ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document

4 May 2010 – Page 1(23)

Handled by email:
Jonathon Hanks
jon@incite.co.za

Copenhagen Discussion Document

Copenhagen Key Topics (CKTs) – 4 May 2010
This document – compiled by the Integrated Drafting Task Force – presents the Copenhagen Key Topics (CKTs) that have been identified following a review by
the IDTF of all the written comments on the DIS (as contained in ISO/TMB/WG SR N176). The proposed way forward on each of these Key Topics will be
presented for approval in an opening plenary meeting of all the Clause Specific Meetings (CSMs). If necessary, further discussion on particular CKTs will be
undertaken during one of the following Clause Specific Meetings (CSMs) as specified in the Table below.
 CSM 1 – Foreword, Introduction, Clauses 0-4
 CSM 2 – Overarching Clause 6, Organizational Governance, Fair Operating Practices, Consumer Issues and The Environment
 CSM 3 – Human Rights, Labour Practices and Community Involvement and Development
 CSM 4 – Clause 5, Clause 7, Annex and Bibliography

The process used by the IDTF in identifying these Copenhagen Key Topics is outlined in the Report of the IDTF Cape Town Meeting (IDTF_N107). The table in
this Discussion Document identifies the underlying question/s pertaining to each CKT, provides a brief summary of some of the main comments and suggestions
by experts relating to that CKT, and proposes a way forward for addressing the CKT. The summary of main comments (column two) is intended to assist those
experts who have not been able to fully analyse the consolidated comments on ISO 26000. The summary is not intended to replace the full set of comments, but
rather provides a synthesis of some of the main comments relating to the identified Topic.
On the basis of a review of the written comments it is suggested that the following Key Topics need to be considered, in addition to the numerous clause-specific
drafting suggestions that will be handled in the CSMs through consideration of the accompanying bracketed version of ISO 26000 (IDTF_N112):
1. Accessibility and length 7. Precautionary approach 13. Stakeholder / engagement / interests
2. Applicability 8. Common but differentiated responsibilities 14. Due diligence
3. International Guidance Standard 9. Sexual orientation 15. Philanthropy / social investment
4. Annex / certifiable standards 10. Provision for animal welfare
5. WTO / trade barrier issue 11. Government / state
6. International norms 12. Sphere of influence

This document should be read in conjunction with IDTF_N112, which contains suggested revisions to the DIS in bracketed text.

NOTE: all lines numbers below refer to the line numbering in ISO 26000 DIS (ISO/TMB/WG SR N172).

Page 1

Question to be addressed
1. Accessibility and length
What can be done to improve
the accessibility of the
document and reduce its
length without compromising
the agreement that has been
reached on the existing
substantive content of the
document?
2. Applicability
How to ensure that this
Standard provides guidance
that is applicable to all types of
organization, regardless of
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
Some comments suggest that the document is too complex and difficult to
read, and that its sheer length will reduce the likelihood that organizations of
any size will be able to understand or use much of what is covered without
professional assistance. Particular concern is expressed regarding the
implications that this will have on the use of the Standard by SMOs.
Some have suggested that an Executive Summary be developed.
Various comments highlight the need to avoid instances of unnecessary
duplication and to ensure greater consistency in the use of terms and
phrases throughout the Standard.
Various comments suggest that the text fails to meet its stated intent to
provide guidance “to all types of organizations, regardless of their size or
location". Several parties raise the concern that much of the text seems to be
directed primarily at industry organizations, specifically multinational
Page 2
4 May 2010 – Page 2(23)
Proposed way forward
Accepted as presented
The following is proposed as the way forward:
It is recognised that in seeking to find a balance between providing
comprehensive coverage of social responsibility issues, and ensuring
conciseness, the WGSR has chosen to focus primarily on providing
comprehensive guidance. There is seen to be a significant challenge
in substantially shortening the document without compromising the
agreement that has been reached on the existing substance of the
document. Efforts are being taken to address concerns relating to
accessibility and length without undermining this existing support.
With this in mind, the following way forward is proposed:
 Edits have been made throughout the text aimed at addressing
specific concerns regarding the length and/or complexity of particular
sections. These changes are identified in the revised version of ISO
26000 (IDTF N112) and will be considered in the various CSMs.
 Recognising the concern that a formal Executive Summary may be
seen by some as a sufficient substitute for the full document, and
noting the significant challenges associated with agreeing the
substance of such a summary, it is proposed that instead of
producing an Executive Summary further guidance be provided
within the Standard on how to use the document. Text has been
proposed (bracketed in IDTF N112) to accompany Box Figure 1, for
consideration in CSM1.
 Instances of duplication have been identified in the revision version
(IDTF N112); proposed deletion of text will be considered in CSMs.
 A consistency check has been undertaken of the document; specific
suggestions for ensuring greater consistency have been
incorporated in IDTF N112 for consideration by CSMs.
Accepted as presented, details to be discussed in CSM1 and
CSM4
The following is proposed as the way forward:
As a general principle, it is suggested that there is sufficient
agreement that the standard is seen to provide guidance that is
applicable to all organizations and that significant changes to the

Question to be addressed
their size or location?
3. International Guidance
Standard
How do we make it clear that
this international Standard is a
guidance Standard, while
conforming to ISO
nomenclature?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
companies, and that it is particularly unsuitable for small organizations. Some
comments propose editing the scope to “remove the unjustified claim” that it
provides guidance to all types of organizations, regardless of their size or
location. Others suggest that terminology that is business oriented should be
removed to make the text more neutral. It has also been proposed that clarity
be provided that this guidance is meant for larger organizations and that
SMO’s may use it only as they feel fit. Some also suggest that the concept of
organization is not clearly defined.
Some comments suggest that while the use of the term "international
Standard" may conform to normal ISO usage, it is misleading to use the term
in relation to this document; the term "guidance" or "document" is seen to be
more appropriate and would help to address potential misunderstandings.
The counter argument is that this document, within ISO terminology, is an
International Standard, and such a description has been used on previous
occasions to describe other guidance standards.
Page 3
4 May 2010 – Page 3(23)
Proposed way forward
substantive guidance provided in existing text would undermine the
existing support for the document. Nevertheless there is seen to be
scope for further improvements to the document.
With this in mind, the following way forward is proposed:
 Various specific examples of text that some deem is too “business-
oriented” have been bracketed in the revised version of ISO 26000
(IDTF N112) for consideration in relevant CSMs.
 The opening statement in the Scope should be retained as it is
deemed to be a true and accurate statement; it is also one that has
been considered in numerous previous WGSR meetings and is seen
to reflect an appropriate agreed compromise on the way forward.
 Further clarity is provided regarding the definition of organization,
through a revision to Note 1 of that definition (as outlined in CKT 11
below).
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1
- Further issues: guidance for organizations in areas under
occupation, to be treated in CSM Human Rights, if necessary
- Respect for differences: no comment provided, text that
addresses the issue is already included in the bracketed
text, to be addressed in CSM1
Generally accepted with modifications, further details to be
discussed in CSM1.
The following is proposed as the way forward:
Insert in Introduction after DIS line 167:
This International Standard provides guidance to users and is
not intended or appropriate for certification purposes. Any offer
to certify, or claims to be certified to ISO 26000 would be a
misrepresentation of the intent and purpose of this
International Standard.
Insert into Box 1 after DIS line 185:
An International Standard providing guidance does not contain

Question to be addressed
4. Annex / certifiable
standards
4.1 Should there be a web-
based annex that replaces (or
complements) Annex A?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
Note: Please see also IDTF N095, N095-A1, N095-A2, N099, N100 and
N103.
Some argue that a web-based Annex would have several advantages over a
printed version of the Annex, suggesting for example that it would: allow
inclusion of a broader range of initiatives and tools; facilitate more precise
Page 4
4 May 2010 – Page 4(23)
Proposed way forward
requirements but may contain recommendations.
In terms of ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 a recommendation is
defined as an: “expression in the content of a document
conveying that among several possibilities one is
recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or
excluding others, or that a certain course of action is preferred
but not necessarily required, or that (in the negative form) a
certain possibility or course of action is deprecated but not
prohibited.”
Note: An International Standard does not in itself impose any
obligation upon anyone to follow it. However, such an
obligation may be imposed, for example, by legislation or by a
contract. In order to be able to claim compliance with a
document, the user needs to be able to identify the
requirements he/she is obliged to satisfy.
Therefore, any claim to be certified to ISO 26000 would be a
misrepresentation of the intent and purpose of this
International Standard.
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1
- Indian proposal to refine introduction text generally
accepted
- Proposal to delete note and last sentence of PWF in Box
1 accepted
- Proposal to add clarification what an (international)
standard is, will be discussed in CSM1
Accepted as presented
NOTE: Sustained opposition by India, and check what the ISO
Code of Ethics says
(opposition though not sustained by China and Oman)
The following is proposed as the way forward:
Although there are some recognised advantages of a “web-based
Annex” there are also some concerns: it requires a robust and

Question to be addressed
4.2 How does one ensure that
inclusion within the Annex of
certifiable initiatives is not
interpreted as being an
endorsement by ISO of those
initiatives and as being a
requirement to be socially
responsible?
4.3 – Should reference to
Annex A be permitted in the
body of the text?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
searching; reduce the overall length of ISO26000; and enable it to be
updated. Some feel that this should replace the printed Annex, others have
suggested that it should complement the printed document. Others argue
that although a web-based annex would technically be easy to update, the
problem would be the governance of its updates, since the WG will not be
active after ISO26000 is published.
Some argue that because Annex A makes reference to certifiable standards,
this suggests that ISO has implicitly endorsed these standards and may also
suggest that certification against these standards may be a requirement in
terms of ISO 26000; this is further seen to raise potential WTO/TBT
concerns. Some have also suggested that “by being certified under some
voluntary initiatives and tools (VITs) mentioned in the Annex someone could
claim to be certified under ISO 26000”. Various comments express concern
that the existing disclaimer language and clarification on these topics is not
enough to remedy their concerns. However, very few improvements in the
disclaimer language are provided. Comments on this issue predominantly
call for deletion of the whole Annex A, for deletion of all certifiable VITs or for
deletion of all VITs except those categorized as “Intergovernmental
Initiatives”.
Some comments argue that Box 1 (lines 187–191) suggests that references
to Annex A in the body text of the Standard are not allowed, and yet such
references have been made (such as in Box 1 itself and in 6.5.5.2.1, 6.5.6.2
and 7.8, and Boxes 15 and 16). Some argue further that by mentioning
certification and verification and by referencing the existence of VITs, ISO
26000 is conveying the message that those are essential practices of a
social responsible organization.
Page 5
4 May 2010 – Page 5(23)
Proposed way forward
representative governance system within the WGSR timeframe and
mandate; there are significant challenges in producing a feasible
solution for consideration at Copenhagen meeting; and it may be seen
to undermine the intention that the Annex be simply a non-exhaustive
list of initiatives and tools. Removing the Annex entirely from the
printed version of the document would make it less accessible to
certain parties, and is seen to be contrary to the carefully negotiated
compromise that was reached earlier on this issue.
The proposed way forward, thus, is to keep Annex A as part of the
printed document, and not to create a separate web-based version.
The following is proposed as the way forward:
The WG has already agreed that not mentioning any VITs would be
misleading to the users, as they are widely used by organizations in
addressing their social responsibility. The WG has also agreed that
the simple fact of mentioning certifiable VITs is not and should not be
taken as an endorsement or recommendation for their use.
The proposed way forward on this issue is to include in IDTF N112
(as bracketed text for consideration in CSM4) the suggestions by
experts to improve the disclaimer and clarification language. To now
change the inclusion criteria and/or delete the Annex, without strong
and unavoidable new reasons (which have not been provided) would
decrease the existing level of consensus.
The following is proposed as the way forward:
As noted earlier, the WGSR has agreed that mentioning certification,
verification and any other methodologies does not automatically imply
an endorsement by ISO 26000 of such practices, nor does it suggest
that this is a precondition for being socially responsible. The existing
language in the document is very clear on this issue. Similarly, there
is no prohibition on mentioning Annex A in the body of the text, as
long as this is adequately framed.
The proposed way forward on this issue is to retain reference in the
text to certification or verification, as well as the existing references to
the Annex. Some of the suggestions by experts regarding the use of
certification and verification have been included in IDTF N112 (as
bracketed text for consideration in CSM4) with the aim of improving
clarity and balance in the guidance provided (while not deleting the
references). Bracketed provision has also been made in IDTF N112 to

Question to be addressed
4.4 – Should the text in Box 16
be edited to avoid any
negative tone and / or the use
of convoluted language?
4.5 – What can be done to
address the suggested
concern that the process of
identifying the listed voluntary
initiatives and tools (VITs)
wasn’t sufficiently accurate or
transparent, and that it didn’t
provide sufficient time for
experts to assess the accuracy
of the information provided?
4.6 – Should changes be
made to the structure of VITs,
the criteria for selection and/or
the nature of information that
is provided?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
While not disagreeing with the purpose and core message of Box 16, some
suggest that the wording in this box is convoluted, has not yet been edited for
readability, is too negative, and is not compatible with the language used in
the rest of the Standard. Yet, no alternative text was provided to address this
concern.
Some comments argue that none of the information in Annex A has been
checked for accuracy, and therefore propose that either the information must
be verified or the Annex should be removed from the Standard. The
assumption that checking for accuracy has not been performed comes from
the statement at the top of Annex A that "the ISO 26000 drafters have not
independently verified the information provided in this table". It is also argued
that Annex A was not developed in an open and transparent manner. Finally,
there are concerns that the list includes some local or national initiatives,
what would be in contradiction with the inclusion criteria established.
Various comments were made regarding the structure and layout of the
Annex including that: the VITs be re-organized and/or presented with
different information; “tools” and “initiatives” be listed separately; the
organization of information be changed for better readability. One comment
suggests that the categorization of "intergovernmental initiatives" should be
more strictly applied, so as to include under "Intergovernmental Initiatives"
those that were "developed and launched" by such bodies.
Page 6
4 May 2010 – Page 6(23)
Proposed way forward
a proposal to amend lines 187-191 to avoid confusion.
The following is proposed as the way forward:
The current clarifying language adopted in this specific box is a result
of the discussion held in the informal discussion group on Annex A
and in the IDTF after the Quebec meeting. This text seeks to address
some of the principal concerns raised by those who are
uncomfortable with the mention of certifiable standards and VITs both
in the main text and in Annex A. The proposed way forward is to keep
existing text, as it is the result of careful compromise, and has not
been objected to by almost all of the parties.
The following is proposed as the way forward:
Regarding these process-related concerns it is important to note the
following issues:
 the template for submitting VITs by experts has been available to all
experts since shortly after the Santiago WGSR meeting;
 all VITs have been properly submitted through the appropriate
template, and open to review and comment by WGSR experts as
comments on the CD and the DIS
 all basic information on VITs included in Annex A has been checked
at a high level by IDTF members.
The proposed way forward is to include in IDTF N112 (as bracketed
text for consideration in CSM4) alternative disclaimer language at the
top of the Table in Annex A. The aim of this text is to avoid further
confusion on this issue, while making the necessary clarification for
users. Comments proposing inclusion or exclusion of particular VITs,
as well as edits to the information on VITs, shall also be included in
IDTF 112 as bracketed text for consideration by CSM4.
The question on the presentation of information in Annex A has been
carefully and deeply discussed since the WGSR meeting in Vienna.
Various alternatives have been tested, either at IDTF or at the WGSR
meeting and ad hoc/small/informal groups. The structure/design
presented in the DIS is the latest version of such process, and has
received very little criticism from the WGSR members, showing that
most of them are satisfied with the current solution. Recognizing the
broad support for the current text, the proposed way forward is to
retain the existing structure. Minor amendments have been bracketed

Question to be addressed
4.7 – Is there a need to further
clarify the role of Bibliography
and its relative importance as
compared with Annex A?
5. WTO / trade barrier issue
What language should be
added to make it clearer that,
in accordance with the NWIP,
this Standard should “facilitate
trade liberalization and remove
trade barriers”?
6. International norms
This is an issue on which
carefully negotiated agreement
was reached in Chile and
Canada, but on which some
experts have continued to
express reservations. Is there
scope for addressing some of
these reservations, without
otherwise affecting the nature
of the compromise that was
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
Some comments state that further clarity is needed to highlight that the
Bibliography is “more important” than the Annex, for instance by placing it
before the Annex or by providing an introduction that explains its purpose
and importance. There is a concern that the Bibliography (unlike the Annex)
is not sufficiently presented as a valuable source of further practical guidance
Various comments express the concern that the document has the potential
to create non-tariff barriers.
The IDTF believes that the existing text on the relationship between the ISO
26000 Standard and the World Trade Organization is sufficient to allay this
concern, and reflects an appropriate compromise on this issue.
Some argue that the concept of international norms could lead to conflicts
with local laws and norms, and that the latter should serve as the primary
basis of behaviour. The existing text effectively holds that there exist certain
international norms that represent a basic standard of socially responsible
behaviour. The proposed way forward is that this concept of international
norms be retained. Without undermining the existing agreement on this
concept, there is seen to be room for further improvement to the text. Some
suggestions have been bracketed in the revised text.
Page 7
4 May 2010 – Page 7(23)
Proposed way forward
for consideration in CSM4.
The following is proposed as the way forward
Integrate the elements contained in the following text within Box 1 and
in the Introduction to the Annex (in the manner as shown in
IDTF_N112):
The Bibliography, which is an integral part of this International
Standard, consists of references to international instruments
that are considered authoritative sources for identifying the
expectations concerning what constitutes socially responsible
behaviour. These instruments may contain additional useful
guidance and information; ISO 26000 users are encouraged to
consult them to better understand and implement social
responsibility.
This multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM4
Deferred to CSM1
The following is proposed as the way forward:
The proposed way forward is to retain the existing text, as this reflects
the outcome of a carefully negotiated compromise.
PWF was changed on short notice! (see text in bracketed text)
New text proposal (from India) to be further discussed in CSM1.
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1
Accepted as presented
The following is proposed as the way forward:
The proposed way forward is to retain the existing reference to
international norms. Some proposed textual changes, that seek to add
clarity to certain issues without undermining the existing compromise,
have been included in IDTF N112, as bracketed text for consideration
in CSM14.
This multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1

Question to be addressed
earlier achieved on this issue?
7. Precautionary approach
Recognising the previous
compromises reached on this
issue, how does one ensure
consistency in the references
to the precautionary approach
in the consumer and
environment clauses?
8. Common but
differentiated
responsibilities
Should provision be made in
the document for the principle
of “common but differentiated
responsibility”?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
Numerous comments made reference to the inconsistency between the
references to the precautionary approach in the environment and consumer
clauses; some also emphasised the need to ensure closer correlation with
the text provided in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration.
Some comments call for provision in the Standard for the principle of
"common but differentiated responsibility" noting that this principle is included
in various intergovernmental agreements such as the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development, the Kyoto Protocol of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants. Some also suggest that this issue is seen to be relevant
to the concept of "fair and practical treatment ('fair sharing') of costs and
benefits of social responsibility throughout the value chain.
Page 8
4 May 2010 – Page 8(23)
Proposed way forward
Deferred to CSM2
The following is proposed as the way forward:
The proposed way forward is to revise the reference to the
precautionary approach in both 6.5 and 6.7 to read as follows:
“This is drawn from the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development [119] and subsequent declarations and
agreements[109][131][94], which advance the concept that where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the
environment or human health, lack of full scientific certainty
should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation or damage to
human health.”
- Canada: Deletion of note 94 to Cartagena protocol OR
additional sentence: precautionary action should be based on
sound scientific evidence OR remove human health
- Consumer proposal to show that cost-effective relates to
society, CSM2 should further discuss
- Way forward: seek to obtain better text in CSM2
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM2
Original way forward rejected, no changes to the text
(Opposition from China and India, however not sustained)
The following is proposed as the way forward:
Recognizing the general acceptance of this principle in multi-lateral
environmental agreements, it is proposed that specific provision be
made for this issue in 6.5. However, as this principle explicitly
addresses the difference between developed and developing
countries – and thus applies specifically and only between states – it
is proposed that this principle should not be included as a principle
that applies to organisations (listed in 6.5.2.1), but rather within a
guidance box in 6.5. It is proposed that this box be placed after DIS
line 1842.

Question to be addressed
9. Sexual orientation
What provision should be
made in 6.3 and 6.4 for the
non discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
The issue of non discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is one on
which there are some strongly diverging views:
 A number of written comments argue that the guidance in the Standard that
sexual orientation is a prohibited or impermissible ground for discrimination
is incorrect, as it conflicts with religion, national laws and local culture, and
that it does not have sufficiently widespread recognition to constitute an
international norm. They thus call for references to sexual orientation to be
deleted. Many of those who express this concern voted no on the DIS.
 Some experts argue that while non-discrimination on sexual orientation (as
well on some other grounds) is currently not an international norm, it is
nevertheless recognized as a fundamental human right and an employment
right in a growing number of jurisdictions globally. On this basis it has been
suggested that the Standard be revised to reflect that such non-
discrimination is recognized as an emerging international norm.
 Other experts argue that the existing text has been developed in consensus
and has been in the Standard over several working drafts. They note also
Page 9
4 May 2010 – Page 9(23)
Proposed way forward
The following text is proposed for inclusion in such a box:
Common but differentiated responsibility This principle is drawn
from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [119] and
[109][131][94]
subsequent declarations and agreements . The principle,
which applies between states, recognizes the historical differences in
the contributions of and developing states to global environmental
problems, and the differences in their respective economic and
technical capacity to tackle these problems. It includes two
fundamental elements: the common responsibility of states for the
protection of the environment at the national, regional and global
levels; and the need to recognize the different circumstances,
particularly each state's contribution to the evolution of a particular
problem and its ability to prevent, reduce and control the threat.
New proposed way forward: delete the box! Retain existing text -
AGREED
If required, this topic will be addressed in CSM2
Deferred to small group to report back to the plenary Wednesday
The following is proposed as the way forward:
It is proposed that that the following text be considered in the
discussions in CSM3 (see IDTF N112 to see how this compares with
the existing text). If this text is not considered as acceptable by those
who have commented on this matter and as sufficient grounds for
voting "yes" on the FDIS, it is proposed that the existing DIS text be
retained.
Propose for consideration that DIS Lines 1269-1275 (Human Rights –
6.3.7.1) be changed to read:
Discrimination involves any distinction, exclusion or preference
that has the effect of nullifying equality of treatment or
opportunity, where that consideration is based on prejudice
rather than a legitimate ground. Illegitimate grounds for
discrimination include but are not limited to: race, colour,
gender, age, language, property, nationality or national origin,

Question to be addressed
10. Provision for animal
welfare
What edits are needed to
ensure a balanced guidance
on ethical treatment of animals
throughout the Standard?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
that there was full consensus in the last human rights working group to
retain this reference in that section. Some have suggested that deleting this
reference will move some who voted yes on the DIS to now vote no.
An important aim of the Copenhagen meeting is to seek as far as possible to
address all concerns on the current DIS, with the aim of further improving the
guidance as well as in the hope of obtaining the support of those who voted
against the DIS without losing the support of those who voted in favour.
With this in mind, some proposed compromise text has been proposed for
consideration by experts in the discussions in CSM3. If this text is not
considered as acceptable by those who have commented on this matter and
as sufficient grounds for voting "yes" on the FDIS, it is proposed that the
existing text be retained.
Various comments have been regarding the need to make greater provision
for guidance on animal welfare. This issue has been discussed at various
previous WGSR meetings. Recognising the concerns voiced by various
parties regarding the provision of additional text on this issue, and in the
belief that the current text provides a carefully agreed compromise way
Page 10
4 May 2010 – Page 10(23)
Proposed way forward
religion, ethnic or social origin, caste, economic grounds,
disability, pregnancy, political affiliation or political or other
opinion. Emerging prohibited grounds also include sexual
orientation, marital or family status and health status such as
HIV/AIDS status. The prohibition of discrimination is one of the
most fundamental principles of international human rights law.
Propose for consideration that DIS Lines 1418-1423 (Labour
Practices – 6.3.10.2) be changed to read:
– equal opportunities and non-discrimination [22][24][25] An
organization should confirm that its employment policies are
free from discrimination based on race, colour, gender,
religion, national extraction, social origin, political opinion, age,
or disability. Emerging prohibited grounds also include sexual
orientation, marital or family status and health status such as
HIV/AIDS status, which are in line with the general principle
that hiring policies and practices, earnings, employment
conditions, access to training and promotion, and termination
of employment should be based only on the requirements of
the job.
Propose for consideration to delete all grounds from DIS lines 1284/5
and from DIS lines 1559-1562
This topic will be addressed in CSM3
New proposed way forward for the time being: create small
group to solve the problem:
Accepted as presented
The following is proposed as the way forward:
Retain the current text on this issue.
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1

Question to be addressed
11. Government / state
Can clearer, unambiguous
guidance be provided
regarding the application of
this Standard to governmental
organizations?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
forward on this issue, it is recommended that the current text on this issue be
retained
This is an issue on which carefully negotiated agreement was reached in
Santiago and consolidated in Quebec. Some comments suggest that there is
scope to provide great clarity – and less ambiguity – on the agreement that
was reached on this issue, namely that the guidance in the Standard is
relevant to governmental organizations except in those instances associated
with government’s unique role in making and enforcing law, and formulating
and implementing public policy. Various comments were made specifically on
Note 1 regarding the definition of organization, and on 3.4
Page 11
4 May 2010 – Page 11(23)
Proposed way forward
Accepted as presented, with minor modifications
The following is proposed as the way forward:
2.1.12
organization
NOTE 1 For the purpose of this International Standard "organization"
does not include government acting in its sovereign role to create and
enforce law, exercise judicial authority, carry out its duty to establish
policy in the public interest and honor the international obligations of
the state. - Accepted
3.4 The state and social responsibility
This International Standard cannot replace, alter or in any way change
the duty of the state to act in the public interest. This International
Standard does not provide guidance on what should be subject to
legally binding obligations; neither is it intended to address questions
that can only properly be resolved through political institutions.
Because the state has the unique power to create and enforce the
law, it is different from organizations. For instance, the duty of the
state to protect human rights is different from those responsibilities of
organizations (2.1.12) with respect to human rights that are
addressed in this International Standard.
The proper functioning of the state is indispensible for sustainable
development. The role of the state is essential in ensuring the
effective application of laws and regulations so as to foster a culture of
compliance with the law. Nonetheless, gGovernmental organizations,
like any other organization, may wish to use this International
Standard to inform their policies, decisions and activities related to
aspects of social responsibility. Governments can assist
organizations in their efforts to operate in a socially responsible
manner in many ways such as in the recognition and promotion of
social responsibility. However, state actions promoting the social
responsibility of organizations is not and cannot be a substitute for the
effective exercise of state duties and responsibilities. – Accepted with
minor modifications

Question to be addressed
12. Sphere of influence
What edits are needed to
make the guidance in the
Standard compatible with the
framework proposed by
Professor John Ruggie (the
Special Representative to the
United Nations Secretary-
General on Business and
Human Rights)?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
Various comments were raised on the issue of “sphere of influence”, with
some strongly diverging views expressed on the concern raised by Professor
John Ruggie (the Special Representative to the United Nations Secretary-
General on Business and Human Rights) regarding the use and scope of this
concept within the Standard, and in particular his identified concern regarding
the “conflation of influence and responsibility in parts of the Guidance
document” that is seen to be contrary to the UN framework.
Recognising this concern, and the diverging views on this issue, the IDTF
has proposed a way forward that seeks to further clarify the nature of the
duty to exercise influence.
Page 12
4 May 2010 – Page 12(23)
Proposed way forward
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1
Accepted with modifications
The following is proposed as the way forward:
Insert the following changes to 2.1.19, 5.2.3, 6.6.6, 6.6.6.2 and 7.3.2
2.1.19
sphere of influence
range/extent of political, contractual, economic or other relationships
through which an organization (2.1.12) has the ability to affect the
decisions or activities of individuals or organizations
NOTE 1 The ability to influence does not, in itself, mean there is a
responsibility to exercise that influence.There is no necessary link
between the ability to influence and the responsibility to exercise that
influence
NOTE 2 Where this term appears in the standard, it should always be
understood in the context of the guidance in 5.2.3 and 7.3.2
5.2.3
Social responsibility and the organization's sphere of influence
An organization is responsible for the impacts of decisions and
activities over which it has formal and/or de facto control1. Such
impacts of decisions and activities can be extensive. In addition to
being responsible for its own decisions and activities, an organization
may, in some situations, have the ability to affect the behaviour of
organizations/parties with which it has relationships. Such situations
are considered to fall within an organization’s sphere of influence.
This sphere of influence will include relationships within and beyond
an organization’s value chain. However, not all of the organization’s
value chain will fall within its sphere of influence. It may include the
formal and informal associations in which it participates, as well as
peer organizations or competitors.
 ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 13(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)

An organization does not always have a responsibility to exercise

influence purely because it has the ability to do so. For instance, it
cannot be held responsible for the impacts of other organizations over
which it may have some influence if the impact is not a result of its
activities. However, there will be situations where an organization will
have a responsibility to exercise influence. These situations will be
determined by the extent to which the organization’s relationship is
contributing to negative impacts.
And there will be situations where, though the organization does not
have a responsibility to exercise influence, it may nevertheless wish,
or be asked, to do so voluntarily.
An organization may decide whether to have a relationship with
another organization and the nature and extent of this relationship.
There will be situations where an organization has the responsibility to
be alert to the impacts created by the decisions and activities of other
organizations and to take steps, through exercising due diligence, to
avoid or to mitigate the negative impacts connected to its relationship
with such organizations.
When assessing its sphere of influence and determining its
responsibilities, an organization should exercise due diligence in order
to avoid contributing to negative impacts through its relationships.
Further guidance can be found in 7.3.2
1
“de facto control” refers to situations where one organization has the
ability to dictate the decisions and activities of another organization,
even where it does not have the legal or formal authority to do so.

7.3.2 An organization’s sphere of influence

7.3.2.1 Assessing an organization's sphere of influence

An organization derives influence from sources such as:

 ownership and governance This includes the nature and extent of
ownership or representation, if any, on the governing body of the
associated organization;
 economic relationship: This includes the extent of the economic
relationship and the relative importance of that relationship for either
organization: greater importance for one organization can create
greater influence for the other organization
 legal/political authority This is based, for example, on provisions in

Page 13

Question to be addressed
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 14(23)
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
comments on DIS)
legally binding contracts or the existence of a legal mandate granting
the organization the ability to enforce certain behaviours on others;
and
 public opinion This includes the ability of the organization to
influence public opinion, and the impact of public opinion on those it
is trying to influence.
An organization’s influence may depend on a number of factors,
including physical proximity, scope, length and strength of the
relationship.
7.3.2.2
Exercising influence
An organization can seek to exercise its influence with others either to
enhance positive impacts on sustainable development, or to minimize
negative impacts, or both. When assessing its sphere of influence and
determining its responsibilities, an organization should exercise due
diligence.
Methods of exercising influence include:
 setting contractual provisions or incentives
 public statements by the organization
 engaging with the community, political leaders and other
stakeholders
 making investment decisions
 sharing knowledge and information
 conducting joint projects
 undertaking responsible lobbying and using media relations;
 promoting good practices; and
 forming partnerships with sector associations, organizations and
others.
An organization should consider the environmental, social and
organizational governance aspects and the social responsibility of the
organizations with which it has or seeks to have a relationship
An organization can influence its stakeholders through its decisions
and activities, and through the information that it provides to
stakeholders about the basis for these decisions and activities.
The exercise of an organization’s influence should always be guided
by ethical behaviour and other principles and practices of social
Page 14

Question to be addressed
13. Stakeholder /
engagement / interests
Can the definition of
stakeholder and stakeholder
interests be made clearer, and
use of the terms be made
more consistent, throughout
the standard?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
Some comments state that the use of the terms stakeholder and stakeholder
interests are not as clear as they should be, given the importance of these
concepts.
The IDTF has proposed a number of wording changes to make the use and
meaning of these terms clearer. These changes are proposed for 3.3.1; 4.5;
5.1; 5.2.1; 5.3.2 and 5.3.3.
Page 15
4 May 2010 – Page 15(23)
Proposed way forward
responsibility (see Clauses 4 and 5). When exerting its influence, an
organization should first consider engaging in dialogue aimed at
improving awareness of social responsibility and encouraging socially
responsible behaviour. If dialogue is not effective, alternative actions
should be considered, including changing the nature of the
relationship.
Where an organization has de facto control1 over others, its
responsibility to act can be similar to the responsibility that exists
where the organization has formal control.
1
“de facto control” refers to situations where one organization has the
ability to dictate the decisions and activities of another organization,
even where it does not have the legal or formal authority to do so.
6.6.6 and 6.6.6.2
Promoting social responsibility in the sphere of influence
and
Related actions and expectations
In clauses 6.6.6 (DIS line 2160) and 6.6.6.2 (DID line 2172), for
consistency with the PWF above, “sphere of influence” should be
replaced by “value chain”, since the guidance in this sub-clause is
limited to the value chain, not to the whole sphere of influence.
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM4
Major parts of the way forward accepted as presented
Agreement on newly proposed way forward for 3.3.1 pending – to
be addressed by CSM or IDTF experts
The following is proposed as the way forward:
2.1.20
The current definition of stakeholder is maintained without change.
Insert the following changes to 3.3.1; 4.5; 5.1; 5.2.1; 5.3.2 and 5.3.3
Note: The edit below brings earlier in the standard the explanation of
“stake”, which was formerly in 5.3.2 (l.853-858). It adds further
 ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 16(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
guidance on the subject, keeping the concepts already agreed, while
clarifying them. Proposed new text is underlined; existing text for
deletion has been struck through.

3.3.1 Characteristics of social responsibility (DIS line 477)

This implies both transparent and ethical behaviour that
contributes to sustainable development, takes into account the
interests of stakeholders, is in compliance with applicable law
and consistent with international norms of behaviour, and is
integrated throughout the organisation and practiced in its
relationships and takes into account the interests of
stakeholders.
A stakeholder is a party in a relationship with an organization.
This relationship is established by the fact that it has one or
more interests that can be affected by the decisions and
activities of this organization. This interest gives the party a
“stake” in the organization. Stakeholders can be referred to as
“interested parties”. The relationship between the stakeholder
and the organization need not be formal or even
acknowledged or recognized by either party. The interest must
be consistent with sustainable development, e.g. criminal or
similarly illegitimate interests cannot make someone a
stakeholder in any particular organization.
OR newly proposed way forward
“A stakeholder has one or more interests that can be affected
by the decisions and activities of an organization. This interest
gives the party a “stake” in the organization and creates a
relationship to the organization based on this stake. This
relationship may not be formal or even acknowledged by the
stakeholder or the organization. Stakeholders can be referred
to as “interested parties. The interest must should be
consistent with sustainable development, e.g. criminal or
similarly illegitimate interests cannot make someone a
stakeholder in any particular organization
Agreed to use newly proposed way forward as a basis,
detailed wording however still to be agreed

Page 16
 ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 17(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)

The edits below clarify the role of interests in the relationship between
organization and stakeholders.

4.45 – Respect for stakeholder interests (DIS line 675)

An organization’s behaviour should be based on the ethics of
honesty, equity and integrity. These ethics imply a concern for
people, animals and the environment and a commitment to
address the impact of its activities and decisions on
stakeholders’ interests.

4.5 – Respect for stakeholder interests (DIS line 675)

Change to DIS line 690-692:
– consider the views of stakeholders that may whose interests
are likely to be affected by a decision or activity even if they
have no formal role in the governance of the organization or
are unaware of these their interests in the decisions or
activities of the organization.

5.1 – General (DIS Line 755-757)

The recognition of social responsibility also involves the
recognition of an organization’s stakeholders. As described in
4.5, a basic principle of social responsibility is that an
organization should respect and consider the interests of its
stakeholders that will be affected by its decisions and activities.

The edit below deletes guidance moved to 3.3.1 and adapts the
remaining text. Cross reference is made to 3.3.1

5.2.1 – Impacts, interests and expectations (DIS Line 765-768)

.An organization should be aware of its various stakeholders.
These are the individuals or groups whose interests could be

Page 17

Question to be addressed
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 18(23)
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
comments on DIS)
affected by the decisions and activities of an the organization.
(see 3.3.1) may have potential and actual impacts on these
individuals and organizations. These potential or actual
impacts are the basis of the “stake” or interest that causes the
organizations or individuals to be considered stakeholders;
The edits below clarify the idea of “claim” used to explain the concept
of stakeholder interests, and delete unnecessary guidance.
5.3.2 – Stakeholder identification (DIS Line 853-855)
Stakeholders are organizations or individuals that have one or
more interests in any decision and activity of an organization.
Because these interests (or “stakes”) can be affected by the
organization, a relationship with the organization is created.
DIS lines 859-860:
In this context, interest refers to the actual or potential basis of
a claim, that is to demand something that is owed or to
demand respect for a right. Such a claim does not need to
involve financial demands or legal rights. Sometimes it can
simply be the right to be heard.
DIS lines 867-868
The meaning of the term stakeholder is very broad, and o
Organizations may have many stakeholders. Moreover,
different stakeholders have various and sometimes competing
or conflicting interests.
(…)
(DIS lines 872-874)
Some stakeholders are an integral part of an organization.
These could include the members or employees of the
organization, as well as the shareholders or other owners of
the organization. It should be recognized that t These
stakeholders share a common interest in the purpose of the
Page 18

Question to be addressed
14. Due diligence
Is the topic of due diligence
properly located in 6.3 only?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
Some comments point out that while the concept of due diligence is referred
to in several core subjects, it is only dealt with methodically in 6.3. Some
suggested that greater provision should be made for the concept in Clause 7
since it is a tool for enhancing SR in respect all core subjects.
To address the comments the IDTF has proposed that the definition be
Page 19
4 May 2010 – Page 19(23)
Proposed way forward
organization and in its success.
(…)
(DIS lines 876-878)
The interest of most stakeholders can be related to the social
responsibility of the organization and often are very similar to
some of the interests of society. The common interests of
stakeholders can be related to the broader expectations of
society. An example is the interest of a property owner whose
property loses value because of a new source of pollution.
The edit below clarify the role of interests in the relationship between
organization and stakeholders.
5.3.3 – Stakeholder engagement (DIS Line 944)
An organization should be conscious of and respect the effect of its
actions and decisions on the interests and needs of its stakeholders. It
should respect its stakeholders as well as and their varying relative
capacityies and needs to contact and engage with the organization.
(…)
DIS lines 946-651:
Because there are two bulleted lists in clause 5.3.3 and this is not
permitted under ISO rules, it is proposed to reform these lines so that
they appear as a paragraph.
Additional bracketed text/comments related to the lines changed
above will be addressed in the relevant CSMs, insofar they don’t
contradict this approved pwf.
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM4
Accepted with modifications
The following is proposed as the way forward:
Revise the definition and replace as follows:

Question to be addressed
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
slightly adjusted for greater clarity. A number of suggested editing changes
recommended in the comments have been proposed in 6.3.3 and 7.4.3.
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 20(23)
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
comments on DIS)
2.1.4
Due Diligence
comprehensive, proactive process to identify the actual and potential
negative social, environmental and economic impacts of an
organization’s decisions and activities over the entire life cycle of a
project or organizational activity, with the aim of avoiding and
mitigating those negative impacts.
Make the following changes to the text :
6.3.3 Human rights issue 1: Due diligence
6.3.3.1 Description of the issue
To respect human rights, organizations have a responsibility to
exercise due diligence to identify, prevent and address actual or
potential human rights impacts resulting from their activities, including
through their relationships. Due diligence may also alert an
organization to a responsibility to influence the behaviour of others,
where they may be the cause of human rights violations in which the
organization may be implicated.
6.3.3.2 Related actions and expectations
Because due diligence applies to all core subjects, including human
rights, further guidance on due diligence may be found in 7.4.3.
Specific to human rights, a due diligence process should, in a manner
that is appropriate to the organization's size and circumstances,
include the following components:
 a human rights policy for the organization that gives
meaningful guidance to those within the organization and
those closely linked to the organization;
 means of assessing how existing and proposed activities
may affect human rights;
 means of integrating the human rights policy throughout the
organization; and
 means of tracking performance over time, to be able to make
necessary adjustments in priorities and approach; and
 Appropriate actions to address the negative impacts of its
decisions and activities.
--
Page 20
 ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 21(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)

7.4.3 7.3.1 Due diligence as a tool for enhancing social

responsibility
Due diligence in the context of social responsibility is a
comprehensive, proactive process to identify the actual and potential
negative social, environmental and economic impacts of an
organization’s decisions and activities, with the aim of avoiding and
mitigating those impacts.
Due diligence may also entail influencing the behaviour of others,
where they be the cause of human rights or other violations in which
the organization may be implicated.
In any due diligence process, an organization should consider the
country context in which it operates or in which its activities take
place; the potential and actual impacts of its own activities; and the
potential for negative consequences resulting from the actions of
other entities or persons whose activities are significantly linked to
those of the organization.
It should include in a due diligence process, in a manner appropriate
to the organization's size and circumstances, the following
components:
 organizational policies related to the relevant core subject that give
meaningful guidance to those within the organization and those
closely linked to the organization;
 means of assessing how existing and proposed activities may affect
those policy goals;
 means of integrating social responsibility core subjects throughout
the organization; and
 means of tracking performance over time, to be able to make
necessary adjustments in priorities and approach; and
 Appropriate actions to address the negative impacts of its decisions
and activities.
In identifying potential areas for action, an organization should strive
to better understand challenges and dilemmas from the perspective of
the individuals and groups potentially harmed.
In addition to this self-evaluation, an organization may find that in
some cases it is both possible and appropriate to seek to influence
the behaviour of other entities towards enhancing their social
responsibility performance, particularly those with which it has close

Page 21

Question to be addressed
15. Philanthropy / social
investment
How to address philanthropy
consistently with the guidance
in Clause 6? Is social
investment related to an
organization’s core activities?
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
Some comments identified a negative tone related to philanthropy in 3.3.4
and 6.8.1. The current text is seen as disregarding / ignoring /
underestimating the potential for philanthropy to be a component of a
strategy for social responsibility.
Even though 3.3.4 is about integrating into the organization lines 509-511, in
their present form, give the impression that philanthropy is not addressed in
relation to the subject of the section. The paragraph is seen as having a
negative tone.
Further, for line 2583 in 6.8.1, the tone is seen as negative in relation to
philanthropy, although some following recommendations can be understood
as being philanthropic. To address the topic consistently, it is proposed that
line 2583 be aligned to the proposal for lines 509-511
In addition, philanthropy is mentioned in relation to social investment in 6.8.9,
lines 2864-2866. Some comments are concerned with the idea that the
concept of social investment excludes an organization’s core activities (Ref.
lines 2575-2578). Experts offering those comments are of the opinion that
this may not be true, in the sense that there may be cases, where the
alignment of social investment with the core activities of an organization may
improve the benefits of social investment for the community development.
Also, there is a suggestion to move the lines 2575-2578 into 6.8.9.
Page 22
4 May 2010 – Page 22(23)
Proposed way forward
ties or where the organization considers the issues to be particularly
compelling or relevant to its situation. As an organization gains
experience in the area of enhancing social responsibility performance,
it may grow in its capacity and willingness to work with other entities
to achieve this goal.
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM3
Accepted with modifications
The following is proposed as the way forward:
Change DIS lines 509-511 to highlight possible relationships between
philanthropy and integration of into the organization to read as follows:
Integrating social responsibility into the organization may
include philanthropic activities. However, philanthropic
activities alone do not achieve the objective of integrating
social responsibility into the organization. Philanthropic
activities that are unrelated to the organization’s impact on
society and the environment are neither necessary nor
sufficient to address an organization’s social responsibility.
OR (newly proposed way forward by IDTF):
Philanthropy (in this context understood as giving to charitable
causes) can have a positive impact on society [and be an
element of an organization's SR practices]. However, it should
not be used by an organization as a substitute for [engaging
stakeholders,] [integrating SR into the organization] or
addressing any adverse impacts of its decisions or activities.
Newly proposed way forward accepted with modifications!
The text should recognize that social investment may or may not be
part of core operations of organizations. The following text is
proposed for DIS lines 2575-2578:
Social investment is a means by which organizations can
contribute to the development of the communities in which they
operate. Social investments that contribute to community
development can sustain and enhance an organization’s

Question to be addressed
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 23(23)
Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
comments on DIS)
relationships with its communities, and may or may not be
associated with an organization’s core operational activities.
The CSM will decide whether this paragraph should move into 6.8.9
or stay in 6.8.1.
Replace DIS Line 2583 as follows:
While some aspects of the actions discussed in this section
can be understood as philanthropy, philanthropic activities
alone do not achieve the objective of integrating social
responsibility into the organization (as discussed in 3.3.4).
The current text in lines 2864-2866 addresses the relationship
between philanthropy and social investment adequately. It is
proposed that the existing text be retained.
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM3
Page 23