![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Corporate Social Responsibility INNI Articles ISO 26000 Social Responsibility Update [12/18/2007] Overview of the drafting process Key topics and issues 1) Moving forward, how to address cross-cutting issues more effectively and improve the consistency among various parts of the standard more efficiently. Although the LTF had been working to identify and advise the drafting of cross-cutting issues, the actual drafting was done by over a dozen individual drafting teams, which hampered efforts to address certain cross-cutting issues. To make the drafting process more efficient and the document more consistent, the Working Group created the Integrated Drafting Task Force (IDTF). With the expanded mandate to actually revise the drafts of the standard, the IDTF has replaced the now defunct LTF. Based on the principle of balanced participation, the IDTF is comprised of two representatives per category with the consideration of gender and geographical representation (developing and developed countries), the conveners and co-conveners of standard setting TGs, and one representative each from WG editing committee, ILO and UN Global Compact.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 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. ISO 26000 Social Responsibility Standard Update [05/20/2007] Overview of the Drafting
Process Progress on the Contents
of the Standard 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 - Need for harmonization among the different parts of the
standard, in terms of content, presentation, length, level of details,
and tone; 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 The
European Parliament Passes a Resolution to Strengthen CSR Policy [5/20/07] UN
Report on Mapping International Standards in Corporate Responsibility
and Human Rights [5/20/07] Social
Responsibility Standard Development Process to Date [01/25/07] --
Social Responsibility Standard Development Process to Date 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 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. 2) Should ISO 26000 contain minimum requirements? 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. 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 ISO SR Trust Fund Officially Launched 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. Language Interpretation at the Working Group Meetings 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 ISO and UN Global
Compact Sign Memorandum of Understanding on SR Standard Development 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 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]
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. Developments Relating to the Content of ISO 26000 [07/31/06]
Improving the ISO 26000 Standard Development Process [07/31/06]
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) 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. ISO 26000's Scope, SR Context, and SR Principles (TG 4) 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. Clause 6 - Guidance on Core SR Subjects/Issues (TG 5) 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.
Guidance for Organization on Implementing SR (TG 6) 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 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:
NGO Sign-on Letter 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) 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. Drafting of ISO
Social Responsibility Standard Begins [3/7/2006] Update Update on Task Groups Activities TG1: Funding and Stakeholder Involvement 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 TG3: Operational Procedures 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 TG5: Guidance on core SR subjects/issues TG6: Guidance for organization on implementing SR TMB resolution 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] 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: 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 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. You can find more information on the WG SR's Bangkok meeting in a report by Paul Hohnen representing Global Reporting Initiative, as well as in a recent Crosslands Bulletin article. 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 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 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. 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:
All organizations participating in the NGO Group
shall provide the following information, which will be available to all
NGO Group members: 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 China Limits the Application of International CSR Standards [7/21/05] 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. 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.
ISO Initiates Work on Social Responsibility Standard [3/25/05] Background 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 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) Establishment of Task Groups (TG) 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 4: Stakeholder identification/engagement/communication 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 Operating Procedures to implement the agreement with
the ILO Timeline Analysis 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: 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: 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 Moves to Develop Guidelines for Social Responsibility [8/19/04] 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) The major points of the recommendations include:
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] ISO Hosting an International Conference on Social Responsibility [3/26/04] 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 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. NOTE: The informational portion of this passage was drawn from electronic updates on ISO and CSR provided by Tom Rotherham of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. ISO Reins in Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group on CSR [11/24/03] 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: Analysis 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. NOTE: The informational portion of this passage was drawn from electronic updates on ISO and CSR provided by Tom Rotherham of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. The Pacific Institute is solely responsible for the analysis portion of the write up. Plan Laid Out for Implementation of ISO CSR Advisory Group's Recommendations [8/5/03] In March 2003, the ISO Council approved the recommendation of the ISO Strategic Advisory Group on Corporate Social Responsibility (SAG) on how to proceed with evaluating the possible development of ISO standards on CSR. The recommendation consists of three 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.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:
1. a survey of the state of the art in the area of social
responsibility; ISO/TC 207 Releases Report on Its Possible Role in ISO CSR Work [8/5/03] At its June 2002 plenary meeting in Johannesburg, TC 207 created an Ad Hoc Group on CSR to review the recommendations of COPOLCO's Resolution, existing CSR guidelines, and the potential application of existing ISO Standards. Now referred to as a Task Force within TC 207, the group currently has 17 members including three representatives from ISO/TC 176 on quality management standards, and is led by Dorothy Bowers (USA), Oswald Dodds (UK), and K.P. Nyati (India).At TC 207's June 2003 plenary meeting, the Task Force released a report on its activities and findings. According to the report, the Task Force sought to collaborate with other organizations including ISO/TC 176, the ISO COPOLCO Working Group on CSR, and the ISO SAG on CSR. ISO/TC 176 decided to send representatives to join the Task Force. The Task Force offered to the SAG on CSR to provide input into its deliberations, but no reply had been received. The Task Force had decided that initial effort should focus on preparing a comparison between the ISO COPOLCO Management System suggestions and those already contained in ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, and ISO 9001 and ISO 9004. The comparison table was compiled and circulated to the members of the SAG at their first meeting. At the closing plenary in Bali, the ISO/TC 207 Task Force on CSR was given approval by the full technical committee to reiterate its previous offer (to which it received no response) to provide assistance to the SAG on CSR in its deliberations. The following resolution on the Task force was accepted:
AFNOR Publishes Guide on CSR Management [8/5/03] Several national standards bodies such as those in Israel, Australia and the United Kingdom have been developing CSR standards. In May 2003, the national standard body for France, AFNOR, published the Technical Report SD 21000 "Sustainable Development - Corporate Social Responsibility - guide for taking into account of the stakes of sustainable development in enterprise management and strategies."In 2001, AFNOR set up a working group chaired by Mr. Christian Brodhag (-Research Director at the Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Etienne.), in order to develop a guide for the implementation of a management system that meets the objectives of sustainable development. The guide's structure is inspired by ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 and is intended for managers and decision-makers of large or small, public or private, companies involved in all sectors of activity. The objective of SD 21000 is to make recommendations for adapting, both technically and culturally, a management system so that it progressively integrates the objectives of sustainable development within the company. The guide is not intended for certification or contractual purposes, and its recommendations were developed out of concern for coherence and complementarity with the management system standards such as the ones for quality and environmental protection that can be used independently. ISO Decides to Further Study CSR Issue [4/29/03] 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. · 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: The Advisory Group's Recommendation [4/29/03] The Advisory Group's first meeting took place in January 2003 in Toronto, Canada and resulted in several working documents, including an overview of the AG's understanding of the concept of CSR, a list of potential ways in which ISO could add value in the area, and an indicative list of procedural issues (See: http://www.iisd.org/standards/csr_documnts.asp). The second meeting was held in February 2003 in Geneva, Switzerland, to finalize the report to the TMB. The final text of the recommendation is:The Advisory Group agreed that it is appropriate for ISO to proceed with: 1. The 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 with input from Advisory Group members in further activities in this area by the ISO. 2. Upon completion of the Technical Report, the Advisory Group will develop a justification document (Guide 72) for submittal to the TMB to determine whether to proceed with a Management System Guideline Standard that specifically includes a process for self-declaration of conformity, and excludes conformity assessments involving third-party certification. To ensure the eventual broadest possible acceptance of ISO deliverables, the ISO should review its processes with respect to the involvement of stakeholders. In addition to these recommendations, the AG developed a document listing several preliminary issues on CSR. The report explains the AG's decision to use the term "social responsibility (SR)," instead of "corporate social responsibility," noting that even though CSR has its origins in the context of commercial enterprises, ISO does not, as a rule, pre-determine which particular type of organization may use its standards or other deliverables. The document also lists the characteristics and underlying principles of SR: · Assumes compliance with all applicable laws an regulations (as a minimum) · Includes voluntary commitments that address economic, environmental and social aspects not addressed in laws and regulations. · Inclusiveness, communication, and engagement with affected or/and interested parties involving dialogue on expectations and activities. · Accountability · Transparency · Ethical behavior · Flexibility to reflect diversity and needs · Part of sustainability/sustainable development. It also lists some of the SR-related issues: · Human rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ILO Core Conventions) · Workplace and employee aspects (including Occupational Health & Safety) · Unfair business practices including bribery, corruption and anti-competitive practices (all organizations) · Organizational governance · Environmental aspects · Marketplace and consumer aspects · Community aspects · Social development aspects Analysis of the AG's Recommendation [4/29/03] 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. Third Party Versus "Stakeholder" Certification [4/29/03] There has been considerable discussion around the AG's recommendation that the justification study focus on the development of a management system "guideline" standard(s), rather than a "specification" standard(s) such as ISO 14001, which prescribes detailed requirements and can be used as a basis of conformity assessment and certification. This decision by the AG appears to have resulted from a concern by some on the AG about the creation of a new MSS that would add to the costly, but sometimes non-value-adding certification bureaucracy. In order to reflect this perception, the recommendation explicitly states that the management standards on SR should include a process for self-declaration of conformity and exclude conformity assessments involving third-party certification. At the same time, some on the AG believed that self-declaration of conformity might not always be sufficient to establish the credibility of claims. An assessment of whether other types of conformity assessments are feasible and credible will likely be an important component of the justification study.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: Timeline of the Advisory Group [4/29/03] The TMB will likely soon assign responsibility for developing the TR. After the TR's completion, the SR Advisory Group will presumably reconvene to conduct the justification study. Realistically, it will take until the third quarter of this year to produce the TR. Assuming that work on the justification study will not begin until the TR's completion, it is likely the entire research phase will take the remainder of 2003. In the event that the AG's justification study results in a recommendation for standardization, a three-month letter ballot of ISO member bodies would ensue, probably around the first quarter of 2004.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] ISO is delving into corporate social responsibility. In September 2002, ISO's governing body, the ISO Council, voted to establish an advisory body that will explore the feasibility and desirability of creating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) standards. This decision, which was in response to a proposal by ISO's committee on consumer policy, is noteworthy because CSR is an entirely new area for ISO and because ISO has very few public interest groups in the standards-making process.In a parallel and potentially conflicting action to ISO's, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which is the US representative to ISO, has approved an effort by the US Ethics Officers Association to submit a new work item proposal to ISO on the development of a business conduct management system standard. Although both the ISO and ANSI initiatives aim to develop standardized processes for organizations to manage their CSR-related programs, there are some major differences between two initiatives: - The scope of ANSI's proposal is limited to the conventional boundaries of ethical practices, such as bribery, corruption, privacy, and worker rights. ISO's plan will include the wider realm of CSR. - ANSI plans to develop a standard under the ISO 14000 series without the certification option, whereas ISO is moving forward with certification in mind. - ANSI's focus is to promote effective internal management of CSR-related programs, while ISO identifies both internal and external stakeholders as participants. What is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)? [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) Existing CSR Initiatives [10/30/02] CSR can affect a variety of stakeholders, including customers, employees and their families, investors, local communities, environmental groups, government, suppliers, and competitors. Accordingly, CSR involves wide range of practices in the area of human rights, employee relations, diversity, consumer protection, environmental protection, fiscal responsibility and accountability, marketplace practices, and philanthropy. Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), identified as many as 61 program areas under CSR, but there is no single framework that covers such a broad spectrum of CSR activities. Instead, there are numerous CSR initiatives that focus on a particular CSR issue, a particular geographic area, or a particular stakeholder group.Existing CSR initiatives can be broadly categorized as below: Initiatives to Standardize CSR [10/30/02] Regardless of opponents' assertions, several initiatives to create international standards in the area of CSR have emerged over the last couple of years. In 2001, the European Commission produced a preliminary report that examined the contributions that EU institutions could make to CSR. The report suggests the possibility of establishing a European framework for CSR that includes setting up best practice guidance, evaluation, reporting and verification of CSR practices. After receiving comments from businesses strongly arguing against prescriptive government codes and mandatory reporting, the Commission decided not to establish the framework, but to set up a multi-stakeholder forum on CSR to exchange information and ideas, and to further examine the possible approach EU can take in the area of CSR. Presently, two other major initiatives are evaluating the use of standards in CSR.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. ISO Documents Corporate Social Responsibility: Standards and Objectives Driving Corporate Initiatives (2006) ISO
SR WG NGO Stakeholder Group's Letter to ISO TMB on MSS Resolution (2005) IISD's
Report on ISO Strategic Advisory Group on CSR February 2004 (2004) Report to ISO COPOLCO on Desirability and Feasibility of ISO CSR Standards (2002) ISO Group Proposes Development of Corporate Social Responsibility Standard (2002) A Daunting New Challenge - Are Standards the Right Mechanism to Advance CSR? (2002) Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility- EU Green Paper (2001) Social Accountability International SA 8000 Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) Homepage
|
New: ISO Social Responsibility Standard Briefing Paper
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
INNI Home | Issue Areas | Resources | About INNI | Pacific Institute Home Page Problems? Contact Webmaster | (C) 2003 |
|||||||||||||||||||||