INNI
Online Update | Issue #13
January 2007
|
UPDATES BY
ISSUE AREA ISO Social Responsibility Standard Development Update Social Responsibility
Standard Development Process to Date 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. Finalization of ISO's Water Management Standards Imminent ISO's Technical Committee on water management (TC 224) has reached the final stages of its standards development process. The committee is currently preparing the final versions (called Final Draft International Standards - FDIS) of its three standards: ISO 24510 - Service to users; ISO 24511 - Management of wastewater utilities; and ISO 24512 - Management of drinking water utilities. According to ISO rules, FDISs are subject to an up-down vote by ISO members, without the possibility of making further edits or amendments. Prior to reaching the FDIS stage, the committee concluded a five-month voting period ending in September 2006. All three draft standards were approved by an overwhelming majority, with Canada casting the only disapproval vote among the 30 countries participating in the ballot. The majority of the member bodies, however, also submitted comments that required further discussion at the committee's most recent plenary meeting in Punta Del Este, Uruguay at the end of November. And even though the standards were only one draft away from their final version, TC 224 experts made quite a few significant changes and edits including the title of the standards, the common introductory text for three standards, and a few key terms defined in the standards. TC 224 also resolved to further improve the harmonization among its standards. Although the issue of harmonization has been identified since the early stages of the standards development, the DISs were still found to lack sufficient integration. The committee decided that each standard will have the other two standards as normative references, which in effect means the three must be purchased and used as a set. It is intended that water managers will further integrate their use once the standards are published. The three Working Groups developing the standards have a tight schedule from here: by the end of January 2007 they must complete another round of drafting to incorporate the decisions made at the plenary meeting, after which the TC 224 Secretariat will finalize the FDISs for a two-month ballot by all national bodies ending in June/July 2007. Approval of the FDISs is fairly likely, and the final standards are expected to be published by the end of 2007. Since the standards development process is nearing completion, TC 224 began discussing activities for after the publication of the standards, such as promotion of the standards and a survey or study of actual applications. In particular, TC 224 will continue working on the pilot program launched last year to develop a guide for the application of its standards in developing countries. The first pilots to test the standards were completed in Casablanca and Berrechild, Morocco in 2006 and two more are schedule for early 2007 in Kenya and Senegal. The group plans to conduct the same pilots in Latin America and Asia before deciding on the contents and type of ISO guidance produced (e.g., international standard, publicly available specification, technical report, preparation of national/regional standards based on the TC 224 standards, etc). Survey on the Current
and Future CSR Landscape 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
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. International
Forum Held to Discuss the Role of Standards in a Global Sustainability
Strategy International
NGOs Endorse Accountability Principles |
|
The
INNI Online Update is a quarterly bulletin on the activities of
the International Organization for Standards. If you do not wish
to receive future communications, please reply to this email message
with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. For problems or questions: newsletter_editor @ pacinst.org This update was created by the Pacific Institute, 654 13th Street, Oakland, CA, 94612. Copyright 2004. |
|
