ISO to develop a Guidance Document (ISO 26000) on Social Responsibility - some object

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#1
ISO has decided to move forward with the development of a Guidance document on Social Resposibility

ISO to go ahead with guidelines for Social Responsibility

Some information about the stakeholder positions are posted @

The ISO Public Comment Forum on Social Responsibility

One interesting and very strong worded position comes from IBM. Mr. John Hughes makes a strong case against such development. The whole text is available here: Report and Recommendations of the ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility: the IBM Response

but, one paragraph that caught my attention reads:

". . .New standardisation instruments would therefore be counter-productive to the basic goal of achieving improvements in SR. Even if an ISO SR guideline was introduced as a voluntary guideline, experience with IS 9000 and IS 14000 has shown that a large, indirect market-pressure on the enterprise to introduce such an instrument as a standard is then created, which results in an obligation to obtain certification of conformity. Certification by third parties to multiple management system standards inevitably adds layers of unnecessary bureaucracy without adding value to the enterprise and its stakeholders. In the end, it is the customer who pays through higher product or service costs. The market-driven imposition of a ‘voluntary’ SR guideline would inevitably result in a needless waste of precious resources better used for the SR programmes themselves. . . ."

I wonder if this represents the official IBM position about their ISO 9001 and 14001 certificates. Ouch! :mg:
 

Wes Bucey

Consultant/Advisor
Moderator
#2
Sidney Vianna said:
Certification by third parties to multiple management system standards inevitably adds layers of unnecessary bureaucracy without adding value to the enterprise and its stakeholders. In the end, it is the customer who pays through higher product or service costs. The market-driven imposition of a ‘voluntary’ SR guideline would inevitably result in a needless waste of precious resources better used for the SR programmes themselves. . . ."

I wonder if this represents the official IBM position about their ISO 9001 and 14001 certificates. Ouch!
omg.gif
Why not? It is an oft-repeated comment throughout the corridors of power in many organizations and certainly is frequently echoed here in the Cove.

Perhaps an additional chapter to an existing Standard? My vote (if we had to include Social Responsibility) would go for adding it to ISO 14000, which already deals with social responsibility in a major way. It would only be a few short steps to add other facets of social responsibility to the existing ones. (I don't necessary endorse the concept of ANY Standard on Social Responsibility - I prefer laissez faire to Big Brother.)
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#4
Wes Bucey said:
Why not? It is an oft-repeated comment throughout the corridors of power in many organizations and certainly is frequently echoed here in the Cove.
Well, if a huge conglomerate like IBM basically announces to the rest of the World that they consider their management system certificates a waste of effort and money, I would like to mention that there are reports of other large organizations to the contrary

http://www.dnv.com/publications/dnv_forum/by_subject/certification/12004Amobileglobalcustomer.asp
 

Mike S.

An Early 'Cover'
#5
Wes Bucey said:
(I don't necessary endorse the concept of ANY Standard on Social Responsibility - I prefer laissez faire to Big Brother.)
I agree. IMO ISO has no business trying to dictate their version/opinion or social responsibility.
 
#6
Wes Bucey said:
I don't necessary endorse the concept of ANY Standard on Social Responsibility - I prefer laissez faire to Big Brother.)
I agree too. As a guidance document though, it should be interesting reading. It sounds like another small step in the general direction of the MBNQA criteria to me.
 

Wes Bucey

Consultant/Advisor
Moderator
#8
Oddly, it seems to me the very concept of a copyrighted Standard for ethical behavior seems antithetical to the goal of promulgating ethical behavior by virtue of making entities PAY for copies of a Standard and then, perhaps, paying a third party to attest to the entity's adherence to the Standard.

At best, I feel the goal could be served by an international organization (the UN?) publishing a FREE set of "guidelines" for ethical behavior (posted on the internet), which entities could adopt or adapt to their particular circumstances. The idea of a third party being paid to attest to whether an entity followed an ethical Standard gives me an uneasy feeling.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#9
Wes Bucey said:
The idea of a third party being paid to attest to whether an entity followed an ethical Standard gives me an uneasy feeling.
Wes, where is this coming from? It has been clearly announced that the document would be a guidance document. There could be no attestation/certification to a guidance document.
 

Wes Bucey

Consultant/Advisor
Moderator
#10
Sidney Vianna said:
Wes, where is this coming from? It has been clearly announced that the document would be a guidance document. There could be no attestation/certification to a guidance document.
You are correct. I was thrown by the use of the term "Standard" throughout. I am embarrassed :eek: that I missed this (underline and boldface are mine):
4 Type of standard

The document shall be an ISO standard providing guidance and shall not be intended for third-party certification.

The following wording would be appropriate: "This International Standard provides guidance to enable an organization to formulate SR systems taking into account communication of stakeholders. It is not intended for certification purpose, or regulatory or contractual use."

Throughout the standard, the verb form "should" shall be used.

Only one standard shall be developed.

The document shall not be an interim document (such as IWA or PAS)

 

Top Bottom