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

G

George Weiss

It is interesting how the standards people take an idea, which has come and gone some time ago, and want to place it into their works.
I think we should ask them to add the
GREEN requirement!:lmao: :topic:
Everyone today is looking into the GREEN options :topic:, and calculating the carbon footprint needed to maintain some of the added items like legal responsibility :topic: :lmao:. I can not believe that someone in the USA or nearly anywhere in the developed world would not know they are legally responsible. At the age of 18 I believe it happens. Social Responsibility or lack of, is not yet a crime.:lmao:
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Social Responsibility or lack of, is not yet a crime.:lmao:
Those who are exploited in sweatshops around the World might have a different perspective.

Personally I don't see what is so funny when corporations maximize their profit, at the expense of decent, humane & safe working conditions, environmental responsibility and our common future.
 
G

George Weiss

A sweat shop is a relative term. No temperature spec. listed.
As the US depression continues to drag and develop a warm place to work sounds better.
I wish that no one anywhere was taken advantage of, but is a product quality standard the place?
I think ISO or ANSI or NIST could put out a GREEN standard, or a SR standard, and let it stand on it’s own, and not tack it on as so many bills that pass the Congress and Senate.
With all due respect, and appologies for any offence not ment.....................
best wishes for ISO 26000. I might have a case of foot-n-mouth, but I was just mumbling about the idea of attachment to other standards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
A sweat shop is a relative term. No temperature spec. listed.
As the US depression continues to drag and develop a warm place to work sounds better.
I wish that no one anywhere was taken advantage of, but is a product quality standard the place?
I think ISO or ANSI or NIST could put out a GREEN standard, or a SR standard, and let it stand on it’s own, and not tack it on as so many bills that pass the Congress and Senate.
With all due respect, and appologies for any offence not ment.....................
best wishes for ISO 26000. I might have a case of foot-n-mouth, but I was just mumbling about the idea of attachment to other standards.
Last I heard, we speak of ISO Standards in two modes:

  1. Product Standards
  2. System Standards
Could you refresh my memory, please, by citing where ISO 26000 speaks of "product quality" in relationship to social responsibility?

:topic:
FWIW: "it's" is a contraction of "it is" and "its" is the possessive form of the pronoun "it."

"apologies" is usually spelled with one "p" in the USA - is it spelled differently elsewhere?

"meant" is the past tense of "mean"

"sweatshop" has a formal definition which does not include temperature as a criterion (although temperature might be a factor in contributing to unhealthy working conditions for the laborers, it is not a primary condition that employees actually "sweat" [perspire] to qualify as a sweatshop.)
Comment:
Actually, I believe the phrase "With all due respect" is misleading and certainly disingenuous in view of the tone of your posts in this thread. Generally, it has been our experience over the years that folks who come forth with extreme positions such as yours have an axe to grind because of some real or perceived injury they have suffered as a direct or indirect result of someone else's interpretation of the Standard or legal ruling in question. If this is your motive, I apologize on behalf of all quality professionals who may have contributed to your unhappiness. You wouldn't be the first victim of misplaced zeal, nor would you be the last, but we here in the Cove have been actively working toward educating folks to reduce and eliminate those kinds of interpretive errors. It would go a lot easier and quicker if you would join us in looking for positive solutions rather than heaping negative abuse on the efforts of well-meaning folks to make the world a better place for everyone.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
Let's keep our "cool", please. This is getting too personal.

This is a thread started in 2004. I'm not sure why it has popped up but please - Let's keep the discussion civil and professional.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
I'm not sure why it has popped up
Thanks for the intervention. But popping up is not the right question here. I started this thread and have been "nurturing" it for several years, keeping interested parties aware of the ISO 26000 development effort.

I would hope that people who want to engage in this discussion, irrespective of where they stand on the subject, would do it, in a professional and mature manner.
 
D

Drew G

I've taken an active interest in this thread since Sidney first posted it, and actively follow his updates.

The latest postings seem like those of someone who hasn't experienced the work world outside the US, and are somewhat misguided based on inexperience.

Lead on Sidney!


I agree with you, and I agree with a few of the posts previous to this, especially: where does ISO 26000 have anything to do with product quality? Also, the "tacking on" bit is something I don't like either. Finally, the ISO 26000 committee seemed (to me) to be saying: "now that we're done with ISO 26000 and we and the contributors like how it is written, we can release it to the marketplace and see how well they do [insert evil laugh]"....


I'm just frustrated personally because i am trying to implement ISO 17025:2005 and ANSI Z540.3-2006, and those are very focused toward product quality, and they even deal with ethical conduct, and there is a clause saying employees shall be free from pressure internal or external that may influence the quality of their work; that is a great piece with great intentions (to protect workers from undue stress), but my uninformed opinion (unless you consider reading all of the posts by Sidney regarding ISO 26000 development), it's just something I don't want to deal with. I'm going to go even further out on a limb and say this ISO 26000 committee, are they power mad? Are they playing the role of 'armchair general' insofar as they are deciding what everyone else eventually may be required to comply to even though it ultimately does not effect product quality, and as a business, is immediately perceived as a cost without return on investment?


I can analogize ISO 26000 to a scenario with a busy 6 lane highway in Los Angeles, in which there are two people: person A is the "marketplace" and person B is ISO 26000 on SR. Person A says: I shouldn't cross this highway because it's very busy and there is a chance I will get hit and possibly die. Person B says: well, this is what we recommend; it's not necessary that you cross the highway, but if you do, then you will be doing a good job. That might be way off, if so then I'm sorry!!:(


I am all about improvement, but I also feel, as Aristotle defined, there is a mean, or a moderate solution, then there are deficient and excessive actions. I believe ISO 26000 on SR is excessive. Does anyone else agree with anything I have said here? Does anyone feel the same way? I believe they mean well but, why should the disaster of BP and the Minerals Management Service's failure to properly oversee offshore drilling, and other cases of corporate negligence and corruption effect everyone else? I'm not saying that is necessarily this is a cause and effect relationship; I'm just speaking what is on the mind. Keep in mind also I do understand ISO 26000 is VOLUNTARY; but as was said previously; voluntary will turn into a "best practice" and then ultimately demanded by customers or required of a company to be on a particular supply chain. It just seems unnecessary.


Thanks,
Drew G :beerdive:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

RosieA

Drew, a couple thoughts:

1. This is a Guidance Document, not a standard. If you go back to the begining of this thread, you'll find that in the early 2000s, many companies had started down this road already and were flowing down requirements to their suppliers. Their individual programs were different, which caused confusion among the supply base who had to deal with different requirements.

Thus, in an effort to standardize the programs, and make it easier for suppliers to comply with multiple company requests, ISO drafted this guidance document.

2. ISO doesn't just produce quality standards. So asking what this guidance document has to do with product quality, isn't a particularly valid comparison, although I'd argue that a prisoner in a third world country, working 18 hours a day, might not have the same desire to make a good product, as someone who works for a company whose mission includes social responsibility.

Whether you agree or disagree with the document, the need existed to come up with a common practice for companies who dictate social responsibility polices to themselves and their suppliers.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
https://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1366

(broken link removed)
(broken link removed)
(broken link removed)
(broken link removed)

1 November sees the launch of one of the most eagerly awaited ISO International Standards of recent years, ISO 26000:2010, Guidance on social responsibility, which provides guidance to both business and public sector organizations on social responsibility (SR).

ISO 26000 is being launched at an event in Geneva, Switzerland, at which ISO Secretary-General Rob Steele has invited members of the working group of experts that developed the standard, including the joint leadership – Chair, Jorge E.R. Cajazeira, and Vice-Chair, Staffan Söderberg, provided respectively by the ISO members for Brazil (ABNT) and Sweden (SIS). Representatives of potential users of the standard will also attend, including from industry and governments who have expressed great interest and support for an international guidance standard on social responsibility.

Rob Steele comments: “The publication of ISO 26000 is eagerly awaited by organizations worldwide, whether they are business enterprises, or public sector organizations. Operating in a socially responsible manner is no longer an option. It is becoming a requirement of society worldwide. What makes ISO 26000 exceptional among the many already existing social responsibility initiatives is that it distils a truly international consensus on what social responsibility means and what core subjects need to be addressed to implement it. In addition, it is based on broad stakeholder input, including developing countries, business, government, consumers, labour, nongovernmental organizations and others.”

According to the standard, the perception and reality of an organization's performance on social responsibility can influence, among other things:

Competitive advantage
Reputation
Ability to attract and retain workers or members, customers, clients or users
Maintenance of employees' morale, commitment and productivity
View of investors, owners, donors, sponsors and the financial community
Relationship with companies, governments, the media, suppliers, peers, customers and the community in which it operates.

ISO 26000, of which development began in 2005, is the work of the ISO Working Group on Social Responsibility (ISO/WG SR) whose membership was the largest and the most broadly based in terms of stakeholder representation of any single group formed to develop an ISO standard.

Six main stakeholder groups were engaged: industry; government; labour; consumers: nongovernmental organizations; and service, support, research and others, as well as a geographical and gender-based balance of participants.

It was made up of experts from ISO members (national standards bodies – NSBs) and from liaison organizations (associations representing business, consumers or labour, or inter-governmental or nongovernmental organizations).

At the last meeting of the ISO/WG SR, in July 2010, there were 450 participating experts and 210 observers from 99 ISO member countries and 42 liaison organizations involved in the work.

ISO 26000 provides guidance for all types of organization, regardless of their size or location, on:

Concepts, terms and definitions related to social responsibility
Background, trends and characteristics of social responsibility
Principles and practices relating to social responsibility
Core subjects and issues of social responsibility
Integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible behaviour throughout the organization and, through its policies and practices, within its sphere of influence
Identifying and engaging with stakeholders
Communicating commitments, performance and other information related to social responsibility.

ISO 26000 is a voluntary guidance standard that is not to be used for certification, unlike ISO 9001:2008 (quality management) and ISO 14001:2004 (environmental management) which can be used for certification.
 
Top Bottom