ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility - PowerPoint by i7Xox0

VIEWS: 70 PAGES: 30

									     ISO 26000 Guidance on
       Social Responsibility
    Development Status, June 2009
                 An Industry View


                  The Project

David Felinski, Vice-President IFAN (International Federation of
Standards Users) and IFAN Expert to ISO/TMB WG SR, and
Guido Guertler, ICC Observer to ISO/TMB WG SR
       Available Slide Series

1.The Project
2. ISO 26000 Contents and Players
3. Applicability Aspects
4. ISO 26000 CD Vote by March 2009
5. Success Criteria
6. Risk of Failure
7. Tool: Check of Effectiveness


The present subset is the one marked in bold letters
                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
    Consumer Policy Committee
   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 „Guidance Standard“ is a special kind
    that offers
       advice, proposals, orientation
          and recommendations

           The USER decides 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)
             Experts Observers
Industry       94        43          137   by Gender      experts    observers   total    %
Government     83        37          120                               118        377    62,9
                                           male           259
Consumer       50        23           73                   151          71       222     37,1
                                           female
Labor          37        19           56                                         599
NGO            83        36          119
Services…      84        38          122
total         431      196         627

             by Countries (D-Liaisons not counted)
                          Experts Observers     total            %
             Developing      220       102       322          62,2
             Developed       138       58        196          37,8
                                                    518

 Source: WG SR member file of June 2009
           WG SR Members (2/2)
        Participation by Organizations




            D-
                                         Members have
         Liaisons                        equal rights,
           34%
                          ISO            regardless of
                         member
                         bodies
                                         their delegating
                          66%            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

Focus on discussion and decisions    54 ISO member countries

    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
   framework of the process      Continue to enhance

 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 both:
   ≥ 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

								
To top