Sie sind auf Seite 1von 30

ISO 26000 Guidance on

Social Responsibility
Development Status, June 2009
An Indus try V iew

Th e Pro ject

David Fel in ski, Vice-President IFAN (International Federation


of Standards Users) and IFAN Expert to ISO/TMB WG SR, and
Gu ido Guert le r, ICC Observer to ISO/TMB WG SR
Available Slide Series

• The P rojec t
• ISO 26000 Contents and Players
• Applicability Aspects
• ISO 26000 CD Vote by March 2009
• Success Criteria
• Risk of Failure
• Tool: Check of Effectiveness

The pr es en t su bs et is th e on e ma rk ed in bold let ter s


Outline

 Background
 About the Standard and its Process
 Meeting History
 Current Status (June 2009)
 Next Steps
When/How did this Start?

 Gestation began early 90’s (primarily from the Nordic


part of EU)
 4/01 ISO COPOLCO asked by ISO Council to consider
viability of a CSR Standard
 6/02 ISO/COPLOCO Workshop in Trinidad meeting –
obvious strong agreement that ISO should proceed
 9/02 ISO Council accepts report and establishes SAG
 ISO SR Advisory Group (SAG) late 2002 worked for 18
months on comprehensive report to ISO TMB including
an overview of worldwide initiatives. Concluded ISO
should go forward with the work
It‘s a Consumer Initiative (1/2)
 COPOLCO is the ISO
Co nsumer Pol icy Co mmittee
 The COPOLCO Workshop in Trinidad, June
2002, had some 90 attendees, with only 2
from industry

 ISO Council decided about the COPOLCO


proposal as requested by ISO procedures
It‘s a Consumer Initiative (2/2)
 The COPOLCO Workshop in Trinidad took
place at a time when public discussion was
driven by negative headlines about
companies like
Enron
Worldcom
Nike
 US legislation took care of avoiding other
comparable cases
„Standard“ or
„Guidance Standard “?
 There are many kinds of ISO-„Standards “
 A „Gui danc e St and ard “ is a special kind
that offers
ad vice, pro pos als , ori ent at ion
and rec om menda ti ons

The USER de cides about their


acceptance and practical use.
ISO Stages of Development
 1 NWIP (NP)
 2 Working Draft(s) (WD)
 3 Committee Draft (CD)
 4 Draft International Standard (DIS)
 5 Final Draft International Standard (FDIS)
 6 International Standard (IS)

Stages 1-2: Building consensus among experts


Stages 3-6: Building national consensus for
national voting
Background
 6/2004 ISO Conference on SR in Stockholm
(355 participants from 66 countries, many developing
countries)
 Issues raised aligned with those of SAG
 ISO TMB proposed a new WG (rather than an existing
TC) to prepare a guidance standard on SR
 TMB also assigned leadership to Sweden and Brazil
(“Twinning” a developed with a developing country; a
new strategy to increase ISO participation and buy-in)
 10/2004 ISO NWIP circulated among 160 ISO MBs

 1/2005: 29-yes; 4-no: start of project decided


About the Standard
 ISO 26000 “Guidance on Social Responsibility”
 High target: To be applied by all types of
organizations, regardless of their size and location

Key characteristics:
 International standard providing guidance;
 NOT for certification;
 NOT a Management System Standard
 NOT for procurement or any other
contractual use
Scope
 Assist organizations in addressing their SR by
providing practical guidance on engaging
stakeholders, implementing/integrating SR,
& enhancing credibility of SR reports/claims
 Increase customer/stakeholder confidence &
satisfaction
 Promote common terminology & broaden SR
awareness
 Emphasize performance results &
improvement
Unique & Experimental
Development Process
 No ISO/TC; instead, ISO/TMB WG
 Document development along stakeholder
group lines, NOT along NSB lines
 Voting on the CD stage reverting traditional
P-member voting
 Consensus within many ISO member bodies
may be difficult to achieve; important
viewpoints not covered by consensus may
be reported separately
Stakeholder Groups
(representation in WG SR)
 Industry (23.5%)
 Service, Support, Research, Others (20.5%)
 Government (20%)
 Non-Governmental Organizations (17.5%)
 Consumers (11.5%)
 Labor (7.5%)
Meeting Places
WG SR Members (1/2)
Stakeholder Groups (D-
Liaisons included)
Exper Observ
by
Industry
Governm 94 ts ers
43 137 experts observer total %
Gender
ent
Consume 83 37 120 s
118 377 62,9
male 259
r 50 23 73 151 71 222 37,1
female
Labor 37 19 56 599
NGO
Services 83 36 119
… 84 38 122
total 431 196 627
by Countries (D-Liaisons not
counted) Expert Observe
Developi s rs total %
ng
Develope 220 102 322 62,2
d 138 58 196 37,8
518

Source: WG SR member file of June 2009


WG SR Members (2/2)

Members have
equal rights,
regardless of
their delegating
organization.

Source: WG SR member file of June 2009


WG Growth
Strong National Pushes in support of document:
 EU nations (Nordic states, but many others too)

 Canada

 Developing countries (mostly Africa, S.America & A-P)

 Stakeholder Group Pushes:


 Consumers and NGOs generally aligned, and bellicose

 SSRO (less so, but often aligned philosophically with above)

 Government (usu. aligned with SSRO but are prone to vacillate)

 Labor (usu. a relatively reasonable/moderate approach)

 Industry (mostly engaged in reaction & damage control)

 D-Liaison orgs (for 80% of them, leaning/approach & agenda [CSR] is the same as that
of Consumers & NGOs)
Stakeholder Balance
Strong National Pushes in support of document:
 EU nations (Nordic states, but many others too)

 Canada

 Developing countries (mostly Africa, S.America & A-P)

 Stakeholder Group Pushes:


 Consumers and NGOs generally aligned, and bellicose

 SSRO (less so, but often aligned philosophically with above)

 Government (usu. aligned with SSRO but are prone to vacillate)

 Labor (usu. a relatively reasonable/moderate approach)

 Industry (mostly engaged in reaction & damage control)

 D-Liaison orgs (for 80% of them, leaning/approach & agenda [CSR] is the same as that
of Consumers & NGOs)
Regional Balance – Country (NSB*)
Strong National Pushes in support of document:
 EU nations (Nordic states, but many others too)

 Canada

 Developing countries (mostly Africa, S.America & A-P)

 Stakeholder Group Pushes:


 Consumers and NGOs generally aligned, and bellicose

 SSRO (less so, but often aligned philosophically with above)

 Government (usu. aligned with SSRO but are prone to vacillate)

 Labor (usu. a relatively reasonable/moderate approach)

 Industry (mostly engaged in reaction & damage control)

 D-Liaison orgs (for 80% of them, leaning/approach & agenda [CSR] is the same as that
of Consumers & NGOs)

NSB = National Standards Body


Regional Balance - Experts
Strong National Pushes in support of document:
 EU nations (Nordic states, but many others too)

 Canada

 Developing countries (mostly Africa, S.America & A-P)

 Stakeholder Group Pushes:


 Consumers and NGOs generally aligned, and bellicose

 SSRO (less so, but often aligned philosophically with above)

 Government (usu. aligned with SSRO but are prone to vacillate)

 Labor (usu. a relatively reasonable/moderate approach)

 Industry (mostly engaged in reaction & damage control)

 D-Liaison orgs (for 80% of them, leaning/approach & agenda [CSR] is the same as that
of Consumers & NGOs)
Work Group (WG) Meetings (1/4)
1st Plenary: Salvador, March 2005 2nd Plenary: Bangkok, Sept. 2005:
 300 participants  1200 written comments before

 43 ISO member countries meeting


 24 organizations  About 350 participants

 54 ISO member countries


Focus on discussion and decisions
on the scope of the future  24 liaison organizations

standard:  Developing countries: increase


 Terms of reference of the WG
Main objectives:
 Structure of the WG  Decide a structure in a Design
 Allocation of the leadership of Specification
its subgroup  Divide the work among
 Development of special permanent task groups based
working procedures on the structure
 Target date for publication  Agree project plan

Produced WD1 after meeting


WG Meetings (2/4)
3rd Plenary: Lisbon, May 2006 4th Plenary: Sidney, Jan-Feb 2007
 2040 written comments before  5176 written comments before
meeting meeting
 About 320 participants  About 275 participants

 55 ISO member countries  54 ISO member countries

 26 liaison organizations  28 liaison organizations

 Developing countries well  Developing countries


represented participation consolidated
Main objectives: Main objectives:
 Work on the first working draft  Resolve enough Key topics to

 Further define operating produce next WD


framework to strengthen  Further define operating
participation and accountability framework to strengthen
participation and accountability

Produced WD2 after meeting Produced WD3 after meeting


WG Meetings (3/4)
5th Plenary: Vienna Nov. 2007 6th Plenary: Santiago Aug. 08
 7225 written comments  5231 written comments

 About 400 participants  About 320 participants

Main objectives: Main objectives:


 Resolve enough key topics  Resolve enough key topics

to advance the document to advance the document to


 Improve operational CD
 Continue to enhance
framework of the process
 Enhance participation participation and improve
accountability and efficiency
 Improve accountability and
efficiency

Produced WD4.1 and 4.2 Produced CD1 after this


after this meeting meeting
WG Meetings (4/4)
7th Plenary: Quebec City, Canada
 3411 written comments on the CD

 Decision before meeting to advance to DIS:


consensus was declared based on 2/3 yes votes,
but significant NO votes from China, U.S.,
South Korea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia
Main Objective
 Increase consensus by addressing specific
comments of concern to those who voted no

DIS to be produced from this meeting


Next Steps, June 2009 onwards
IDTF* to prepare the DIS,
by September 2009

DIS vote by
91 WG SR P-members (or more)
and all
160 ISO member bodies

DIS voting period is 5 months,


September 2009 to February 2010
*IDTF = Integrated Drafting Task Force
DIS acceptance requires bot h :
 ≥ 66 % votes cast by P-members of
WG SR are in favor (i.e. two thirds of
currently 91 P-members),
AND
 < 25 % total votes (of all 160 ISO
member bodies) are negative (i.e. ≥ 75 %
total votes are positive)

 Abstentions, and negative votes not accompanied by


technical reasons, are not counted.
Annex

Two slides on detailed timeline


Timeline (1/2)

 6/04 Conference on SR in Stockholm for developing


countries (355 participants from 66 countries)
 Issues raised aligned with those of SAG
 ISO TMB proposed a new WG (rather than an existing
TC) to prepare a guidance standard on SR
 TMB also assigned leadership to Sweden and Brazil
(“Twinning” a developed with a developing country; a
new strategy to increase ISO participation and buy-in)
 10/04 ISO NWIP circulated among 157 ISO MBs
 1/05: 29-yes; 4-no
Timeline (2/2)

 6/04 Conference on SR in Stockholm for developing


countries (355 participants from 66 countries)
 Issues raised aligned with those of SAG
 ISO TMB proposed a new WG (rather than an existing
TC) to prepare a guidance standard on SR
 TMB also assigned leadership to Sweden and Brazil
(“Twinning” a developed with a developing country; a
new strategy to increase ISO participation and buy-in)
 10/04 ISO NWIP circulated among 157 ISO MBs
 1/05: 29-yes; 4-no