constituents in industrialized countries (i.e., NGOs, consumers, labor), considering that the WG SR represents ISO's first attempt to actively facilitate balanced stakeholder participation. With that in mind, the WG SR passed another resolution expressing appreciation of the national governments that have been financially supporting the development of ISO SR to date, and calling upon ISO Central Secretariat to request, through appropriate channels, that other national governments support ISO's SR initiative with financial contributions.

Update on the Development of ISO's Social Responsibility Standard [7/21/05]

Experts participating in ISO's Working Group on Social Responsibility (WG on SR) have been working diligently to complete various tasks assigned to them during the WG's inaugural meeting in March 2005. Six sub-groups called Task Groups (TGs), some of which are temporary, were created under the WG to resolve the contentious issue of what topics will actually be included in the guidance standard, as well as to advance various administrative, outreach, and funding-related issues facing the WG. (For more information on the tasks for each TGs, click here.) By the end of June, each TG circulated to the full WG membership a report of its preliminary decisions and findings for further discussion at the next WG meeting in late September in Bangkok, Thailand. The major task for that WG meeting will be to finalize the design specification (i.e., outline) of the standard, and to determine, if possible, the permanent leadership of the TG(s) that will carry out the actual standard development work.

ISO SR Governance Controversy
In mid-June, ISO's senior management, the Technical Management Board (TMB), prompted some controversy by passing a resolution "clarifying" that the WG on SR shall not develop a Management System Standard, referred to in ISO parlance simply as MSS. This pronouncement, which was made while WG experts were in the midst of deliberations on the issue, came as a total surprise to everyone in the WG, including the WG leadership. The WG experts' discussion on the type and design of the new standard had been taking place within Task Groups, and the issue was going to be discussed during the next WG meeting in Bangkok. However, the TMB's unilateral decision has preempted further discussion of the subject. At issue in the MSS debate was the concern by some, particularly industry, that an MSS standard for SR would be too prescriptive and could also open the door for inappropriate use in the context of third party certification. Other experts were of the view that the guidance in the SR standard would be most valuable if it were provided in a format that can easily be integrated into organizations' existing management structures. They also argued that an MSS framework would improve the ability of external audiences to assess the degree to which organizations are living up to the full range of their SR commitments.

The fact that the resolution was passed without any consultation with the WG on SR or its leadership has raised questions about the function and authority of the WG, which from its inception has put a special emphasis on the multi-stakeholder process and consensus-based decision-making. In addition, the fact that the TMB resolution was substantively aligned with the industry position on the matter has spurred cynicism in some NGOs, who have grown increasingly concerned that ISO is incapable of meaningfully evolving from its historical basis as an industry-dominated institution.

In response to an inquiry by the WG on SR leadership on the rationale for the TMB's decision, the chair of the TMB, Ziva Patir, released a letter explaining that the resolution was passed to clarify the intent of previous TMB resolutions and New Work Item Proposal for the SR standard. The letter, however, did not address one of the fundamental concerns conveyed by some WG participants that the TMB's top-down decision without any input from the WG erodes the validity of the multi-stakeholder decision-making model the WG is intended to operate under, and also could eventually undermine the credibility and legitimacy of ISO's SR standard. Concerned about this development, the consumer and NGO stakeholder groups within the SR WG issued statements in July, asking the TMB not to make future decisions that affect the contents of the standard without a request by, or consultation with, the WG's leadership.

Definition of Stakeholder Groups
The WG on SR represents ISO's first attempt to achieve balanced stakeholder participation in the standards development process. ISO established special operating procedures for the WG, including a request that national member bodies participating in the work nominate a maximum of six experts, one for each of the six stakeholder categories: industry, government, labor, consumer, NGO, and other. However, since no clear definition or explanation of these stakeholder categories was provided by ISO (or WG's leadership), confusion among participating countries and liaison organizations has led to inconsistent categorization of experts. For instance, some member countries assigned experts representing industry trade associations to the "other" category, or even NGO category in light of their non-profit status, whereas other countries assigned similar representatives to the industry category. National standards bodies also presented a stakeholder categorization dilemma with some countries assigning them to the "other" category and other countries classifying them as NGO or government. (In many developing countries, national standards bodies are actually government agencies.)

In response to some of the categorization problems evident at the first WG meeting, several discussions on this topic started in parallel. Within the Chairman's Advisory Group (CAG), an advisory body for the SR WG leadership, the representative of the International Labour Organization (ILO) proposed a set of definitions and processes (link) to frame how experts from each stakeholder category might be chosen. Also, at the national level, in order to select its delegates for the SR WG, the United States national mirror body to the WG developed its own definitions for the six stakeholder categories. In recognition that the definitions must be applied consistently across national member bodies, the US mirror body submitted its definitions to the WG leadership for consideration (and modification) at the international level. The NGO Group of the SR WG took a different approach, deciding to take it upon itself to define the concept of "NGO," as well as eligibility to the group. NGO Group participants also agreed that each of its constituent NGOs should be responsible for a self-assessment of whether it meets the NGO definition, and where necessary explaining this decision to the other NGOs. The NGO Group came up with the following definition and information requirements to enable participation in the NGO Group.

Within the context of the ISO/TMB Working Group on Social Responsibility a non-governmental organization (NGO) is defined as:

A non-profit association of individuals or organizations that has public interest objectives related to the topic of Social Responsibility or any of its component issues. The following baselines should be considered:
-The primary objective of the NGO should not be the development of standards, or the provision of standards-related services,
-The NGO may operate with, but should be independent of, government, industry, labor unions, or consumer groups, and
-Grants or membership dues from, or fee-based services to, for-profit organizations should not be a significant proportion of an NGO's overall funding or have a direct influence on its governance structure.

All organizations participating in the NGO Group shall provide the following information, which will be available to all NGO Group members:
-Proof of charitable/non-profit status
-Publicly available statement of mandate/objectives (e.g. from website)
-Governance structure, including membership and board members' affiliation
-Sources of funding, indicating roughly which percentage of total funding is derived from grants or membership dues from, or fee-based services to, for-profit organizations.

Since the success of the ISO SR standard relies heavily on the ability of the WG to establish a truly multi-stakeholder process to develop the standard, we believe it is crucial to develop clear stakeholder definitions that are accepted by consensus of the entire WG. Considering that the use of stakeholder category quota is the precedent-setting initiative within ISO, and that ISO will likely look to produce more sustainable development-related standards that would require balanced stakeholder involvement, this discussion becomes even more significant.

Background
ISO began moving into the area of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in September 2002 when its governing body, the ISO Council, voted to establish an advisory group to explore the feasibility and desirability of creating CSR standards. By June 2004, after having reviewed the report developed by the advisory group, as well as the feedback gathered at the international CSR conference, the ISO's senior management body - the Technical Management Board (TMB) - decided to develop a guidance document in the area of Social Responsibility. On January 7th, 2005, upon the conclusion of a three-month ballot period, ISO's national member bodies formally (and overwhelmingly) approved a proposal to develop an international standard on SR. The first Working Group meeting was held in Brazil in May 2005. The final standard, dubbed ISO 26000, is expected to be published in 2008

According to the report by the Kenan Institute, China has announced it will limit and monitor certification to international CSR and labor standards. In November 2004, the Certification and Accreditation Administration of China (CNCA), the Chinese government's certification authority, announced that:

" Henceforth, no social responsibility certification, such as to Social Accountability (SA) 8000 may be conducted without approval from CNCA.
" Organizations providing SA8000 auditing and certification services were to report their activities to CNCA by December 10, 2004. These reports should have included information on the organizations' accreditation status (e.g., government approval of their activities) and the companies they have certified to date.
" The ISO Social Responsibility guidance standard being developed, and in which China is participating, should not be used for auditing or certification purposes.
" The China State Standardization Management Commission will investigate the feasibility of a domestic Chinese CSR standard. Until that research is completed, foreign companies that have obtained international labor and environmental certifications in China must report them to the CNCA. In the future, the CNCA will permit certification only when necessary for international trade.

China's action to limit the use of international CSR and labor standards appears to be driven in part by its concern relating to the rapid uptake of social and environmental certification schemes, especially SA8000 in China. Initiated by the US-based Social Accountability International (SAI) in 1997, SA8000 is a voluntary labor standard geared toward ensuring that retailers, brand companies, suppliers and other organizations maintain just and decent working conditions throughout their supply chains. Although only 94 SA8000 certifications were issued in China as of March 2005, SA8000 has received a lot of attention in China in large part because an array of actors in China are increasingly ready to talk about social issues, and the Chinese government has determined to move away from the idea of economic development at any social price. SA8000 has also been receiving attention due to the fact that local Chinese newspapers last year reported that the United States and European Union would make SA8000 certification mandatory for all Chinese exporters seeking access to their markets. Chinese government officials, after seeking clarification with SAI, issued a statement that the reports were false, but the incident fueled fear among the Chinese suppliers that developed countries will utilize certification schemes that impose strict labor standards as a means of curtailing Chinese imports. Another possible explanation as to why the Chinese government has taken steps to restrict the certification of SA8000 is that some provisions in the standard conflict with national laws. For instance, SA8000 requires organizations to allow workers to organize and bargain collectively, while Chinese law in essence prohibits workers from forming independent unions.

In terms of background, voluntary CSR/labor standards and their auditing and certification programs have been widely implemented in China and other developing countries, largely driven by the increasing expectations of multinational corporations that their suppliers and operations in developing countries take appropriate measures to protect human rights and worker liberties. Procurement policy based on international CSR standards and codes of conduct by multinational corporations have been seen as effective tools to improve the work conditions in China. They have arisen as foreign investors and companies have struggled to find appropriate approaches to ensuring adequate social and environmental performance of the local partners in China where the enforcement of the local law is very sporadic and national and state regulations are constantly changing and inconsistent. However, these initiatives have raised concern among developing country governments and companies, who assert that the increased production costs associated with certification disadvantage them relative to local and global competitors that don't comply with the standards. They also argue that some international certification schemes set the performance bar too high and don't take local conditions into account.

Should China decide to establish its own national CSR standard it would not necessarily be a negative development, but it would certainly raise a slew of questions. For instance, it is unknown how long it would take to publish such a standard, nor is it clear whether the standard would be voluntary or mandatory, and if the latter, whether it would be accompanied by a reliable enforcement mechanism. Would China's new CSR standard include monitoring/certification processes, and if so, would they have the same public credibility or effectiveness as international certification schemes such as SA8000?

Moreover, should China decide to create a national standard and restrict the use of international ones, it would go against the current trend toward greater harmonization and integration of the numerous CSR standards and certification systems, such as is happening vis-à-vis ISO's SR standardization process. This leads to further questions such as would China continue to participate in the development of the international CSR standard being produced by ISO? And might China's standard differ substantively from the international guidance established by ISO?

More generally, it is still unclear how China's new policy announcement will actually be implemented, but the case illustrates some challenges international CSR standards are facing, including their implications for international trade, as well as their need to balance between global applicability/acceptance and effectiveness/credibility.

Background
On January 7th, 2005, upon the conclusion of a three-month ballot period, ISO's national member bodies formally (and overwhelmingly) approved a proposal by ISO's senior management body - the Technical Management Board (TMB) - to develop an international standard on SR. Considering the broad support shown for the SR initiative at ISO's international conference in Stockholm in June 2004, approval of the new work item proposal was considered all but certain. Indeed, since September the TMB had been actively preparing for the formal launch of the WG tasked with carrying out the standard's development, and had at that time, assigned Brazil and Sweden the co-leadership role.

Since the outset, ISO has recognized that the unique nature of SR will necessitate new ways of approaching its business. So in addition to the new work proposal, the TMB laid out detailed supplemental operating procedures for the WG tasked with developing the SR standard. The TMB procedures specified, for instance, that national member bodies wishing to participate in the work should nominate a maximum of six experts, one for each of the following stakeholder categories: industry, government, labor, consumer, NGO, and other. And while national members have been allowed some flexibility on how they establish their delegation, they are allowed no more than two experts from the same category.

Further, along with the national member bodies, ISO invited a number of international groups and intergovernmental institutions to participate as "liaison organizations," each being allowed to nominate two experts. Under normal ISO rules, liaison organizations cannot vote on a standard's progression, however, the TMB, in its procedures document, stated that the WG on SR shall explicitly implement a provision in the ISO rules noting that the "full and formal backing" of liaison organizations should be sought during the various approval stages of the draft standard. This modification can be seen as an intermediate step toward granting voting rights to non-national, interest-based participants in ISO (e.g., civil society groups, intergovernmental bodies, trade associations, etc) - a significant first.

In early March, ISO carried out another "first" by signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the ILO, which in effect has given (subject to interpretation) the ILO the authority to veto any labor-related parts of the standard that it deems problematic or inconsistent vis-à-vis ILO conventions and guidelines. This special status granted the ILO has caused consternation and raised the ire of a multitude of stakeholders ranging from national standards bureaucrats to other intergovernmental bodies, the latter of which making it known their dissatisfaction with not being granted similar recognition by ISO. As a side note, in light of ISO's (yet unimpeded) effort to reposition itself as a leading player in emerging global governance structures, the ISO-ILO MOU should rightly be seen as a very significant development in and of itself.

Lastly, the TMB's decision to house the SR work in a WG (as opposed of the traditional Technical Committee) is noteworthy because people participating in ISO WGs do so in their own capacity - that is, they represent their individual viewpoint and expertise rather than national consensus positions, which have historically been determined by industry majorities. This WG structural format, along with the TMB's supplemental operating procedures discussed above, are both directed at achieving fuller and more balanced stakeholder participation in the SR standard development process. And even though it remains to be seen exactly how these procedural changes will play out in the WG in practice, the proposals themselves represent a precedent-setting emphasis on balanced stakeholder participation. Collectively, they represent a praiseworthy development for ISO, though it's safe to say that at this juncture, ISO is certainly in uncharted (and deep) waters.

Kick Off Meeting in Salvador, Brazil
The first meeting of the WG on SR was held in early March 2005 in Salvador, Brazil and was attended by more than 300 delegates. The primary objectives of the meeting were to:
1) Agree upon the general structure/contents of the SR standard;
2) Establish the corollary structure of the WG and its subgroups;
3) Further develop its operating procedures, and
4) Assign leadership positions for the WG's subgroups.

While not all of these objectives were accomplished at the meeting, significant progress was made in certain areas, particularly the decision-making approach for the WG and other procedural and structural aspects. Below is a description of key outcomes of the meeting: the precise language of the major decisions taken at the meeting can also be found in the WG's 32 Resolutions.

Decision-making within the WG and all of its subsidiary bodies (such as TGs)
With the exception of the selection of Task Group leadership, there will be no voting in the WG or its subsidiary bodies. All decisions will be made on the basis of consensus as defined in the ISO/IEC Directives: "Consensus: general agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the view of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. NOTE: Consensus need not imply unanimity." The onus will be on WG experts to formally declare to the leadership of the WG or TG their "sustained opposition" on a matter, and then for the leadership to assess whether that opposition pertains to a "substantial issue" or is shared by an "important part of the concerned interests." If either of those two tests is not met, the chair/convener may decide that consensus has, in fact, been reached. Specific training on this issue will be provided for the TG (and possibly even WG) leadership.

Establishment of Task Groups (TG)
Following TGs were established during the meeting.
TG 1: Funding and Stakeholder Engagement - to recruit key stakeholders and to find money to increase the participation by groups with limited resources, such as developing countries and consumers
TG 2: Communication - to make available information on the WG in order to ensure transparency and openness, to develop supporting tools for disseminating information, to help other TGs with their communication and to develop a plan for strategic promotion and communication
TG 3: Operating Procedures - to work on revising or developing new procedures for the WG processes

TGs 4, 5, and 6, which will work on the content of the standard, have been established only on an interim basis. They are tasked with exploring the issues set out for the group, and making suggestions on how these issues might be reflected in a design specification, and worked on thereafter.

Interim TG 5: Social responsibility core context: issues, definitions, principles (differing types), interface of organization and society.

Interim TG 6: What it would look like for the standard to address (e.g., what wording might be used) guidance appropriate for all organizations to understand and apply the SR core context; and also guidance appropriate for specific kinds of organizations.

Establishment of Chair's Advisory Group
A Chair's Advisory Group (CAG) has been established for this WG. The CAG will consist of WG Chairs and Secretaries, Task Group (TG) conveners, two representatives from each stakeholder category (selected by the stakeholder groups themselves, with one representative each from developed and developing countries), an ILO representative, and if necessary, additional representatives selected by the WG Chair to balance representation (gender, regional distribution, etc.). The role of the CAG is to assist the leadership of the WG in steering the WG's work, to give advice to the WG leadership on strategic issues, and to help ensure balanced representation in TGs, among other tasks.

Operating Procedures to implement the agreement with the ILO
To ensure that ISO's SR standard will not infringe on areas of work already established by the International Labour Organization (ILO), the two organizations executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on March 4, 2003. According to the MoU, every official draft produced by the WG on SR has to be submitted to the ILO for its full and formal backing prior to being circulated for vote and comment. In addition, any elements/text that implicate ILO issues will be the subject of ILO review and comment, and ILO standards and guidelines will take priority in any case of conflict in the content. Special operating procedures were established to assist with information exchange, and regular and mutual consultation between the SR WG and the ILO.

Timeline
Either Thailand or Japan will host the next WG meeting in August or October 2005. The final standard, dubbed ISO 26000, is expected to be published in 2008.

Analysis
There was wide agreement among participants that the Salvador meeting was challenging, and at times, even mind-bogglingly difficult. In large part, this can be explained by the sheer number of delegates (over 300), many meeting each other (and ISO) for the first time, and many advocating vastly divergent views. However, the relatively slow pace of progress can also be attributed to the fact that clear guidance was not provided to the WG by ISO's senior management on several important and historically contentious issues. For instance, key issues such as the primary audience for the standard, the degree to which the standard should contain normative language and harmonized and replicable processes, or the degree to which it should resemble (or relate to) a management system standard have been debated since the formation of the multi-stakeholder Strategic Advisory Group on SR that was assembled in 2003 to provide ISO guidance on the issue of SR standardization. Language on these issues in the new work item proposal for the SR standard was vague, perhaps purposefully so given their contentious nature. Thus, in light of the unique structure and rules of operation for the WG, and given that critical issues pertaining to the scope and intent of the standard remained unresolved leading up to the meeting, the fact that any headway was made in Brazil is noteworthy.

As stated in our previous INNI Online Update, it is too early to predict whether the ISO SR standard itself will prove to be complimentary or detrimental to existing CSR efforts. At worst, ISO's standard could serve as a competitor to more stringent NGO-led CSR initiatives, or could include provisions that directly contradict existing CSR protocols or standards. Another threat is that it could attempt to delineate stakeholder roles and responsibilities and seek to provide guidance not only on the appropriate role of private sector businesses in the context of SR, but also on the expectations and roles of government and civil society. (This proposal has been put forward by an industry association and is still in play.) On a more optimistic note, the standard could end up serving as a stand-alone tool for improving an organization's SR performance and/or a framework for managing its various pre-existing SR commitments, obligations, and responsibilities more effectively. ISO's vast market reach and ability to access businesses in the Southern hemisphere as well as small and medium-sized enterprises worldwide should not be overlooked.

This open question of where the ISO SR standard will end up will likely hinge upon three things: 1) whether stakeholders historically underrepresented in ISO participate in the ISO WG on SR in sufficient numbers to influence the outcome(s), 2) whether those stakeholders that do choose to participate can maximize their influence by working strategically and collaboratively within the ISO system, and 3) whether civil society groups working outside of ISO can effectively coordinate their messaging and advocacy with key decision-makers.

ISO Prepares for the Development of Its Social Responsibility Standard [11.23.04]

News Update:
Since its June 2004 decision to move forward with an international standard on Social Responsibility (SR), ISO's Technical Management Board (TMB), the senior management body overseeing the SR initiative, has been actively preparing for the formal launch of the Working Group (WG) that will carry out the standard's development. In September, the TMB assigned Brazil and Sweden the co-leadership of the WG, and it also finalized and circulated the official New Work Item Proposal (NWIP) for the SR standard, which is to be voted on by ISO member bodies during a three-month ballot period ending January 7th, 2005. Considering the broad support shown for the SR initiative at ISO's international conference in June 2004, approval of the NWIP by the member bodies is all but certain. (Approval only requires a simple majority of member countries voting and a commitment by at least five members to participate actively in the work.) The expected publication date of the new standard, dubbed ISO 26000, is set for 2007.

Along with the NWIP, the TMB also issued two documents that laid out specific operational procedures for the development of the SR standard. In the documents, the TMB specified that member bodies wishing to participate in the work should nominate a maximum of six experts, one for each of the following stakeholder categories: industry, government, labor, consumer, non-governmental organization, and others. Members are allowed some flexibility on how they establish their delegation, but are expected to have no more than two experts form the same category. The TMB also requested member bodies to provide a brief profile of the nominated experts, in order to ensure their appropriate assignment of tasks within the WG. Member bodies have also been asked to establish national "mirror committees" to formulate national positions on the drafts developed by the WG. However, no specific requirements were given by the TMB for how balanced stakeholder participation was to be established within national mirror committees.

Along with the member countries, ISO will invite a number of international organizations to participate as "liaison organizations," with each allowed to nominate two experts. Other interested international or broadly-based regional organizations may participate if approved by the TMB. Under the normal ISO rules, liaison organizations cannot vote on the standard's progression, even though the ISO rule states that the "full and formal backing of the liaison organizations" is required. However, the TMB, in its SR standard procedures document, states that ISO will explicitly implement the "formal backing" provision at both the Draft International Standard and Final Draft International Standard approval stages. It is however still not clear how exactly the WG will carry out this commitment.

These new procedures specific to this standard are in line with the Advisory Group's recommendation and the ISO Council resolution issued after the international SR conference that set the objective of the full and balanced stakeholder participation in the SR standard development process.

The TMB and newly appointed leadership of the WG are presently working on a draft proposal for the structure of the new standard (and consequently the WG itself). The proposal, as well as the invitation to the first WG plenary meeting, likely to be held in Brazil in March 2005, is expected to be sent out to the member countries in December 2004.

Analysis:
It's way too early to attempt to assess whether ISO's SR guidance standard will prove value-adding or detrimental to existing CSR efforts. At worst, ISO's standard could serve as a competitor for more stringent NGO-led CSR initiatives, or could include provisions that contradict existing CSR protocols or standards. At best, it could serve as a stand-alone tool for improving an organization's SR performance and/or a framework for managing its various SR commitments, obligations, and responsibility more effectively. This open question of where the standard will end up will likely hinge upon whether NGOs participate in sufficient numbers to influence the outcome.

Collectively, the manner in which ISO has launched its initiative on Social Responsibility represents a positive and notable step forward for the organization. And even though it remains to be seen how the TMB's suggested procedural changes will be implemented by the WG, the proposals themselves represent a precedent-setting emphasis on balanced stakeholder participation, which is a praiseworthy development for ISO. We hope ISO's SR experience will pave the way for broader and permanent mechanisms that promote a more equitable balance of interests in standards development.

Background:
ISO began moving into the area of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in September 2002 when its governing body, the ISO Council, voted to establish an advisory group to explore the feasibility and desirability of creating CSR standards. By June 2004, after having reviewed the report developed by the advisory group, as well as the feedback gathered at the international CSR conference, the ISO TMB decided to develop a guidance document in the area of Social Responsibility.

On June 25, 2004, ISO's senior management decided that ISO should develop an International Standard pertaining to social responsibility (SR). The decision was based on a multi-stakeholder Advisory Group's (AG) recommendation, as well as feedback received from participants at an international conference on the subject.

The AG on SR produced a detailed working report that summarized the current landscape of SR, examined the issues related to the standardization of SR, and evaluated ISO's capacity to undertake work in the area. Based on an 18-month discussion among the members, the AG submitted its report and recommendation to ISO's Technical Management Board (TMB) on April 30, 2004. The recommendation consists of three parts. The first part lists the seven criteria ISO has to fulfill before it can proceed with the work in SR. The second part specifies the scope and type of the ISO deliverables, and the last part describes how the work should be carried out. (The actual text and analysis of the AG's recommendation can be found in IISD's report)

ISO's international conference on SR was held on June 21-22 in Stockholm, Sweden. 355 participants from 66 countries, including 33 developing countries discussed whether ISO should proceed with work addressing the social responsibility of organizations. In addition, the AG's working report and recommendation were posted on ISO's SR website, and 14 organizations submitted comments and inputs prior to the conference. The feedback from the conference was consistently supportive of the idea that ISO create a new standard for SR, and in line with the AG's recommendation, that ISO should make sure to fulfill the conditions required to develop a meaningful standard.

In large part, the TMB decided to adopt the AG's seven prerequisites as well as suggested scope and deliverable for the new standard. It agreed to establish mechanisms to facilitate the participation of developing countries, NGOs, consumer groups and other under-represented parties, and more specifically, to create a leadership position to work on the stakeholder involvement issue, including funding. It also decided to skip the feasibility study process, and start the work immediately, by creating a Working Group directly under the TMB. The group will be headed by a twinned-leadership representing both developing and developed countries. A TMB task force was established to develop a more detailed new work item proposal and terms of reference of the Working Group and its operating procedures. The task force will submit its proposal to the full TMB at its next meeting in September 2004.

European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility Releases Its Final Report [8/19/04]

In June 2004, the European Union's (EU) multi-stakeholder forum on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) published its final report, which included recommendations on how to promote CSR in Europe. The purpose of the forum, created in 2002, was to explore the possibility of developing a European guiding principle for CSR practices and instruments, but the final report did not make any conclusion on that matter. Based on the findings of the report, the European Commission is expected to release an official communication on CSR by the end of the year. The forum proposed to review the progress made in relation to its recommendations in two years.

ISO, on the home stretch in its effort to explore the possible development of new standards in the area of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), is hosting an international conference on the issue in June 21/22, 2004. The process, which started in 2001 when ISO's management body asked its Consumer Policy Committee (COPOLCO) to examine the viability of such standards, will reach a critical decision point at the ISO Technical Management Board's (TMB) meeting right after the international conference.

The recommendation to hold such a conference was formally put forward by ISO's Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) on Social Responsibility (SR), the ad-hoc group that has been examining the matter since January 2003. The input from the participating stakeholders at the conference, as well as the Working Report and associated recommendations by the SAG will inform the TMB's decision at its June meeting on whether to move forward with ISO SR standards. More detailed information on the SAG's activities and the text of TMB's January 2004 Resolution can be found in IISD's report.

Analysis
Delegations of ISO member bodies and representatives of international organizations will be the vast majority of attendees at the invitation-only conference. However, both the TMB and SAG identified balanced stakeholder participation as a main criterion for the success of the SR conference. Toward that end, the TMB resolved "member bodies are encouraged to establish their delegations to ensure balanced representation of all stakeholder categories with the maximum number of delegates being eight per member body". Even though there is no specific procedure to attain such a mix of stakeholders, the TMB resolution is noteworthy because of the prominence it gave to the issue of stakeholder diversity at an ISO meeting. The resolution also mentions the possibility of funding to ensure good representation from developing countries. For the organizations and individuals that cannot participate in the conference, SAG's Working Report and related material, as well as the result of the conference will be made available on ISO's website.

The SAG and TMB will meet immediately after the international conference to discuss the event's results. Shortly thereafter, the TMB will meet again to take its decision on further actions with respect to the ISO work plan on social responsibility. The SAG agreed that the international conference should not be a "Yes/No" vote on whether ISO should develop SR standards. And no formal output was specified on what the conference should deliver. The TMB, however, confirmed that it will make information regarding the nature and content of the decisions publicly available prior to the conference the TMB intends to consider . It is impossible to predict how and what the TMB will decide on the fate of ISO's SR standards, but considering the timing of the international conference, it cannot ignore the input from the conference participants. Interested stakeholder groups are thus encouraged to contact their national member bodies to seek to serve as delegates.

In July 2003, the ISO Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) met in Sao Paulo, Brazil to lay out a detailed work plan and timeline for the Technical Report (TR) and Justification Study (JS) it has been charged by ISO to prepare. (The TR is intended to provide an analysis of current activities and trends in the field of CSR, and the JS is required under ISO rules for any new work item proposal for standards development.) At its July meeting, the advisory group also supported ISO's preliminary proposal to host an international conference on Social Responsibility, in order to provide an opportunity for external parties to provide input on ISO's prospective role in the field. Lastly, the SAG discussed the composition of its membership, and decided to ask ISO to add three representatives: one each from an international environmental NGO, an international human rights organization, and an industry group.

The SAG's work plan, however, was significantly modified by the ISO Technical management Board (TMB) at its September 2003 meeting. The TMB, which has oversight responsibilities for the SAG's work, decided to "downgrade" the formal TR to an internal "working report." It purportedly did this so as to expedite the completion of the analysis, as the new work product does not require comment and vote by all ISO member bodies. The TMB also revised the ISO Council's resolution that the SAG should undertake developing the JS immediately after the completion of the technical report. Instead, the TMB took more direct responsibility for that work, and agreed that it would decide after the completion of the working paper whether to initiate a JS, and if so, assign who should do it. These revisions to the SAG's proposed work plan were based on the idea that ISO's decision on CSR should proceed more quickly, and also that the SAG should focus on its internal "advisory" role, rather than get bogged down with procedural issues.

As for the international conference on CSR and additional member appointment, the TMB accepted both of the SAG suggestions. At this writing WWF International has accepted an invitation by ISO that it serve as the ENGO representative. With the TMB's revisions, the new timeline is as follows:

· Submission of the first draft working report - January 2004
· Completion of the final draft working report - end of April 2004
· International CSR meeting - immediately prior to the TMB's June 2004 meeting
· TMB makes decision on future steps including whether to initiate JS - June 2004

Analysis
The TMB's revision of the SAG's work plan is a clear sign that ISO, once seemingly comfortable with "floating" the deliberations surrounding its possible role in international CSR standardization, would like to maintain closer and more direct control over the process. It now evident that the TMB is willing to selectively adopt the SAG's recommendations, even if that risks unsettling the SAG's multi-stakeholder consensus. It has also now become unclear the degree to which the SAG will influence the content of the JS, or if indeed, it's developed. And although the SAG was never assumed to be the decision maker on the matter, its has more balanced stakeholder representation ( link to the list of the SAG member) than typical ISO decision-making bodies, thus its input on ISO's role in CSR standards is important. The further ISO strays from the SAG's recommendations, the more it would seem ISO exposes itself to challenges regarding the legitimacy of the direction taken.

In addition, the revised timeline gives less time and room for external groups to have any influence on if, and how, CSR is going to be addressed in ISO. It is not known when the internal working paper will be made publicly available, if at all. The international CSR conference, which was envisioned by the SAG to allow for stakeholder feedback on the draft TR, will now take place after the completion of the working draft, and the event's effect on ISO's overall CSR approach now seems to be in question. Nevertheless, NGOs interested in CSR still should consider attending the June 2004 meeting, since it will provide the opportunity to learn, network, and possibly provide informal input into the writing of the JS, should the TMB decide to develop one.

Plan Laid Out for Implementation of ISO CSR Advisory Group's Recommendations [8/5/03]

On April 3, 2003, a meeting was held between the chairs of the ISO Technical Management Board (TMB) and the SAG on CSR to clarify the general role and concrete tasks of the SAG for the implementation of the recommendation. The following issues were confirmed at the meeting:

· The ISO Council has formally accepted the SAG's recommendations;
· The Council has given management and oversight responsibilities for this file to the ISO TMB;
· An acceptable and credible consultant will prepare the Technical Report - the mandate and scope of which will be established with the input of the SAG;
· Drafts of the Technical Report will be circulated to the SAG for comments and inputs; and
· The SAG would meet on July 24-25, 2003 in Sao Paulo, Brazil to discuss the Technical Report, the preparation of a Justification Study, and the review of ISO's processes.

In order to discuss the scope of the Technical Report (TR) and the criteria for the selection of a consultant, a conference call of the SAG was held on May 20, 2003. It was agreed that the TR's scope should focus on the overview of social responsibility, instead of trying to compile a comprehensive list of all CSR initiatives. It was decided that the TR should include three components:

1. a survey of the state of the art in the area of social responsibility;
2. an analysis of the current trends and their possible meaning for the future;
3. an analysis of the gaps identified and potential opportunities to fill these gaps.

Regarding the selection of the consultant (service provider), the following steps were determined:

· The SAG will provide potential names to the Secretary;
· The SAG will review the full list of proposed service providers and provide comments;
· A short-list of names will be drawn up;
· The Secretary will draft a terms of reference for the TR to be used in a tender process;
· The short-list of service providers will be invited to respond to the tender;
· The Secretary will draft selection criteria to be considered in the final selection, including expertise in the area, specific work experience, possible conflict of interest, and generic skills for the types of services required (researching, writing, analytical abilities, etc);
· The SAG, or a sub-group, will choose a service provider according to the selection criteria;
· ISO will pay for the costs of retaining the service provider.

Although a service provider would be engaged to facilitate the development of the TR, it was stressed that the TR would be a SAG report and that SAG members would work closely with the service provider.

The SAG met in July 2003 in Sao Paulo, Brazil to further discuss the workplan for the production of the TR, the preparation of a Justification Study, and a review of ISO's standards development processes. The group fine tuned the Secretary's draft terms of reference for the TR and agreed to a schedule for the report's development. It decided that once the consultant is finally selected, a "kick off" meeting between the consultant and the SAG will be held (likely in late August). The consultant will produce a first draft of the TR by October, and following a comment period within the SAG, a revised draft will be publicly circulated in February 2004. The SAG plans to organize a conference on the issue of ISO and CSR standards in June/July 2004 and to send a final draft of the TR to the ISO Technical Management Board by September 2004.

At its meeting on March 14, 2003, the ISO Council accepted the recommendations of its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) to further study ISO's possible role in CSR-related standards development. The SAG's recommendation laid out three concrete tasks to help determine ISO's future role: 1) development of a Technical Report that includes a survey of the state of the art in the area of social responsibility and identifies issues to be taken into account; 2) development of a justification document by the SAG to recommend whether ISO should proceed with a Social Responsibility Management System Guideline Standard(s) with a process for self-declaration of conformity, and without conformity assessments involving third-party certification; 3) review of ISO's processes with respect to the involvement of stakeholders to ensure the eventual broadest possible acceptance its deliverables. The SAG also decided to use the term "social responsibility" instead of "corporate social responsibility" henceforth, in anticipation that public agencies and other organizations may wish to use any future standard(s) ISO may produce.

Structure and Function of the ISO Social Responsibility Advisory Group [4/29/03]

In September 2002, ISO decided to further evaluate the subject of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by establishing the ISO CSR Strategic Advisory Group (SAG). Although there had been prior activity within ISO, including the work of its consumer policy committee's (COPOLCO), this decision marked a significant step forward, particularly in light of the fact that a very similar process was taken to create Technical Committee 207, which is now responsible for the ISO 14000 standards.
The membership of the SAG was finalized in mid-December 2002 and composed of 18 members, according to the following criteria:

· Eight members, nominated by the ISO Technical Management Board (TMB), representing the Americas (two), Africa (two) Europe (two) and Asia/Oceania (two); one of the regional representatives is to be from industry and the other from another stakeholder group;

· Two representatives from ISO policy committees - one from the ISO Committee on Developing Countries (DEVCO) and the other COPOLCO;

· One member from each of the eight international organizations:
o International Chamber of Commerce;
o International Organization of Employers;
o Consumers International;
o Global Reporting Initiative;
o International Labour Organization;
o International Confederation of Free Trade Unions;
o International Federation for the Application of Standards; and
o International Institute for Sustainable Development.

The CSR AG's mandate is to advise the TMB on three issues: 1) whether ISO should proceed with the development of ISO deliverables in the field of CSR and, if so, 2) what the scope of the work should be; and 3) what the appropriate type of deliverable might be. TMB was then asked by ISO Council to report the outcome no later than the Council's March 2003 meeting.

There are two parts to the Technical Report (TR) element of the AG recommendation: a survey of existing SR-related initiatives and a review of issues to be taken into account in further activities by ISO. The first part will be a factual account of all existing sources of guidance on the agreed components of SR, whereas the second will most likely provide guidance to help ISO consider issues that need to be addressed in future SR deliverables. The AG's recommendation does not specify who will develop this TR, however, it was presumed by some AG members that the group would be invited to contribute to this deliverable. ISO's Technical Management Board (TMB) is responsible for appointing a group to undertake the work, which by the time of this writing has yet to happen officially. Unofficial and unconfirmed reports by high-level ISO insiders suggest that a private consultant may be retained to produce the first draft of the TR. A draft of the final TR will be circulated to all ISO members for approval.

The second AG recommendation suggests that ISO formally examine the need for a management system standard (MSS) on SR. (In response to criticism from the user community in the late 1990s regarding the proliferation of management system standards, ISO instituted a requirement that all future MSS proposals must undergo a justification study to prove a market need. Such studies must be conducted according to ISO Guide 72.) The AG's proposed justification study will provide the opportunity to further explore on the role, need, and implication of a MSS on SR. Typically, such Guide 72 justification studies are used as the foundation for new work item proposals, which are then disseminated to the full ISO membership for formal approval by letter ballot.

The final part of the AG recommendation states the importance of effective and broader stakeholder participation in the development of SR standards in ISO. Although ISO has well-defined international standardization processes, SR is an issue that is substantially outside of its traditional fields of work. As a result, the stakeholders that are affected by SR standardization are not currently part of ISO's traditional community. It is uncertain when/if (or by whom) this suggested review of ISO processes will take place.

Worth noting here is that some other stakeholders besides industry share the belief that third-party certification may represent an unnecessary, yet expensive burden for users of the prospective standard. For example, the position of ISO's consumer policy committee (COPOLCO) is that "the process of stakeholder engagement and the requirement of transparency and accountability associated with the ISO Corporate Responsibility (CR) management system approach is designed to create an environment of trust, openness and genuine commitment which may diminish the need for third party verifications."

The 2002 COPOLCO report on the "Desirability and Feasibility of ISO CSR Standards," goes on to state:

Where a firm follows ISO CR MSS prescriptions so as to create verifiable, measurable results, fully involves its affected stakeholders in articulation and implementation of its CR approach, and communicates both this involvement and the firm's performance in meeting its CR objectives to its stakeholders and the broader community, its communications on CR matters should carry considerable weight. If these conditions are met, self-declarations by firms about compliance with ISO CR MSSs are likely to be credible. Self declaration enables firms to implement CR at a lower initial cost than third-party professional accreditation and auditing, thus increasing the attractiveness of such standards to the full range of firms operating in developed and developing countries… Because the ISO CR MSS approach is specifically predicated on the notion of measurable verifiability, firms which did not initially use the services of third party verifiers would have the option of engaging in such verifications at some later point, if the firms could justify such third party verifications in light of cost, competitiveness, risk, credibility and other factors.

NOTE: Information above on the activities of the ISO SR Advisory Group was drawn extensively from reports provided by Tom Rotherham of IISD, who represents IISD on the group.

ISO Considers Whether to Develop Corporate Social Responsibility Standards [10/30/02]

First driven by legislation in the areas of worker protection, fraud, and bribery, non-financial responsibilities of businesses have evolved to include various fields such as corporate ethics, philanthropy, and environmental protection. Among other factors, the growth of CSR can be explained by: 1) globalization of business operations, as well as of social and environmental problems; 2) growing awareness of the public promoted by information and communication technology developments; 3) emergence of the socially responsible investment movement and the concept of "Triple-Bottom-Line"; 4) recent high-profile corporate failures and scandals.

While there is no single commonly accepted definition of CSR, below are two attempts to explain it:

· "…(CSR) generally refers to business decision-making linked to ethical valued, compliance with legal instruments, and respect for people, communities and the environment. … operating a business in a manner that meets or exceeds the ethical, legal, commercial and public expectations that society has of business." (Business for Social Responsibility)
· "Most definitions of corporate social responsibility describe it as a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis." (EU Green Paper "Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility" )

Existing CSR initiatives can be broadly categorized as below:
· Obligation-oriented principles and laws. (Labor, environmental, financial laws)
· International conventions and declarations. (OECD guideline, ILO declaration etc.)
· Codes of conduct and principles. (CERES principle, Sustainable Forestry Program, SA 8000 etc.)
· CSR management system standard (Proposed ISO standards, SIGMA project in UK etc.)
(a comprehensive list of initiatives and their descriptions can be found in the COPOLCO report)

According to OECD, there are more than 180 codes of conduct under CSR that have different emphasis (labor, human rights, community, etc.), scope (domestic, international, industry-specific, etc.), and method of implementation (obligatory, certification requirement, voluntary declaration, etc.) This array of laws, voluntary initiatives, and codes of conducts can cause confusion both for industry who get lost trying to navigate through them, and for external stakeholders who have no effective means of assessing the firms' performance. The diversity of stakeholders and array of program areas, as well as the voluntary and "beyond legal compliance" nature of CSR are the very reason for arguments both in favor of CSR standards and against their creation.

Opponents against the creation of standards in CSR maintain that:

· CSR topics are too subjective and controversial, and that CSR practices can vary greatly between industry and country because they are culturally and individually defined. Standards that are generic enough to deal with this issue will lack any value-adding substance for organizations.
· CSR is not well suited for process standards, since the most critical issue is the firms' actual performance, not how they manage CSR.
· Yet another set of management system standards will increase paper work and will be a burden for small companies and companies in developing countries.

In June 2002, ISO's committee on consumer policy (COPOLCO) passed a resolution recommending that ISO consider new standards work in the area of CSR. It suggested ISO establish a multi-stakeholder body to examine the feasibility and desirability of management system standards on CSR. The advisory group is equivalent to the ISO Strategic Advisory Group on the Environment (SAGE), which was created in the early 1990s and which proposed the development of the ISO 14000 environmental management standards. In September 2002, the ISO Council decided in favor of COPOLCO by asking ISO's Technical Management Board to set up such a group.

In a parallel (and potentially conflicting) action, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the US representative to ISO, approved in 2002 a move by the Ethics Officers Association (EOA), to propose the development of an ISO business conduct management system standard. In 2003, ANSI established an ad hoc group to prepare a justification study for such standards, and based on the findings of the study, ANSI was to decide whether to submit a "new work item proposal" to ISO for vote by its membership. While temporarily stalled, the ad hoc group within ANSI tasked with drafting the justification analysis for the proposal resumed activity in mid-2003 after months of dormancy. To the Pacific Institute's knowledge, however, work within the ad hoc group has languished again, and the justification study has yet to be completed.