ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility

ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility Success Criteria Development Status, June 2009 An Industry View 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 The Project ISO 26000 Contents and Players Applicability Aspects ISO 26000 CD Vote by March 2009 Success Criteria Risk of Failure Tool: Check for Effectiveness The present subset is the one marked in bold

Outline • What exists around ISO 26000? • ISO 26000; success merely by existence? • 1: Meeting NWIP and Design Specification • 2: Applicability to ALL Organizations • 3: Relevance of ALL Core Subjects • 4: Volume of Document • 5: Easy to Understand • 6: Terms and Definitions • 7: Equal Meaning of Language Versions

What Exists Around ISO 26000? (1/3) …many other documents on Social Responsibility … Laws Standards Codes Conventions Regulations Instruments ?ISO 26000? national multinational organizational international regional …at the different levels - binding and not binding ones…

What Exists Around ISO 26000? (2/3) • All the other documents, codes, international instruments etc. already exist …. ? ? ISO 26000, the ‘UBER’ Standard, Code, Instrument… The scope says: “It is intended to complementother instruments and initiatives related to social responsibility, andnot to replace them.“

What Exists Around ISO 26000? (3/3) • To replace others? ISO would not have the authority! • To complementallothers:  is a virtually impossible task… ! …a wise decision to draft a Guidance Standard,which users can select relevant portions from, andthat are complementarytotheir existing actions !

ISO 26000; Success Merely By Existence? (1/2) Not at all! • Of Course, the ISO 26000 will: • Intensify global discussion and awareness • Be recognized for its extensive content … but as a relevant and useful Guidance Standard, it must also measure up to its criteria for success

ISO 26000; Success Merely By Existence? (2/2) Critical factors: Volume Equal Meaning of Language Translations Meeting the Design Specification ISO 26000 Applicability to ALL organizations Terms and Definitions Relevance of ALL Core Subjects Easy to understand

1: Meeting NWIP and Design Spec (1/8) Requirement* Fulfillment *according to N049 Design Specification

1: Meeting NWIP and Design Spec (8/8) • Summary in figures: • 13 requirements in total -- • 5 are met • 3 are debatable/dubiuos • 2need case-by-case checks • 3 seem not to be met

2: Applicability to ALL Organizations • The IISD Study and the „Quick User Survey“ found that the applicability by all organizations will be limited and that SMOs especially will have problems • Volume and Language in particular are seen as hindrances A user survey conducted by ISO could help to increase the market relevance

3: Relevance of ALL Core Subjects • Interviewed organizations* denied that ALL core subjects would be relevant to them The decision about relevance of a core subject should be left to the organization attempting to enhance its social responsibility * having participated in the Quick User Survey

4: Volume of Document • Interviewed organizations* asserted that a volume of more than 100 pages is by far too large to be practicable, emphasized by SMOs in particular! • The content could be shortened to half the volume without losing substance A shorter document would be more palatable and practical, as underscored by multiple comments from numerous and disparate sources since 2006 * having participated in the Quick User Survey

5: Easy to Understand • Interviewed organizations* found the text: • not easy to understand • too much use of a pedagogic style • the extensive use of “should”** conveys an implicit imperative rather than offering informed encouragement A substantive re-write to address these deficiencies would be a beneficial value proposition, and can never be too late * having participated in the Quick User Survey** even if so required by the Design Specification

6: Terms and Definitions (1/4) • An ISO document should not use broadly interpreted and undefined terms like- welfare of society- expectations of society, or- International Norms of Behaviour • Nebulous terms need to be understandably* defined which is not the case for several (see next slides) * understandable for possible users, notfor experts

6: Terms and Definitions (2/4) • „2.19 stakeholder individual or group that has an interest in any activities or decisions of an organization”* • Deficiency:- “an interest” and- “any” can be interpreted indefinitely * Source: draft working version of 19 June 2009

6: Terms and Definitions (3/4) • „2.10 international norms of behaviour expectations of socially responsible organizational behaviour derived from customary international law, generallyaccepted principles of international law, or intergovernmental agreements (such as treaties and conventions) that are universally or nearly universally recognized”* • Deficiencies exist by using undefined terms in this definition like expectations, customary, generally accepted, universally, nearly universally * Source: draft working version of 19 June 2009

6: Terms and Definitions (4/4) Easily understandable terms and definitions are key to the applicability of every standard New? Experts‘ consensus on definitions is all well and good, but users decide about their acceptance. Terms and definitions should be double-checked by possible USERS, particularly from the SMO faction

7: Equal Meaning of Language Versions Translation from English into the multiple languages used is a very significant and substantial problem! Key nouns andkey verbsneed to have the same meaning in all languages; like - stakeholder - social, societal - welfare of society - should, can, may, might Without this “equal meaning” the ISO 26000 will create confusion rather than globally enhance social responsibility

Outlook • Unless the DIS (Draft International Standard, anticipated in September 2009) meets these main success criteria… • …the market success of ISO 26000 will not be the one it deserves… • …particularly in view of the hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of expert-hours already, and yet-to-be, invested

ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility