Reading the recent discussions
coming from the post publication group of ISO 26000 Guidance on Social
Responsibility, known as PPO (not an official ISO group), one could infer that
some sectors, especially certification enterprises, National Standards Bodies
with certification services, and consultants are preparing themselves for the
elaboration of an ISO standard on requirements for a certifiable social
responsibility management system.
The question is: What value
could a social responsibility management system add, and what would be its
advantages and disadvantages?
If we make an objective
balance and analyze the well known management systems standards like ISO 9001
or ISO 14001, could we say that the existence of quality management systems
indicates that enterprises offer quality products or quality services, or that
enterprises having an environmental management system contribute to the
environment?
And in the case of social
responsibility, could the fact of having a social responsibility management
system mean that an enterprise is socially responsible?
An implemented quality
management system is not a guarantee that an enterprise offers always a good quality
product or service, it only indicates that there is confidence in the fact that
these products or services have been designed according to customer
requirements and that they can systematically meet these requirements.
In the case of social
responsibility the answer is much more complex since we don't talk about a
product meeting customer requirements, we are talking about social programs that
should originate from a multi-stakeholder dialogues, which, however, often responds
to individual or one-sided demands that come up punctually and not
systematically, and, on top of that, these programs vary according to the type
of an organisation, its location, workforce, environment, size, etc.
Social responsibility is so
wide-ranging and includes so many aspects (organizational governance, human
rights, the environment, labour practices, consumer issues, fair operating
practices, and community development) so that an enterprise could satisfy some
or various of these core subjects, or it could satisfy some of the stakeholders’
necessities but could at the same time not satisfy the expectations of others;
therefore, there is a dilemma in pointing out an enterprise as socially
responsible, and that's why this definition in the ISO 26000 standard is not to
take into consideration. For example, an enterprise may, on the one hand, work
on extraordinary social responsibility programs with the community, and on the
other hand it may neither have incentive programs for its workforce nor have an
interest in getting it publicly known that it is breaking human rights of
vulnerable groups.
We need to start at the
beginning, i.e. that social responsibility is not a subject to be managed or administered, to the contrary, it is a subject that contributes to
sustainable development and therefore to society. This is to say that programs for social responsibility can
be managed but not social
responsibility as such.
ISO 26000
has been designed to give guidance, to show the outlines of social
responsibility, not for certification, and the relevant text of the standard
reads:
“This International Standard is not a management system standard. It is
not intended or appropriate for certification purposes or regulatory or
contractual use. Any offer to certify, or claims to be certified, to ISO 26000
would be a misrepresentation of the intent and purpose and a misuse of this
International Standard. As this International Standard does not contain
requirements, any such certification would not be a demonstration of conformity
with this International Standard.”
The main objective of this
guidance is to support that enterprises integrate social responsibility into
their daily practices, and such integration varies according to exactly these
practices; so, there is no need for another management system but for the integration
of social responsibility into existing systems. This can be seen in ISO 26000
clause 7, where the orientation is given on how to put social responsibility in
an organization into practice and that organizations can base such practices on
existing systems, politics, structures and networks, without changing the focus
of the organisation or the degree of maturity of these systems: the idea is to
help all organizations, whatever the starting point may be, to integrate social
responsibility into their way of operating (see figure 4 of the standard).
On the other hand, what are we
going to evaluate in the environmental area if the
organization already has an ISO 14001 management Systems? Or in the area of
customers and consumers, if the use of ISO 9001 is in place, see clause 7.2 for
customer related processes.
The same applies if an
enterprise has been certified to OSHAS 18001 which describes the auditing of
labour practices, or if it got an SA8000 certificate which includes human
rights in its audits.
Finally, the ISO 26000 users should
be the ones who decide about the programs to address the ISO 26000 core
subjects and issues, which may be seen relevant to each type, location, and
size of an organization.
Based on these deliberations,
I consider it important that – before a decision is taken in regard of a need for
an “ISO 26001” or any other “certifiable standard based on ISO 26000” – the
above-mentioned problems should be are evaluated, taking into account the immense
risk that a "management system standard on social responsibility based on
ISO 26000" is muddled up with a standard giving orientation.
Hace poco recibí un cuestionario sobre el papel de la RSE en los medios impresos de la región Andina de Venezuela de una joven estudiante de Comunicación Social de la Universidad de Los Andes ULA el cual me hizo reflexionar, ya que me hacía preguntas como: