1 / 54

Observations by October 2009 Start of the DIS commenting and voting period (ending 14 February 2010)

ISO/DIS 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility. Observations by October 2009 Start of the DIS commenting and voting period (ending 14 February 2010). Guido Gürtler , ICC Observer to ISO/TMB WG SR, Member of the WG SR Industry Stakeholder Group guido.guertler@t-online.de. Outline (1/2).

aqua
Download Presentation

Observations by October 2009 Start of the DIS commenting and voting period (ending 14 February 2010)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ISO/DIS 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility Observations by October 2009 Start of the DIS commenting and voting period (ending 14 February 2010) Guido Gürtler, ICC Observer to ISO/TMB WG SR, Member of the WG SR Industry Stakeholder Group guido.guertler@t-online.de

  2. Outline (1/2) • Origination • Key project data • The Standard and its content • Estimation of main users • Who is drafting what for whom • Working stages and comments • Positive and critical points • About ISO and societal standards

  3. Outline (2/2) • Meeting the Design Specification? • Who will vote on the DIS? • CD voting results • The voting process • Voting options • Possible D-Liaisons’ action • Sovereignty in taking decisions • Perspectives ABC

  4. Summary ISO/DIS 26000 is a major achievement and not a bad document… …but for its purpose and the expectations raised it is not good enough, yet.

  5. Origination (1/2) • 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 There was an overwhelming demand from developing countries

  6. Origination (2/2) It‘s a Consumer Initiative • COPOLCO is the ISO Consumer Policy Committee • The COPOLCO Workshop in Trinidad, June 2002, had some 90 attendees, with only 2 from industry, none from the banking sector • ISO Council decided about the COPOLCO proposal as requested by ISO procedures

  7. Key Project Data • Working since early 2005 • 400+ members (experts and observers) • Many of them first time working in an ISO project • Majority from developing countries

  8. About the Standard • ISO 26000 “Guidance on Social Responsibility” • Target: To be applied by all types of organizations • Type of standard: • International standard providing guidance; • NOT for third-party certification; • NOT a Management System Standard

  9. ISO 26000 – Contents (1/3) 0 Introduction 1 Scope 2 Terms and definitions 3 Understanding SR of organizations 4 Principles of SR 5 Recognizing SR and engaging stakeholders 6 Guidance on SR subjects 7 Guidance on integrating SR throughout an organization Annex A: Voluntary initiatives and tools for SR Annex B: Abbreviations Bibliography

  10. ISO 26000 (2/3) 4 Principles of social responsibility Identifies a set of SR principles: • Principle of accountability • Principle of transparency • Principle of ethical behavior • Principle of respect for stakeholder interests • Principle of respect for the rule of law • Principle of human rights • Principle of respect for international norms of behavior

  11. ISO 26000 (3/3) 6 Guidance on SR core subjects Provides separate guidance on a range of core subjects/issues and relates them to organizations. • Organizational Governance • Labor Practices • Human Rights • The Environment • Fair Operating Practices • Consumer Issues • Community Involvement & Development

  12. ISO 26000 Volume It has become an educational document of 100+ pages! …..Warnings on too big a size exist since Working Draft 2, late 2006…..

  13. Who is „Industry“? Industry Stakeholder Definition (N48 rev1) The industry stakeholder group includes representatives of: Enterprises that manufacture products or provide services and pursue primarily commercial interests. This group includes supportive enterprises like energy and water supply, banking, communication, insurance or transport companies. Such enterprises exist of any size and legal form and may operate at local, regional or international level. Industry also includes employer organizations, businessassociations, special industry organizations and trade associations representing various industries at the national, regional and international levels.

  14. Estimation of Main Users Industry and service organizations stand for 96% of all users. 36% 60%

  15. Who is drafting what for whom? 60 % are not Industry & Services 4 % are not Industry & Services 60% of WG SR experts represent 4% of users, but have a say on what 96% should follow

  16. Working Stages and Comments (1/3) Initiation Here we are! CommitteeDraft Working Drafts DIS FDIS IS NWIP 2002 2009 2010 2004

  17. Working Stages and Comments (2/3) • Working Drafts 1, 2 and 3 caused some 2.500 to 3.000 comments each • WD 4.1 received 5.000+ comments • WD 4.2 got 5.000+ comments • Committee Draft got 3.400+ comments

  18. Working Stages and Comments (3/3) In view of the large number of comments, they • Were grouped into „key topics“ • In meetings, solutions were sought for new language on these key topics Thisprocess used was a way forward to manage the large quantity of comments, and designed to show progress, but it also lost a lot of substance offered in the details. Consequently many comments had to be repeated, many of them several times.

  19. Positive Points • ISO 26000 will boost the global discussion on Social Responsibility • ISO 26000 will make many organizations rethink their behavior • WG SR has done an admirable work; found consensus of 400+ members

  20. Critical Points • ISO 26000 will boost a consultant business because it is not easy to understand and does not offer tools • ISO 26000 is not for certification but certifiers will create “their SR Standards” and possibly decorate them with attributes like “…in line with ISO 26000” • ISO/DIS 26000 is not applicable to the vast majority of SMOs; small and medium organizations

  21. About ISO and societal standards (1/10)Foundation and work areas • The International Standards Organization • Located in Geneva • Founded 1946 for standardization in technical areas; to foster trade and increase welfare • In the 1980’s expansion into so-called “Management System Standards”, like ISO 9000 or 14001 • ? Since 2004 on the way to expand into societal areas?

  22. About ISO and societal standards (2/10)ISO member bodies • 162 Members in total • 106 full members, having voting rights, called “member bodies” • 056 members, correspondent or subscriber members) not having voting rights (35%)

  23. About ISO and societal standards (3/10)Definition of “stakeholder” 2.1.20 stakeholder individual or group that has an interest in any decisions or activities of an organization The proposal is to use the ICC definition that reads  “Individual or group significantlyaffected by an organization’s activities.”

  24. About ISO and societal standards (4/10)Definition of “organization” 2.1.12 organization entity with identifiable objectives and structure NOTE 1 For the purpose of this International Standard organization does not include government executing duties that are exclusive to the state. NOTE 2 Clarity on the meaning of small and medium-sized organizations (SMOs) is provided in Clause 3.3. • This includes all from multinationals to shoemakers and social non-for-profit organizations; • Missing key words like governing bodies, functions, positions, authority for and delegation of… • Each legal entity is an organization

  25. About ISO and societal standards (5/10)Pricing policy on ISO 26000 Council Resolution 32/2009 (Free availability of ISO 26000) Council, noting that the TMB Working Group on Social Responsibility (WG SR) has requested that ISO/DIS 26000 and ISO 26000 be made freely available, further noting that, in consultation with the Commercial Policies Steering Group (CPSG), the Secretary-General has agreed to make ISO/DIS 26000 freely available on the ISO Web site for the WG SR, having considered the rationale lying behind this WG SR's request, decides that ISO 26000 should not be made freely available and that therefore the current pricing policy should be applied with no deviation.

  26. About ISO and societal standards (6/10)Pricing policy, consequences SMOs including micro organizations have to buy the document Reduction of the ISO 26000 proliferation Increase of revenues at ISO member bodies* Increase of revenues at ISO itself * Several set the price of standards dependent on the number of pages

  27. About ISO and societal standards (7/10)Feature “national delegations” Composed of a few national delegates from participating ISO Members ISO Technical Ctee ISO Member ISO Member ISO Member ISO Member …. ISO Member National Mirror Ctees …. …. National parties concerned; stakeholders

  28. About ISO and societal standards (8/10)Feature “one-country-one-vote” One vote, regardless of size of population, culture, convictions and habits, religion, etc. China can be formally outweighed by Mauritius, the US by Saint Lucia…

  29. About ISO and societal standards (9/10)Feature “comments grouping” The subject‘s complexity and differences in understandings lead to 20.000+ comments on „Working Drafts“ from WG SR experts The CD Committee Draft received 3.400+ comments from ISO Member Bodies Their was no other chance than “grouping” them into “key issues” and try to find solutions; but this lead also to repeatedly presented comments

  30. About ISO and societal standards (10/10)Feature “involvement of D-Liaisons ” As an innovative process: direct participation in „technical work“ Participating “industry” relevant organizations:BIAC, ICC, ICMM, IFAN, ILO, IOE, IPIECA, NORMAPME, OECD, OGP, WBCSD, WSBI These organizations count for much more industry representation than all “national delegates”, but their voices count only numerically…. e.g. IOE can be outweighed by e.g. ‘Red Puentes’ ?

  31. Meeting the Design Specification? (1/2)

  32. Meeting the Design Specification? (2/2)

  33. Who will vote on the DIS? (1/2) For CD and DIS the same ISO rules apply: ISO member bodies can vote; i.e. full members only (currently 106 out of 162) D-Liaison organizationscan raise their “voices”; they don’t have voting rights

  34. Who will vote on the DIS? (2/2) The whole file is available at http://www.26k-estimation.com/html/dis__vote__analysis.html#dis-voteanalysis-start

  35. CD vote results (1/3) These 10 countries did not vote: Armenia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Barbados Iran Russia Saint Lucia Trinidad and Tobago Ukraine, and Zimbabwe Their voices do not count. These 4 countries abstained: Bulgaria Ghana Lebanon Saudi Arabia

  36. CD vote results (2/3) These 19 countries placed a negative vote: Note the substantial geopolitical and economic clout of those highlighted in Red Austria Belarus China Cuba Fiji India Indonesia Jamaica Korea Malaysia Mauritius Mexico The Netherlands Peru Philippines Syria Turkey United States Viet Nam

  37. CD vote results (3/3) 46 is exactly 2/3 of 69; the formal require-ments of the ISO Directives were met

  38. D-Liaison Organizations “Voices” (1/3) Industry and service organizations stand for 96% of all users. 98% of them are micro, small and medium organizations. Business oriented D-Liaison organizations raised major concerns on the CD, some emphasizing that those have been presented repeatedly

  39. D-Liaison Organizations “Voices” (2/3) As regards the ISO 26000 applicability to the main user group (SMO), business oriented D-Liaison organizations basically criticize the Volume of 100+ pages Language and tone (not easy to understand) Relevancy of all core subjects

  40. D-Liaison Organizations “Voices” (3/3) • Such major concerns have been expressed on the CD by: • BIAC - Business and Advisory Committee to the OECD • ICC - International Chamber of Commerce • IFAN - International Federation of Users of Standards • IOE - International Organization of Employers • IPIECA - International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, and • NORMAPME - European Office of Crafts, Trade and Small and Medium Enterprises for Standardization These “voices” weigh in with by far more “business reality” than that provided through the ISO national member bodies* * A number of national mirror committees don’t include industry representatives

  41. The DIS Voting Count (1/3) ISO, Geneva 162 ISO members, out of them 106 ISO member „bodies“ have voting rights

  42. The DIS Voting Count (2/3) Both P-Members’ and ISO member bodies’ votes must be positive; if one of them is negative, the vote failed

  43. The DIS Voting Count (3/3) Both P-Members’ and ISO member bodies’ votes must be positive; if one of them is negative, the vote failed

  44. Voting Options In favor: supports the document as it is; comments may be made Abstain: feels too small, didn’t find consensus etc.; abstentions don’t count Against: does not support the document as it is; comments must be made Votes must be sent by the ISO member body to ISO Geneva, before 14 February 2010

  45. Possible D-Liaison actions (1/2)Steps Find a position on ISO/DIS 26000 ISO member body Chairman Secretary Member 1 Member 2 … Make that position publicly known Make that position known to national ISO member bodies Since D-Liaison organizations don’t vote, ISO encourages them to approachnational ISO member bodies with their position

  46. Possible D-Liaison actions (2/2)Time Line 2010-02-14 2009-09-14 106 ISO member bodies send their vote 106 national mirror committees find their position Reasonably an effective influence can only be exerted in the early weeks and months.

  47. Sovereignty in taking decisions ISO Member Body have voting rights and is sovereign in its decision finding. D-Liaison organizationscan raise their “voice” Note: According to N105 Operating Procedures D-Liaison organizations have the right of appeal to the WG Plenary; an option normally not used because finding consensus is considered more important

  48. Perspectives ABC (1/3) “Major” changes; DIS2 Yes No “Minor” changes A DIS vote C No B No DIS2 vote Yes Final work Yes No FDIS vote Technical Report International Standard B

  49. Perspectives ABC (2/3) Route A: is the fastest one; may be preferred by all who want to end the project quickly, regardless of its smaller or greater success Route B: is a preferred option, including the continua-tion of the project in a new to be founded global organization for “Standards and Benchmarks for Society” Route C: continues with a second DIS and major changes of the document (changes as requested in all “general” and “technical” comments”)

  50. Perspectives ABC (3/3) Who will take the decision on how to proceed? ISO TMB, the ISO Technical Management Board that controls and coordinates all technical work of the many ISO committees. According to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee.html?commid=54996 the 12 members of 2009 are ABNT Brazil (2011), AENOR Spain (2010) ; AFNOR France (2011) , ANSI USA (2009) , BIS India (2011), BSI United Kingdom (2009) , DIN Germany (2009) , JISC Japan (2010) , KATS Korea, Republic of (2011), SABS South Africa (2011), SAC China (2011), SCC Canada (2010). The „2009 members“ will change by January 2010.

More Related