ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility

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 26000 Contents and Players Applicability Aspects ISO 26000 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 EnronWorldcom 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 • ISO 26000 “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) 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. 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 Work Group (WG) Meetings (1/4)

23. 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 WG Meetings (2/4)

24. 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 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 WG Meetings (3/4)

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 by91 WG SR P-members (or more) and all160 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. 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