In a video interview, Sadie Homer explains ISO 26000, COPOLCO and why corporate social responsibility is important to both companies and consumers.
Showing posts with label ISO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISO. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Thursday, 27 August 2009
ISO 26000... the bite behind the bark
CI's Ruth Golding attended the seventh ISO working group meeting on corporate social responsibility held in Quebec, Canada at the end of May 2009. She writes:
'Arriving in Quebec City for a week of negotiations on social responsibility, I was acutely aware that I was coming into a dialogue more than half way through the discussion. ISO 26000 has been evolving for five years and this was the seventh round of negotiations.
CI has been involved in ISO 26000 right from the beginning. In fact we even sat on the working group in ISO COPOLCO that started the process rolling by suggesting that ISO develop a standard on social responsibility. It was fascinating and motivating to see how something that had started as an aspiration had taken on a life of its own and is now set to become a detailed guiding document that will be synonymous with social responsibility.
But I was also arriving with a healthy dose of scepticism as to the merits of this voluntary guidance standard which seemed at first all bark and no bite. But I soon began to see how valuable it can be.
Without the weight of certification hanging over discussion, sensible consensus seemed easier to reach. Of course everyone comes with their own agendas, but discussion seemed less deeply politicised than it would be in the context of a binding international instrument, making genuine engagement possible. Representatives from all key sectors were able, in the context of relatively open discussion, to compare notes and to put their minds to the practical challenges that SR raises; How does social responsibility apply to small businesses? What can you do in practice to ensure your social responsibility as you head further down the supply chain?
Consumer groups, unionists and industry, governments and NGOs worked together in surprising harmony (apparently it wasn’t quite the same story five years ago!) and once again moved towards consensus on a final Standard. In the ISO 26000 context, all of these voices are given equal weighting which makes engagement more attractive from the off, especially for underrepresented groups.
In fact a large number of the people involved in ISO 26000’s development have been working together on the document for years. Meeting every six to nine months to negotiate in plenaries, smaller meetings, and informally over coffee, and dinner. They have come from different perspectives and interests but have gradually built up trust and got to better understand each others’ positions.
This multi-stakeholder process is unique to ISO 26000, meaning that fresh procedures have had to be developed to reflect the equal status of all experts. Within a working group on any given issue, each stakeholder group is represented and in contrast to traditional processes, where negotiations are by country, there is greater transparency around exactly whose interests are being represented when a point is made.
CI has been instrumental in developing the process and to ensuring it is adhered to and understood. Having secured the multi-stakeholder aspect of the process, CI has strived to make sure it works. Even at the seventh round of negotiations, challenges were still apparent. The processes that have been established seemed for the most part to work well but what is critical is that they are followed. Speakers didn’t always make it clear when they spoke to represent the agreed position of their country or stakeholder group and when they spoke as individuals. Other times a failure to reach consensus within stakeholder groups was clouded over when presenting back in plenary. Overall though and where process was followed, the value of multiple viewpoints for creating a rounded and well-informed Standard was striking.
But it isn’t just the process side that gives ISO 26000 added value. The Standard, once complete, will have potential ‘bottom-up’ uses that regulation cannot yet offer. Stakeholders within business and consumer organisations will be able to make assessments using a transparent harmonised approach, whether business is national or trans-national. Businesses who want to become socially responsible will have a footprint to follow when operationalising their strategies and future plans, and will be able to benchmark their progress by comparing reports with other institutions. Of course regulation at both national and international levels is critical for the substantial culture shift that we need to see in social responsibility, but ISO 26000’s bite is in its potential to reach places regulation can’t.
The Standard has the potential to be a powerful document. It has meaningful content with practical solutions which will allow it to be used for a wide range of purposes, alongside legislation, in the road to substantial improvements in social responsibility to meet consumer concerns. It was clear that international consensus was building. But the process side will still be key to assuring a credible and acceptable final Standard. CI will be watching to make sure that that is exactly what we get.'
'Arriving in Quebec City for a week of negotiations on social responsibility, I was acutely aware that I was coming into a dialogue more than half way through the discussion. ISO 26000 has been evolving for five years and this was the seventh round of negotiations.
CI has been involved in ISO 26000 right from the beginning. In fact we even sat on the working group in ISO COPOLCO that started the process rolling by suggesting that ISO develop a standard on social responsibility. It was fascinating and motivating to see how something that had started as an aspiration had taken on a life of its own and is now set to become a detailed guiding document that will be synonymous with social responsibility.
But I was also arriving with a healthy dose of scepticism as to the merits of this voluntary guidance standard which seemed at first all bark and no bite. But I soon began to see how valuable it can be.
Without the weight of certification hanging over discussion, sensible consensus seemed easier to reach. Of course everyone comes with their own agendas, but discussion seemed less deeply politicised than it would be in the context of a binding international instrument, making genuine engagement possible. Representatives from all key sectors were able, in the context of relatively open discussion, to compare notes and to put their minds to the practical challenges that SR raises; How does social responsibility apply to small businesses? What can you do in practice to ensure your social responsibility as you head further down the supply chain?
Consumer groups, unionists and industry, governments and NGOs worked together in surprising harmony (apparently it wasn’t quite the same story five years ago!) and once again moved towards consensus on a final Standard. In the ISO 26000 context, all of these voices are given equal weighting which makes engagement more attractive from the off, especially for underrepresented groups.
In fact a large number of the people involved in ISO 26000’s development have been working together on the document for years. Meeting every six to nine months to negotiate in plenaries, smaller meetings, and informally over coffee, and dinner. They have come from different perspectives and interests but have gradually built up trust and got to better understand each others’ positions.
This multi-stakeholder process is unique to ISO 26000, meaning that fresh procedures have had to be developed to reflect the equal status of all experts. Within a working group on any given issue, each stakeholder group is represented and in contrast to traditional processes, where negotiations are by country, there is greater transparency around exactly whose interests are being represented when a point is made.
CI has been instrumental in developing the process and to ensuring it is adhered to and understood. Having secured the multi-stakeholder aspect of the process, CI has strived to make sure it works. Even at the seventh round of negotiations, challenges were still apparent. The processes that have been established seemed for the most part to work well but what is critical is that they are followed. Speakers didn’t always make it clear when they spoke to represent the agreed position of their country or stakeholder group and when they spoke as individuals. Other times a failure to reach consensus within stakeholder groups was clouded over when presenting back in plenary. Overall though and where process was followed, the value of multiple viewpoints for creating a rounded and well-informed Standard was striking.
But it isn’t just the process side that gives ISO 26000 added value. The Standard, once complete, will have potential ‘bottom-up’ uses that regulation cannot yet offer. Stakeholders within business and consumer organisations will be able to make assessments using a transparent harmonised approach, whether business is national or trans-national. Businesses who want to become socially responsible will have a footprint to follow when operationalising their strategies and future plans, and will be able to benchmark their progress by comparing reports with other institutions. Of course regulation at both national and international levels is critical for the substantial culture shift that we need to see in social responsibility, but ISO 26000’s bite is in its potential to reach places regulation can’t.
The Standard has the potential to be a powerful document. It has meaningful content with practical solutions which will allow it to be used for a wide range of purposes, alongside legislation, in the road to substantial improvements in social responsibility to meet consumer concerns. It was clear that international consensus was building. But the process side will still be key to assuring a credible and acceptable final Standard. CI will be watching to make sure that that is exactly what we get.'
Thursday, 11 September 2008
Developing an international standard: guidance on social responsibility for all organisations OR let's speak ISO!
Sadie Homer, CI expert, writes from the sixth ISO SR (social responsibility) Working Group meeting held in Santiago, Chile:
"Socially responsible… what is it? How do you become it? And then how do you tell people how you are getting on with it?
Now get six different stakeholder groups from over 80 different countries and an additional 40 international organisations to develop and agree upon an easily understood, concise document… simple!
The world of standards may seem to most a mystery consisting of many acronyms, such as WD, CD, IDTF, TC, DIS, SC, COPOLCO and long meetings in far-flung corners of the world.
To some consumer representatives, new to the world of International standards and attending the 6th meeting of the working group, it meant a fast learning curve in both procedures and negotiating.
Knowledge of consumer issues in social responsibility such as precautionary principle, sphere of influence, consumer rights, sustainable consumption and issues in IP and privacy issues were thankfully in good supply.
It amazes me at each meeting, regardless of language difficulties, jet lag and a desire to see the outside world, that every morning at 8am all 25 consumer representatives turned up without fail to discuss strategies for making sure what we want in, is in and debate exactly how we are going to go about doing this.
Consumers may be the smallest stakeholder group – alongside labour – but in this multi-stakeholder group we are respected as the most cohesive and focused. Of course inside the consumer group, there are always a range of positions on any topic. Different countries, regions, economic situations and cultures bring to our attention very different consumer issues.
Consumer groups have different priorities, from the possible impact of trade implications, animal welfare, how to report to the inclusion of help boxes on ISO 10 000 - but so far we have always managed to incorporate these into a consensus consumer position to present to the working group.
The working group is a huge talking shop and it always seems amazing that somehow at the end of the week the document, which will eventually give practical guidance on how organisations can actually integrate social responsibility into their everyday ways of working, advances a step closer to reality.
At the first meeting it would have been seen as impossible that six very different stakeholders – industry, labour, government, consumers, NGOs and SSRO (no one can even remember what that acronym means) would all be in one room cheering and clapping that this international standard had progressed from WD to CD or that all 394 people in the room would actually understand what that meant.
You are welcome to join if you want to learn to speak ISO!!!"
"Socially responsible… what is it? How do you become it? And then how do you tell people how you are getting on with it?
Now get six different stakeholder groups from over 80 different countries and an additional 40 international organisations to develop and agree upon an easily understood, concise document… simple!
The world of standards may seem to most a mystery consisting of many acronyms, such as WD, CD, IDTF, TC, DIS, SC, COPOLCO and long meetings in far-flung corners of the world.
To some consumer representatives, new to the world of International standards and attending the 6th meeting of the working group, it meant a fast learning curve in both procedures and negotiating.
Knowledge of consumer issues in social responsibility such as precautionary principle, sphere of influence, consumer rights, sustainable consumption and issues in IP and privacy issues were thankfully in good supply.
It amazes me at each meeting, regardless of language difficulties, jet lag and a desire to see the outside world, that every morning at 8am all 25 consumer representatives turned up without fail to discuss strategies for making sure what we want in, is in and debate exactly how we are going to go about doing this.
Consumers may be the smallest stakeholder group – alongside labour – but in this multi-stakeholder group we are respected as the most cohesive and focused. Of course inside the consumer group, there are always a range of positions on any topic. Different countries, regions, economic situations and cultures bring to our attention very different consumer issues.
Consumer groups have different priorities, from the possible impact of trade implications, animal welfare, how to report to the inclusion of help boxes on ISO 10 000 - but so far we have always managed to incorporate these into a consensus consumer position to present to the working group.
The working group is a huge talking shop and it always seems amazing that somehow at the end of the week the document, which will eventually give practical guidance on how organisations can actually integrate social responsibility into their everyday ways of working, advances a step closer to reality.
At the first meeting it would have been seen as impossible that six very different stakeholders – industry, labour, government, consumers, NGOs and SSRO (no one can even remember what that acronym means) would all be in one room cheering and clapping that this international standard had progressed from WD to CD or that all 394 people in the room would actually understand what that meant.
You are welcome to join if you want to learn to speak ISO!!!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)