Global Compact International Yearbook Ausgabe 2011

Agenda
ISO 26000
able. Each core subject contains a list of issues pertaining to
that topic and related, specific principles. Not all issues are
deemed to be relevant and significant to all organizations,
and useful criteria are suggested to guide organizations in
determining which are relevant to them. From a management
perspective, this eases the work in finding which issues
to focus upon.
In practice… not a management standard!
ISO has clearly stated this boundary: ISO will not provide a
management system that is certifiable through third-party
certification. This subject is too sensitive. ISO will (only) offer
guidance, practical examples, best practices, and even links to
useful tools and initiatives. Still, the chapter on integrating SR
throughout an organization can seem misleading following
ISO’s declarative approach in the previous clauses. Indeed,
one senses the difficulties involved in writing practical guidance
on “implementation” while at the same time avoiding
making it appear like management systems ISO 14001 or ISO
9001. No “shall,” no “must,” no declarations this time. Just
suggestions. Still, there are helpful, detailed explanations
about determining the sphere of influence of an organization,
setting up an effective due diligence processes, and adapting
one’s organizational governance, to name just a few fundamental
practices.
Future evolution
But how can a non-restrictive standard have an impact on
organizations? It looks like a very soft tool for achieving its
ambition: making organizations more responsible regarding
society and sustainable development. The existence of an
international reference document from a recognized institution
with such a strong multistakeholder consensus seems
to launch a self-regulating mechanism that enables critical
stakeholders to promote those who progress toward more
SR and to sanction those going against the current. Social
networks can play a role, like LinkedIn and Twitter already
do. Will social pressure really function? There will probably
be abuses – some have already happened. Regarding some
points, the Guidelines can be very difficult to objectivize.
Besides setting a norm for behavior, ISO 26000 could become
a reference to improve what already exists. The Guidelines are
there to serve as an inspiration to improve existing organizations,
policies, projects, etc. They enable people – inside
their organizations – to go through the questions that have
inspired the document, read about actual SR issues, find new
ideas, be aware of conflicts that can occur, know how to deal
with ethical dilemmas, etc. Instead of judging if things are
good or bad, responsible or not, it will add value to organizations
and challenge habits. And we need that fresh approach
to induce real change.
ISO 26000:
How About a Bit of
Recognition?
By Aiko Bode,
Global Head of CSR and
Sustainability, TÜV Rheinland
2
Finally it came to light. After nearly six years of intensive
debate and discussion, the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) has adopted and published the ISO 26000
Guidance on Social Responsibility. A guidance paper for all
types of organizations – companies, governments, foundations,
business associations, and NGOs alike. The global reception of
the new norm has been all but enthusiastic. Many consider
it as too complex, too detailed, too much of a management
norm which even could become certifiable after all. Others
feel that something is missing: Okay, we now have a guidance
document, but once I apply it, who will recognize my
efforts, my successes, or my hard work? The answer currently
is: no one can. Or at least: no one should. But is this what the
market – in particular companies – really want? Well, the
answer is yes and no.
Certifying social responsibility – a concept that acknowledges
the commitment of companies going beyond legal requirements
to give back to society, their local communities, and
their staff – is indeed difficult. Historically, there are not many
comparable developments in different countries, cultures, and
societal evolutions. Being socially responsible in continental
Europe versus the United States, for example, are two very different
cups of tea. And who can define a “right” or “minimum
expected” way of pursuing social responsibility?
Against this background, a performance certification with
global reach seems impossible. The current solution is to
define certifiable norms nationally, such as the 26001 series.
Looking into these norms, one is very much puzzled: There
are little or no performance indicators and mainly managerial
and system elements are addressed. The overarching question
is: Does the organization have one or more managerial tools to
address the different chapters and topical issues of ISO 26000?
This question, however, is akin to asking what can indeed be
globalized. If the performance of an organization (i.e., different
social, governance, and environmental challenges and
issues) is of lesser significance, then the structures, the tools,
and the managerial approaches are of paramount importance.
This, after all, is something one could very well define, and
subsequently also certify.
An uncertifiable norm poses a dilemma for many. On the
one hand, it is virtually impossible to globally position an
organization as “socially responsible.” Now, even if the norm
is certifiable, it would be difficult to demonstrate a minimum
level of awareness and the company’s goals with respect to the
issues of ISO 26000. On the other hand, one may well ask if a
norm like ISO 26000 needs its own indicators and stand-alone
criteria in order to measure progress. The old management
rule still proves to be true: “What you cannot measure, you
cannot manage.” In my personal opinion, it is not necessary to
reinvent the wheel, but rather to embrace existing criteria sets.
There are many well-established and developed sets of criteria
– be it within the auspices of other ISO norms or the UN Global
Compact, the International Labour Organization, or standards
such as the SA 8000 or the Global Reporting Initiative – that
make it unlikely that really new key performance indicators
are needed. Moreover, had one really developed a management
standard along the lines of the managerial norms such as ISO
9000 and ISO 14000, many of those elements could have been
used to promote a perhaps more holistic and, thus again, certifiable
standard. But all this has not been the case, and there
were some good reasons for it. In my view, we now need to
rethink what to do with ISO 26000. This may already be provocative:
doing something with it. Maybe we need some new
ways to recognize those who really wish to apply and implement
ISO 26000. Therefore, I suggest an award scheme, hosted
by ISO. An international multistakeholder jury will examine
the achievements attained and award recognition in a public
event to those who not only take their social responsibility
seriously but who also prove to be lighthouses for guidance
toward a perhaps more sustainable and responsible future.
A Contribution to
Sustainable
Development?
By Dr. Franziska Humbert,
Oxfam Germany
3
In India, women farm workers earn 85 euro cents for a work
day of 12 hours on supplier farms of the German Metro Group.
In Ecuador, women suffer from abortions because of contaminated
water caused by pesticides used on banana plantations;
Ecuador is one of the main exporters of bananas worldwide. And
in Costa Rica – the main exporter of pineapples – owners of
pineapple plantations systematically suppress trade union rights.
ISO 26000 – the new standard on social responsibility of organizations
– was adopted by the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) in 2010 in order to help companies
improve their behavior with regard to social responsibility.
Whether the standard will indeed contribute to improve the
social behavior of companies remains to be seen.
This new “guidance” on social responsibility of organizations
was developed using a multistakeholder approach involving
experts from six different stakeholder groups: industry; consumers;
government; nongovernmental organizations; organized
labor; and the group of service and support organizations,
researchers, academics, and others, mainly consisting of
consultants. In acknowledgement that this global multistakeholder
process had the potential to contribute to sustainable
development, Oxfam Germany joined the process in 2007.
A major achievement of the guidance is the agreed definition of
social responsibility. It refers to the impact of an organization
on the environment and society, mentions the stakeholder approach
and the need to comply with the law and international
norms of behavior, and includes the “sphere of influence”
concept as well as the supply chain. International norms of
behavior are defined as expectations of socially responsible organizational
behavior derived from customary international law,
generally accepted principles of international law, or almost
universally recognized international agreements. Accordingly,
182 Global Compact International Yearbook 2011 Global Compact International Yearbook 2011
183