1. 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

2. Available Slide Series
The Project
ISO Contents and Players
Applicability Aspects
ISO CD Vote by March 2009
Success Criteria
Risk of Failure
Tool: Check of Effectiveness
The present subset is the one marked in bold letters

3. Outline Background About the Standard and its Process Meeting History
Current Status (June 2009)
Next Steps

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. „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.

8. 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

9. 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

10. About the Standard International standard providing guidance;
ISO “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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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%)

15. Meeting Places

16. WG SR Members (1/2)
Stakeholder Groups (D-Liaisons included)
Experts
Observers
Industry 94 43
137
Government 83 37
120
Consumer 50 23 73
Labor 19 56
NGO 36
119
Services… 84 38
122
total
431
196
627
by Gender
experts
observers
total %
male
259
118
377
62,9
female
151 71
222
37,1
599
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

17. WG SR Members (2/2)
Members have equal rights, regardless of their delegating organization.
Source: WG SR member file of June 2009

18. 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)

19. 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)

20. 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

21. 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)

22. Work Group (WG) Meetings (1/4)
1st Plenary: Salvador, March 2005
300 participants
43 ISO member countries
24 organizations
Focus on discussion and decisions on the scope of the future standard:
Terms of reference of the WG
Structure of the WG
Allocation of the leadership of its subgroup
Development of special working procedures
Target date for publication
2nd Plenary: Bangkok, Sept. 2005:
1200 written comments before meeting
About 350 participants
54 ISO member countries
24 liaison organizations
Developing countries: increase
Main objectives:
Decide a structure in a Design Specification
Divide the work among permanent task groups based on the structure
Agree project plan
Produced WD1 after meeting

23. WG Meetings (2/4) 3rd Plenary: Lisbon, May 2006
2040 written comments before meeting
About 320 participants
55 ISO member countries
26 liaison organizations
Developing countries well represented
Main objectives:
Work on the first working draft
Further define operating framework to strengthen participation and accountability
Produced WD2 after meeting
4th Plenary: Sidney, Jan-Feb 2007
5176 written comments before meeting
About 275 participants
54 ISO member countries
28 liaison organizations
Developing countries participation consolidated
Main objectives:
Resolve enough Key topics to produce next WD
Further define operating framework to strengthen participation and accountability
Produced WD3 after meeting

24. WG Meetings (3/4) 6th Plenary: Santiago Aug. 08
5231 written comments
About 320 participants
Main objectives:
Resolve enough key topics to advance the document to CD
Continue to enhance participation and improve accountability and efficiency
Produced CD1 after this meeting
5th Plenary: Vienna Nov. 2007
7225 written comments
About 400 participants
Main objectives:
Resolve enough key topics to advance the document
Improve operational framework of the process
Enhance participation
Improve accountability and efficiency
Produced WD4.1 and 4.2
after this meeting

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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.

28. Two slides on detailed timeline
Annex
Two slides on detailed timeline

29. 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

30. 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