Click here to visit the main IRCA website

New SR standard

Peter Houghton examines how the development of a new guidance standard ISO 26000 might give organizations some much needed support in their quest for a robust social responsibility (SR) strategy

The ISO consumer policy committee meeting in Trinidad in 2002 highlighted the subject of SR. Following this, ISO’s technical management board appointed a special advisory group to study and recommend how ISO should address social responsibility. Following the report, the technical management board organised a conference on SR in Stockholm in June 2004, which led in turn to a ‘new work item proposal’ in October 2004 effectively defining the way forward.

This proposal for the development of a guidance standard on SR was balloted among ISO members and approved in January 2005. It is important to understand that the standard is not to be a management system standard, will not contain any ‘requirements’ and is thus not suitable for assessment and certification. It is deliberately broadened from simply corporate social responsibility to SR, and intended to be applicable to all types of organization. The project is now well down the road and publication of the standard is expected in late 2008.

The development process

The mode of development is unusual. Instead of establishing a technical committee in the conventional way, ISO’s technical management board decided to form a working group for SR, reporting directly to the technical management board. This decision reflects the breadth of the comparative immature subject and the technical management board’s desire to involve both developed and developing countries as fully as possible. An unusual feature of the project is a memorandum of understanding with the International Labour Organization, giving it a special status in the development process.

Each ISO member country is allowed to nominate an expert to the working group from each of six carefully defined stakeholder categories (industry, consumers, labour, government, non governmental organizations and service, support, research and other organizations). In addition, certain organizations in liaison membership of ISO are allowed to nominate experts to the working group. Observers are admitted under strict rules limiting their participation and influence.

The working group is organised into six task groups, three with text drafting assignments, the remainder covering project participant funding/stakeholder engagement, communication and operational processes. A liaison task force co-ordinates the work of the drafting task groups and monitors assignment of work to them. An editing committee gathers emergent draft text and ensures its clarity and cohesion. Finally, a chair’s advisory group assists the co-chairs in planning the business of the working group.

Another significant feature of the ISO 26000 development project is that of ‘twinning’ and ‘balance’: the working group itself and each task group has a chair and co-chair, secretary and co-secretary, selected so as to secure developed/developing country, regional, stakeholder and gender balance. The working group co-chairs designated by the technical management board are from Brazil and Sweden. This principle is carried down into ad hoc teams where they are needed. In consequence, the whole project is acutely politically self-aware.

The nominated experts are the active participants in the working group, where decisions are reached by consensus. Their individual expertise is paramount in the early stages of the project, although later, in the consultation stages, member bodies as such will have the opportunity to vote.

The working group has met three times so far (in Salvador in Brazil, Bangkok and Lisbon). Naturally, the technical groups conduct much of their discussion, drafting and commenting electronically.

State of play

The ISO 26000 design specification was agreed in Bangkok and forms the basis for all subsequent work. This agreement allowed serious drafting of text to begin. Its main clause structure is as follows:

0: Introduction
1: Scope
2: Normative references
3: Terms and definitions
4: SR context
5: SR principles
6: SR issues
7: Guidance on implementing SR
Annex
Bibliography

This agreement allowed serious drafting of text to begin.

In Lisbon, key issues were discussed which had been identified from the thousands of comments on the first working draft. Decisions were taken that clear the way for a second working draft in autumn 2006.

From the beginning, the definition of SR has been subject to considerable debate, some arguing that it can be settled only after the standard has been written. However, following debate in Lisbon, working draft two will contain the following working definition of Social Responsibility: ‘The actions of an organization to take responsibility for the impacts of its activities on society and the environment, where these actions:

are consistent with the interests of society and sustainable development
are based on ethical behaviour, compliance with applicable law and intergovernmental instruments
are integrated into the ongoing activities of the organization

This text has gone forward to working draft two but will certainly come in for comment and amendment before being finalized. Nevertheless, the general sense and meaning of the term SR, initially quite uncertain, is gradually becoming clear. The relationship between SR and sustainable development is still being argued.

Other sections of text are at varying stages of development. The subject of stakeholder identification and engagement is very important and the current view is that it will need to be dealt with in not one but several clauses. In the search to determine those principles relevant to SR, the approach is first to agree the criteria for what might be substantive and process principles. This should allow working draft two to have a firmer footing than has existed so far. The working group will need to be careful not to interpret or alter principles promulgated by other, non-ISO organizations.

These and many other important issues remain to be discussed and settled before a consultation stage can be contemplated. It is important that the processes concerned are given sufficient time and that the standard that emerges does not meet serious objection at the draft international standard stage, which could prove fatal to this ground-breaking project.

Project management issues

The sheer size of the working group for SR (there are 313 individuals working on it in Lisbon) presents considerable logistic and management challenges, particularly for prospective hosts of plenary meetings. Many participants, whose first language is not English, find considerable difficulty in the speed with which proceedings are conducted. Some in leadership roles have difficulty in making themselves understood. Again, many are unfamiliar with ISO standard processes; many would-be participants cannot afford to attend or have no national standards body behind them. There is still much to be learnt on how such an ambitious project, involving such a diversity of backgrounds and interests, can be organised and run efficiently.

Despite the many perhaps inevitable frustrations, the project is moving ahead. The next major milestone is the fourth plenary working group meeting in early 2007 in Sydney, Australia. Compared with the ISO target of a three-year development programme, the project has accumulated a three-month slippage.

UK influence on the project and the emergent standard is exercised through the UK ‘mirror’ committee, the British Standard Institution’s technical committee SDS/1 and its nominated experts. The six UK experts are encouraged to consult as widely as possible within their respective stakeholder categories to test and confirm that their views are reasonably representative. By the draft international standard stage, it is to be hoped that individual experts will be able to meld their differing stakeholder positions into their national position to permit the customary voting.

Impact for auditors

The impact for auditors is not easily assessable at this stage and it should be borne in mind that this is not a management system orcertification standard and it will contain no auditable requirements. Internal audits that organizations may choose to apply to confirm implementation of their own policies and objectives will, however, certainly entail a broadening of the auditor's skills to cover social aspects such as stakeholder identification, engagement and communication.

Further information

The ISO 26000 project is highly transparent and full and valuable further information is to found on two ISO websites: www.iso.org/sr for general, public information, newsletters etc, and www.iso.org/wgsr for all working group SR working documents, reports etc (although these are for information only).