Corporate Social Responsibility, Talk about the good work being done by firms in touch with their triple bottom line.

2309 Followers

ISO 26000 Social Responsibility - A First Look

David Connor | Tuesday 29th September 2009

In 2001 an ISO Committee started a feasibility study on standards for Corporate Social Responsibility in response to growing concerns about businesses social integrity. Eight years later, a five month balloting period has now begun for voting on the draft ISO 26000 with a view to fully publishing in late 2010. The aim is to provide 'harmonized, globally relevant guidance based on international consensus', and to 'so encourage the implementation of best practice in social responsibility worldwide'. It will not be a management standard and not intended to be used for certification purposes, more of a first steps to social responsibility, for all organisations, that is, all sizes and across all sectors. From a global perspective it has taken the very biggest picture approach ensuring strong consistency with all associated standards and existing guidance including, International Labour Organisation, UN Global Compact, OECD and many others (check out the Annex Afor a full list)perspectives. Very comprehensive indeed, but what's the point of it all? Don't we already have enough guidance?

The difference is best emphasised by the comprehensive scope of the guidance. ISO 26000 aims to be as holistic as possible with no specific responsibility focus area. The seven core principles covered are respect for human rights; transparency; accountability; ethical behaviour; respect for stakeholder interests; respect for rule of law and respect for international norms of behaviour. If an organisation were to fully consider each of these seven principles it would be working beyond the majority understanding of terms such as Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development. In practical terms the guidance aims to complement existing tools as a reference document to provide clarity, continuity and better awareness.

I'm impressed by the tone and language used as it can be a tough topicto make truly accessible without sounding condescending, academic or intimidating. There areone or two rough edges includingone statement saying 'In times of economic and financial crisis, organizations should not seek to reduce their activities related to social responsibility.' which simply soundsnaive but then it is a draft document. Now that this document has hit the wider public audience there should be adequate feedback to keep ISO busy until the full launch in 2010, or later depending on how the received opinions aremanaged.

It will be very interesting to see the final draft of a social responsibility document that since its conception will have witnessed such dramatic events in the financial sectors, changes in environmental awareness, explosion of accessibility to information and the expectations of a growing ethical consumer base.

Add Your Comment

1000

Recent Comment

David Connor | Posted: 18 November 2009

Hi Dorothy

I'll refresh my memory and take a trip to the feedback site as soon as I can, and I'd strongly encourage anybody else to make the thoughts known.

David

Dorothy Bowers | Posted: 18 November 2009

David and Commenters,
The US folks who have been working on the draft standard would truly appreciate input from anyone who is willing to read a 109 page document (well only 104 if you don't count the bibliography!!). Actually, even if you only read the sections that relate to your particular interests, we'd like your feedback.
Just go the this website to link to the draft standard and learn how to comment:
http://www.asq.org/standards/index.html
We will be meeting in early January to compile comments, so we have a deadline of December 14th.
Thanks for any help you can provide,
Dorothy Bowers, expert, US Technical Advisory Group

David Connor | Posted: 21 October 2009

Hi Michelle

I too have seen the almost stampede from those wanting to use as a certifiable tool. On one hand I'm glad to see then enthusiasm but the downside is as you rightly say, it was never meant to be used in such a way.

Hopefully it may demonstrate the need for adaptation from other existing standards to help fill a demand gap rather than adding yet another name into an ever increasingly crowded ring.

David

David Connor | Posted: 21 October 2009

Hi Manpower Inc

Here's a link to the draft document you're looking for http://(www.iso.org/wgsr ) and click on the document marked 'ISO/DIS 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility'.

If you need any more help just ask :)

David

David Connor | Posted: 21 October 2009

Hi Lorraine

Your concerns about compliance should by now be scaring those at ISO. You cannot gain compliance with ISO 26000 as it is only a guidance and not a formal standard.

Your points about local adaptations are very pertinentand hopefully the message that ISO 26000 is about offering a reference tool for advice, but with acknowledgement of local variations will prevail when launched next year.

David

Michelle Bernhart | Posted: 16 October 2009

One interesting--and notable--outcome of ISO 26000 already is that several countries, both developed and developing, have moved to adapt their existing standards to it, or even to adopt 26000 wholly as their national social responsibility/ sustainability standards. At our last ISO 26000 working group meeting in May 2009, we tallied up a list of around eight countries that are doing this, and we later heard the number was more like 12 or 13. Also interesting is that a couple of those have decided to make it a certification standard. So, it's not just consultants itching to help organizations get certified to a standard never intended for such; it's government bodies, too!

Manpower Inc | Posted: 16 October 2009

Like others who have commented, I am concerned that the ISO prefix may lend a bit of confusion. I have tried (but not yet succeeded) to get a copy for review and comment. Can you help??

As a services provider, we feel stongly about human rights, labor and ethics portions of most "standards," and want to be more engaged in natural environment solutions but have had some frustration with many standards that seem to be weighted so heavily for manufacturing, utility and others.

It is all about people and our ability to be an influence for good in the world of work, our families, homes, enterprises and communities - yielding all sorts of success.

By the way, re youth workers. Suggest we carefully define the difference between youth workers and forced child labor (at the expense of health, education, etc.) As a city kid, I learned to exercise a work ethic (summers) supporting a life time of values - including accountability, diversity, ethics, teamwork and more.

Posted By: Charles Bartels

Lorraine Bell | Posted: 12 October 2009

From working with SMEs in Thailand last year there was sincere concern expressed about this new standard and whether they would be able to comply. In some Thai communities, child labour is still the norm - often due to necessity and not perceived to be exploitation (especially where children are working in the familty business, in the absense of benefits and other social support) - manufacturers are concerned that if they lost contracts which would result in job losses is the social and economic impact far greater if their 'western' customers enforced the ISO standard upon them - Is this good CSR practice. I agree guidance on best CSR practice is needed but an ISO could cause more harm than good unless more developed country's businesses are encouraged to support and educate their supply chain to be able to comply. Its easy to develop standards in the developed world when we have the infrustructure and systems to support their implemenation, not so easy for those less fortunate.

David Connor | Posted: 6 October 2009

I wouldn't quite agree about 'jobs for the boys' but I'm struggling to see the real value in ISO 26000.

If we are brutally honest the business community as a whole hasn't really yet demonstrated CSR with real depth and needs additional legislative incentives to consider wider consequences than mere profit. It is exactly this ethos you describe of the financial sector, which is by no means alone, but got caught out.

Dave S also pointed at the potential confusion that ISO 26000 is a guideline, NOT a standard than can be certified.

Peter Wognum | Posted: 6 October 2009

8 years for a feasibility study, during which period governments (not just the one in the UK) have enacted legislation which, in effect, says the business community is doing nothing to demonstrate its corporate social responsibility so we'll just tax and fine you into submission - see the Companies Act 2006, the CRC, etc.
The 'growing ethical consumer base' has demonstrated its (lack of) commitment by buying cheap, not ethical... but can be forgiven, to some degree, for its lack of action by being plunged into a financial chasm by the largest offending sector (the financial one) and the fact that most companies still see 'green' as being a cash cow and charging a premium to buy ethical, green or sustainable.
Ultimately, why would I pay some consultancy an exorbitant fee to take me through yet another ISO standard, the substance of which I am already being forced to comply with through legislation and which I have to document to shareholders and consumers - by law?
Jobs for the boys?