CI work on mobile banking standard ISO 12812

Robin Simpson and Sadie Homer, Senior Policy Advisors at Consumers International report on their work preparing the new international standard on mobile banking.

  

Back in January 2012, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) asked for experts to join the working group preparing a new international standard on Mobile Banking/Payments, in particular asking CI if we could represent the consumer stakeholder group, providing expertise, particularly in the field of consumer protection.

Four years later our efforts have borne fruit in the form of  ISO 12812 Core banking – mobile financial services. It takes the form of an international standard on the general framework for these services (Part 1) and is supported by four technical specifications on specific sectors of the business (parts 2-5 see below).

Achieving an ISO standard was not a smooth passage, two rounds of voting by national standards bodies were needed to gain approval. The second only succeeding on the basis that papers 2-5 do not have full international standard status. Nevertheless, CI felt able to support the final standard but it was not an easy process. Consumer experts encountered resistance to some basic consumer protection issues being included at times, even when they were optional (and bearing in mind that international standards are voluntary).

Ably assisted by experts from our members we fought for limits on how much consumers would be liable for, in the case of unauthorised or fraudulent use of their payment systems. We secured greater transparency in remittances sent between countries and we gained important safeguards on logging transactions and receipts, with electronic logs being kept available. One specific issue that was not considered until our intervention was the treatment of dormant assets, in particular in the event of the death of an account holder.  This is a major issue where consumers do not have an individualised mobile phone contracts, such as in much of Africa.

How worth-while are such exercises? After all, standards are not legally binding, they are voluntarily adopted by companies and cannot be enforced in court. CI expended scarce resources travelling to Paris, Chicago, Boston, also taking part in many teleconferences, and drafting in great detail.  These factors are important considerations. But without our participation the consumer voice would not have been heard at all. The alternative, legislation and binding regulation, can only be applied at national level one country at a time, and legislation may be even slower to develop than standards, if at all. 

Even if it will require another review for our conditions to be fully met, the applicability of this standards is potentially global. And in many countries, the standards adopted today can form the basis of regulation tomorrow. Standards can also be used by consumer organisations as a sound basis to compare businesses and to support those that offer best practice terms to consumers. They can also be used to hold transnational companies to account to provide an equal level of service to all consumers, in all countries they are doing business.

Papers 2-5 will be reviewed in two years’ time and CI would also support a review of ISO 12812, given the speed of development in this sector. At that point we hope to be able to strengthen the standard further and make the case for all parts to be given full International Standard status. The mobile payment and banking sector is fast evolving, and so the standards that keep consumers safe must also move with it. 

You can read more about the Standards here. 

How not to spark a paradigm shift to sustainable consumption

CI's Luke Upchurch on why bottled water can never be sustainable

Business leaders often lay responsibility for the failure of sustainable consumption to go mainstream at the feet of consumers: "They don't understand what it means." Well, they're wrong. The world's consumers do understand what it means; it's just not what many in business understand it to be.

If we're going to get the paradigm shift that everyone is so eager to see, we need to start by focusing on the things that really matter. To understand what I mean, let me tell you the story of Icelandic Glacial.

Icelandic Glacial is a bottled water available in the UK, US, Canada and several other countries. It markets itself as the world's first carbon-neutral bottled water. Its processing plant, situated on Iceland's Olfus spring, runs on hydroelectric and geothermal energy. Its packaging is 100% recyclable and, to reduce CO2, it's even shipped from Iceland in the unused space of cargo ships that would have otherwise remained empty.

Icelandic Glacial has received sustainable certification for both the product and its processing. In 2007, it won the Bottle Water World design award for sustainability. It's even been certified by the Carbon Neutral company – the seal of approval for which takes centre stage on the bottle's label.
Many of you reading this will already be pondering the irony of a sustainable bottled water company tapping the very glaciers we need to preserve to survive – but give Icelandic Glacial some credit. In every sense this can be recognised as a sustainable product: it's recyclable, third-party certified, and CO2 neutral.

Yet this is not a sustainable solution. This is not what sustainability means to the consumer movement. Unfortunately for Icelandic Glacial – which appears genuine in its efforts – this bottled water represents the very antithesis of what sustainability means.

Meaningful sustainability for consumers cannot be captured on a label or celebrated with an industry award. Meaningful sustainability – the type of stuff that spurs paradigm shifts and reverses global trajectories – is about how we provide safe and sustainable drinking water for all, including the one billion consumers who currently have no access to it.

We cannot seriously talk about consumers not understanding or caring about sustainability and not consider the millions of consumers in the developing world without piped water, who are given no choice but to buy bottled alternatives at up to 10 times the price. That is what unsustainable consumption looks like.

The challenge is how we meet this consumer right to the satisfaction of basic needs in a sustainable way – in terms of access, quality, and affordability – as well as environmental impact. This is what the overwhelming majority of the world's consumers understand sustainability to be about.
Icelandic Glacial may have all the sustainability credentials the company could think of. It may well be a sustainable product in its own right. But it embodies the problem, not the solution, when it comes to sustainable living.

Sustainable consumption is about much more than marketing: much more than niche product lines, and, indeed, the polar opposite of fresh water bottled and sold at a huge mark up.
It's about creating accessible and stable markets that offer low-environmental impact, good quality products at a fair price, whether it is water, healthcare, food, financial services, or even access to the internet. Some pioneers in industry get that, but most can't see beyond the label.

So, how do we make the paradigm shift? Put bluntly, stop obsessing about the marketing strategy and CSR brochure and focus on the big meaningful changes that create a sustainable business regardless of consumer demand.

After all, sustainability is about meeting consumer needs, not creating consumer wants.

This article first appeared on the Guardian website.

Is it possible to set a standard for innovation?

CI’s Luke Upchurch attended ISO COPOLCO to see how its participants are setting new standards in consumer protection.

 

As always, I was mightily impressed with the organisation and efficiency of the international standards community as it met for its annual gathering on consumer issues – ISO COPOLCO. Compared to some of the grander global forums I’ve participated in, these guys are always fully briefed, committed and focused on the job of advancing the protection of consumers through standards for products and services – quietly conducting this crucial work in the interests of consumers worldwide.

Consumers International has long been involved in COPOLCO (it stands for COsumer POLicy COmmittee), advocating for new global standards on social responsibility, customer satisfaction, second-hand goods, and the safety of household products. We’re currently leading the development of a new standard for improving energy service provision for consumers. Standards is a vital area of our work and a constant priority for our Members and Supporters.

This year’s gathering in Malta in late May looked at the impact of innovation on consumer protection and the role standards should play. Almost 20 CI Member groups joined over 60 national standard body representatives to consider issues from social media to nanotechnology.  

It could almost be considered an oxymoron: Standard innovation. As Norma McCormick, chair of ISO COPOLCO pointed out; by their nature “innovations are fast, and standards are slow”. Finding consensus on a standard can take years, by which time the innovation it set out to tackle is several generations down the line.

From the outside this could appear to be a major hindrance, but speak to those with knowledge of the standards process and many see the slow pace as an advantage. The lengthy deliberations mean all stakeholders – regardless of resources or time constraints – have a chance to comment. It means unworkable suggestions are ironed out, and mistakes and longer-term trends in the new innovations can be dealt with. Invariably it means that standards work; they enjoy strong backing from stakeholders, and stand the test of time.

The role of standards (or lack of them) within the digital age came up time and again at the meeting. For instance, as our recent research shows two thirds of countries have no mechanisms in place to resolve e-commerce disputes out of court; meaning victims of online shopping malpractice may be forced to seek redress through expensive court settlements.

But the digital issue that drew the most attention was the role standards need to play in online feedback and user reviews. As the UK’s Consumer Futures puts it:

“the growth in feedback and review services is one of the most empowering developments for consumers in the past decade.”

Their work, which is featured in the CI Resource Zone, has also shown that 88% of UK consumers check user-reviews before making a purchase.

How do we make sure that online feedback is trusted, fair and balanced? How can we retain consumer confidence? Well, internationally agreed standards for submission, verification, and authenticity would be a major step in that direction – something the French standards body, AFNOR, is pioneering with its work on second-party verification (pdf).

Standards may be slow, and they may live a life outside the spotlight, but ISO COPLOCO once again demonstrate why they are vital to long-term, sustainable consumer protection; and why standards bodies and consumer groups must continue to work closely together.

 

Super marketing: Does Asda have an unhealthy influence?

Supermarkets budget big for advertising - but reporting of a gaffe by Walmart-owned Asda this week suggests that they can wield influence to ensure the news is all good too, writes CI’s digital editor Vik Iyer.

Asda’s head of communications Sian Jarvis got herself into trouble during an interview when she acknowledged two thirds of Asda checkouts were ‘guilt tills’  - or to put it simply, they are tills filled up with unhealthy confectionary.

The term is often used within the industry – but nonetheless for campaigners who question the supermarkets’ desire to improve nutrition and healthiness it was a great story – a major issue in the UK this week, with supermarkets announcing an agreement on the use of traffic light food labelling.

CI tweeted the Daily Telegraph’s version of the story on October 24 – but just a few hours later it had mysteriously vanished.

Later a new story on Asda appeared, which was far more positive for the retail giant.

So I got curious and googled ‘Daily Telegraph Asda’. What popped up first was a negative story about both Asda and Tesco’s own brand bottled water coming from the mains supply.

But the next few stories read more like press releases. They included the launch of an Asda credit card,  new shop openings  and brand revamps.

Yet a search on ‘BBC Asda’ revealed the supermarket had been involved in a high profile employment tribunal and milk protests.

It should be said there were also stories about job creation and a product launch.

When we look at how the Telegraph covers other supermarkets, the results are more interesting still.

Of the top six Google results, the Telegraph’s coverage of Sainburys produced three negative stories, including claims that it is in the hall of shame (strong stuff?)  over supplier payments plus coverage of the Sunday trading debate.

And Tesco doesn’t fare too well either.  Its fine for hiring foreign workers illegally, profit problems and the possibility of it leaving the US  all figure highly in the search results.

Now you might say Tesco’s had a bad time. But from those search results, Asda was the only chain who got product launches into the news pages of the Telegraph.

We can’t say for sure what influence supermarkets have over the news agenda (or, specifically, the nature of the relationship between Asda and the Daily Telegraph), but the signs do point to consumers getting incomplete information about what they buy.

What we can say, is the disappearance of that Asda gaffe story helped the retail giant avoid paying the price for a slip which reaffirms the need for tough guidelines to keep us healthy all over the world.

Developments in Costa Rica spell sweet news for pineapple growers and consumers

CI’s Catherine Nicholson on the lasting impact of Consumers International’s pineapple trade investigation.

A year ago CI were busy finalising the documentary Pineapples: Luxury fruit at what price? with the help of Banana Link and The Guardian. The film, is part of our ongoing work on the social responsibility polices of supermarkets, illustrates some of the harsh working conditions and environmental degradation resulting from large scale pineapple production in Costa Rica.

The reaction to the film – in Costa Rica and elsewhere – ranging from support to suspicion and denial reflected the intransigence of the situation. At the time, CI supported the call by trade unions in Costa Rica for a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the issues – a move that seemed to be the only possible constructive way forward.

The recent launch of the National Platform for Responsible Pineapple Production and Trade seems like a very positive step in the right direction – it brings together all players including government, growers, exporters, the retail giant Walmart and crucially, trade unions, round the table – a first for the industry in Costa Rica.

It is too early to say what this initiative will deliver for those who work in the industry now and for Costa Rica in the future. The initial focus on environmental issues is perhaps a reasonable (and less controversial?) first step but key social issues that featured in our research – freedom of association, wage trends, and the treatment of migrant workers have yet to be firmly defined on the agenda.

Proof of the commitment by all members of the platform to a truly responsible industry will be in the tangible results that we hope to see in terms of improvements in the lives of workers, their families and communities as well as the environment in which they live. Then pineapples really will taste sweeter...

Video: ISO 26000, COPOLCO and corporate social responsibility, interview with Sadie Homer

In a video interview, Sadie Homer explains ISO 26000, COPOLCO and why corporate social responsibility is important to both companies and consumers.

Costa Rica will pay the price for cheap fruit

The Guardian's Felicity Lawrence on making Pineapples: Luxury fruit at what price for Consumers International.



While making our film about the pineapple industry in Costa Rica, I interviewed the buyer of one of the major European supermarket chains, who wanted to remain anonymous(they usually do).
He was worried that the most intense production of pineapples is based in Costa Rica's flat Atlantic region where the humidity is highest and pests on the monoculture plantations are the most troublesome. They need more pesticides there than the farms in the hilly, more windy area further west, but without the same economies of scale and with the extra distance from the port, it's more expensive to produce where the environmental cost is lower.
When it came to growing bananas, he wasn't sure Costa Rica was even the right country from an environmental point of view. The humidity of the region meant that 54 agrochemical treatments are typically needed in a cycle compared to only 14 or 15 in parts of Ecuador where the climate is less favourable to the sigatoka fungus that is ravaging the crop around the world.
Agrochemicals are an issue for pineapples too. Clearing old pineapple plants after harvest so that you can replant the next crop again is done fastest and mostly cheaply with very high doses of paraquat. Paraquat is banned in Europe because it is so acutely toxic. Some Costa Rican plantations avoid it – notably those with Rainforest Alliance or Fairtrade certifications, but they then have to plough in the old stalks and wait for the plant matter to decompose. Time is money and if no one will pay a premium for your efforts, it's harder to justify.
Other environmentally beneficial techniques don't come cheap either: buffer zones between the edge of plantations and water ways, protection of rainforest areas, making sure workers who spray agrochemicals only do so for a couple of hours at a time so that they are not out sweating in the heat and therefore more exposed to toxic effects – all these things cost money.
One of the greatest problems is that the transnational traders' and retailers' power outstrips the government's ability to regulate. Costa Rica is more stable, democratic and ecologically minded than many developing countries, which is precisely why it is so attractive to foreign investors, yet its environmental laws remain weak and have barely kept up with an industry that has seen explosive growth.
And, of course, the situation isn't helped by price wars that are driving producers towards the kind of industrial agriculture that takes a heavy toll both on the environment and on the lives of those who live and work in the plantations' shadow.

This blog first appeared on the Guardian's Green Living blog. Find out more about the CI's work on Corporate Social Responsibility.

Attack on 'Fair Play in the Supermarket'

Claus Jørgensen, Senior Environmental Officer at the Danish Consumer Council (Forbrugerrådet), talks about the Fair Play in the Supermarket campaign.

On 26 of August we launched the little film, Fair Play in the Supermarket, to put focus on consumer goods (coffee, chocolate and fruit) produced in the developing countries.

We chose a typical setting for Denmark (and, I suppose, for a lot of European countries), Friday evening, at home having a cosy time with the kids and enjoying delicious products. The film rewinds to show that the joy we all experience does have a hidden price for the people producing the goods. On 1 September we also had the film shown in 35 movie theaters across the country in a showing of the film Blood in the Mobile.

At the time of the release of the film, we also launched a postcard, which was distributed nationwide in cafés, restaurants, movie theaters and universities. The postcard encourages consumers to make a difference by visiting our website and from here send an electronic postcard to their favourite supermarket asking for more fair trade!

We have a Fair Play in the Supermarket Facebook site where we bring relevant updates two to three times a week.

The latest development has been an attack on our campaign in a letter to the editor in one of the national newspapers. The two authors claim that by supporting and promoting Fair Trade labeled products, the Danish Consumer Council are advocating not using the market economy and its instruments.

We have responded, saying that we believe they have misunderstood our campaign, and that we actually ask supermarkets to demand more ethically produced goods, and we have asked consumers to push this demand from supermarkets by buying or asking for more Fair Trade labeled products to put pressure on the supermarkets. And this in our view, is actually using the instruments of the market economy.

What do you think? Leave your opinion in the comments.

Untangling Corporate Social Responsibility

A recent study by the Spanish consumer organisation CECU found that 70% of consumers don’t know what Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) means. While some within the consumer movement may also argue that most corporations don’t know what CSR means either, the lack of understanding among Spanish consumers is a real challenge to those trying to put corporate accountability on the public agenda.

However, a far more encouraging statistic from the same survey found that, despite being baffled by the language, 75% of Spanish consumers would consume more responsibly if they had better access to information about what companies are doing in terms of social and environmental commitments. This is a trend we have seen from similar surveys conducted by CI member organisations across Europe.

So all is not lost! In fact, this kind of result arguably demonstrates consumers are ahead of the trend when it comes to ethical consumption and production. Whilst the experts and activists clamour over the semantics of CSR, ETI, FLO or FTSE4Good, the vast majority of consumers just want to be better informed.

That’s why CI is working to establish ISO 26000. Yes, it’s another bit of geek-speak, and yes, this one does sound like defunct model of home computer from the 1980’s; but it is in fact an unprecedented attempt to establish an international standard for CSR. So consumers everywhere can, at a glance, be sure a company is meeting globally agreed criteria for social and environmental behaviour.

The International Organization of Standardization, ISO, is a multi-stakeholder system that sets quality and safety standards for a whole range of consumer goods. National standards bodies use the ISO system to guarantee safety standards on everything from plugs to power drills.

ISO 26000, or ISO-SR as the parlance has it, has had governments, industry and NGOs huddled round negotiating tables in dark rooms for several years now. But recent developments have signalled significant progress, with the consumer movement leading the charge.

Pushed by CI, the process is now reaching favourable consensus on key criteria: the ‘precautionary principle’ to ensure biotechnology and nanotechnolgy cannot be unleashed without vigorous consumer protection guarantees; conditions on the ‘sphere of influence’ so companies cannot claim to be socially responsible if their suppliers are not; and greater availability of information on sustainable consumption alternatives.

All this means that, eventually, consumers the world over could be able to judge a company’s ethical criteria to an internationally recognised, independent standard. Much like we do with electrical goods today.

So Spain's consumers may untangle the meaning of CSR yet!

Find out more about CSR and consumers at www.consumersinternational.org/csr

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!!!"

Cheap chic: at any price?

Consumers in New Zealand are becoming increasingly aware of ethical consumption as an important issue, according to a recent article in Consumer, the monthly magazine published by Consumers New Zealand (NZ).

Twenty major national clothing retailers were invited by Consumers NZ to respond to a questionnaire on how they are improving labour standards and environmental practices in their supply chains. Disappointingly only five responded.

The article also cites recent studies by International Consumer Research and Testing, which found that a 4% increase in the retail price of an item of clothing can translate into a 400% increase in benefits to a garment worker in the developing world.

Despite the direct impact they have on the working conditions and wages of the people that make them, retail clothing prices have been decreasing over the past few years as a culture of 'fast fashion' has taken hold. Individual consumers in New Zealand are encouraged to do their bit by moving away from 'disposable one-season item(s)' and purchasing good quality, ethical clothing instead.

Consumers NZ also calls on retailers and manufacturers to examine how they can improve their standards wherever possible throughout their supply chains.