Interesting Discussion ISO to develop a Guidance Document (ISO 26000) on Social Responsibility - some object

Re: ISO to develop a Guidance Document on Corporate Social Responsibility - some obje

John Broomfield said:

Apart from the removal of the word "Corporate" from its title, here is another shred of evidence of ISO's attempt to influence governments...

Click to expand...

Gee, I think the operative word is 'shred' here - as in such a tiny, tiny, wee piece of 'evidence' that I think you're clutching at ... I'd say wisps rather than straws even.

Heavens to Betsy! That's your evidence? I also think that you're seeing things that just aren't there.

Re: ISO to develop a Guidance Document on Corporate Social Responsibility - some obje

I am a little perplexed about the concerns on and criticism of the document ISO 26000. I do not think that ISO is bringing in something new; it is only consolidating (collating) certain known codes and declarations that have been already accepted by the society. I find the following documents reflected in ISO 26000: Global Compact, UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies, ILO Declaration on Fundamentals Principles and Rights at work, UN Convention against corruption etc. My understanding so far is that ISO 26000 is trying to bring the salient points of these documents in one document; if we accept the UN and ILO declarations, why do we object to a document that collates the information for our reference. Is there any fundamental objections to the reference documents like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights or ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at work or UN Convention against Corruption etc ? I am not aware of the situation elsewhere, but for a country like India or China, we need such guideline documents as a reference for our corporate bodies to fall back on. In fact I find the Electronic Industry Code of Conduct (EICC Code of Conduct) interesting for India, China and other developing countries. ISO 26000 is an extension of this code, providing guidelines for a wider audience. Am I missing any important point brought out by those who have concerns about ISO 26000 ?

With kind regards,

Ramakrishnan

Re: ISO to develop a Guidance Document on Corporate Social Responsibility - some obje

I think in the US the criticism comes because people that run the corporations, or even those who fantasize about someday running their own corporations like to have the power to treat their workers anyway they want (as a commodity instead of human beings). They also falsely believe that somehow free enterprise (which doesnt really exist anyway) will be threatened. From my observations people have their social circles of power and that standard would interfere with those social circles. Look at the US failing economy the US big three automakers who basically suck, yet there is hardly any forced churn in the excutive ranks. Any such standard usurps their power. Many People look at the document with all ignorance and believe that its of a communist or socialist doctrine which automatically means its really really bad!

Re: ISO to develop a Guidance Document on Corporate Social Responsibility - some obje

Amen! The word "social" invokes many times reactions such as a red flag on a bull....

Stijloor.

Re: ISO to develop a Guidance Document on Corporate Social Responsibility - some obje

Stijloor said:

Amen! The word "social" invokes many times reactions such as a red flag on a bull....

Stijloor.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think it's the word 'responsibility' that does it.

Re: ISO to develop a Guidance Document on Corporate Social Responsibility - some obje

Stijloor said:

Amen! The word "social" invokes many times reactions such as a red flag on a bull....

Click to expand...

JaneB said:

Actually, I think it's the word 'responsibility' that does it.

Click to expand...

Maybe some people believe that the two words should not be used together.

The concept that organizations should concern themselves with anything other than profit maximization is opposed by many businessmen. The idea that any entity has a social impact, and thus, should act responsibly is not welcome by many businessmen, because brings another dimension to their management needs, something they feel very uncomfortable with.

Re: ISO to develop a Guidance Document on Corporate Social Responsibility - some obje

Sidney Vianna said:

Maybe some people believe that the two words should not be used together.

Click to expand...

Yes, this certainly seems to be the case.

Sidney Vianna said:

The concept that organizations should concern themselves with anything other than profit maximization is opposed by many businessmen. The idea that any entity has a social impact, and thus, should act responsibly is not welcome by many businessmen, because brings another dimension to their management needs, something they feel very uncomfortable with.

Click to expand...

Indeed yes. Fortunately there are people - business people and others - who don't subscribe to this point of view, and do see that, as they do operate on this planet (and thus have an impact) and that they operate within a social context (and also have an impact, whether that be good/bad/indifferent) that there are certain social responsibilities. May their numbers increase and the less aware become more so.

Re: ISO to develop a Guidance Document on Corporate Social Responsibility - some obje

Hi,

There are many books written on companies that have embraced sustainability (now is synonymous with CSR) to be successful and competitive. The latest that I read was "The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations are working together to Create a Sustainable World" by Peter Senge et al. (By the way, Peter Senge is the author of the Fifth Discipline, acclaimed as a classic Management book). In the last twenty years I have read many books and articles which had shown how "responsible" organizations are the most competitive organizations too. I would also refer to articles by Prof. Michael Porter on Strategic Philanthropy - for those who still believe CSR is philanthropy (e.g. The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer, Harvard Business Review, December, 2006); the business of business is to maximize stakeholder value - the shareholder, in turn, gets maximally benefited. Please see my blog in this forum: Harvard shows the way for the new initiatives by Harvard Business School on this subject. For those who are interested in successful CSR cases I would refer to www.wbcsd.org. WBCSD is the voice of the corporate world.

With kind regards,

Ramakrishnan

Re: ISO to develop a Guidance Document on Corporate Social Responsibility - some obje

I have been following this thread for a while and am relatively new to Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Responsibility (other than ISO 14001, sustainability, and the Malcolm Baldrige approach). I know that some MBA and other college degree programs have had courses in CSR for many years.

I have glanced at the ISO 26000 draft and SA8000. In terms of topics covered, how does ISO 26000 compare to traditional CSR and to SA8000? SA8000 seems to be somewhat narrower in scope than ISO 26000.

Also, in spite of the description of ISO 26000 as a guidance document only and not a certification standard, is there some interest in unaccredited third-party certification?

Re: ISO to develop a Guidance Document on Corporate Social Responsibility - some obje

BSMITH said:

how does ISO 26000 compare to traditional CSR and to SA8000?

Click to expand...

I don't think "traditional CSR" is well defined. There are multiple and inconsistent "interpretations" of what SR is; thus a benefit with ISO 26000.

BSMITH said:

Also, in spite of the description of ISO 26000 as a guidance document only and not a certification standard, is there some interest in unaccredited third-party certification?

Click to expand...

Certification, accredited or otherwise, implies an attestation against verifiable, auditable, "objective" requirements. When we are dealing with a document that has no requirements, but only guidance, how could we objectively verify conformance?

If we have problems, in terms of auditor inconsistency, with clear cut requirements, I can only imagine what would happen if start certifying organizations against guidance documents.

I do suspect that it will happen, though. Some CB's will see ISO 26000 as a revenue stream possibility and sell "certification" against it, just like we have CB's certifying organizations to ISO 10002, a document which states it should not be used for certification purposes.

So, will there be "interest" in attaining and proclaiming certification to ISO 26000? I am sure there will be. But it does not mean we should promote it.