1. Voting options and deliberations (October 2009) ISO/DIS 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility Guido Gürtler, ICC Observer to ISO/TMB WG SR, Member of the WG SR Industry Stakeholder Group guido.guertler@t-online.de guido.guertler@t-online.de

2. Outline Three levels of acceptance Three levels of acceptance Voting is hard work Voting is hard work Votes are based on “consensus” Votes are based on “consensus” Voting options Voting options A vote may be in favour, if… A vote may be in favour, if… An abstention is appropriate, if.. An abstention is appropriate, if.. A vote may be against, if… A vote may be against, if… Deadline Deadline

3. Three levels of acceptance (1/5) Global market acceptance ISO member bodies’ acceptance WG SR acceptance These levels are independent of each other: The acceptance at one level does not necessarily lead to acceptance at the next level. 400+ members of WG SR 106 ISO member bodies Millions of organizations 1 2 3

4. Three levels of acceptance (2/5) Global market acceptance ISO member bodies’ acceptance WG SR acceptance Working drafts and CD felt good enough? YES NO After several working drafts and a CD, WG SR members felt the one of August/September 2009 good enough to be launched as a DIS for comment and vote. CD Committee Draft DIS Draft International Standard DIS

5. Three levels of acceptance (3/5) Global market acceptance ISO member bodies’ acceptance? WG SR acceptance DIS vote(s)* felt good enough? YES NO *According to ISO Rules there may be several DIS versions till one is felt good enough. WG SR actions on DIS improvements IS There is no point of return on this route! FDIS Vote NO YES

6. Three levels of acceptance (4/5) Global market acceptance? ISO member bodies’ acceptance WG SR acceptance Majority of users’ view felt good enough? YES NO The bad end would be a disaster for ISO. good end bad end

7. Three levels of acceptance (5/5) Just imagine the disaster for ISO and the global promotion of social responsibility if arguments remained valid like:  too pedagogic  not encouraging  too few practical examples  industry biased possibly good for larger organizations not applicable to small and medium organizations definitely not applicable to micro organizations rather creating business for consultants allowing misuse by auditors and certifiers, to the detriment of particularly smaller organizations etc.

8. Voting is hard work (1/2) Voting is not emotional : feelings for hard work in the working group, for intensive negotiations to find compromises etc. are not relevant for voting Voting is rational: ISO member bodies judge the result, i.e. the DIS, its applicability and usefulness, regardless of how it has been developed Voting is independent: ISO member bodies take their decisions in full sovereignty

9. Voting is hard work (2/2) Responsible voting is hard work : including - Making the DIS broadly available, in national language if needed - Studying the DIS - Evaluating the fulfillment of the NWIP requirements, the applicability and usefulness -Asking representative national users for their view -As a pilot project applying the DIS to the ISO member body itself as one of the potential users -Drafting national comments -Negotiating consensus on a national opinion

10. consensus: General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Votes are based on “consensus” (1/2) The ISO/IEC Directives Part 1, edition 6, page 27, define consensus:

11. If only one of the important parties sustains opposition to a substantial issue, there is no consensus. Therefore: consensus is a high achievement! Votes are based on “consensus” (2/2)

12. Voting Options In favor: supports the document as it is; comments may be made Against: does not support the document as it is; comments must be made, otherwise the vote does not count Abstention: member feels too small, didn’t find consensus etc.; abstentions don’t count Not voting: is not a good option !!

13. A vote may be in favour, if… …an ISO member body believes that it (the member body) fairly represents its constituency; the work in preparing the vote has been properly performed (see one of the preceding slides); it comprises true representatives of national society/societies; each party’s voice has been correctly taken into account; the DIS meets the requirements of its Design Specification (N049) and the New Work Item Proposal contained therein, particularly that the DIS is easy to understand and easy to use, and that it is applicable to all types and sizes of organizations, globally; there are no other valid and substantial objections and at the end a fair consensus on a YES vote has been found.

14. An Abstention is appropriate if... …an ISO member body believes that the country is very small and does not represent a significant portion of global society*; not all parties concerned (“stakeholders”) are members of the national committee; no consensus was achievable because one important party sustained opposition to a substantial issue, so that neither a YES vote nor a NO vote was agreeable; * as e.g. Lebanon respectfully abstained from voting on the CD

15. A vote may be Against, if… …an ISO member body believes that the DIS does not meet the requirements of the Design Specification (N049) and of the New Work Item Proposal contained therein, particularly that it is not easy to understand and easy to use (so that it may create an enormous business for consultants), and that it is not applicable to all types and sizes of organizations (particularly not for micro organizations); Important definitions are not understandable and not usable the claim of ALL core subjects being relevant to ALL organizations is not realistic; the composition of the Working Group did not adequately include representatives of “society”; and a fair consensus for a NO vote has been found.

16. A negative vote … not necessarily mean … does not necessarily mean that an International Standard on social responsibility is not wanted … will, as described in accompanying comments, aim at further improvements of this draft DIS … in seeking further improvements is as constructive as any other vote … is not emotional but as rational as any other vote

17. Whatever the vote of an ISO member body will be, it should be sent to ISO before 14 February 2010 by using the ISO electronic balloting facilities. Deadline