April30, 2004 - ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility

Working Report on Social Responsibility

Prepared by the
ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility

April 30, 2004
For submission to the ISO Technical Management Board

0April30, 2004 - ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility

Table of Contents
Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Section 1 – Conceptual Issues: What are we talking about when we refer
to CSR/SR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
1.1 Origins and Evolution of the Concept of CSR/SR ------------------------------------------------------- 2
1.1.1 Globalization ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
1.1.2 Trade Liberalization and Regulatory Reform ------------------------------------------------------- 18
1.1.3 Environmental/Sustainable Development aspects -------------------------------------------------- 20
1.1.4 Labour/Supply Chain/Codes of Conduct Dimensions --------------------------------------------- 21
1.1.5 Conclusions Regarding Origins and Evolution of the CSR Concept ---------------------------- 22
1.2 Key Trends and Catalysts for Social Responsibility---------------------------------------------------- 23
1.3 Terminology ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24
1.4 Definitions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
1.4.1 Common Elements --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
1.4.2 National, Regional and Local Variations ------------------------------------------------------------ 29
1.4.3 Implications if No Agreed Definition ---------------------------------------------------------------- 30
1.5 Subjects Falling under SR --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
1.6 Other Key Concepts for SR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
1.6.1 Stakeholders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
1.6.2 Accountability -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
1.6.3 “Business Case” or Justification for Social Responsibility Activities -------------------------- 34
1.7 SR Applicability to businesses and/or other organizations-------------------------------------------- 35
1.7.1. Implications---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35
1.7.2 Effect of resolving business/any organization question on nature of SR deliverable--------- 38
1.8. Interests and Expectations of Society ------------------------------------------------------------------- 39
1.8.1 Ensuring SR activities of organizations are consistent with the interests of society ---------- 39
1.8.2 Extent to which organizations can define their social responsibilities -------------------------- 41
1.8.3 Extent to which governments define social responsibilities of organizations------------------ 42
1.8.4 Extent to which non-state actors can define social responsibilities of organizations --------- 42
1.8.5 Extent to which social responsibilities are defined locally, nationally, regionally ------------ 43
1.8.6 Extent to which universally applicable expectations or norms define social responsibilities
of organizations-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
1.8.7. Relationship between diversity of expectations/norms and SR --------------------------------- 44
1.9. Voluntary versus Legally-Mandated Activities -------------------------------------------------------- 44
1.9.1. Does SR only pertain to voluntary activities/commitments of organizations? --------------- 44
1.9.2. Relationship between SR activities/commitments and those arising from legally binding
obligations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45
1.9.3. Relationship between SR and the institutional/legal framework ------------------------------- 46
1.9.4. Relationship between purely private SR initiatives/activity and that taking place pursuant tolegal/institutional frameworks -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46
1.9.5 Effect of resolution of legal/ non-legal SR debate on scope of SR deliverables--------------- 47
1.9.6 How does society ensure that the SR activities of enterprises or organizations are consistent
with the interests of society? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47
1.10 Relationship between SR and development------------------------------------------------------------ 48

Section 2 – Issues related to standardization of SR ------------------------------------- 49
2.1 SR and the field of Standardization----------------------------------------------------------------------- 50
2.1.1 Standards that define social responsibility ----------------------------------------------------------- 50
2.1.2 Standards that address specific problems ------------------------------------------------------------ 52i2.2 Are International SR Standards Needed?---------------------------------------------------------------- 52
2.2.1 The Standardization Policy Perspective -------------------------------------------------------------- 53
2.2.2 The Public Policy Perspective-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53
2.2.3 Summary: a framework for assessing the need for international SR standards ---------------- 55
2.2.4 Is there an unnecessary proliferation of SR Standards?-------------------------------------------- 55
2.3.1 The Nature of the Guidance or Requirements ------------------------------------------------------- 56
2.3.2 The Focus of the Initiative ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 56
2.3.3 The Objective of the Initiative ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57
2.3.4 Summary: Different Types of SR Initiatives -------------------------------------------------------- 59
2.4 The Benefits of International SR Standardization ------------------------------------------------------ 60
2.4.1 Giving All Countries a Role in Developing SR Requirements ----------------------------------- 62
2.4.2 Creating a level playing field for all organizations ------------------------------------------------- 63
2.4.3 Reduce transaction costs, facilitate communication and/or facilitate trade--------------------- 63
2.5 The Costs of International SR Standardization --------------------------------------------------------- 64
2.6 Discussion on the Costs and Benefits of International SR Standardization ------------------------- 65
2.7 Is International SR Standardization Feasible ---------------------------------------------------------- 66
2.7.1 Common Definition for SR----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
2.7.2 A Specific Objective------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68
2.7.3 Integrating Performance Requirements--------------------------------------------------------------- 68
2.7.4 The balance between flexibility and consistency --------------------------------------------------- 69
2.7.5 Verification and Alternatives to 3rd Party Certification -------------------------------------------- 70
2.7.6 Economic Pressures and Incentives for Socially Responsible Behaviour ---------------------- 70
2.8 Evidence from existing SR initiatives--------------------------------------------------------------------- 71
2.8.1 Scope and Objectives ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 71
2.8.2 Effectiveness ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72
2.9 What type of international standard is needed? -------------------------------------------------------- 73
2.9.1 What should be standardized in an International SR Standard?---------------------------------- 74
2.9.2 Integrating Social, Environmental and Economic Issues into a Single Standard-------------- 75
2.9.3 Integrating legal or other requirements into an international SR standard---------------------- 76
2.9.4 International Standardization of Processes or Performance -------------------------------------- 78
2.9.5 Treating performance requirements in an international standard--------------------------------- 79
2.9.6 SR Standards and Conformity Assessment ---------------------------------------------------------- 79
2.9.7 The Application of SR standards at the sectoral level --------------------------------------------- 81
2.9.8 At what level should a SR standard be applied? ---------------------------------------------------- 81

Section 3 – Capacity of ISO to undertake work in SR area------------------------ 82
3.1. Does ISO have the competence to develop a credible SR deliverables? --------------------------- 82
3.2. Range of expertise needed by ISO to undertake work in SR area ----------------------------------- 83
3.3 Credibility of ISO standard setting process for SR deliverables-------------------------------------- 84
3.4. Should ISO engage others in the SR development process? ----------------------------------------- 84
3.5. How should ISO relate to others developing SR initiatives? ---------------------------------------- 85
3.6. Capacity of ISO to develop performance requirements on SR issues------------------------------- 86
3.7. Ability of ISO to accommodate sector- and issue-specific SR deliverables------------------------ 86
Annex A -- Possible Social Responsibility Components ------------------------------------------------------- 88iiApril30, 2004 - ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility

Introduction
The ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility (AG) was founded in 2002 by ISO
Technical Management Board (TMB) Resolution 78/2002, and given the following
terms of reference:
To determine whether ISO should proceed with the development of ISO
deliverables in the field of corporate social responsibility;
If so, to determine the scope of the work and the type of deliverable.
Subsequently, by ISO TMB Resolution 59/2003, the Technical Management Board
requested the AG to produce the following deliverables:
A working report…..presenting information on the state of the art and therange of social responsibility initiatives currently under way;
A listing and analysis of issues for further consideration related to the need forinternational standards for social responsibility.
This document includes the state of art in the area of social responsibility andidentifies the issues to be taken into account in further activities in this area by ISO.
For convenience, the term “social responsibility”(or the acronym SR) is usedthroughout the report except where context necessitates that the term “corporate social
responsibility” (or the acronym CSR) is used. In the first section of the report, where
the concept of CSR, its evolution, definition, and implications are explored at length,
the term CSR is used extensively. In the second and third sections of the report,
which explore issues related to standardization of SR, and the capacity of ISO toundertake work in the SR area, the term CSR is used less often. Use of either term in
the report should not be taken to be an indication of a consensus preference by the
AG for one or the other term.
This report is intended to reflect the diversity of views of AG members on a series ofissues which AG members believe should underlie any decision by ISO on whether toproceed with development of deliverables pertaining to social responsibility. The
objective of the report was not to achieve consensus positions on the issues discussed,
but rather to ensure that the full range of viewpoints exhibited by AG members was
accurately articulated. Accordingly, the reader will note that throughout the report,
expressions such as “one view expressed was” or “some AG members thought that”
are common.
Reflective of the fact that the report was produced by a diverse group undersignificant time constraints and was not the subject of a professional edit, thedocument is not as polished nor as professional from an editing standpoint as AG
members would have preferred. However, AG members do feel that it accurately
conveys the range of positions held by AG members on important issues relevant toISO decision making pertaining to the topic of social responsibility.

1Section 1 – Conceptual Issues: What are we talking about when werefer to CSR/SR
1.1 Origins and Evolution of the Concept of CSR/SR
1. Although the phrase “corporate social responsibility” was coined in the 20th
century, individual companies have engaged in initiatives that furthered the interestsof workers, the general community and the environment, from as far back as the 18th
century. For example, in the 1790s, following a boycott from English consumers
concerning sugar produced using Caribbean slave labour, the East India Company
changed its practices and purchased its sugar from “slaveless” producers in Bengal.1
In the 1800s, the Quaker Lead Company built towns in England for its workers,
schools and libraries for families, and used water pumps to recycle water as part of its
industrial processes.2 Other companies such as Cadbury’s and Rowntrees in the
United Kingdom, Guinness in Ireland, and Hershey’s in the United States introduced
programs with a strong social responsibility dimension in the 19th century. In the
United States, the Better Business Bureau, which is devoted to ethical consumeroriented marketplace practices, had its origins in merchant “vigilance committees”
first created in the late 1800s.3 In India, Tata Steel has been engaging in CSR-type
activities since its creation in 1909.4
2. Many of these early “beyond law” initiatives of the corporate sector had their
origins in or were strongly influenced by religious values, and focused on ethicalconduct revolving around three main aspects:- ethical treatment of customers and business relations – i.e., honest and fairtreatment of those one does business with -- not because it is legally required,but because it is right thing to do;- philanthropy – the idea of wealthy businesspersons sharing with thecommunity some of their wealth;- stewardship and paternalism – especially with regard to the welfare of
employees, the notion of paternalism embodies the idea that those in society
who are in positions of privilege or wealth should make decisions on behalf ofand engage in activities in what they believe to be the interests of those whoare less fortunate or powerful.
However, these early examples of something resembling the modern conception of
corporate social responsibility appear to have been the exception rather than the rule,
not part of any self-evident and identifiable concerted movement by corporations tobe socially responsible. The ideas associated today with corporate social
1

The Economist, “Corporate social responsibility: Lots of it about” December 12, 2002.
Per A. Raistrick, Two Centuries of Industrial Welfare: The London (Quaker) Lead Company, 1692
– 1905 (Kelsall and Davis, 1988).
3
D. Clarke and K. Webb, Market-driven Consumer Redress Case Studies and Legal Issues (Canada:
Office of Consumer Affairs, 2002), downloadable at: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inocabc.nsf/vwapj/Redress_Case_Studies_eng.pdf/$FILE/Redress_Case_Studies_eng.pdf
4
One quarter of Tata’s profits is invested in a trust fund that cares for education, health and research.
This social responsibility is integrated in Tata and its employees. Employees work on social projects
during their weekends or holidays. Also their families are involved in these projects. Tata Steel is basedon the Gandhi values: ‘everything is owned by the people, based on trust’. As described on website of
the Interchurch Organization for Development Co-operation, at www.icco.nl
22

responsibility reflect attitudes and experience in what became the developed industrial
democracies.
3. The legal concept of the corporation has evolved from its original role as an entity
chartered by the State for specific purposes, to the present conception as a “legal
person” recognized by the State with certain freedoms, entitlements and protections,akin to those associated with individuals.5 As a vehicle for undertaking activities(such as the provision of goods and services), the corporation possesses certain key
characteristics:• particularly through the concept of limited liability of shareholders which wasintroduced in the mid-1800s, the corporation is well-suited for the raising andpooling of capital needed to finance a particular activity;6• the corporate form of organization allows those who run it to more easily andefficiently coordinate a range of activities towards a particular objective thanis possible if that same work were to be undertaken outside such anorganizational structure;7 and• because it is a separate legal entity from those who own or manage it, thecorporate form to some extent protects owners and operators from being held
personally liable for corporate activities.8
These characteristics make corporations efficient and effective organizational
structures for the undertaking of commercial projects, but also raise significant
questions about the extent to which a corporation can and should take into

5

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886) United States Supreme Court.
The liability of shareholders has been limited since the mid-1800s.6 (for example, the UK Limited
Liability Act, 1855. By curtailing the liability of individual investors to the value of their shares,
shareholders do not stand to lose all their wealth if a company for whatever reason goes bankrupt.
Limited liability of shareholders has played an important role in facilitating the raising of capital and inrisk sharing. While their liability is limited, shareholders maintain certain privileges such as the rightto vote, although day to day operation of the firm and long term policies are controlled by a firm’sboard of directors and subordinate managers. Starting in the 1960s, shareholder proposals pertaining to
the employment, environmental and other social-oriented practices of firms became increasingly
common. .This trend toward shareholder activitism on social issues is discussed below.
7
This is the fundamental insight of Ronald Coase, in “The Nature of the Firm,’ published in 1937. In
this article, Coase argued that aside from production costs, firms faced a wide variety of significant“transaction costs” of preparing and monitoring various agreements. Corporations exist to economize
the costs of buying and selling..
8
As legal persons, corporations are subject to the law, and depending on the jurisdiction, can face penal
or civil legal actions in cases of wrongdoing. Celia Wells, “International trade in models of corporate
liability,” Cardiff Law School and Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability
and Society (2002). It is possible for a single corporation to create various related entities or
subsidiaries (for example, in the different jurisdictions in which they operate). E.g., as is evidenced ina number of U.S. and U.K. court decisions concerning liability of parent vs. subsidiary corporations
where the incident giving rise to the litigation occurred outside the United States and the United
Kingdom.. This can make it difficult to determine which corporate entity is responsible for which
activity. Depending on the jurisdiction and the law, individual officers within corporations can also beheld liable in criminal or regulatory law in cases of wrongdoing. For example, pursuant to s. 280 of theCanadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, corporate officers, directors or agents may be held
penally liable if they acquiesced, authorized or assented to activity contrary to the Act. In the UnitedStates, under federal Securities law, directors are held personally liable for false and misleadingstatements made in prospectuses used to sell securities. If a corporate prospectus contains a material
falsehood and investors suffer damage as a result, investors can sue each director personally to recover
the damage.
6

3

consideration the interests of those other than the owners, operators, and others withwhom it has commercial relations.
4. In other words, these characteristics raise questions about the businesscorporation’s broader obligations to society. The corporation is a legal creation that
requires state approval (a form of licence) in order to be brought into existence. The
question is whether there is, in addition to the obligations to respect applicable laws
and regulations, a broader “social contract” that includes expectations concerning
corporate behavior that are not mandatory but nevertheless implicit with the grantingof this corporate licence. The social contract concept9 can be considered anunderlying element in the evolution of the idea of individual responsibility of wealthy
industrialists to an idea of corporate responsibility. .It is also an underlying idea in theshift away from a philanthropic concept involving activities external and extraneous
to a companies’ purpose to activities, both internal and external, that focus on theregular activates of the corporation. To some extent, the developments described
below can be seen as attempts by a variety of different institutions and actors toarticulate the social responsibilities of corporations.
5. The rise to prominence of consumer, worker, and environmental protection
legislative and regulatory regimes starting in the 19th century and continuing to thisday is evidence of widespread recognition by governments and societies around theworld of the inadequacy of purely voluntary philanthropic based approaches and theneed to put in place legally binding requirements for business practices that protect
societal interests.10
6. This movement to regulate business within countries was paralleled by similar
activity at the international level. The need for an international organization devoted
to promotion of legislation to improve the conditions of workers was advocated in the
19th century by two industrialists, Robert Owen (1771-1853) of Wales and Daniel
Legrand (1783-1859) of France. The organization was also advocated by employers,
workers and governments around the world. Toward the end of the First World War,the Paris Peace Conference set up a labour commission at the request of trade unions
in several countries. Under the leadership of Samuel Gompers, President of theAmerican Federation of Labor, the commission agreed on a document which became
part of the Peace Treaty of Versailles. It embodied the principle that universal andlasting peace can be founded only on the basis of social justice. With amendments, itremains to this day the charter under which the ILO operates.11 With its distinctive tripartite form of governance involving governments, business and labour, the ILO
represented a significant turning point in the effort to articulate global standards ofacceptable employee practices.
7. The ILO reflected the importance attached to the emergence of organized labourthat took place in the late 19th century. Corporations were seen not only as consistingof management but also of workers whose interests could be collectively represented
through organizations of their own choosing. Industrial relations – that is, the relations
9

See later discussion of UNCTAD’s work in this area, below.
See e.g., description of the rise of regulatory passenger, factory, sanitary, food, and other regulatory
legislation in I. Paulus, “Strict Liability: Its Place in Public Welfare Offences,” (1977-78) 20 Criminal
Law Quarterly 445.
11
Per http://www.ilo.org/public/english/about/history.htm
104

between management and the workforce organized into trade unions – came to be
seen as an essentially private means by which the positive social impact of a businesscould be increased. Collective bargaining was considered an important way of
influencing corporate behaviour that complemented legal approaches althoughcollective bargaining most often took place in some kind of legal or institutionalframework promoted by governments.
8. The idea of social dialogue between management and organized workers (with thetwo parties often referred to as “social partners”) became an important feature in therebuilding of the industrialized world following the Second World War, particularly
in Western Europe. The ILO’s tripartite nature, with governments, employers andworkers having equal voice in all its organs, reflected this partnership. As theprincipal organization in the United Nations system responsible for social issues, theILO amended its constitution to reflect that lasting peace can only be achieved
through social justice. ILO conventions of freedom of association and the right tocollective bargaining were adopted during this period. The right to join and form
trade unions and to collectively bargain was also expressed in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (discussed below), in the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant of Civil andPolitical Rights.
9. The impact of trade unions and industrial relations on the civil and politicaldevelopment of the industrialized countries was widely recognized. Trade unions
played important roles within many countries during the period of decolonization
following the Second World War. With the exception in some countries of politicalparties and organized religion, trade unions have almost always been the largest civilsociety organizations within their respective countries.
10. In the post World War II period there was considerable legislative and regulatory
reform pertaining to employment. This included both labour protection – forexample, regulations governing working time and health and safety – and also social
protection (for instance, state-supported retirement provision or unemployment
compensation schemes). In important respects, collective bargaining, industrial
relations,12 social security, labour, consumer, environmental and health and safety
protection laws and other programs of the 19th and 20th century can be seen to be
based on recognition that traditional reliance on paternalistic and philanthropic
impulses of a few corporations was insufficient to address the problems of theindustrial era.
11. The creation of the United Nations and a range of related institutions at the end ofWorld War II represented a concerted attempt to create a new international orderorganized around the three interlinked and mutually reinforcing pillars of:• democracy and free elections,• respect for human rights, and• economic development and trade liberalization.
To an important extent, the modern conception of corporate social responsibility canbe seen as attempting to build on the foundation of the latter two of these three pillars.
12

Industrial relations refers to management-employee relations where the employees are organized.

512. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was conceived in July 1944 at a United
Nations Conference held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, when representatives
from 45 governments agreed on a framework for economic cooperation intended to
avoid a repetition of the disastrous economic policies that had contributed to the Great
Depression of the 1930s. The World Bank Group was also founded in 1944 at
Bretton Woods. The World Bank initially helped rebuild Europe after the war
although today its focus is on economic growth and poverty reduction. In 1946, theCommission on Human Rights was established by the UN Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC). In 1948, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
was drawn up by 23 countries. This would later evolve into the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
13. Since that time, the UN and its agencies have played a major role in reinforcing awide variety of human rights (and eventually, environmental protection). In 1948, theUnited Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration
states that “every individual and organ of society” has the responsibility to strive to“promote respect for these rights and freedoms” and “by progressive measures,
national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition andobservance.”13 The Declaration notes that implementation relies not only on States
but also on other members of society. It would eventually lead to other instruments
such as the 1966 convenants on civil and political rights and more recently,
instruments concerning the protection of minority rights, of children and certain
nations. These instruments form integral components of the international legal regime
and complement national law.
14. In the immediate post-World War II period, as the United Nations and related
institutions were being established, the International Organization for Standardization(ISO) was formed. International standardization had initially started in theelectrotechnical field with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
established in 1906. Pioneering work in other fields was carried out by theInternational Federation of the National Standardizing Associations (ISA) which was
set up in 1926. The emphasis within ISA was laid heavily on mechanical engineering.
ISA’s activities came to an end in 1942. In 1946, delegates from 25 countries met in
London and decided to create a new international organization, of which the object
would be “to facilitate the international coordination and unification of industrial
standards.” 14 Today its mission is described as “to promote the development ofstandardization and related activities in the world with the view to facilitating theinternational exchange of goods.”15 Unlike the inter-governmental institutions of theUnited Nations, ISO was and is a non-governmental body, although many of its
national standards members are affiliated with their governments. Whereas the focusof the United Nations and related institutions tends to be on the development of
instruments which will be implemented by governments, the focus of ISO is more on
standards and other instruments which can be directly adopted by organizations insociety, be they state-based or otherwise. ISO standards are voluntary and market-

13

Available at: www.un.org/overview/rights.html
Information in this paragraph derived from: ISO, ISO in brief (Geneva: ISO, 2002).
15
From www.iso.ch
14

6

driven, although some have been adopted in some countries as part of their regulatory
framework.16
15. Taken together, the establishment of all these institutions (and others which
would follow, such as the United Nations Environment Program) represent an attempt
to develop a global rule-making and rule implementation infrastructure. The longterm objectives of this infrastructure can be seen to include the protection of human(including worker) rights, the eradication of poverty, environmental protection,encouragement of democracy and free elections around the world, economic
development and trade development including the free flow of goods and services
across borders. In a way, the fact that these long term objectives remain very much a“work in progress” is a major explanation for why the concept of corporate social
responsibility has risen to prominence. Corporate social responsibility attempts toaddress most of these same objectives through non-State, private sector actors andapproaches. This approach is controversial. Some are concerned that the effect will
be to create inadequate substitutes for the proper role of governments. Others do notshare this concern and deny that CSR activities constitute any intent to usurp Statebased roles or institutions, but rather to supplement them. CSR has risen toprominence in the latter part of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st century
in apparent recognition that up until now the international institutions put in place toaddress these issues have not been entirely successful.
16. Outside of the creation and operation of these new international institutions of the20th century, there continued to be a number of other significant developments
relevant to corporate social responsibility that occurred in the early period of the 20th
century. For example, the Pioneer Fund, the first socially responsible mutual fund,
was founded in 1928.17 Reflecting the fact that it was established by evangelicalProtestants who opposed consumption of alcohol and tobacco, the fund avoided
investment in companies that made liquor, cigars or cigarettes. Socially responsible
investing experienced a rise in popularity during the 1960s and 1970s over issues suchas environmental protection and promotion of equality rights, and continued to growthrough the 1980s with the debate over investing in South Africa, and into the 1990s
over a range of issues including the anti-tobacco movement, treatment of workers, andenvironmental protection. .According to a report issued in 2001, assets inprofessionally managed, socially-screened investment portfolios in the United Statesrose by 36% from 1999 to 2001, totaling $2.03 trillion.

16

ISO, together with the IEC and the International Telecommunication Union or ITU (a U.N. body)has built a partnership with the World Trade Organization with the common goal of promoting a free
and fair global trading system. The political agreements reached within the framework of the WTO
require underpinning by technical agreements. ISO also liaises with some 550 international andregional organizations interested in aspects of ISO’s standardization work. These include the 28 or sointernational standards-developing bodies outside the ISO/IEC system. Each of these bodies works in a
specific area, usually with a United Nations mandate; an example is the World Health Organization.
17
Per Eric Becker and Patrick McVeigh (of Trillium Investments), Social Funds in the United States:
Their History, Financial Performance and Social Impacts (Washington: Second National Heartland
Labor-Capital Conference, 1999). Note that the history of social investment stretches back hundreds ofyears and is rooted in Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions. Per: Social Investment Forum, 2003
Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States (Washington, SIF, December,2003), at p. 5.

7

17. Throughout this same period, there continued to be individual instances ofcorporations proactively engaging in what we would now describe as socially
responsible behaviour.18 There were also academic writings on the CSR topic. In the
1940s, Stanford Business School Professor Theodore Kreps used the term “social
audit” for the first time in relation to companies reporting on their social
responsibilities,19 but social responsibility of corporations was not systematically or
broadly supported by governments, private sector actors or civil society organizations
during this period. In 1949, German work councils were established in West
Germany, with worker representation on company boards and participation indecision-making.20 In Howard Bowen’s 1953 book Social Responsibilities of theBusinessman, the author argued that businessmen have an obligation “to pursue thosepolicies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which aredesirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society.”21 In the 1960s, George
Goyder, in his book The Responsible Corporation, further elaborated on the conceptof socially responsible corporations.22
18. The 1960s saw an awakening in public conscious concerning environmental
issues, with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring book concerning use of
DDT in 1962; the passage of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species in 1963; the passage of the U.S. Clean Air in 1963, the U.S. Wilderness Act
in 1964; the passage of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968, and thepassage of the National Environmental Policy Act and creation of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in 1969.23 The 1960s also saw a surge in public
interest in issues involving civil and political rights including equality of treatmentthat resulted in the creation of Amnesty International in 1961, the passage of the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1964, and the holding of the FirstWorld Conference on Human Rights in Tehran in 1968. During the 1960s, a numberof corporations operating in the US hired black workers from inner city communities
in response to public and political pressure for business to take positive measures toovercome discrimination and its deleterious effects. Eastman Kodak took theseactions following shareholder resolutions critical of Kodak’s hiring practices. Thiswas one of the first times when shareholder resolutions had been used to successfully
drive corporations to change their social practices.
19. A number of significant developments on both the environmental and social fronts
which were relevant to CSR took place in the 1970s. In 1961, WWF was founded andin 1971, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.. For the next three decades these andother NGOs played a significant role in Europe and North America in particular in thedevelopment of legislation and standards on environmental and social issues. During
18

For example, according to the Economist in footnote 1, “Procter & Gamble pioneered disability andretirement pensions (in 1915), the eight-hour day (in 1918) and, most important of all, guaranteed work
for at least 48 weeks a year (in the 1920s).” Another example is the Heinz company paying for worker
education.
19
Per RMIT University, Global Sustainability: The History/Time Line of an Idea (September, 2001),
downloadable at: http://www.global.rmit.edu.au/resources/historyofanidea_25.07.01.pdf
20
Per Iain Ferguson and Caspar Henderson, Corporate Timeline (12-03-2003), downloadable at:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-7-1035.jsp
21
Howard Bowen, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (New York: Harper, 1953).
22
G. Goyder, The Responsible Corporation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961).
23
Per RMIT University, Global Sustainability: The History/Time Line of an Idea (September, 2001),
downloadable at: http://www.global.rmit.edu.au/resources/historyofanidea_25.07.01.pdf

8

this period effective environmental and social groups started to emerge in developing
countries notably the “Third World Network,” while "northern" NGOs began toestablish local and sometimes autonomous branches in the developing world and incountries with economies in transition.. By the late 1980s and early1990s there wereliterally thousands of NGOs globally working on the three pillars of sustainable
development social, environmental and economic issues. In 1972, the United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment was convened in Stockholm, Sweden andsparked global debate on environmental issues. This led to the Stockholm Declarationon the Human Environment. Following the conference, the United Nations General
Assembly established the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to act on therecommendations of the Stockholm meeting. This led to the development of a wide
number of environmental treaties as well as follow up UN environment conferences
and conventions in subsequent decades (as discussed below). On the human rights
front, investors in many jurisdictions put economic pressure on South Africa to end its
apartheid regime. .A number of companies reacted by endorsing initiatives such as the
Sullivan Principles that promoted notions of gender, racial, and other types of
equality.24 The 1970s was also a time when newly independent countries became
alarmed by the perceived threat to their sovereignty posed by the power wielded bylarge multinational enterprises.25 This led to the creation of the United Nations Groupof Eminent Persons to Study the Role of Multinational Corporations on Development
and on International Relations, and was followed by the establishment of a United
Nations Centre for Transnational Corporations and work on a UN Code of Conduct
for Transnational Corporations. Work on the UN Code became bogged down
(although not over the social provisions) and was later formally abandoned. That sameera saw the promulgation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (first
adopted in 1976),26 developed in the context of facilitating foreign investment. The
OECD Guidelines reflect the consensus by all of the OECD member governments as
to what constitutes responsible business behaviour. Its adoption was fully supported
by representative employers and workers organizations having consultative status
with the OECD. In the revision of the OECD Guidelines that took place in 2000 it was
explicitly indicated that enterprises should apply the Guidelines wherever they dobusiness – not just in the OECD area. It is interesting to note that the first item in alist of eleven items in the chapter on General Policies concerns sustainable
development.
20. Adopted in 1977, the ILO Tripartite Declaration concerning Multinational
Enterprises and social policy represented the first comprehensive and universally
applicable international instrument explicitly dedicated to the social responsibilities ofbusiness27 . The ILO Declaration received the support of both developed and24

In 1977, Leon Howard Sullivan, the first black member of the board of the General Motors
Corporation, secured GM’s support in the development of the Sullivan Principles, a code of conduct for
American businesses operating in South Africa. The princples were later widened for universal
application.
25
The involvement of the multinational ITT in Chile in the 1970 overthrow of the Allende government
seems to be regarded as a key event which demonstrated the sort of threat that could be posed by large
MNEs. For discussion of the role of ITT, see Paul Sigmund, “The "Invisible Blockade" and theOverthrow of Allende,” Foreign Affairs Vol 52, No. 2 (January 1974).
26
The most recent version of the Guidelines can be downloaded at:
http://www.oecd.org/document/28/0,2340,en_2649_34889_2397532_1_1_1_1,00.html
27
The Declaration can be downloaded at:
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/norm/sources/mne.htm#added9

developing country governments as well as that of employers and workers. As adeclaration, it is not an international treaty or convention, but rather a part ofinternational “soft law”. One of the most significant aspects of the ILO Tripartite
Declaration was its understanding that although ILO Conventions andRecommendations addressed the behavior of governments and were intended to be
ratified by governments, the underlying principles of many of these instruments could
be applied to other parts of society including business.
21. The 1980s saw continued developments on a number of CSR-relevant fronts. On
the environmental side, the United Nations Charter for Nature was passed in 1982.
Among other things, the Charter stipulated that “[s]tates and, to the extent they areable…corporations shall co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common
activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange andconsultations; establish standards for products and other manufacturing processes that
may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for assessingthese effects.” A Union Carbide chemical factory in Bhopal exploded in 1984, killing
4000 people and raising questions about multinational corporations operating pursuant
to differential corporate standards of care in developed and developing countries. In
1987, the UN Montreal Protocol to phase out use of ozone depleting chemicals was
signed by 24 countries. Research investments by the private sector proved crucial indeveloping substitutes for the ubiquitous CFC family of chemicals which had been
identified as major ozone depleting sources . Public-private partnerships were formed
to find ozone-friendly solutions for products and processes where it had never beenthought possible.28
22. In 1981 UNEP, IUCN and WWF published the World Conservation Strategy
which established the first principles and guidelines for conservation and sustainable
development.29 In 1987, the UN Brundtland Commission published its report Our
Common Future which popularized the notion of sustainable development(development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”30 The report highlighted threefundamental components to sustainable development: environmental protection,
economic growth and social equity. Its prescriptions were as relevant to corporations
as they are to governments and other organizations. In 1988-89, the UNEP Basel
Convention concerning the transboundary movement of hazardous waste wasadopted. The year 1989 was also the year that the Exxon Valdez spill took place off
the coast of Alaska, which lead to consumer boycotts, and the development of the“Valdez Principles” (a ten point code of corporate environmental conduct to be
publicly endorsed by companies as an environmental mission statement or ethic) by acoalition of socially responsible investment firms and public pension funds, inalliance with environmentalists called CERES.31 This Coalition would eventually rename the Valdez principles the “CERES principles.”28

Per Richard E. Benedick, “The Indispensable Element in the Montreal Ozone Protocol,” (Columbia
Earth Institute, 1999), downloadable at:
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/library/earthmatters/sept1999/pages/page4.html
29This was followed in 1991 by "Caring for the Earth" which set a blueprint for implementation of theWorld Conservation Strategy.
30
For more information, go to: http://www.brundtlandnet.com/brundtlandreport.htm
31
Per http://www.ceres.org/about/history.htm

1023. Corporate activity outside of the environmental context also attracted
international public attention. In 1984, Nestlé met with the organizers of a consumer
boycott staged over its promotion of baby milk formula. It marked one of the firsttimes an international movement of ordinary people stimulated a transnational
corporation to change its behaviour over a social issue.32 Nestlé agreed to abide by
the WHO’s Code of Marketing for Breast Milk Substitutes, although pressure groups
maintained that violations continued, and so did the boycott. Throughout the 1980s,
issues such as foreign direct investment (FDI), and their connection with
globalization, started to attract increasing public attention. Many governments
adopted export-led growth models and actively sought to attract FDI. Related to this,the World Bank and other international financial institutions encouraged developed
and developing countries to put in place policies of privatization, deregulation andtrade liberalization.33 Policies of foreign direct investment, privatization,
deregulation, and trade liberalization all facilitated transnational private sector
activity, and in so doing, increased attention on what role corporations could play inensuring that their activities were conducted in a socially responsible manner.
24. During this period, public concern about, and business response to, questions
concerning private sector impacts on workers and communities, the environment, andissues associated with “corporate ethics” (encompassing notions of legal compliance,
shareholder relations, corporate governance, and good practices towards customers34),
which had been attracting attention as individual “streams,” started to come together
to be treated as a cohesive whole. .Increasing numbers of corporations began to makeconcerted efforts to report and demonstrate to consumers, communities, workers,
investors, non-governmental organizations, and others, of socially responsible
activities that they were undertaking.35
25. In 1992, the UN Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Building on thetheme of sustainable development, the “Rio Summit” led to the Rio Declaration, aFramework Convention on Climate Change, a Framework Convention on
Biodiversity, the UN Convention to Combat Dessertification, the establishment of the
32

Information from Iain Ferguson and Caspar Henderson, Corporate Timeline (12-03-2003),
downloadable at: http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-7-1035.jsp
33
The push for reforms in these and other areas came to be known as elements of something called“the Washington Consensus.” For more information, see John Williamson, “What Should the WorldBank Think about the Washington Consensus?”, in World Bank Research Observer, voll 15, no. 2(Aigust 2000), pp. 251 – 264.
34
The first corporate ethics office was created in 1985 by General Dynamics, which was being
investigated by the U.S. government for pricing scams. Under pressure from the Defence Department, agroup of 60 or so defence companies then launched an initiative to set up guidelines and complianceprogrammes. In 1991, federal sentencing rules extended the incentive to other industries: judges were
empowered to reduce fines in cases involving companies that had rules in place to promote ethicalbehaviour, and to increase them for those that did not. Per The Economist, “Doing well by doing
good,” April 20, 2000.
35
In 1989, Ben & Jerry’s (B&J’s) commissioned a “social auditor” to work with the B&J staff on areport covering the previous year’s activities at B&J. The social auditor recommended that the reportbe called a “stakeholders report) and that it be divided into the major stakeholder categories;
communities (community outreach, philanthropic giving, environmental awareness, global awareness),
employees, customers, suppliers and investors. Per: Alice and John Tepper Marlin, “A brief history ofsocial reporting,” An Article from Busiensss Respect, Issue Number 51, dated 9 March 2003,
downloadable at: http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/page.php?Story_ID=857 In 1989, theNetherlands was the first country to offer a “FairTrade” (Max Havelaar )label to denote that producers
were receiving an equitable share of the profits from the goods supplied.

11

World Bank's Environmental Grants arm the Global Environment Facility, and a 21
point agenda for action.36 Although governments (especially those of developed
countries) were to lead the way in reducing poverty and minimizing environmental
impact of economic activity, the agenda emphasized that all parties can play a part intackling non-sustainable practices. Through the creation of the Business Council for
Sustainable Development, the business community acknowledged its responsibility tocontribute to the dialogue concerning environmental, economic and social issues. An"Earth Charter" was launched in Rio, promoted vigorously by Mikhail Gorbachev andRudd Lubbers (Prime Minister of the Netherlands) with the objective "to bring forth asustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights,
economic justice, and a culture of peace.”
26. The United Nations also held world meetings on major social issues during thisperiod. In 1995 the United Nations World Summit for Social Development held in
Copenhagen reinforced the link between economic and social development andpledged governments to work for full employment, with quality jobs and respect for
the relevant ILO Conventions. Both the World Conference Against Racism held in
Durban in 2001 and the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995
adopted declarations and action plans that called upon business to address specificsocial problems.
27. Beginning in 1992 with the adoption by Levi Strauss of its Global Sourcing andOperating Guidelines, companies involved in the manufacture or marketing of brandname goods produced through international outsourcing began to adopt codes oflabour practice intended to be applied by their suppliers and sub-contractors. These
companies were responding to negative publicity surrounding reports of inhumane
hours, starvation wages, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions and the use of childlabour in the garment, footwear, toy as well as in other sectors involving labourintensive manufacturing. Throughout the 1990’s and beyond there was a proliferationof these codes. The codes produced considerable controversy and raised manyquestions concerning their provisions such as how they could be implemented andhow claims made about their implementation or compliance could be verified. In
addition to many unilaterally adopted codes by sourcing companies, these codes were
promulgated by industry associations and by “multi-stakeholder initiative” involving
non-governmental organizations and sometimes trade unions.37 The implementationand verification challenges of these supplier codes gave rise to a new industry ofcommercial services offering private inspection services, and code compliancecertification including those involving some form of private standard-setting andaccreditation. These developments had significant influence on the concept ofcorporate social responsibility. Some of the most well known organizations
associated with this issue were formed in the late 1990’s and include the Ethical
Trading Initiative,38 the Fair Labor Association,39 and Social Accountability
International (SAI). 40
36

Per sustainable design: Sustainable Development Timeline, downloadable at:
http://www.a420.com/design/SD-timeline.htm
37
There is a discussion on the meaning of the term “stakeholders” and the importance of stakeholders
to social responsibility below.
38
The U.K. Ethical Trading Initiative was established in 1998. For more information, go to:
http://www.ethicaltrade.org/
39
Created in 1998. Per http://www.fairlabor.org/all/about/index.html
40Founded in 1997. For more information, go to: http://www.cepaa.org/

1228. Similar questions of implementation, verification and certification wereencountered by various fair trade organizations seeking to address the trading
relationships between small producers of mainly commodity products of developing
countries (such as agricultural products) and consumers in developed countries
through the use of “fair trade labeling schemes. .As an umbrella organization for these
initiatives, the Fair Trade Labeling Organization (FLO) was founded in 1997 to set
Fair Trade standards for various National Labeling Organizations. 41
29. In 1993, driven in part by the failure of an inter-governmental process to develop
a global sustainable forestry convention, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) was
created by environmental organizations, businesses, and others.42 The FSC hasdeveloped principles, criteria and standards to address environmental, social andeconomic aspects of forestry harvesting. There are now more than 42 million hectaresof forests which have been certified as meeting FSC standards.43 Competingsustainable forestry initiatives have been created by a number of other bodies.44 Thereis now also a Marine Stewardship Council that certifies sustainable fishery practices.
.An alliance of international standard-setting, certification and accreditation
organizations that focus on social and environmental issues, the International Socialand Environmental Accreditation Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) was established in
2000, and includes FSC, MSC, FLO, SAI, and others.45
30. In 1995, the multinational energy corporation Shell was the subject of allegationsof complicity in the death of Ken Saro-Wiwa in Nigeria, and was also criticized by
Greenpeace concerning its plans to sink the Brent Spar oil platform in the North Sea.
This would lead Shell to adopt a global approach to sustainability/corporate social
responsibility which is still evolving to this day. . A number of other companies andindustry associations have now developed CSR oriented codes of conduct.46
31. In 1996, ISO introduced its ISO 14000 environmental management systems seriesof standards.47 The ISO 14000 series emerged primarily as a result of the Uruguay
round of the GATT negotiations and the Rio Summit on the Environment held in
1992. While GATT concentrated on the need to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade, theRio Summit generated a commitment to protection of the environment across theworld. The environmental field had seen a steady growth of national and regional
standards. After the rapid acceptance of ISO 9000, and the increase of environmental
standards around the world, ISO assessed the need for international environmental
management standards. They formed the Strategic Advisory Group on theEnvironment (SAGE) in 1991, to consider whether such standards could serve to:41

In 1997, a group of organizations devoted to fair treatment of producers came together under theumbrella “Fairtrade Labelling Organization”in order to better coordinate their activities. Per
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/about_history.htm
42
Information from: http://www.fscus.org/about_us/
43
Per FSC News+Notes, March ,2004.
44
Such as the Canadian Standards Association’s sustainable forest management standard, and thesustainable forestry initiative of the American Forest and Paper Association. See discussion in :http://www.codesofconduct.org/company.htm
45
For more information concerning ISEAL, go to: http://www.isealalliance.org/
46
For more information, go to: http://www.codesofconduct.org/industry.htm
47
The following information is from: http://www.quality.co.uk/iso14000.htm#history

13

•
•
•

Promote a common approach to environmental management similar to quality
management;
Enhance organizations’ ability to attain and measure improvements inenvironmental performance; andFacilitate trade and remove trade barriers.

32. In 1992, SAGE's recommendations led to the creation of a new ISO TechnicalCommittee, TC 207, for international environmental management standards. The
committee, and its sub-committees include representatives from industry, standards
organizations, government and environmental organizations from many countries.
The new series of ISO14000 standards are designed to cover: environmental
management systems, environmental auditing, environmental performance evaluation,
environmental labeling, life-cycle assessment, and environmental aspects in productstandards. Today there are close to 50,000 firms around the world that have obtained
ISO 14001 registration, in addition to well over 500,000 firms which have obtained
ISO 9001 certification.48
33. Another area of private standard-setting to emerge in the late 1990’s concernedsocial or sustainability reporting. In response to demands for greater accountability
and transparency companies began to publish “social reports” or “sustainability
reports.” This type of reporting was also being driven by investors concerned with thegrowing importance attached to various non-financial and often intangible aspects of acorporation such as reputation that affected the value of a company. Investors werealso concerned about evidence of risk management in terms of the liability ofcompanies. .In responding to these demands some companies, together with elementsof the financial accounting industry, began to promote the idea for internationallyagreed reporting standards in this area. The most significant development in thisregard was the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) which was established to develop
and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines for reportingon the economic, environmental and social dimensions of activities, products orservices. The GRI is a multi-stakeholder standard-setting organization whose
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines reflect many of the internationally recognizedenvironmental and social standards.49 The GRI began as a project of a US
environmental organization CERES (discussed earlier) with support from the UN
Environmental Programme. In 2002, GRI became independent, and is an official
collaborating center of the UNEP. GRI works in cooperation with UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan’s Global Compact. Today over 400 companies in over 40
countries use the GRI reporting guidelines. A private standard concerning
accountability assurance for sustainability reporting, and for stakeholder engagement
has also been developed.50
34. In 1999, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan called on business to embrace, support and enact a set of corevalues in the areas of human rights, labour standards and environmental practices. In
July 2000, theUN Global Compact was launched as a voluntary corporate citizenshipinitiative involving business, labour, civil society organizations and governments.
The Global Compact is based on nine universal principles derived from the Universal
48

Per http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2003/Ref864.html
Per http://www.globalreporting.org/about/brief.asp
50
See discussion of AA1000 and related initiatives, per http://www.accountability.org.uk/
49

14

Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the Rio Declaration on Environmentand Development. Participating companies agree to internalize the Compact and its
principles and to engage civil society and labour in dialogue in order to facilitate
cooperation and resolve problems. The Global Compact involves five core agencies:
the International Labour Organization,, United Nations Environment Programme andUnited Nations High Commissionrer for Human Rights, the United Nations
Development Programme and United Nations Industrial Development Organisation.
The Global Compact provides an interface between business and the UN, and receives
its license to operate from the UN Global Assembly.
35. In 1999 the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights established a working group that began work on a new international instrument
concerning business and human rights. In August 2003, the Sub-Commission
approved the text of the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations
and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights and transmitted it to theUnited Nations Commission on Human Rights for consideration. The SubCommission is a subsidiary body of the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
comprised of 26 experts nominated by governments and elected by the Commission
on Human Rights but who act in their personal capacity. The Sub-Commission'sfunction is to undertake research studies. Unlike the inter-governmental Commission
on Human Rights, States are observers at meetings and are not in a position tonegotiate texts of documents and resolutions of the Sub-Commission.51 . In April
2004 the Human Rights Commission asked the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights to prepare a report setting out the scope and legal status of existing
initiatives and standards relating to the responsibility of transnational corporations andrelated business enterprises with regard to human rights, including, the draft Norms,
to consult with all relevant stakeholders in compiling the report, and to submit thereport to the 2005 session of the Commission.
36. In 2000, the OECD completed a revision of its Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises. In a statement of the Chair of the OECD Committee which developed the
Guidelines, the Chair noted “[t]he ongoing support and involvement of the business
community, labour representatives and non-governmental organizations will be
crucial if the revised Guidelines are to be a useful reference point and tool for
promoting corporatesocial responsibility.”
37. In 2000, the ILO published a revision of its Tripartite Declaration of Principles
concerning multinational enterprises and social policy. Among other things both therevised OECD and ILO instruments were changed to incorporate all of the humanrights principles that were identified by the ILO in its 1998 Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow Up.
38. The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in
Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters - known as the
Aarhus Convention after the Danish city where it was adopted in June 1998 - seeks to
51

They may offer short comments but, because there is very little time available for this purpose, mostStates tend to refrain from actively participating in the discussions and simply observe what the experts
have to say on a particular topic.

15

strengthen the role of members of the public and environmental organizations inprotecting and improving the environment for the benefit of future generations.
Through its recognition of citizens' environmental rights to information, participationand justice, it aims to promote greater accountability and transparency inenvironmental matters. While the Convention is an instrument to protect theenvironment, it may also be seen as an instrument promoting democracy. Specifically,
it aims to:•allow members of the public greater access to environmental information heldby public authorities, thereby increasing the transparency and accountability of
government;•

provide an opportunity for people to express their opinions and concerns onenvironmental matters and ensure that decision makers take due account ofthese;•

provide the public with access to review procedures when their rights to
information and participation have been breached, and in some cases tochallenge more general violations of environmental law.

In practical terms, this means, for instance, that local residents must be given a say in
new road schemes or in the siting of household waste incinerators. It enacts theprinciples of Pollution Release Transfers allowing public access to information on
toxic inventories. Members of the public also have a right to know what state theirenvironment is in and, in some circumstances, to sue governments or polluters that
attempt to cover up environmental disasters.
39. In 2002, the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development was held in
Johannesburg.The important role of the private sector in contributing to sustainable
development was emphasized on a number of occasions. The political declaration
stated the following:
We agree that in pursuit of their legitimate activities the private sector, bothlarge and small companies, have a duty to contribute to the evolution ofequitable and sustainable communities and societies. We agree that there is aneed for private sector corporations to enforce corporate accountability. Thisshould take place within a transparent and stable regulatory environment.52
In the Plan of Implementation, both ISO and the Global Reporting Initiative were
explicitly referenced, in a call for States to….enhance corporate environmental and social responsibility and accountability.
This would include actions at all levels to…encourage industry to improve socialand environmental performance through voluntary initiatives, including
environmental management systems, codes of conduct, certification and public
reporting on environmental and social issues, taking into account such initiatives
as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards and Global
Reporting Initiative guidelines on sustainability reporting, bearing in mind
principle 11 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development…..[and]52Per
http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/1009wssd_pol_declaration.doc

16encourage dialogue between enterprises and the communities in which they
operate and other stakeholders….53
40. A final factor influencing today’s debates concerning CSR has been the spate ofcorporate governance, wrongdoings and scandals around the world, from Enron andWorldCom in the USA, to Parmalat in Europe, to Snow Brand in Japan. Although
issues associated with corporate governance have received critical attention from asearly as the 1920s, these issues re-surfaced in the 1990s through initiatives such as theCadbury Report in the U.K., and has taken on renewed prominence in light of thecorporate scandals of recent years.
41. In addition to the interest in promoting private voluntary initiatives associatedwith corporate social responsibility there has been increased interest inintergovernmental co-operation in relation to the legal and institutional frameworks
that countries establish to hold management accountable. This has included work on
corporate governance, on corruption in business transactions and on standards ofaccounting and reporting. To date, much of this work has taken place at the OECDbut has also involved the United Nations organizations which at the end of 2003
adopted a Convention against corruption.
42. With this background, an analysis of the current conception of CSR can now be
discussed. What seems clear is that the present form of CSR emerged in the 1990’s
and represents a convergence of ideas and developments many of which are relatively
recent. These ideas and developments do not have the same origins. Several of themost important developments and influences on the current concept of corporatesocial responsibility are described below:
•
•
•
•
•
•

globalization
trade liberalization, regulatory reform
environmental/sustainable development dimensions
labour/supply chain/codes of conduct dimensions
accelerating environmental degradation in spite of many initiatives
marginalization of large sectors of society as a byproduct of development

1.1.1 Globalization
43. One reason why CSR/SR has come into prominence is the confluence of factors
associated with globalization. Globalization can be seen as a complex process ofinterdependency or convergence resulting from the dramatically increasing exchange
in goods, information, services and capital. In his now famous address to the World
Economic Forum in 1999 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stressed the unevennessof the benefits of globalization and its fragility and the need to give globalization ahuman face.
44. Increasingly, companies have global supply chains which link them to many
communities around the world. Such global supply chains can facilitate the ability offirms to “outsource” both work and responsibility and be flexible in a highly53

Per http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm The
WSSD also called for legislation in support of sustainable development.

17

competitive market. A number of multinational firms have adopted codes of conduct
concerning their social, economic and environmental activities around the world.
Codes of conduct covering labour practices of suppliers can be seen as a method forfirms to take on some degree of responsibility over workers throughout the supply
chain. Accompanying the process of globalization has been a growing belief,
particularly among citizens of Western nations, that corporations are societal actors
whose activities have significant impacts in the communities in which they operate,
and that they should exercise high standards of care wherever they operate. It is
increasingly seen to be no longer acceptable for corporations to behave well “athome” while violating basic norms of consumer, worker, environmental andcommunity protection elsewhere.54
45. Consumer, environmental, human rights, worker, religious, and other nongovernmental organizations have taken an increasingly important role in promoting
the concept of corporate social responsibility and sustainability, particularly throughtheir efforts to develop standards and certification programs, as discussed earlier.
Aided by advances in telecommunications and information technology, it is now
possible to better track corporate misbehaviour wherever it might be, and tocommunicate monitoring information around the globe virtually instantaneously. CSR
can be seen as one of many responses to well-publicized incidents of apparent
corporate misbehaviour such as Shell in Nigeria, the Exxon Valdez oil spill off thecoast of Alaska, the Snow Brand scandal in Japan, Enron in the United States, , theissue of child labour in production of sports shoes, apparel and other products, whichhave been reported around the world. The modern CSR phenomenon can be seen bepart of the response to these incidents.
1.1.2 Trade Liberalization and Regulatory Reform
46. Another important influence shaping the current conception of CSR can be traced
to the consequences of trade and investment liberalization, regulatory reform andprivatization policies of governments in the last twenty years. The United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has observed the following:
Privatization, deregulation and liberalization create more space for firms topursue their corporate objectives. Should this expansion of action, space andrights be accompanied by an increase in corporate responsibilities? In theinternational context, this question attracts particular attention because
transnational corporations (TNCs) are one of the principal forces foradvancing the virtues of globalization. They are also seen to be the mostimportant beneficiaries of the liberalization of investment and trade regimes,
with rising influence on the development of the world economy and its
54

In late 1999, Environics International conducted a poll of 25,000 consumers in 23 countries whichindicated the increasing importance consumers are putting on the social responsibility leadership ofcompanies. 67% of consumers in North America and Oceania had “punished” (or considered doingsame) a company seen as not socially responsible in the year 1998-1999, or rewarded a company which
had behaved in a socially responsible manner. For the purposes of the survey, punishment was definedas consumers avoiding a product or speaking out about the company. This compared with 53% ofconsumers in Northern Europe, 40% of those from the Mediterranean region, 37% of Africans, and
31% of Latin Americans and Eastern Europeans. Per Environics International News Release,“Consumers Worldwide Expect Business to Achieve Social as Well as Economic Goals,” (September
30, 1999).

18

constituent parts. The concept of “social responsibility” captures the search foran answer to this question. It implies that firms have obligations that go
beyond what countries require individually, and agreements prescribeinternationally. The assumption of greater social responsibility by TNCs
would be particularly important in light of the economic and social disruptions
that accompany the globalization process, which – if not tackled – could
threaten the very framework within which firms build their international
production systems.55
47. CSR can be seen to fit well with governmental initiatives seeking less costly
means of governing or at least supplementing conventional regulatory approaches,such as engaging in and promoting public-private partnerships, and using nongovernmental organizations as service providers. However, these developments havenot always been viewed positively by those concerned that neither non-governmentalorganizations nor businesses can substitute for the role of governments.
48. In important ways, the modern phenomenon of CSR seems to have arisen due toan apparent lack of capacity of many governments to effectively provide social
services and enforce their laws (especially in countries with low economic
development).56 In fact, some would argue that a key driver behind many recent CSR
initiatives has been civil society’s frustration with the ability of governments toadequately address the world’s growing social and environmental problems. There
have also been ongoing concerns expressed by some sectors of society, and inparticular developing countries, over ensuring a more equitable distribution of theeconomic benefits of trade liberalization and globalization. In this challenging
environment, some firms are voluntarily undertaking CSR initiatives which aredesigned to demonstrate to citizens, consumers, workers, communities, partners in the
supply chain, governments and others, their commitment to meeting laws and societal
norms, by showing that they are complying with laws, meeting societal norms andmaking positive societal contributions.57 CSR often also involves firms making socialand environmental commitments and implementing programs which exceed anything
required by laws. Governments are also showing an increasing interest in supporting
self-regulation initiatives and partnerships which further or support public policy
agendas.58 When firms take the initiative to publicly demonstrate that their operations
meet or exceed requirements stipulated in laws and societal norms, they are in a better
position to communicate to interested parties that they are engaging in systematic
approaches to risk management, and thus protecting their reputations and potentially
opening doors to new commercial opportunities. The public reporting andcommunications aspects of corporate social responsibility and sustainability emerged
as an important trend from the 1970s onward.

55

UNCTAD, The Social Responsibility of Transnational Corporations (NY and Geneva: United
Nations, 1999), at p. 1.
56
Although government incapacity to enforce laws is a particularly acute problem in many developing
countries, it is also an issue in developed countries, where many governments are attempting tominimize tax burden by reducing their budgets, which in some cases is leading to a lessening emphasison enforcement.
57
Note that while compliance with laws is mandatory, public reporting by businesses on systems they
have put in place to ensure compliance with laws is usually not required by law.
58
For example, over 250 “type 2” international government-industry partnerships were launched in the
run up to, at, or after the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development.

19

1.1.3 Environmental/Sustainable Development aspects
49. Particularly from the 1960s onward, the environmental performance ofcorporations emerged as an area of considerable public concern, and lead to manydifferent initiatives. One very important influence has been the rise to prominence ofthe concept of sustainable development, particularly as articulated in the U.N.
Brundtland Commission (1986), the U.N. Rio Conference on Sustainable
Development (1992)59 and the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development (2002). Sustainable development is defined as “development that meetsthe needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations tomeet their needs.” It is considered to refer to three pillars of development, economic,
social and environmental. Sustainable development is as much directed atgovernments as it is at business and civil society actors. As such it is a broader
concept than social responsibility initiatives directed solely at businesses. Indeed,
CSR has been described as “the business contribution to sustainable development.”60
50. Initially, the social dimension of sustainability received less attention than theenvironmental dimension, and it is only in recent years that social aspects havebecome more prominent in the sustainability debate. Social dimensions are often
more difficult to quantify than environmental aspects, and very few sustainability
initiatives have been able to integrate in a meaningful way social, environmental andeconomic indicators. There is also potential for confusion between societal
sustainability and the sustainability of a business enterprise in terms of its ability tosurvive and make a profit.. While a business could be profitable in the narrow shortterm sense through ruthless practices in terms of workers, customers, theenvironment, etc., some stress that making a short-term profit may not make anenterprise sustainable over the long term. Businesses that strive for “businesssustainability” recognize that, just as with societal sustainability, they must take thelong-term view. Many proponents of CSR advocate that in order to remain in businessover the long term, and to make continuing profits for future generations ofshareholders, businesses should implement policies that coincide with the interests ofsociety.
51. An underlying basis for CSR is the idea that there is a “business case” (or businessjustification) for corporate responsibility, revolving primarily around the idea thatmeasures that are good for the environment or other societal interests can also be goodfor the financial performance of a company. There are, for example, cost savings to begained by being more energy efficient. The notion that “doing good can reap
economic benefits”emerged largely from the environmental context and has also
influenced the concept of CSR. In particular, the belief arose that the non-financial
performance of an enterprise could be objectively managed, measured, reported,
audited and certified in ways similar to management, measurement, reporting,auditing and certifying takes place with respect to financial performance of acompany (witness the development of financial sustainability indexes such as that ofDomini, and of non-financial performance rating. This thinking seems to lie behind59

The ISO 14000 environmental management series of standards can be seen as part of the business
response to the 1992 Rio Conference.
60
E.g., see statement to this effect by Anna Diamantopoulou, Employment and Social Affairs
Commissioner to the European Commission, at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2002/oct/173_en.html

20

rapid and widespread acceptance of the term “triple bottom line” which links
financial, environmental and social performance of companies.61
52. Yet another aspect of the environmental influence was the ecological approach tosocial issues represented in the concept of stakeholders. The concept of stakeholders
is discussed in greater detail later in the report. In its broadest sense, stakeholders canbe considered to be anyone affected by the activities of an enterprise, or whose
activities affect the enterprise. The introduction and acceptance of concepts such as
the “polluter pays” and “precautionary principle” have both been influential for CSR
and have been promoted by NGOs as such. It should be emphasized that the triple
bottom line is not in itself an assurance of good behaviour when, for example, theenvironment may be used as a free dump for toxic waste, etc.. Stakeholders generally
expect corporations to approach social issues by identifying the “impact” of theiractivities just as environmentalists expect corporations to identify the corporate
impact (their “footprint”) of their activities on the environment. . Additional pressure
for change is emerging from re-insurance companies and concerns arising from theimminent implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Companies with large carbon
budgets are likely to find business increasingly expensive and legal challenges, linked
to financial liability, to ongoing excessive releases of greenhouse gases are becoming
more likely.
1.1.4 Labour/Supply Chain/Codes of Conduct Dimensions
53. The focus of discussion here is on labour-oriented codes of conduct only, and is
not intended to diminish the role of importance of codes of conduct that address otherissues relevant to social responsibility. The adoption by companies of codes of labour
practice meant to be applied by their suppliers had a profound influence on thedevelopment of the present concept and practice of social responsibility. The suppliercodes are important to the evolution of the CSR concept because they addressquestions of business responsibility raised by two significant and long term
developments:- the impact of the new forms of business organization and relationships brought
about in large part by outsourcing and subcontracting (supply chains). This may
make it easier for business to avoid responsibilities it would otherwise have toundertake, at the same time as various pressures may be making it difficult forsome governments to fulfill their responsibilities. Companies adopted suppliercodes in an attempt to assure that their suppliers were observing labour standards
even where the authorities had not adopted or were not enforcing compliance withthem.
- recognition of the increasing importance of intangibles including brand names andreputation in determining the value of an enterprise. The supplier codes havebecome a means of “risk management” for brand reputation. Codes andmanagement systems addressing other reputation risks, such as possible bribery
and corruption scandals, were also developed. Risk management became a strong
61

However, experts are beginning to turn their attention to the business justification for the full triple
bottom line, and are finding it promising: "The return on investment from aggressively improving
company-wide sustainable development knowledge and initiatives can make other traditional
investment opportunities seem trivial." Per Bob Willard, The Sustainability Advantage: Seven
Business Case Benefits of a Triple Bottom Line (British Columbia: New Society Publishers, 2002).

21

component in the “business case” or justification for business engaging in social
responsibility activities, as did codes of conduct.
These codes raise questions concerning how companies that are adopting them could
implement them and demonstrate to the public that the terms of the codes are actuallyrespected. The search for answers to these sorts of questions has led to a number ofprivate standard-setting initiatives in the social area, as well as an industry of private
labour inspectors, or social auditors, and related multi-stakeholder initiatives whichhave had a profound impact on the CSR phenomenon.
54. Another influence on the present concept of CSR stems from human resource
development (HRD) ideas concerning the retention or training of the workforce.
Existing thinking and practices in this area fit well with the CSR concept. Companies
have come to describe their HRD policies as an aspect of their social responsibility
towards their employee “stakeholders.” Industrial relations and collective bargaining
are rarely mentioned, even when the subject is the company’s relations with its
employees. It should be noted that employee retention is less of an issue forcompanies that outsource much of their work. Moreover, these kinds of HRD policies
do not have much of a role in environments where basic human rights are not wellrespected.
1.1.5 Conclusions Regarding Origins and Evolution of the CSR Concept
55. In conclusion, while CSR has had a growing profile since the 1990s, it is not anentirely new phenomenon, and indeed has its roots in earlier times. Whereas the earlyforms of what would now be called CSR often had strong religious, paternalistic andphilanthropic aspects, the modern conception of CSR more directly focuses on day to
day business practices and their impact on a range of stakeholders. The modern
conception of CSR has been developed against a backdrop of domestic legal
instruments and international norms, responds to new ways of conducting business in
the global marketplace (such as the use of global supply chains), as well as changes ingovernment capacity and different approaches to regulation. A number of modern“soft law” inter-governmental instruments target corporate behaviour directly, such as
the ILO Tripartite Declaration, the UN Global Compact, and the OECD Guidelines
for Multinational Enterprises. CSR in its modern form also seems to reflect aheightened public desire to assure that firms behave in a socially responsible mannerin all jurisdictions where they do business, and report publicly on their behaviour..
Investment interests, multinationals, and non-governmental organizations indeveloped countries have played significant roles in promoting the CSR concept.
56. Key aspects of what is now referred to as corporate social responsibility have been
identified and managed by some members of the business community for some time.
Policies and business practices have been developed in the areas of worker, consumer,
environmental and human rights protection, sourcing guidelines, codes of conduct,
ethics and compliance, community engagement, and corporate philanthropy. Indeed,
developing and implementing policies and strategies in these areas have become partof what is generally considered sound management. The concept of corporate social
responsibility integrates these complexes and evolving activities into a single
framework that supports business objectives, promotes dialogue with key

22

stakeholders, and can advance a social public policy agenda.
1.2 Key Trends and Catalysts for Social Responsibility
57. Social responsibility in its current form is a reflection of a number of trends inrecent years. Future developments are likely to be shaped by a number of identifiable
forces or catalysts. Both trends and catalysts are briefly discussed here.
1.2.1

Recent Social Responsibility Trends

58. Apart from what has been said above, some key trends have affected thedevelopment of the concept of social responsibility:---

the growing number of international instruments of inter-governmental bodies
such as the UN, ILO and OECD which articulate at a global level basic societal
norms of acceptable conduct;advances in communication technology and in media, which enhance the ability to
track corporate activities around the world and to quickly disseminate information
concerning these activities;
the increasingly significant role of multinational corporations in the exchanges ofgoods, services and in investment;
increased public disclosure by corporations on economic, social andenvironmental aspects of their behaviour;
increased recognition of the importance of intangible assets in the balance sheet ofcorporations, and increased recognition of the importance of reputation in
determining the value of a business.

1.2.2 Catalysts for Social Responsibility
59. Future developments in social responsibility are likely to be shaped by a numberof identifiable forces or catalysts or drivers which are already in play, including:- the rise in significance of globalization, increased trade in goods and services
across borders, the importance of multinational enterprises, and the prevalenceof global supply chains;- the development of international instruments of inter-governmental bodies
such as the UN, ILO and OECD which articulate at a global level basic social
norms of acceptable conduct;- advances in communications technology such as the Internet, which enhance
the ability to track corporate activities around the world and to disseminate
information concerning these activities;- a widely professed expectation by citizens in many countries that corporations
should meet standards of social and environmental care no matter where they
operate, not just in their “home’ jurisdictions;- recognition, by business, of the potential business benefits of good CSR
practices, such as improved employee morale, increased efficiency, enhanced
ability to attract and retain qualified staff, etc…
- recognition that government capacity to enforce laws is in many cases
inadequate (even though citizen expectations of good behaviour are high) sothat corporations are taking it on themselves to demonstrate that they aremeeting high standards of social and environmental care.

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

the expectation that business will take on increased responsibilities as
government engages in regulatory reform exercises which rely on public
private partnerships and less intrusive regulatory approaches;the development of a socially responsible investment community, and with it,
shareholder proposals on social responsibility issues;
the increased action of non-governmental organizations through a range ofactivities including standards and certification initiatives;
the perception in some quarters that good CSR practices may decrease theneed for new regulations;the desire by businesses wishing to conduct commercial activities injurisdictions where governments are unable or unwilling to protect humanrights or the environment, and where governance institutions are not fully
functioning;
increasing understanding by businesses that voluntary implementation ofsocial and environmental commitments developed with input from key
stakeholders can reduce risk of commercial and other disruptions, and enhancebrand reputation;
the creation of a “social responsibility industry” of consultants and enterprises
offering services to companies, including those involved in certifying
compliance with management system and other standards, and providing
advice on how to comply with such standards. This industry in combination
with two other established industries (accounting and investing) have becomea major catalyst for CSR activity, funding and sponsoring conferences,publications, initiatives and organizations whose purpose is to create markets
for reports and their verification, for socially responsible investment funds,
and for company information on CSR activities;
the social responsible investment community, including shareholder activism
through pension funds and otherwise;
consumer demand for more responsible consumption (as evidenced by fairtrade programs, sustainable forestry and fishery programs, environmental
labeling, etc.)
increased pressure from non-governmental organizations through a range ofactivities including development and implementation of standards andcertification initiatives;
action of governments to address environmental, social and economic issues;
the willingness of some businesses to make commitments on social
responsibility issues, with input of others, in order to reduce the risk ofcommercial and other disruptions, to gain market recognition, and to enhancebrand reputation;
increased recognition of the importance of intangible reputation-based aspects
in determining the value of a business and the desire for investors to be
assured or informed on the reputation risk aspects of companies.

60. At a micro-level, a wide range of parties are also stimulating firms to adopt CSR
practices, including consumers, supply chain partners, insurers, banks, investors andshareholders, communities, workers, NGOs, governments, and inter-governmental
bodies.
1.3 Terminology

2461. While the term “corporate social responsibility” seems to be the most widely usedterm by a large margin, a number of other terms are also used. Others include“corporate responsibility,” “corporate citizenship,” and “corporate integrity.” Each ofthese terms puts a slightly different emphasis on one or the other aspect of CSR. Some
prefer “corporate responsibility” on the apparent belief that the word “social”
excludes environmental, even though others suggest that societal responsibilities
extend to include environmental aspects. “Corporate citizenship” is sometimes used toconvey the notion that an enterprise should be regarded like individuals in the sensethat it has both rights and responsibilities or to indicate that responsibilities extend
beyond addressing social and environmental concerns. However, others object to thenotion of corporations being treated as “citizens.”
62. The terms “organizational responsibility” and “social responsibility” are preferredby some because these terms do not single out any particular type of organization. As
discussed above, a review of the origins and evolution of the concept of CSR indicatesits focus on business, and not on other types of organizations. The social
responsibility of business has been the focus of attention in light of the significant
impact which businesses have had and continue to have on society in the course of
their wealth creation activities.
63. The concept of corporate social responsibility is often associated with the conceptof “sustainable development” developed by the Brundtland Commission and acceptedby the RIO Earth Summitt in 1992. Many of the (areas) of social responsibility areorganized to reflect the three dimensions of sustainability – economic, environmental
and social associated with the concept of sustainable development. “Corporate social
responsibility” has been described as the “business contribution to sustainability” andat times “CSR” and “sustainability” are used by some to express similar ideas .
However, the nature of sustainable development is considerably broader than what is
usually meant by CSR. For example, sustainable development is typically considered
to encompass both voluntary and non-voluntary approaches and involves actions andpolicies that can only be taken by governments or intergovernmental organizations.
64. It should also be noted that “social” is used in two senses in much of the
discussion concerning both sustainability and corporate social responsibility. “Social”
is sometimes contrasted with other areas such as “environmental” and “financial” andin this sense groups responsibilities with respect to subjects such as human rights, theworkplace, the community issues and consumer protection etc. “Social” is also used
in a broader sense to refer to the society in general and would therefore encompass
responsibilities in economic, environmental as well as areas considered to be social.
The term CSR and the subject of this report is intended to refer to society and to be
inclusive of , among other things, responsibilities toward the environment.
1.4 Definitions
65. In a recent European Commission Green paper, corporate social responsibility wasdefined as:25

….essentially a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental
concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders
on a voluntary basis.62
66. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) definedcorporate social responsibility as follows:
Corporate social responsibility concerns how business enterprises relate to,and impact upon, a society’s needs and goals. All societal groups are expected
to perform certain roles and functions that can change over time with asociety’s own evolution. Expectations related to business enterprises, andparticularly TNCs [transnational corporations], are undergoing unusually rapidchange due to the expanded role these enterprises play in a globalizing society.
Discussions relating to TNC social responsibility standards and performance
therefore comprises an important component of efforts to develop a stable,
prosperous and just global society.63
67. The World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) defines CSR
as “the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development,
working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large toimprove their quality of life.”64 According to the WBCSD, CSR is the third pillar ofsustainable development, along with economic growth and ecological balance.
68. Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) states that, “[w]hile there is no single,
commonly accepted definition of ....CSR, it generally refers to business decisionmaking linked to ethical values, compliance with legal instruments, and respect forpeople, communities and the environment.”65 More specifically, BSR defines CSR as:....operating a business in a manner that meets or exceeds the ethical, legal,commercial and public expectations that society has of business. CSR is seen
by leadership companies as more than a collection of discrete practices oroccasional gestures, or initiatives motivated by marketing, public relations orother business benefits. Rather, it is viewed as a comprehensive set of policies,
practices and programs that are integrated throughout business operations, anddecision-making processes that are supported and rewarded by top
management.
69. The Conference Board of Canada defines CSR as:….the overall relationship of the corporation with all of its stakeholders. These
include customers, employees, communities, owners/investors, government,
suppliers and competitors. Elements of social responsibility include
investment in community outreach, employee relations, creation and62

Per http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/greenpaper.htm
UNCTAD, The Social Responsibility of Transnational Corporations (NY and Geneva: United
Nations, 1999), at p. 1.
64
See www.wbcsd.org/projects/pr_csr.htm
65
See www.bsr.org/resourcecenter/
63

26

maintenance of employment, environmental stewardship and financial
performance.66
70. The United States Council for International Business states that corporate
responsibility….
…involves a commitment by a company to manage its roles in society – asproducer, employer, marketer, customer and citizen – in a responsible andsustainable manner. That commitment can include a set of voluntary principles– over and above applicable legal requirements – that seek to ensure that thecompany has a positive impact on the societies in which it operates. Strategies
related to production and marketing of goods and services, business ethics,
environmental practices, treatment of employees, approach to human rights
and community engagement are all inherent to a comprehensive corporate
responsibility approach.67
71. The International Organization of Employers defines CSR as “initiatives bycompanies voluntarily integrating social and environmental concerns in their business
operations and in their interaction with their shareholders.” 68
72. The International Chamber of Commerce proposes the following definition of
corporate responsibility from a business perspective: “the voluntary commitment bybusiness to manage its activities in a responsible way.” ICC adds that a growing
number of companies approach corporate responsibility as a comprehensive set ofvalues and principles, which are integrated in business operations throughmanagement policies and practices and decision-making processes.69
73. An official in the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy states that CSR “...orCorporate Citizenship can most simply be defined as a set of management practices
that ensure the company minimizes the negative impacts of its operations on society
while maximizing its positive impacts.”70
74. The Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire defines CSR as “the integration ofbusiness operations and values whereby the interests of all stakeholders including
customers, employees, investors, and the environment are reflected in the company’s
policies and actions.”71
75. In its early deliberations, the ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility
adopted the following working definition of Organizational Social Responsibility(OSR):For the purposes of this advisory group OSR is taken to mean a balanced approach for

66

Per Canadian Centre for Business in the Community, Conference Board of Canada.
Per USCIB Statement, “Advancing Corporate Responsibility,” December 2002.
68
Per International Organization of Employers, “Corporate Social Responsibility: An IOE Approach,”
March, 2003.
69
Per ICC paper “Business in society: making a positive and responsible contribution”, March 2002.
70
See www.ccp.ca/Imagine/Team%20China%20-%202001.htm
71
See www.csrwire.com/page.cgi/about.html
67

27

organizations to address economic, social and environmental issues in a way that aims
tobenefit people, communities and society.
Characteristics and Underlying Principles of OSR: (not exhaustive and not in any
particular order)• Based on compliance with laws & regulations• Includes voluntary commitments• Principle of inclusiveness and engagement of affected or / and interested
parties• Accountability• Transparency• Ethical Behavior• Flexibility to reflect diversity and needs• Part of sustainability / Sustainable Development
OSR Issues include (not exhaustive and not in any particular order)• Human rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ILO Core
Conventions)• Workplace and employee Issues (incl. Occupational Health & Safety)• Unfair business practices including bribery, corruption and anti-competitive
practices (all organizations)• Organizational governance• Environmental aspects• Marketplace and consumer Issues• Community involvement• Social development
76. Although this definition reflected the perspectives of many of the AG members at
the time it was intended to be a working definition and was not a consensus. One
reason for this is that this definition contains some normative / aspirational elementsthat would not be consistent with an objective description of a concept or, more
importantly, the phenomenon and activities, that the term seeks to describe.
77. As several of the definitions listed above note, there are strong linkages between
the concept of sustainability and that of CSR. CSR is a product of the amalgamationof a wide range of interests and its content dependent largely on the range andadequacy of stakeholder involvement.
1.4.1 Common Elements
78. While the terms and the definitions used to describe the phenomenon of corporatesocial responsibility vary somewhat, several key points emerge:72- CSR is about the role of business in society and the expectations of society
concerning firms;- CSR is seen as a voluntary concept and is about activities that assume or
include compliance with the law and also societally beneficial activities thatare beyond compliance with the law;
72

These are not necessarily shared elements, and so this summary here should not be taken to be a CSR
definition or compilation of CSR definitions.

28

-

-

-

CSR is concerned with the role of management and management initiatives,
managing social impact, and management systems;
CSR includes a major focus on the impact of business activities and the resultsof those impacts, both positive and negative, on society
CSR is about the ongoing or regular activities of a business, and not unrelated
philanthropic activities. However, some question whether philanthropy evenqualifies as CSR73;
CSR is about measuring and improving performance on social, environmental
and economic dimensions and can contribute to furthering the goal ofsustainable development;
CSR is about identifying, engaging and reporting performance to those whoare impacted by the activities of the business.

1.4.2 National, Regional and Local Variations
79. CSR practices are diverse and can reflect the national, regional and local context
including the legal regimes, existing institutions, social and cultural attitudes,
environmental conditions, and other factors. Some of the expectations with respect tothe social responsibility of business are universal – e.g., respect for human rights.
There are clearly defined international “soft law” norms that relate and informsocially responsible practices. These come from instruments of inter-governmental
bodies such as the UN, the ILO, and the OECD. Through its formal advisory status at
the OECD and through the tripartite structure of the ILO, business has been involvedin and has supported the formulation and adoption of the two most general andcomprehensive instruments addressing the social responsibilities of businessdeveloped by these bodies, the ILO Tripartite Declaration of principles concerning
multinational enterprises and social policy, and the OECD Guidelines for
multinational enterprises. Business, as employers, also have a role in formulating theConventions and Recommendations of the International Labour Organization.
80. However, there is no agreement as to all of the activities expected of companies
that would be consistent with universally applicable norms. Some believe that CSR
activities or social responsibilities must be defined with a consideration of the local
context, in conjunction with local stakeholders. According to this view theprioritization of issues/activities/responsibilities cannot be done without someconnection to the local context. Although there is diversity in terms of application at
the local level, the situation is not much different from the situation with respect toenvironmental protection, where the exact nature of the obligations vary from firm tofirm, sector to sector, country to country, and region to region, but each firm puts inplace a framework for operationalizing its environmental policies.
Others do not share these views. Local practices and even legal frameworks, can beinconsistent with universally applicable norms. It is especially difficult andcontroversial to depend on “local” organizations to “interpret” the meaning of humanrights in countries where the governments are repressive of political rights. Moreover
many “stakeholders” will have a commercial interest in redefining or reinterpretingsocial responsibilities that are already well defined or understood. Other stakeholders
who are more affected by the negative aspects of a particular business practice may be
73

See, e.g., UNCTAD, The Social Responsibility of Transnational Corporations (NY and Geneva:
United Nations, 1999), at p. 3.

29

overlooked or avoided. Moreover. many of these norms, including all of theConventions and Recommendations of the International Labour Organization comewith procedures to interpret their meaning in various situations.
81. It was pointed out that one over-arching issue in both environmental and social
terms is the need to measure actual effect rather than simply existence of internalmanagement systems or general behaviour. This is often critical for local communities
and indigenous peoples and requires close stakeholder involvement to define issues,measurements and responsibilities.
82. How a company organizes itself to address its social responsibilities is influenced
by its history, culture, philosophy, customer and societal feedback, business sector
and the laws and regulations of the countries in which it operates. These factors haveled companies to adopt a wide range of approaches. Internally, companies manage
corporate responsibility programs and activities in a variety of ways, but generally
include developing policies in a number of areas that are implemented through actionplans at various levels of the company.
83. Many companies that have integrated social and environmental aspects into theirbusiness plans have found that they can improve relations with legal and politicalentities, effectively address the concerns of external stakeholders, and discover areasof strategic advantage. Integrating such aspects into its operations has also helped
businesses focus on improving the lives of the people involved in its business
operations. Improved performance in these areas is frequently cited as generatingintangible assets, such as employee commitment and customer brand loyalty, that may
lead to improved financial performance. Companies that actively manage these issues
may also be better able to improve relations with other key stakeholders such as
regulatory agencies, the financial community, local communities and the generalpublic.
1.4.3 Implications if No Agreed Definition
84. Some AG members believe that an agreed definition of the subject is aprerequisite for any standard setting. Others believe that, at the very least, a common
set of elements or components which are included within CSR, would have to beagreed upon. These views reflect the idea that standard setting requires reference
points and that where there are no limits to a subject everything is possible but little
can be especially meaningful.. The absence of a commonly agreed definition would
impede the ability of parties to communicate with each other, and to interact.
85. Other members of the AG do not share these concerns. Definitions of ambiguous
and difficult concepts such as “quality”, “occupational safety and health” and “theenvironment” have all been developed for international standards. In each case, thedefinitions are very basic (e.g., quality is defined as “fit for the purpose” and safety isdefined as “the absence of danger”). While these definitions are not free fromambiguity, they have proven to be useful starting points upon which elaborate
standards have been developed. At the same time, although an agreed definition may
be possible, it may be too broad to be useful.

30

86. Some are of the view that a definition would have to at the very least resolve somequestions in order for ISO work in this area to be acceptable. One of these questions
is whether CSR is a voluntary concept concerning activities that assume compliancewith the law. If this is the case, as it appears to be with most definitions of CSR, thenit is necessary to distinguish CSR from a broader concept of the social responsibilitiesof business as defined by society through legally binding and other ways, including
custom. In this view a definition that made this distinction would be an important
limit on the subject that would be necessary for ISO involvement. On the other hand if
the meaning of CSR is not limited in this way than the subject in effect involves
determining the proper role of government. For those holding this view, this would
make ISO activity unacceptable because it would involve resolving questions that can
only be legitimately settled through the political process. This concern, which isabout limiting the definition of CSR, is not the same as the question of whether CSR
standards should include performance standards or how CSR activities or standards
should relate to established social or environmental standards. It should be noted thatis not the objective of this report to develop a definition of CSR which could be used
for the purposes of standardization, but some members put forward some suggestions
which could be further developed should ISO proceed with any SR standardizationwork.
1.5 Subjects Falling under SR
87. The current conception of SR is heavily influenced by the concept of sustainable
development. Sustainable development is most often broken down into three
dimensions: economic, environmental and social (or what has been described by someas “profit, planet, and people”). These dimensions have a wide range of aspects thatmake the scope of SR very broad. SR can involve many different subjects and issues
which can be referred to as components or aspects. Drawing on various instruments
and norms concerning social responsibility, the literature of sustainable development
and other sources, it is possible to develop an indicative, non-exhaustive list of thesecomponents or aspects. This list would include: legal compliance, environmental
protection, consumer protection, labour practices and industrial relations, humanrights, health and safety, ethics and anti-bribery, community relations, philanthropy,74
and outreach. For a more complete listing of subjects possibly falling under SR, see
the attached listing.
88. One view is the “complexity” of SR can only be sufficiently addressed by taking
into account:- which components belong to SR (and which do not)- which could be standardized (and which can not)- what are the relationships between one component and the other components- at what level would each component apply (international, regional, national,
industry sector (like textile, or steel), local (e.g. city) or organizational (anyentity employing people).
89. For some this suggests that questions concerning the scope of SR can be addressed
most effectively at the local or organizational level. Others do not share the view that74

As noted earlier, CSR has evolved to focus more on the day to day business practices and less onpaternalistic gestures towards the community. For this reason, some believe that philanthropy does not
fit within the modern conception of CSR.

31

everything including what it means to be socially responsible is relative or capable ofbeing determined by business alone or in conjunction with stakeholders that it chooses
to engage. There are functioning CSR initiatives (e.g. the Forest StewardshipCouncil that have developed globally applicable performance requirements that arethen further regionalized and interpreted through stakeholder consultation processes.
For those holding this view he regionalization and measurement of effectiveness ofstandards should indeed occur at the local level however standards intended toalleviate many of the world’s pressing environmental and social issues benefit fromguidance by globally applicable principles and criteria.
1.6 Other Key Concepts for SR
90. The concept of social responsibility involves other concepts. These include theidea of “stakeholders,” an understanding of the difference between accountability andresponsibility, and the business case or business justification for firms engaging insocial responsibility activities. Some difficulties associated with these concepts are
outlined below so that they can be taken into account.
1.6.1 Stakeholders
91. The idea that companies are not only responsible to their shareholders (owners),
but also to a broader set of stakeholders is one of the key ideas associated with the
CSR concept. In fact, CSR could be described as a form of business ethics that isbased on identifying and taking into account the impact of business activity on others.
Much of CSR is about how management should identify and “engage” stakeholders
and how managers should determine, measure and report the impact of company
activities on stakeholders. In the ideal version of the CSR concept, there is a link
between these activities and the financial performance of a business. By taking into
account the interests of others, firms can decrease the likelihood of problems arisingthat could impede profitability, and can also potentially identify new commercial
opportunities.
92. Of course, identifying and engaging each and every individual stakeholder is
impossible and so firms may and have identified and engaged non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) who serve as proxies for the real stakeholders. To a certain
extent this practice is understandable and acceptable. Some stakeholders are notorganized or otherwise capable of being consulted or engaged (for instance “nature”,
the “environment” or “future generations”). It is clear however that a blurring of the
distinction between NGOS on one hand and civil society on the other can occur in
CSR activities.
93. In the CSR world NGOs are often considered to be spokespersons for civil society– but there are significant differences among NGOs, and not all NGOs are part of civilsociety. Indeed, many of the most important civil society organizations are often notconsidered to be NGOs. For example, depending on the situation and how theyfunction, organized religion and political parties are key civil society organizations.
94. As a concept, civil society is more than the relationship between the individual
and the state and is more about the relationship of individual members or sectors ofsociety to each other. Genuine civil societies require respect for the rule of law but

32

also consist of a wide array of institutional arrangements that not only protect theindividual but also allow individuals to join with others to solve mutual problems,
advance their interests and to protect themselves from arbitrary power and abuse of
power. Many of these institutions are related to civil and political rights and include,
among others, such institutions as independent press and collective bargaining. An
argument can be made that the growth of some kinds of NGOs results from attempts
to substitute for the failure of societies to be civil societies and to develop or keep theinstitutions that genuine civil societies require. . In this view the dramatic growth in
the number and importance of NGOs is not a reflection of civil society but are being
created or used as a substitute. Thus the visibility of NGOs may be increasing insituations where conventional civil society institutions are not functioning or weak.
95. The term “stakeholder” should be distinguished from both the term “NGO” andfrom “civil society organizations.” In the CSR concept, the term stakeholder refers toanyone impacted by the operations of a business. This could include organizations andindividuals not considered as either civil society organizations or as NGOs. It could
include other businesses (suppliers, business customers and partners, competitors,
investors and businesses in the financial sector) and it could also include governments
and various communities which can be broadly defined.
96. There are some conceptual difficulties with the stakeholder idea. One is that not
all stakeholders are equal in their impact or importance to different businesses.
Another is that not all stakeholders have a legitimate claim on the behavior of acompany that arises from an interest of society. There may not be any relationshipbetween the number of “stakeholders” that can be identified and the amount ofresponsibility a company may have. Indeed, there are some stakeholders whose
existence do not add to the responsibilities of the company and may even reducethem. Consider situations where a company has outsourced work to other enterprises.
In such cases the number of “stakeholders” has increased but the responsibilities of
the company have not changed or may have decreased
97. The term “stakeholders” is increasingly being used outside of a relational sense
and when this happens the term obscures more than it clarifies. One should only refer
to an organization or an individual as “stakeholder” where the intent is to emphasize arelationship between that organization or individual and another organization such as
a company, or perhaps an industry. Where this relationship is not important or where
it cannot be made explicit, organizations or individuals should be described as what
they are and not by using an inappropriate relational term. Consider the problem ofusing other words that require a certain relationship to make sense (father or motherfor instance) and then consider the problem caused by using such relational words
where there may be no such relation, where any relationship is meaningless, where therelationship is not clear. The inappropriate overuse of the term stakeholder has had
some other unfortunate consequences. Originally developed to contrast with the term
“shareholder” the term “stakeholder” is especially inappropriate to apply to theconstituents of democratic governments where the term ‘shareholder” would be amore accurate analogy.
98. The concept of CSR calls for companies to identify and engage their stakeholders.
However, problems can arise when there is inappropriate engagement of stakeholders– where the process of consultation is not genuine. Problems can also arise from33

engagement of inappropriate stakeholders – that is, with organizations that are nottruly interested parties. Inappropriate stakeholders can take the form of organizations
that have been created or are supported by business and are not really independent.
Some organizations are not stakeholders but are really service-providing enterprises.
Other organizations do not have sufficiently representative structures to beappropriate interlocutors with companies.
1.6.2 Accountability
99. If CSR is to be a voluntary concept then it is necessary to distinguish CSR fromother concepts concerning the relationship between business and society. Many are
now using the term “corporate accountability” to refer to the legally binding
obligations on corporations imposed by governments and to the corporate governancesystems designed to hold management accountable to shareholders and, in somecountries, to others. Others believe that the term “accountability” can also refer tomoral obligations to report or be answerable for something. In any event there is aneed to distinguish voluntary from regulatory concepts. Some believe that CSR
activities do not settle the question of what business activities should be subject tolegal and institutional frameworks, since this is a question that can only belegitimately settled through political processes and by governments. It is widely
accepted that regulatory and corporate governance frameworks shape businessbehavior more than CSR principles and practices. Indeed, one of the catalysts for CSR
is the demand for greater accountability of business in this regulatory sense.
However, it is also recognized that voluntary initiatives and regulatory approaches
may be complementary and reinforcing. Voluntary initiatives and regulatory
approaches have different approaches. Regulatory approaches are frequently focusedon securing compliance with minimum standards. While some voluntary initiatives,
like the Global Compact, try to inspire innovative and practical solutions.
100. A separate accountability issue relates to the need of stakeholders and consumers
for independent verification of conformance with voluntary standards. This isconsidered by many to be critical to ensuring public confidence in voluntary processes
and standards.
Clearly, voluntary initiatives should never undermine regulatory frameworks but there
is room for voluntary frameworks which exceed regulatory requirements.
1.6.3 “Business Case” or Justification for Social Responsibility Activities
101. There are conflicting schools of thought on the question of whether there exists abusiness case or justification for businesses engaging in social responsibility
activities. One school says that the need to justify on financial grounds why a firmshould engage in social responsibility activities bespeaks of the fact that SR is either
unnecessary or unethical. According to this view, SR is unnecessary if there is afinancial justification for firms undertaking social responsibility activities, since intime, with proper functioning markets and full information, businesses will undertakethese activates anyway of their own accord. If however there is no financial
justification for firms undertaking social responsibility activities, then these activities
may constitute an inappropriate use of shareholder money.

34

102. Another school of thought is that the financial justification for engaging in social
responsibility activities rarely applies to many of the most important social issues.
According to this view doing the right thing can put a business at a competitive
disadvantage, at least in the short term. Those making this case point to the paucity ofstudies establishing a business case for most SR activities and to the negligible impact
SR activities have had in addressing the social problems aggravated by inappropriate
or inadequate legal or institutional frameworks. According to this view, businesscompetition and other competing interests within societies mean that many social
issues can only be effectively addressed through regulation and institutional
mechanisms that are not dependent on voluntary behavior. Implicit in acceptance ofthe business case is also an argument against regulation that many do not accept. One
closely related concern is that the need to make a business case has led to thereinterpretation and redefinition of already established norms in the social area.
According to this view some private standard-setting activity associated with SR
includes this purpose. Yet another view is that there is a justification for firms
engaging in SR activities that is realized for those taking a long term perspective. One
thing is clear is that no single accepted view has emerged, although such a view may
emerge over time, for example, through public and private reference to standards intheir purchasing and investment policies.75
1.7 SR Applicability to businesses and/or other organizations
103. The AG has grappled with the question of whether SR applies only to businessorganizations, or to other organizations as well, from its initial meeting. Some AG
members considered that including the term “corporate” could limit the types oforganizations to which an ISO deliverable would apply. The thinking was that an ISO
deliverable, once developed, should enable any organization to use the standard orother deliverable and that a broader term such as “Organizational Social
Responsibility” would be more appropriate. Other AG members considered that theterm “Corporate Social Responsibility” was widely understood to concern the
behaviour of business enterprises and that changing the scope and the term would
effectively change the subject and character of the eventual ISO deliverable. In theirview it seems self-evident that, while the term “corporate social responsibility” wasdeveloped with businesses in mind, any form of organization could have societal
impacts on workers, communities, the environment, and others.
1.7.1. Implications
104. The view that holds that standards should be useful for any kind of organization
whatever its purpose or activity is consistent with other standards that have beendeveloped by the ISO. Organizations could select the components and aspects of thedeliverable that are applicable through a “tailoring process.” If the focus is narrowed
to business enterprises from the outset, it may be difficult to apply the deliverable in
the future to other types of organizations. While existing ISO standards usually do notindicate in their title the type of organization to which the standards apply, this does
not seem to have negatively affected the rate of adoption by profit-oriented
75

One of the first comprehensive studies of the impact of voluntary CSR initiatives is currently being
undertaken by the Global Compact. Available in June 2004, one of its findings is that the Global
Compact has been successful in accelerating and easing change in many companies.

35

businesses, or the understanding that profit-oriented businesses would be the prime
users of the standards.
105. The other view is that, if the deliverable covered all types of organizations, it
may be more difficult to provide sufficiently specific guidance to be of use. Defininga “target market” first should make it possible to develop a more useful deliverable.
106. The question of whether a deliverable should cover all organizations or not
requires distinguishing the various kinds of organizations that would be covered
before it can be answered. For this purpose, one can distinguish two types oforganizations: (1) organizations that produce goods and service for profit; and (2)organizations that do not. The first can be described as “business enterprises”,
whether they take the form of corporations, partnerships, individual proprietorships,
or other types of enterprises. Businesses encompass the full range of economic
activities and sectors and involve the full range of work, trades or professions.
Businesses need not be privately held as there are also state-owned businesses. The
second type can also take a number of different forms. For example: government
agencies and local authorities (producing “public” goods and services), politicalorganizations and parties, NGOS, organized religions, and other private organizations,clubs or societies established for numerous, but essentially non-economic or noncommercial, purposes.
107. For some account needs to be taken of the fact that “public” goods and services
are defined differently by different governments and may include activities that would
be undertaken for profit in some cases, such as certain municipal, utility, financial,and other services. And even when provided by government agencies the provision ofthese goods and may be profit-oriented or least organized on a cost-recovery basis.
Others however consider the difference between activities undertaken by government
in its role as the state (producing public goods such as the justice system or national
defense), from other activities that do not fall within a generally agreed understandingof the role of the state. This would include most state-owned enterprises. Thisdistinction is even more important in that the nature of responsibility is qualitatively
different for governments than for other forms of organization. For example, although
all organizations and individuals should respect human rights, only the state has theobligation and capacity to create the legal and formal institutional frameworks thatenable human rights to be enforced and protected.
108. One argument for adopting a deliverable that covers all types of organizations isthat it would focus on the nature of the activities undertaken rather than the type oforganization that undertakes them. While it is clear that business enterprises impact
significantly on society, other organizations can also impact on society. The focus
should accordingly be on whether the impact is positive or negative. The counterargument to this view is that the economic activities that have the greatest impact onsociety are those of profit-oriented business enterprises and that their impact isqualitatively and quantitatively different because of their wealth and power.
109. It is unlikely that there would be support for an ISO deliverable in this area that
addresses other than technical issues and could impact on political processes. The
nature and content of legislation and regulation can only be decided by politicalprocesses. The scope or role of the state in defining, advancing or protecting the36interests of society is also a purely political issue that would be widely considered tobe beyond any legitimate ISO process. This is becoming an increasingly sensitive
issue with many business enterprises as well as civil society organizations arguingthat business should not assume the responsibilities of the state. Equally this does notmean that standards could not be set through stakeholder engagement that would
encourage behaviour beyond minimum legislative requirements. Indeed some see thisas precisely the role of CSR and while not directly addressing political processes it
would be disingenuous to believe that there are not political implications.
110. In recent years, there has also been a growing interest in the transparency andgovernance of NGOs, particularly those that are involved in influencing public policy.
Many NGOs are associated with the demands for business to be more socially
responsible and concerns exist regarding the nature of their funding, theirrepresentativity and their governance structures.
111. The questions raised are similar to questions on corporate governance or on
accounting and reporting practices and are less concerned with the economic,
environmental and social impacts addressed by most CSR/SR initiatives. For
example, as NGOs take on increasing public interest oriented functions, there havebeen calls for them to be subject to codes of conduct which would enhance theirtransparency and accountability, just as there have been calls for businesses to be
subject to such codes.76 And clearly, like business organizations, NGOs can have asimilar impact on their workers and the communities where they operate as those ofbusiness enterprises, although the scale of their impacts are usually smaller.
112. Another important argument against covering all types of organizations is thatthe subject of CSR/SR is widely understood to be about business activity and that theinterest in CSR arises out of an interest in business activity. There is little or nothingin either CSR literature, practice or in the evolution of the concept, to suggest that the
subject concerns activities other than those of business enterprises. The term
“corporate social responsibility” is, by far, the most widely-used. This focus is also
explicit in alternative terms such as “corporate citizenship.”113. Although the origins of and catalysts for socially responsible behaviour revealthat the concept has been developed in the context of profit-oriented organizations, theconcept could of course evolve. However, the current interest in social responsibility
in large part arises from the increase in the power of business relative to that ofgovernments and other institutions in society. The interest in social responsibility isalso linked to questions of justice arising out of the creation and distribution of
wealth, good and services. Some believe that since business activity can potentiallyhave a greater impact on the environment, on working relations, on the general
economy and on power relationships within society than the activity of any otherorganization. It can be argued therefore that the responsibilities and the respectiveroles of the different types of organizations are not sufficiently comparable to allow
for similar treatment. Others are concerned that business will seek to redefine its
social responsibilities by promoting the idea that these are no different from theresponsibilities of other elements in society, even though they are quantitatively andqualitatively different.
76

See, e.g., A. Adair, A Code of Conduct for NGOs: A Necessary Reform (London: Institute of
Economic Affairs, 2000).

37

114. Others hold the view that, if only businesses are covered by an ISO deliverable,
the impression will be created that other entities do not have to be as concerned about
their impacts on society. The concern has been expressed that business will seek toredefine its social responsibilities by promoting the idea that these are no different
from the responsibilities of other elements in society, even though they arequantitatively and qualitatively different. The potential role for ISO in the area ofcorporate social responsibility may be affected by the perception of whether theorganization is dominated by business interests. Changing the name and scope of thesubject can diminish the credibility of ISO if this is seen as a way of redefining thesocial responsibilities of business enterprises.
115. At the same time it is worth noting that the word “corporate,” as short-form for“corporations” is not in fact limited to profit-oriented enterprises but also applies togovernment agencies and other organizations that are not-for-profit. CSR is primarily
focused on wealth-creating organizations. The implications of ISO working on astandard which is not directed to all organizations need to be considered.
1.7.2 Effect of resolving business/any organization question on nature of SR
deliverable
116. Some AG members consider that the scope of CSR/SR does not depend on the
resolution of this question. All organizations will, in one way or another, have toaddress the issues commonly identified as components of CSR/SR. CSR/SR concerns
universal principles, the application of which will involve the same sorts of issues,
regardless of the type of organization involved. These issues include the existence of
local cultural variables, the identification of interested or affected parties, thedevelopment and application of methodologies to reduce negative and increase
positive social impacts and so forth.
117. Other AG members emphasize that almost all, if not all, of CSR/SR related tools,
initiatives and programmes either explicitly or implicitly concern business activity.
For example, one large area would include the socially responsible investment (SRI)
industry. This industry includes fund managers offering SRI funds as well as
numerous other enterprises established to provide investors with information andindices concerning the “social performance” of businesses. However, similar
information services and indices could also be developed to provide data on NGO andother non-business activities. This might include, for example, information on thepercent of funds raised by a non-business organization spent on SR activities ascompared to internal administration (overhead); the actual versus advertised impact ofan organization’s activities with respect to improving human rights; the employee orworker treatment policies and activities of non-business organizations, and indicesconcerning other “social performance” indicators.
118. There is also a view that the CSR concept involves ideas that cannot be
separated from business activity. These would include ideas such as the “Triple
Bottom Line” and the “business case”, or financial justification for businesses
engaging in social responsibility activities. On the other hand, similar concepts could
also apply to non-business entities. These might involve, for example, a triple bottom
line issue relating to the economic viability of non-business entities to continue

38

operating through their sources of funding (without regard to “profitability”), just as
the economic aspect of the triple bottom line relates to economic viability for business
entities to continue operating by making a profit. And one could also envisage theapplication of ideas similar to the “business case for social responsibility” to nonbusiness entities. For example, every organization must provide some type of service
or benefit to its stakeholders, and must justify any social responsibility activities it
undertakes by showing that there is a good reason for doing them. This is exactly
what businesses do for their shareholders, and the justification is in some circles
referred to as the “business case”. Other types of organizations have similar
obligations to their stakeholders.
119. While most initiatives, programmes and practices identified with CSR/SR
involve business enterprises, most NGOs, religions and charitable organizations arealso involved in social responsibility activities. Indeed, this may be their primary
purpose. Many “multi-stakeholder initiatives” involve the participation of bothbusiness enterprises and other types of organizations. Some argue however that while
all “public-private partnerships” involve business, few CSR/SR tools, initiatives andprogrammes would make much sense if applied only by other types of organizations.
These tools, initiatives and programmes cannot therefore be usefully considered aspart of a “broader” concept. According to this view, CSR/SR cannot be redefined orotherwise evolve into a “broader concept” encompassing all types of organizations.
Expanding the concept to include all types of organizations would change thecharacter of the deliverable to something that is of less importance and completelychange the priority of the process.
120. The contrary view is that expanding social responsibility concepts to include
non-business organizations would create significantly more support for improving
human rights and the quality of life of many more people; and that social
responsibility precepts would become much more important – and much more widely
applied – than if they were limited to only one type of organization. In fact, those
who hold this view would argue that every organization, of whatever type, has the
responsibility to honor the same basic human rights and other SR principles as they
have to honor the basic environmental principles that have become part of thecommon framework of society. The tools and programmes for implementing theseconcepts will quickly evolve to encompass all organizations that participate.
1.8. Interests and Expectations of Society
1.8.1 Ensuring SR activities of organizations are consistent with the interests ofsociety121. One of the key challenges to addressing the area of social responsibility is that
there is no single “society” that acts in a unified or uniform manner to protect its
interests. Hundreds if not thousands of societies exist around the globe, each with its
own value set derived from its particular history, language, religion and culture.
Many societies can trace their existence back thousands of years while others
originated only a few hundred years ago. While global communications networks andmodern travel have vastly increased interaction between different societies, many
fundamental differences remain across societies. These differences in turn lead to thedevelopment of different social attitudes and priorities.

39

122. Additionally, how societies are organized varies widely across the globe. Many
countries have unique political structures derived from indigenous institutions.
Countries vary in relation to the power of the state vs. the rights of the individual,
legal systems (civil law vs. common law), parliamentary vs. executive governments,
centralized vs. decentralized control, federal vs. republican sub-national structures,and free-markets vs. state-controlled economies. The ability of societies to change
governments and policies through democratic processes is a critical factor in whether
or not social responsibility interests can be determined and protected.
123. Such social and organizational differences make it clear that no single system
exists globally by which “society” ensures that organizations operate in a mannerconsistent with the interests of society. In general terms, however, societies –themselves comprised of a variety of groups with varying interests – protect theircollective interest through the enactment of laws. Societies, using a variety of
constitutional frameworks and political processes, enact laws that reflect social norms
and set minimum standards of behavior.
124. While they vary in many important aspects, most national legal frameworks
address freedoms or limits on all key elements of society and often are established tomeet internationally agreed standards and ratify international agreements: citizenship,
suffrage, civil rights, criminal behavior, religious freedoms, commerce, education,
labor rights, environmental standards, etc. Most national frameworks have alsoestablished systems of courts in which societies uphold these standards and prosecute
violators.
125. However, laws and even legal frameworks have changed over time to reflect
evolving or changing social values and standards of behavior: what is unacceptable at
one point in time may be widely accepted later, and what is accepted now in one
society may remain unacceptable in another. Indeed, changes in social values – andthe corresponding changes in legal frameworks – are neither always clear nor
consistent. Specific issues may be the subjects of wide social debate for considerable
time before any new social consensus is codified in national law. Thus, there isusually a delay between the evolution and incubation of generally accepted social
values and their codification in law, where appropriate.
126. Societies also have values developed through history and culture that result inshared expectations as to what constitutes socially responsible behavior beyond thosewritten into law. These social values are determined and transferred through a variety
of means including education and literature.
127. The issue of social expectations, therefore, does not fall completely within therealm of laws and regulations. What constitutes socially responsible behavior
depends on a wide variety of factors and actors, and varies widely within and between
countries. Key social institutions – governments, religious institutions, private
associations, civic leaders – all have an effect on an understanding of what is
acceptable behavior. Additionally, the impact of these social institutions iscontinuous and dynamic. As “society” does not have uniform expectations, certain
elements of society may push for change before broad social consensus has been40

reached on the issue, using a variety of cooperative and confrontational means toeffect such change.
128. Organizations can evaluate whether their behavior conforms to social
expectations and define social responsibility within the context of their own
knowledge and experience. Many organizations voluntarily set standards forthemselves that are not required by law. To the extent that such self-defined standardsof behavior exceed legal requirements, some feel that it is appropriate fororganizations to define their own SR policies and practices. However, others believethat social responsibility involves responsibility to others, and it is therefore notpossible to accurately define social responsibility without reference to the views ofthese others. The question of “how” the views of others can be gauged can be
answered in a multitude of ways. There is perhaps no single answer, and no single
process, for all organizations, particularly as the expectations and interests of various
groups may differ or even conflict with each other.
129. In addition, sub sets of society have developed a range of mechanisms to express
their individual expectations. Components of society, including governments, areincreasingly using mechanisms other than laws or regulations – codes of conduct,
standards, guiding principles, procurement policies, etc. – to express their view ofgenerally accepted behavior. Such expectations may eventually become more widely
shared with other elements of society and possibly even become enshrined in law.
1.8.2 Extent to which organizations can define their social responsibilities
130. Different elements of society have different views on what is and is not sociallyacceptable behavior. Insofar as many of these expectations may be competing, asingle set of “social expectations” cannot be defined. What can be defined is theparticular views of many interested parties: the organization itself, the people andgroups it interacts with, regulatory and governmental bodies, the communities inwhich it operates, etc. Social responsibilities are also articulated by a number ofmeans: laws, international conventions and declarations, customs and tradition, ethics,
morality, community values, fiscal incentives, taxes etc.
131. Societies as a whole do not treat all their respective elements the same withrespect to their responsibilities. Clearly, where different elements of society differ onwhether certain behavior is acceptable or not, they will subsequently differ on whether
an organization is socially responsible or not. Just as one organization cannot set the
expectations of another organization, it cannot define socially responsible behavior forother actors.
132. However, views differ on whether an organization can define socially
responsible behavior for itself. One view is that (at least with regard to non-legal
obligations), organizations need only meet expectations that are “defined” by theorganization itself, under it’s sole responsibility. This may or may not be based onagreement with affected stakeholders, depending on whether the organization chooses
to involve stakeholders. In this view, organizations are responsible for their own
actions and it is unnecessary or even inappropriate for someone else other than theorganization to define what the responsibilities of the organization are.

41

133. To that extent they must be given the responsibility to define their social
responsibilities themselves as well as the freedom to decide whether or not to put into
place the processes needed to work with others to define their priorities and hence
their social responsibility. In many ways this mirrors the feeling by many individuals
that they are free to choose the voluntary social activities they will participate in basedon their own interests and priorities rather than the interests or priorities of other partsof society.
134. An alternative view states that individual organizations do not have the politicallegitimacy to define their own responsibilities. Organizations can outline the range ofissues that society may be concerned with (i.e. “social responsibility”), but theycannot define their own social responsibility by themselves because this requires
prioritization based on the interests/concerns of others.
135. However an organization’s knowledge may be limited, which is why the
involvement of stakeholders in ascertaining expectations and hence responsibilities isa factor to be considered.
1.8.3 Extent to which governments define social responsibilities of organizations
136. Governments play a crucial role in setting social responsibilities through lawsthat embody the social expectations within each nation. Indeed, given the fact thatmost societies are comprised of many competing interests, it is critical for
representative governments to balance these various interests and reach a generally
accepted consensus that satisfies the majority while protecting the rights of theminority. In addition, governments can influence social responsibilities throughincentive programs, fiscal policies, and other incentives. However, the ability of
governments to set social expectations depends on the degree to which it accurately
represents the will of the people; unrepresentative governments may well set
responsibilities that conflict with social values. Further, one government’s definition
only applies locally or nationally, and many differ in content due to different social
settings within countries. Governments also help define social expectations thoughinternational coordination with other governments.
137. But while governments set important parameters for social responsibilities, otheractors also play important roles in shaping social responsibility. In cases where there
is no social consensus on an issue, and thus no laws or other governmental guidelines,
some elements of society will continue to include the issue in their set of expectations.
1.8.4 Extent to which non-state actors can define social responsibilities oforganizations
138. Non-state actors can play a very important role in ascertaining the expectationsof the community, the marketplace, and broader society. As stated above, different
elements of society have different views on what is and is not socially acceptablebehavior. Thus, non-state actors have and will continue to define social responsibility
according to their various priorities and interests. Indeed, some hold that non-state
actors always define social responsibility and that governments simply codify social
expectations once broader consensus has been reached.

42

139. However, while most agree that non-state actors should be encouraged toparticipate actively in local SR promotion activities, there is continued debate
regarding whether all non-state actors – interest groups, enterprises, consumers, tradeunions, investors, etc. – have equal standing in defining social responsibility.

1.8.5 Extent to which social responsibilities are defined locally, nationally,
regionally140. This is a central question on which there is currently no consensus. Even basic
expectations such as respect for human life (e.g. by abolishing the death penalty) may
not be universal. Even internationally agreed principles, such as those contained in
UN documents are not universally applied. Further, various and different
responsibilities are defined at all levels.
141. Some hold that the full range of social responsibility can only be defined locally.
This view states that responsibilities concerning issues such as treatment of workers,
treatment of the environment, treatment of the community, or treatment of consumers
would vary somewhat, depending upon the level of economic and social development,
as well as cultural and religious conditions and other factors. These responsibilities
can usefully be gauged against norms set in documents agreed to by the nations of theworld such as those of the UN and UN/ILO. Thus action in any one place may bedifferent from any other, embodied in the expression “think globally and act locally”.
142. This issue is complicated by the challenges of identifying social responsibilities,
prioritizing them, and defining how to respond to them. Additionally, one canidentify different categories of social responsibility: universal expectations that must
always be addressed regardless of the national/local circumstances (e.g. torture);
universal expectations that can be addressed in a variety of ways depending on thenational/local context (e.g. child labor); and non-universal expectations that are
defined at the national/local level consistent with the relevant context.
1.8.6 Extent to which universally applicable expectations or norms define social
responsibilities of organizations
143. Over the years a number of international instruments have been adopted bymultilateral bodies that led to set of universally accepted norms and principles.
Examples of such instruments include the Universal Declaration on Human Rights,
ILO Conventions and other instruments, and similar international agreements.
However, even these universal norms and principles are implemented in different
ways from one country to the next depending on the form of government or social
priorities.
144. Some take the view that universal expectations set through international forums
are the basis to any international consideration of SR and should set the benchmark
for local action. This view states that organizations should adopt lesser standards ofconduct from these expectations only if they can demonstrate that appropriate
stakeholders want them to.

43

145. Others state that international declarations can only be applied according to local
or national conditions and cultural traditions. According to this view, internationallyagreed documents should be considered as another set of expectations, along withthose of all other stakeholders, although account also needs to be taken of the fact thatsome governments, while referring to internationally agreed norms and principles,show no evidence of having any intention of implementing them domestically.
1.8.7. Relationship between diversity of expectations/norms and SR
146. There is a large diversity in expectations depending on different local priorities,
and this diversity allows common understanding on an abstract level only. SR
practice must take into account diversity and local contexts, which means that a “onesize-fits-all” approach is not possible, feasible or practical. . However, some members
point out that international experience has shown that principles, guidelines andcriteria can be agreed at the international level given sufficient stakeholder
involvement. Actual interpretation and implementation of those principles, guidelines
and criteria can then be done at a local level with local stakeholder involvement.
147. For the most part, organizations attempt to live up to what they believe are theexpectations/norms of those with whom they interact. When they stray from thiscredo, they risk negative reactions. Although there is a diversity of norms, not all areapplicable or always applicable.
1.9. Voluntary versus Legally-Mandated Activities
1.9.1. Does SR only pertain to voluntary activities/commitments oforganizations?
148. The issue of whether social responsibility concerns only voluntary activities orwhether it also concerns legal obligations is a critical factor in understanding thedevelopment and complexity of the issue. For the purposes of this report, voluntary
SR activities or commitments are those which are not legislatively required. Social
responsibility is often divided into two general spheres: preventing or minimizing
harm on the one hand, and maximizing benefits on the other. By their very nature,legal frameworks tend to address the former. Legislation and regulations set
minimum standards of behavior for individuals and organizations (both public andprivate), “floors” below which no one is permitted to fall. Legislation and regulation
defines what actions are deemed harmful to others (fraud, corruption, theft, etc.) andprohibit them. At an absolute minimum, all actors in society, individuals,organizations and governments are required to comply with the laws and regulationsof the countries and jurisdictions in which they operate. Failure to do so may result in
exposure to civil and/or criminal penalties.
149. In contrast, social responsibility can include aspirational objectives – maximizing
the positive activities and impacts of an organization. These actions include the many
voluntary actions undertaken by organizations designed to benefit society and come ina wide variety of forms: philanthropy, community development, voter registration
drives, adoption, mentoring, etc. While some local and national laws have beendeveloped in these areas, they normally provide incentives for individuals or44

organizations to undertake such actions but do not punish those who do not. Rather
than setting a floor, this aspect of social responsibility relates to raising the ceiling ofwhat is possible and expanding the number of people or organizations engaged insuch activities.
150. Thus, social responsibility includes elements related to both legal obligations andvoluntary actions.
1.9.2. Relationship between SR activities/commitments and those arising fromlegally binding obligations
151. As noted above, all individuals, organizations and governments are required tocomply with the laws and regulations of the countries and jurisdictions in which they
operate. The most basic responsibility of citizenship is compliance with the law.
Thus, social responsibility is inconsistent with non-compliance with legal obligations.
152. However, there is disagreement on an important aspect of the question ofwhether social responsibility relates to both legal obligations and voluntary actions ornot. One view states that there are only two options; either something is legallybinding and thus not voluntary, or it is not legally binding and thus is voluntary. If an
action or activity is prevented or mandated by law, it is not voluntary and all
individuals and organizations that fall within the scope of the law must comply.
Alternatively, if an action or activity is not prohibited or proscribed by law,individuals and organizations may voluntarily chose to engage in such activity or notbased on their own judgment and discretion. Another view states that there are three
options. In addition to voluntary and legally binding actions there exist obligations
and expectations concerning behavior that society sets in non binding instruments andcustoms that are always applicable and therefore not really optional. “Applicable” inthis sense means that it would be fair, legitimate or appropriate for anyone to assert
or otherwise maintain that a specific individual or organization behave in a way
consistent with the non binding expectation even where the individual or organization
has not accepted or recognized the obligation to do so. For example the OECD
Guidelines are not dependent on the acceptance by individual companies for theirprovisions to be applied to these companies or to be considered legitimate public
expectations with respect to the behavior of all companies falling with the scope of
this instrument.
153. Whether international law is binding on non-state actors and under whatcircumstances depends on the context of the law, as well as national laws andconstitutions which determine the effect of international in domestic contexts.
One view holds that there are three options: that between legal obligations andvoluntary actions exist a set of “non-legally binding” norms that, while not establishedin law, derive standing and legitimacy from the processes that developed them,
mainly at the international level. This view holds that such non-legally binding
instruments are not voluntary even when they are not codified in law. Examples ofsuch non-legally binding instruments include many internationally agreed documentsthat seek to set out a global consensus on a particular subject or issue.
154. Those that state there are only two options note that all international agreements,
even when they are legally binding, only impact private actors when they are
implemented and enforced through national laws. Different states may implement the45

same international agreement using very different national laws and institutions. Thus
what is legally-binding can only be defined relative to a particular country and not by
the underlying international convention. This is even more applicable when theinternational document is not legally-binding, as such documents leave considerable –indeed infinite – room for interpretation and flexibility at the national level.
1.9.3. Relationship between SR and the institutional/legal framework155. Social responsibility has a clear link to legal frameworks and institutions.
Additionally, some important aspects of what is currently considered social
responsibility are directly related to the inability or unwillingness of governments toimplement and enforce their own laws and regulations.
156. The vast majority of countries around the world have constitutions and laws thatcover most major elements of citizenship: human rights, civil rights, environmental
protection, labor rights, anti-corruption, etc. However, many countries lack thecapacity to implement and enforce these laws effectively or consistently. This lack ofaction or inability to act by governments has had a major impact on the evolution ofsocial responsibility in the form of the development of non-governmental initiatives toensure or encourage business partners to comply with laws.
157. Some of the most notable examples of such programs are the supply chain
management initiatives in the textile/apparel and toy industries. Faced with a situation
where many suppliers are based in countries with few resources to effectively
implement and enforce existing national laws, customers have instituted extensive
programs for private auditing of suppliers against national labor and environmental
laws. Other examples include anti-corruption programs designed to identify andprevent solicitations of bribes.
158. Where there is adequate capacity in public institutions, government enforcement
and legal liability tend to ensure a certain level of compliance with national laws sothat individuals and private organizations can assume that other organizations are incompliance with the law. And should these other organizations be in violation of laws,
it is organs of the state which bear the primary burden of ensuring that legal
compliance is achieved, not private actors.
159. Thus, the effectiveness and capacity of the legal framework in a given country isa primary determinant of what will and will not constitute social responsibility in thatcountry. In countries with weak institutions, limited capacity to enforce laws, orofficial corruption, non-governmental programs to ensure conformity with nationallaws may be particularly useful.
1.9.4. Relationship between purely private SR initiatives/activity and that taking
place pursuant to legal/institutional frameworks
160. A very clear distinction should be made between the appropriate role of the state
and what should be the role of private actors. A critical function of governments is toestablish, implement and enforce national laws. Government cannot shift these
responsibilities to private actors that have neither the mandate nor the democratic
processes required for that role.

46

161. The role of private organizations is to comply with all relevant legal
requirements and engage in additional voluntary actions that they deem appropriate . .
However there are examples where initial voluntary action has led to regulation -health and safety standards in European countries being one example.
1.9.5 Effect of resolution of legal/ non-legal SR debate on scope of SR
deliverables
162. If SR only addressed voluntary activities, the overall categories of SR would stillbe the same (e.g. human rights, workplace issues, environmental behaviour, businesspractices, and so forth). However, these categories would only apply toresponsibilities beyond legal obligations in the particular jurisdiction involved. Of
course, legal obligations vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so the voluntary
activities in each category would also vary. Thus, it seems that the overall scope of anorganization’s responsibilities would be the same, whether or not SR principles
included legal obligations.
1.9.6 How does society ensure that the SR activities of enterprises ororganizations are consistent with the interests of society?
163. Societies, comprised of a variety of groups with varying interests, protect theircollective interest through law. Societies, organized as nation-states, have developed
a variety of constitutional frameworks and political processes for the purpose of
establishing laws that reflect social norms and set minimum standards of behavior.
Laws and legal frameworks change over time to reflect changing social values andstandards of behavior. While they vary in many important aspects, most national
legal frameworks address all key elements of society: citizenship, suffrage, civilrights, criminal behavior, religious freedom, commerce, education, labor rights,
environmental standards, etc. Most national frameworks have also establishedsystems of courts in which societies uphold these standards and prosecute violators.
164. However, changes in social values – and the corresponding changes in legal
frameworks – are neither always clear nor consistent. Specific issues may be thesubject of wide social debate for some time before any new social consensus iscodified in national law. Thus, there is usually be a delay between the evolution andincubation of generally accepted social values and their codification in law, whereappropriate.
165. The issue of social expectations, therefore, does not fall completely within therealm of law and legal standards. What constitutes socially responsible behavior
depends on a wide variety of factors and actors, and varies widely within and between
countries. Key social institutions – governments, religious institutions, private
associations, civic leaders – all have an effect on an understanding of what is
acceptable behavior. Additionally, laws can not effectively apply different
requirements on behalf of different parts of society (i.e. consumers, employees,
suppliers). As “society” does not have uniform expectations, certain elements ofsociety may push for change before broad social consensus has been reached on theissue, using a variety of cooperative and confrontational means to effect such change.
Thus an organization may be in full legal compliance but still be not meeting the47social expectations of all elements of society.
166. Organizations can to evaluate whether their behavior conforms with social
expectations and define social responsibility within the context of their own
knowledge and experience. Many organizations voluntarily set standards forthemselves that are not required by law. To the extent that such self-defined standardsof behavior exceed legal requirements, it is appropriate for organizations to define
their own CSR policies and practices. However, by its nature, social responsibility
involves responsibility to others. It is therefore not possible to accurately definesocial responsibility without reference to the views of these others. The question of“how” the views of others can be gauged can be answered in a multitude of ways.
There is perhaps no single answer, and no single process, for all organizations,particularly as the expectations and interests of various groups may differ or evenconflict with each other.
167. In addition, sub sets of society have developed a range of mechanisms to express
their individual expectations. Components of society, including governments, areincreasingly using mechanisms other than laws – codes of conduct, standards, guiding
principles, procurement policies, etc. – to express their view of generally acceptedbehavior. Such expectations may eventually become more widely shared with otherelements of society and possibly become enshrined in law.
1.10 Relationship between SR and development
168. In the context of corporate social responsibility, the concept of “development” ismainly associated with developing countries and countries in transition, but in facteven so-called “developed countries” engage in significant efforts to encourage“development” in regions considered to be disadvantaged. It is important, therefore, torecognize at the outset that “development” is an elastic and variable term, likely tovary from one context to another, and that perspectives of local stakeholders are of
critical importance with considering CSR and “development”. All enterprises
wherever they operate should be sensitive to local customs, views and concerns.
Implementation of CSR approaches without consideration of local needs andperspectives could have negative impacts on local communities.
169. Widespread poverty in many countries exacerbates the difficulties faced bygovernments in attempting to devise appropriate solutions that protect the public
interest. In addition to problems associated with poverty, some governments may also
have longstanding issues concerning historical legacies, dependence of economies on
single industry and lack of financial resources, all of which may put them at aparticular disadvantage in terms of government capacity to effectively regulate in theareas of environmental, labour, human rights and consumer policy, as well as toprovide health security and education services.
170. Businesses cannot and should not be expected to take on the role of governments
in protecting the public interest, and in providing the legal frameworks to ensure thehealth, education and security of citizens. But through their practices and activities,businesses – particularly those that operate in many jurisdictions and can therefore
exercise leadership based upon their broad experience – can contribute to the social,48

economic and environmental advancement/improvement of communities in which
they operate. This point is enshrined in one principle of the Caux Round Table:77
Businesses established in foreign countries….should also contribute to thesocial advancement of those countries by creating productive employment andhelping to raise the purchasing power of their citizens. Businesses also should
contribute to human rights, education, welfare, and vitalization of the countriesof the in which they operate. Businesses should contribute to economic andsocial development not only in the countries in which they operate, but also in
the world community at large, through effective and prudent use of resources,
free and fair competition, and emphasis upon innovation in technology,
production methods, marketing and communications.
171. Placed within the context of development goals and objectives, CSR activities
can affect the formulation and application of particular standards will affect the
distribution of costs and benefits among companies, industries and countries. Firms
need to be careful to avoid imposing particular substantive requirements oncommunities who do not wish them. As has been noted earlier, CSR/SR activities
need to be sensitive to and respectful of local laws, cultures and concerns, and in thisregard dialogue or engagement with local stakeholders can play an important role. Aninternationally agreed-upon framework for integrating social, environmental andeconomic responsibilities could give firms guidance without pre-determining thesubstantive obligations that a firm must meet. In this regard, guidance concerning
local stakeholder engagement could be particularly important. : The ILO’s Tripartite
Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy
already provides ample guidance in this respect, encouraging multinational enterprises
to work closely with domestic enterprises, local government and workers’organizations to improve the situation in the areas of employment, skills development,
working conditions (particularly occupational safety and health) and industrial
relations.

Section 2 – Issues related to standardization of SR
172. The first section provided an overview of issues related to the concept andevolution of SR. This section focuses on issues relating to SR standardization and, inparticular, international SR standardization. It will start by discussing the different
types of initiatives that are variously referred to as codes, guidelines, standards andnorms (section 2.1). It will then present a range of issues related to whether
international SR standardization is needed (section 2.2), providing a framework forassessing whether international SR standards are needed, and will then consider arange of themes, including: an overview of the types of SR standards being
developed; a discussion of whether SR standardization and international
standardization is feasible or desirable; the kinds of problems that an international SR
standard could solve or create; and the possible content of an international SR

77

The Caux Round Table is a network of leading businesses from developed and developing countries,
which has developed its business principles as a foundation for dialogue and action by business andleaders worldwide. See www.cauxroundtable.org

49

standard. Section 3 will then focus on whether ISO has the capacity to undertake
work on SR deliverables.
2.1 SR and the field of Standardization
173. ISO's field of work has traditionally been limited to technical standards and test
methods for products, with ISO using the term "standard" to refer to a specifictechnical “deliverables”. In the field of SR, however, the terms "standardization" and"standard" are used by many other organizations to refer to a wide variety of different
types of SR instruments and initiatives, including norms, guidelines, codes of conduct
and partnerships. Most of these instruments and initiatives are quite different innature and scope from ISO standards. As a result, people outside of the ISO
community have expressed concern over the possibility that ISO might get involved
in areas of SR standardization since they consider that ISO does not have either thecompetence or legitimacy to address the whole range of SR issues. It is therefore
important for ISO to recognize this difference and not to become engaged in areas thatit cannot and should not be. Similarly, parties external to ISO must also be made tounderstand that, when ISO considers its possible role in the area of SR, most of the
ISO community is not referring to engagement in areas beyond its competence.
174. To avoid any misunderstandings in Section 2 an attempt is made to outline thedifferent types of SR standards and initiatives that have been developed. For the
purposes of this report we have differentiated between two main types: those thatdefine what it means to be socially responsible; and those that address a specificproblem. There are a number of different criteria and methods for categorizing SR
instruments and initiatives but none is perfect and none are completely distinct.
While there is a degree of overlap between these two categories, one of the key
perspectives through which the differences can be assessed is their development
process.
2.1.1 Standards that define social responsibility
175. The first broad category of SR standards defines what it means to be socially
responsible, and includes two basic sub-sets:176. a) Governmental and inter-governmental standards that are developed throughrepresentative processes and that define what it means to be socially responsible bysetting universally applicable substantive performance expectations, guidance or
requirements. At the intergovernmental level, this includes instruments such as theILO Conventions and other instruments, the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Other intergovernmental
instruments include the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. At thenational level, this includes national and sub-national laws and regulations.
177. Some of these instruments are developed to be implemented at the national level
through domestic legal frameworks and the creation of national institutions. This is
the case for most of the ILO and UN Conventions on economic, environmental andsocial issues. Others, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are
based on existing national regulations but outline a list of common expectations
across different countries. Probably the most important instrument of this type for SR

50

purposes is the ILO's Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational
Enterprises and Social Policy. Adopted on a consensus basis by the ILO’s Governing
Body where governments, employers and workers are equally represented, it sets out
universal social expectations that are directly applicable to business. It is also usefulto recall here that the ILO is the only intergovernmental body that was createdspecifically to develop international labour standards.
178. b) Private standards developed by non-governmental bodies that also set out
socially responsible expectations, which may or may not be based on existing
governmental and intergovernmental standards. In most cases, these private standards
prioritize a selective set of existing governmental or intergovernmental standards thatare applicable to a specific sector or range of activities. In others, they prioritize andset guidance or requirements that go beyond the existing governmental andintergovernmental standards, or complement existing requirements, e.g. the ICC
Business Charter for Sustainable Development. In some cases they redefine orreinterpret standards for various reasons including to make compliance lessburdensome or easier. Some of these types of standards are general statements
designed to be applicable to and adopted by the organizations that develop thestandard, e.g. the Caux Roundtable Principles. Others are designed to set socially
responsible expectations for other organizations. This is the case for the manydifferent supply chain codes such as FSC, SA8000 and FLA. The latter often include
certification and accreditation processes, and some also integrate management system
requirements similar in nature to existing ISO 9000 and 14000 standards. In othercases, the standards are used to guide other kinds of commercial decisions, such as thecriteria on which assessments are made for the Dow Jones Sustainability Index or
FTSE4Good Index.
179. While many of the private bodies that develop this type of SR standard include
broad participation by diverse interests, they do not have the same legitimacy as thestandards set by intergovernmental bodies. The Global Compact is a special case, inthat it consists of a set of universal principles covering human rights, labour andenvironment, derived from existing international instruments adopted byintergovernmental bodies. Generally, though, the competence and legitimacy of abody that defines substantive social expectations is intricately linked to the process
through which the standards are developed. While many private bodies base theirrequirements on existing governmental or intergovernmental standards, they cannot
legitimately create new substantive standards. In addition, there is a danger that thesebodies may "pick and choose" among, or interpret, governmental orintergovernmental standards in such a way that reduces or obscures their full scope.
180. While it has broad national body membership, ISO is not an intergovernmentalorganization and therefore cannot define on its own substantive expectations in thearea of social responsibility. At the same time, ISO must recognize and respect thelegitimacy and competence of existing bodies that have been setting SR standards formany years or decades - in particular the ILO and other UN bodies. There is adelicate balance that must be maintained between recognizing and promoting theexisting, universally applicable standards for SR, while not reducing or obscuring
their intent, scope and applicability. At the heart of efforts to reach a balance in thisarea is the need to ensure that standard-development processes reflect the nature of thesubject matter. ISO's processes are addressed in Section 3 of this report.

51

2.1.2 Standards that address specific problems
181. The second broad category of SR standards includes those that are developed toaddress a specific problem. There is a large degree of overlap between this category
and the private standards and initiatives described above. Some of the problems that
SR standards address are very specific – for instance, the Fair Trade labelingorganizations address the imbalance in global supply-chains and seek to ensure that
farmers in developing countries receive a fair price for their products. In someinstances, the specific problem that is addressed by SR standards is the credibility ofan organization's SR-related claims. For example, the SA8000 standard wasdeveloped along with certification and accreditation processes to help organizations todemonstrate their SR and the SR of their suppliers in a way that could be deemed
credible by consumers and stakeholders. The AA1000 and AS standards were also
developed to address issues of accountability and credibility.
182. Many of the standards that address specific problems are dependent on thesubstantive SR standards developed by intergovernmental or governmental bodies,
although many also go beyond them. Others do not integrate any specificrequirements. The GRI, for instance, outlines a commonly accepted SR reporting
framework that helps address the problems created by multiple enquiries for SRrelated information, credibility of SR claims, and the specific needs of the investor
community. While GRI recommends reporting against specific indicators, it does not
set substantive performance expectations - leaving it up to the organization itself todecide on these.
183. Other types of SR standards address more general management problems, or are
intended to help an organization to operationalize the SR expectations defined byother standards processes. These standards tend to be more process-oriented, andfocus on helping build an organization's capacity to understand and manage SR
issues. For instance, the ISO 14000 Series of standards are all process standards thatan organization can use to improve their environmental management systems,
environmental performance evaluations, development of ecolabels, or assessment of
the impacts of its activities across the full life-cycle of the product or service.
184. While these standards address a wide diversity of different problems, none ofthem seek to develop new substantive requirements that define when an organizationis, or is not, socially responsible. Many of the standards and initiatives that address
general management issues do not incorporate any substantive SR performancerequirements; those that do generally incorporate substantive requirements that
already exist in governmental or intergovernmental standards. Because ISO is not anintergovernmental body and therefore lacks the legitimacy and competence to definein substantive
terms the SR of organizations, it is in this latter category of SR standards that ISO
could become engaged
2.2 Are International SR Standards Needed?
185. While it is often asserted that any international standardization of SR should be
avoided if it results in fewer or less comprehensive regulations, there are also a range52

of opinions on how the costs and benefits of international SR standardization should
be assessed. For some, it should be assessed in the same way as any other type ofinternational standardization. For others, SR is a pubic policy issue and therefore theopportunities and threats posed by international SR standardization should consider
the overall public policy objective. This section will provide some background tothese two different perspectives, and present some of the different positions for andagainst international SR standardization.
2.2.1 The Standardization Policy Perspective
186. When ISO was created in 1947, its objective was essentially to provide
recommendations to its members aimed at harmonizing national standards. For the
first 25 years of its existence, the results of ISO’s technical work were published as
ISO Recommendations. It was only in the early 1970s that ISO began to publish its
own International Standards, which coincided with the beginnings of the expansion ofinternational trade.78
187. The early history of ISO was associated primarily with the harmonization ofnational standards, and so from the perspective of standardization policy, a costly andunnecessary proliferation of standards is still seen by many as the strongest
justification for the development of international standards. Some members of the
AG believe that an unnecessary proliferation of SR standards is the most importantcriteria for assessing the need for international SR standardization. Others highlightthat ISO has recognized that there are other criteria for justifying the development ofinternational standards, and that international standardization is sometimes the firstlocus for new standardization activity.79 They note that while proliferation ofnational, regional, and other standards is still an important criterion, it is not the only
one. They recommend considering other criteria under which international SR
standards might be justified.
2.2.2 The Public Policy Perspective
188. Some AG members believe that the most important concern when addressing theneed for international SR standardization is whether they can help to promote more
and better SR. They note that, while there may be appropriate and inappropriate
definitions of SR, and reasonable and unreasonable expectations, generally speaking,the promotion of SR is an important public policy objective. As highlighted in WSSD
Plan of Implementation80, it is increasingly being recognized that standards and othervoluntary initiatives can play a role in promoting public policy objectives.

78

Smith, Mike 1998; “You know ISO...but what are PAS, TS and ITA?”; in ISO Bulletin, November
1998, p. 12.
79
For example, in an article outlining ISO’s range of deliverables, Mike Smith, the Secretary of ISO’s
Technical Management Board (TMB), writes: “By the early 1980s, it was starting to be accepted thatISO standards had their own validity in the market place and by the latter part of the decade we saw the
first signs of what has come to be known as the globalization of markets. Not only were ISO standards
starting to establish their own validity in the marketplace, but in many instances ISO was being asked
to prepare the first standards on particular topics, and was consequently moving away from its original
mission of harmonizing national standards.” Smith, Mike 1998; “You know ISO...but what are PAS,TS and ITA?”; in ISO Bulletin, November 1998, p. 12.
80
Insert reference to paragraph 17(?), which refers to ISO.

53

189. The WSSD Plan of Implementation represents the most up to date statement by
the international community on the role of SR in promoting sustainable development.
Key paragraphs include81:
190. 18. [Call upon governments to] Enhance corporate environmental and social
responsibility and accountability. This would include actions at all levels to:a Encourage industry to improve social and environmental performance throughvoluntary initiatives, including environmental management systems, codes ofconduct, certification and public reporting on environmental and social issues,
taking into account such initiatives as the International Organization forStandardization (ISO) standards and Global Reporting Initiative guidelines onsustainability reporting, bearing in mind principle 11 of the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development;b Encourage dialogue between enterprises and the communities in which they
operate and other stakeholders;c Encourage financial institutions to incorporate sustainable development into
their decision making processes;
d Develop workplace-based partnerships and programmes including training andeducation programmes.
191. 49 [Call upon governments to] Actively promote corporate responsibility andaccountability, based on Rio Principles, including through the full development andeffective implementation of intergovernmental agreements and measures,international initiatives and public-private partnerships, appropriate national
regulations, and continuous improvement in corporate practices in all countries.
(Paragraph 45ter)
192. 140(f) Promote corporate responsibility and accountability and the exchange ofbest practices in the context of sustainable development, including, as appropriate,through multi-stakeholder dialogue, such as through the Commission on Sustainable
Development, and other initiatives;
193. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development also includes thefollowing paragraphs:
194. 27. We agree that in pursuit of its legitimate activities the private sector,
including both large and small companies, has a duty to contribute to the evolution ofequitable and sustainable communities and societies.
195. 29. We agree that there is a need for private sector corporations to enforce
corporate accountability, which should take place within a transparent and stable
regulatory environment.
196. ISO’s Strategic Vision is consistent with the WSSD vision for voluntary SR
standardization. In its recently published document, “ISO Horizon 2010 – Standards
for a sustainable world; Consultations to update ISO’s strategy for 2005 – 2010”, ISOoutlines several new challenges that it must respond to, including:81

Taken from: Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), 2004; “Following up the World Summit
on Sustainable Development Commitments on Corporate Social Responsibility”, Interim Report by
RIIA Sustainable Development Programme, www.riia.org.

54

150.
“the urgency of a responsible approach to sustainable development,
covering economic, social and environmental aspects, where all actors in society
have a role to play and all companies and organizations have new commitments
to make, as underlined at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in
Johannesburg in 2002;” (Page 2)

197. Some AG members have noted that there are two basic ways to get organizations
to undertake more or better SR. First, by helping organizations to understand SR and
implement it more easily; and second, by finding ways to link SR with economic
incentives. They point to possible roles for standards under each approach, while atthe same time noting that standardization of some elements of SR would becounterproductive. Other AG members point out that, while standardization may help
promote SR, it is not clear why international standardization is needed. They suggestthat there is little evidence that the existing national, regional, sectoral and issuespecific standards and voluntary initiatives are not working.
2.2.3 Summary: a framework for assessing the need for international SR
standards
198. When considering the need for international SR standardization it should be
noted that there are at least two different perspectives that each approach the issue indifferent ways. From the perspective of standards policy, the benefit of international
SR standards would be most obvious in a situation where there is a proliferation ofnational, regional and other standards – and where this proliferation created morecosts than benefits. From the perspective of public policy, the benefit of international
SR standards is related more to their value in promoting more and better voluntary SR
actions, including by helping organizations to more easily undertake SR actions; andby creating links between SR actions and economic incentives.
2.2.4 Is there an unnecessary proliferation of SR Standards?
199. As outlined in Section 2.1, there is a great diversity of CSR initiatives with awide variety of objectives and characteristics, including management systems,
reporting frameworks, international norms on labor and human rights, and sector andcompany-specific codes of conduct, just to name a few. They have also beendeveloped by a wide range of bodies, including NGOs, industry associations, national
standard bodies, governments, intergovernmental organizations, and multi-stakeholder
coalitions.
200. The different types of SR instruments that exist on all of these issues presents a
problem for anyone considering whether there is a proliferation of SR standards: what
to include in the count? Some AG members believe that limiting the analysis toconsider only the SR-related initiatives approved by ISO and its member bodies
would seem to ignore the majority of SR initiatives, and underestimate theproliferation. Others believe that the designation of “standard” is less important than
the impact that the initiative has, and therefore suggest that it would be advisable tofocus on where there seems to be an overlap or proliferation of different SR
initiatives, and assess costs and benefits of proliferation on this basis. Others havealso pointed out that proliferation is not the only risk – that incompatibility,55

inconsistency and incomparability should also be reduced particularly if publicconfidence in standards is to be maintained.
201. Two additional caveats should be added at this stage. First, as some AG
members have noted, international standardization is not the only way to reduce thecosts of proliferation. Technical equivalence agreements, although rarely negotiated,
are also a mechanism for promoting harmonization and reducing the costs ofproliferation. Others suggest that, given the failure of technical equivalenceagreements to date, this is an unlikely solution.
202. Second, some AG members have notes that not all SR initiatives have the same
approach or objective. They advocate for taking a more nuanced approach, anddistinguishing between different types of initiatives when considering whether there isa proliferation. They claim that, while 100 separate SR initiatives might not in itself
suggest that there is a problem of proliferation, 100 separate SR initiatives focused
specifically on the forestry sector probably might suggest that a problem exists. The
next section will present an overview of the AG’s discussions on the differences
between types of SR initiatives. While it is not in the remit of this report to provide acomprehensive methodology for categorizing different types of initiative, it isnonetheless worth noting some key characteristics. Generally, SR initiatives can be
distinguished on the basis of a) the nature of their guidance and/or requirements; b)their focus; and c) their objective. These are not exclusive categories, and most SR
initiatives exhibit a combination of characteristics from each of these categories.
2.3.1 The Nature of the Guidance or Requirements
203. The first distinction highlighted by the AG’s discussions is based on the nature of
the guidance and/or requirements contained in the initiatives. Most SR initiatives
exist along a continuum between two poles. At one end are initiatives that seek todefine “substantive requirements”. These initiatives can contain a combination ofgeneral guidance – often in the form of “Principles” – and specific requirements,
criteria and indicators that must be used and complied with. While they can include
process-based requirements, they generally tend to be more focused on performanceoutcomes.
204. At the other pole are initiatives that develop “tools” that help organizations
implement substantive guidance or requirements. These help with the mechanics of
SR – such as reporting, stakeholder consultation or management systems – and, at theextreme, do not contain any guidance or requirements related to “ethical standards”.
ISO 14001 is a good example of this latter type of initiative.
205. In reality, most SR initiatives lie somewhere in between these two poles andcontain both “substantive requirements” and “tools”. While some SR initiatives are
only limited to “tools”, almost all of the existing SR initiatives contain substantive
requirements. As suggested by Part 1, the SR initiatives developed by ISO’s member
bodies tend to follow more of a pure “tools” approach, and have relatively fewer
substantive requirements than non-ISO initiatives.
2.3.2 The Focus of the Initiative56

206. The second distinction identified in the AG’s discussions is based on the focus of
the initiative. There are at least four different foci for SR initiatives, including:i) state or non-state;ii) geographic;iii) sectoral; andiv) issue-based.
207. There is a large number of international instruments that concern SR addressed at
State actors. These are intended to guide the development of national policies or
national regulatory frameworks; although some AG members have noted that someinternational norms, such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights, are recognized as
being directed to all parts of society, including private, non-state actors. Others notethat international agreements do not impose obligations on their own, but only
through the domestic legislative process – which often provides a degree of flexibility
to accommodate for unique national economic, environmental or social
characteristics.
208. Some AG members have stated that the comparison of SR initiatives developed
through the UN with other SR initiatives developed by industry associations or civilsociety is dismissive of the fundamental legitimacy and competence of UN bodies.
Others note that many organizations have very little awareness of the UN’s
Agreements, and some countries have not ratified or implemented their requirements.
Others still claim that this is largely immaterial to the discussion because a small
exporter is not likely to care if the source of a supply-chain requirement is a UN
Agreement, a domestic law or an NGO-based initiative: what may matter most is thatcompliance with the standard has become an economic imperative: they have tocomply with it to continue to stay in business.
209. Some AG members have noted that the application of many issue- or sectorspecific SR initiatives is not limited by geography, even when they have beendeveloped within a specific country or region. Rather, the limit of applications isdefined by the commercial relationships that integrate the SR initiative. An exampleof this is supply-chain requirements. Some AG members have underlined the need toensure that standards are appropriate to the context in which they are applied, andhave suggested that SR requirements developed in OECD countries are notnecessarily suitable for application in non-OECD countries. Because many types of
SR initiatives reach across borders, while there may not be a proliferation in “source”
countries, their may be a proliferation in “destination” countries.
2.3.3 The Objective of the Initiative
210. The third distinctive characteristic discussed by AG members is the objective of
the SR initiative recognizing that the overarching goal of all SR initiatives is toimprove social and environmental performance. For the purposes of this working
report, these have been grouped in two general categories:a) Defining the terms of commercial relationships; andb) Building internal capacity to manage SR.
211. AG members have noted that some SR initiatives seem primarily intended tohelp parties engage in commercial activities (e.g. buy and sell goods, raise capital,

57

negotiate contracts). This is a widely recognized role for standards and forinternational standards in particular. For example, the ISO standards for paper-size
make it easier for buyers to communicate important compatibility specifications to
producers of photocopiers, printers and fax machines. From the SR-perspective, andas illustrated in Part 1, a growing number of commercial relationships are increasingly
being defined by SR issues. Examples of these sorts of commercial relationships
include public procurement policies, supply-chain requirements, criteria required byinstitutional and private investors; criteria required by public export credit andinvestment assurance bodies; and others.
212. While AG members note that there is not enough data available on which to basefirm conclusions, it seems that, at the moment, most of the SR initiatives that include
performance requirements are being used to define the terms under which commercial
relationships are conducted – and therefore the terms under which economic rewards
will be granted. A central objective of many of these initiatives is to promote
informed consumer choice in the marketplace. Of these, perhaps the most pervasiveis the use of codes of conduct as market segmentation tools (i.e. final consumers) or in
supply-chain requirements (i.e. public and private procurement policies). A central
question, then, is: Does a proliferation of SR codes of conduct and standards create
the barriers to market access in the same way that technical standards do?
213. The evidence on this is mixed. While some companies raise the alarm about the
proliferation of SR supply-chain requirements and the threat of increasing costs andbarriers to market access, most of the evidence to date is anecdotal and difficult toquantify. Two recent studies, however, by the ILO and the World Bank, haveconcluded that there are problems associated with the proliferation of supply-chain
requirements, but that the root cause is not an inconsistency between the substantive
requirements, but rather the fact that different codes have different proprietaryconformity assessment procedures. While there may be a number of ways to reducethe cost of multiple conformity assessments, some AG members note that one
possible solution would be to harmonize the standards for which the different
conformity assessments are designed to assess compliance. They note that, if there
are few inconsistencies between these different codes or standards, the rationale forharmonization would be relatively strong. Other AG members state that there does
appear to be costs associated with the proliferation of requirements, above and beyond
the costs associated with multiple conformity assessments.
214. There are a wide range of issues relating to the use of SR initiatives to define theterms of commercial relationships that are just not well-enough understood. As aresult, there is no consensus among the AG on whether there is an unnecessary
proliferation. Some AG members note that – because of the differences between thepriorities and implementation of SR in different sectors and countries – there may
always be a need for different SR initiatives. Others assert that it is possible toprovide flexibility while promoting more harmonization, and that an international
template standard could help. A comparison of the existing initiatives, theirrequirements and their conformity assessment procedures, would be needed before
any firm conclusions are drawn.
215. A second category of objective discussed in the AG is initiatives which aim tobuild internal capacity to manage social responsibility. There seem to be two sub-sets

58

of this category: a) management tools; and b) awareness raising tools. Management
tools include reporting frameworks, management systems, performance evaluation
and auditing tools. Management tools help organizations to implement their own
conception of SR, but they do not usually provide substantive SR requirements or
guidance. Awareness-raising tools, on the other hand, seek to inform and educateorganizations on the substantive elements of SR, including prioritization. While there
are few purely awareness-raising SR initiatives, many exhibit this characteristic. For
example, the Global Compact, which raises companies’ awareness through its 9
Principles, could be considered an awareness-raising initiative. Some AG members,
however, have expressed concern that, even though they do not require specific SR
performance, some of these capacity-building SR initiatives are mis-represented as
implying good performance on SR issues.
2.3.4 Summary: Different Types of SR Initiatives
216. The intention of this section was to provide and overview of AG discussions on
various different types of SR initiatives and to provide a rudimentary framework for
distinguishing between some of the main characteristics. These issues were presented
in the context of whether or not it is possible to determine of there is a proliferation of
SR initiatives. On the whole, there is no consensus in the AG on whether or not there
is an unnecessary proliferation, although there seems to be a general agreement thatany assessment of proliferation must be approached in a more nuanced way, andshould distinguish between, among other things, the nature of the requirements
contained in, the focus of, and the objective of existing SR initiatives.
217. There are a number of other broad trends that can be drawn from this analyticalframework, although care should be taken not to treat these as conclusions. Moredetailed information is needed before any firm conclusions can be made.
218. First, it would appear that, whether or not it was the original intention, a majorityof existing SR initiatives are being used to define the terms of commercial
relationships. This trend is perhaps most obvious in the case of supply-chain
requirements, which are increasingly integrating sustainability and SR criteria. Some
AG members believe that this suggests that any SR initiative should be developedwith a careful concern for the potential impact it has on commercial relationships.
219. Second, it would appear that the least prevalent type of SR initiative is thedevelopment of management tools that have no substantive requirements at all,although this seems to be the focus for most of the SR standards being developed byISO’s member bodies. Whether this should be taken as indicative of a need for morework in this area or, alternatively, that this type of SR initiative is relatively lessneeded cannot be determined on the basis of this report alone, and opinions amongst
the AG are split. Some AG members have thought it noteworthy, however, that there
seems to be a correlation between the scope and detail of specific performancerequirements and the degree of multi-stakeholder involvement in the development
process. Others believe that many multi-stakeholder initiatives that do not include
strong industry tend to lack market relevance and support.
220. Third, it would appear that the nature of the requirements or guidance in an SR
initiative plays an important role in defining how it can be used. For example, it59

would appear that the stronger the link between the initiative and SR performance, themore likely that it will be used to define commercial relationships. Some AG
members suggest that, as the growing importance of SR reporting – including GRI –in the financial community demonstrates, this does not mean that the initiative must
actually define specific performance requirements, but just that it must provide
performance-based information that interested parties can use.
221. Fourth, it would appear that SR initiatives that create the biggest problems formarket access are those that contain the most specific performance requirements andthose that include proprietary conformity assessment procedures. This is, of course,
one of the great dilemma’s of SR initiatives: the stronger a link to performance, andthe more independent the assessment of conformity, the greater the likelihood of
economic reward and the greater the likelihood of barriers to market access or capital.
Other AG members have suggested, however, that the examples of ISO 14001 and
OHS18000 demonstrate that process-based SR initiatives can also become importantcomponents of commercial relationships, and hence barriers to market access orcapital.
2.4 The Benefits of International SR Standardization
222. As outlined in section 2.2, the costs and benefits of international SR
standardization can be assessed according to either a standardization policy
perspective or a public policy perspective. From a standardization perspective,
international SR standardization is desirable if it facilitates trade, in particular byharmonizing an unnecessary proliferation of overlapping national, regional and other
SR initiatives. From a public policy perspective, international SR standardization
would be desirable if it could help to increase SR actions by i) leading to thedevelopment of better SR regulations; ii) helping organizations to implement SR moreeasily; and iii) help to create economic incentives to undertake SR actions.
223. ISO has clearly stated that it does not consider the role of international
standardization to be limited to the harmonization of existing standards. It has also
clearly stated that it sees a role for itself in addressing the challenge of pursuing andpromoting sustainable development. The assessment in section 2.3 suggests thatmany types of voluntary SR initiatives are playing an increasingly important role in
the promotion of sustainable development, and in the facilitation of commerce,
including trade. Although the growing number of SR standards would seem tosuggest that many organizations have concluded that SR standardization of some kindis needed, , some AG members argue that it is not enough to demonstrate that SR
standardization is needed; what must be demonstrated is that national, regional,
sectoral, issue-specific, and other kinds of standards are not enough: that international
SR standardization is needed. They suggest that there is little or no evidence that
there are any short-comings of “non-international” standardization. The next section
will review the AG’s discussions on this issue in more detail. The proceeding section
will then review discussions on the feasibility of international standardization,highlighting some specific challenges that must be overcome.
224. As suggested in Section 1, it is difficult to separate the need for internationallyrecognized SR standardization from the reality of globalization, including theliberalization of trade and investment, and the dispersion of production facilities and60

suppliers throughout the world. For some AG members, the extent that anorganization’s employees, consumers, suppliers, investors and regulators are
dispersed around the globe, and to the extent that they are individually andcollectively interested in SR issues, suggests a need for internationally recognized SR
initiatives. They state that one way to develop internationally recognized SR
initiatives is through international standardization. Others believe that there are otherapproaches that should be considered and that the market will eventually decide
which are, and which are not, recognized.
225. It is generally accepted in the AG that when one is considering the desirability ofinternational SR standardization it is important not to confuse the costs and benefits ofinternational standardization with those of standardization in general. Indeed, manyof the benefits that are often identified in discussions are not specifically linked tointernational SR standardization. For example, some of the benefits that have been
identified by the AG include:
Providing a common understanding of which issues are important to society(although others believe that this can only be done through politicalprocesses);
Providing accepted guidance on common processes for developing andimplementing SR programs;
Providing a common understanding of performance indicators soorganizations and their stakeholders can judge the effectiveness of SR
programs (although others believe that many of the social issues cannot be
quantified in indicators); andProviding guidance on acceptable methods for reporting SR aspects, impacts,
and activities.
226. These benefits would result from any kind of standardization, and might befulfilled, for example, at the national or regional level. They do not necessarily
support claims that international SR standardization is necessary.
227. Potential benefits of international SR standardization include:
1. It would provide a “common understanding” of SR issues on a global basis,
thereby creating a common reference point that is appropriate, understood,
accepted and distributed in all countries;
2. It could give marginalized voices a platform on which to participate in thedevelopment of requirements that will affect them. This is particularly
relevant for countries with less economic development, who have very little
involvement in the development of existing SR initiatives, and therefore
cannot ensure that their priorities and concerns are satisfactorily addressed;
3. It would level the playing field at the global level, not just for businessorganizations, but also for developing and developed countries, and forstakeholders of all types;
4. It could bring a broader range of experience and expertise to bear on SR thanis the case at present, and result in deliverables that can replace relatively lesseffective standards. This can help to promote good-practice and technology
transfer; and5. If it was broadly recognized, it could reduce transaction costs, improve
communications and facilitate trade at an international level. The benefits of61

national and regional standardization are limited to national and regional
communication and trade.
6. If it was developed and implemented on a credible manner, international SR
standardization could add some trust in this area, including with content.
228. Most of these benefits are relatively straightforward and do not need further
discussion. But it would be worthwhile to expand briefly on three of these benefits.
A consideration of the costs of international SR standardization will follow.
2.4.1 Giving All Countries a Role in Developing SR Requirements
229. One of the trends discussed in section 2.3 is that many types of SR initiatives
seem to be driven by commercial relationships across national boundaries. Whether
or not a country was involved in the development of ISO 14001, OHS18000 or
SA8000, there is a good chance that some of its companies will have to comply with
their requirements. Some AG members have suggested that, where theserequirements are based on universally accepted norms, this is perhaps not such a big
problem. Others note that, in cases where SR initiatives address other issues, or go
beyond existing international norms, this can create problems. In particular, theyexpress a concern that if the requirements are developed without any knowledge ofthe domestic circumstances, priorities and challenges, the requirements may beinappropriate, and counter-productive.
230. In this instance, some AG members have highlighted Principle 11 of the Rio
Declaration, which states:"Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect
the environmental and development context to which they apply. Standards
applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic
and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries."

231. They argue that the basis behind this Principle is also applicable to social andeconomic standards, and that it implies a need to focus on equity, and the expectationthat countries should have a role in the development of requirements that are applied
within their own borders. This links directly to the objective of sustainable
development and adds a responsibility for SR standardization to take account oftransboundary effects and the need for international cooperation, including among
stakeholders. Other AG members refer to this more directly as sovereignty, andquestion how a developing country can limit the application of an SR initiative within
its borders. Some AG members suggest that it should seek to engage in thedevelopment of the initiative, and thereby try to influence its requirements. Others
not that, given the large number of initiatives being developed, the difficulties
inherent in trying to influence distant processes, and the frequent lack of formal
procedures that give external parties a role in the development of SR initiatives, it isunlikely that this will be successful.
232. Some AG members also suggest that, if it is concerned about inappropriate SR
requirements being imposed from outside, a developing country can develop anational standard that is more appropriate to their domestic context. Other AG
members suggest that this ignores the reality that most developing country are62standards-takers, both because they lack the market power to gain recognition for theirstandards and because they have limited institutional, technical and human resources.
The question of identification of stakeholders is critical in this debate, and it has been
noted that national standards bodies have few existing relationships with thestakeholders or the consultation processes needed for SR standardization.
233. At least theoretically, then, international SR standardization in ISO could help in
two ways. First, because developing countries have a formal role in ISO, supported
by a network of national standards bodies some AG members believe that SR
standardization in ISO could lead to relatively more developing country involvement
than would be the case in other private standard setting bodies. Second, some AG
members believe that international SR standardization could create an internationalreference document that developing countries could implement, or could adapt tobetter suite domestic circumstances. They note that this is consistent with the conceptof “technical equivalence”.
2.4.2 Creating a level playing field for all organizations
234. AG members have identified a variety of ways in which a single international SR
standard could help by creating a level playing field. First, it could help organizations
with operations and suppliers in many different countries to implement a consistent
SR policy. Second, it could help employees, consumers, investors and other parties
interested in an organization’s social responsibility to compare and contrast different
companies in different countries, and also the same company’s SR in different
countries of operation. Third, where there are economic rewards associated with
implementation of SR initiatives, an international standard could make sure that allorganizations are competing on an even playing field – that is, that a consistent levelof SR is achieved before competitors gain rewards.
2.4.3 Reduce transaction costs, facilitate communication and/or facilitate trade235. In principle, a single international standard will – by its very existence – reducetransaction costs, and facilitate communication and trade. But in practice, this will
depend on two issues: First, will the international standard be able to communicate thenecessary information effectively? In this case, “effectiveness” is assessed in terms ofconsistency, credibility, clarity and comprehensiveness. Second, will the international
SR standard replace existing SR standards? Will it be accepted or recognized? There
are a variety of reasons why an international standard might not replace existing
standards, including because it seeks to fulfill a different objective or it does not havethe support of other standardizing bodies. This issue is of fundamental importance: if
an international SR standard does not reduce the need for new SR initiatives, or insome cases replace existing ones, it is unlikely to provide many benefits. On the other
hand, if existing standards require a higher level of responsibility than international
standards, or serve different objectives, international standardization may lead torelatively weaker forms of SR. Of course, it is important to note that an international
standard can also reduce transaction costs, and facilitate communication and trade if itleads to a harmonization of existing standards. This is consistent with the concept of“technical equivalence”.

632.5 The Costs of International SR Standardization
236. Just as in the case of the benefits of international SR standardization, some AG
members note that some of the costs identified in discussions are also not particular tointernational standardization, but are equally relevant to national, regional or sectoral
standardization.
237. The evidence from existing initiatives has created some concern that any type of
SR standardization could lead to some negative collateral impacts. The AG has
identified six main areas of concern.
238. First, there is a general concern that, because SR is a relatively new concept,
standardization could lead to a reduction in innovative approaches, and cement in animperfect understanding of what works and what does not. The main argument
behind this concern is not that SR standardization is impossible, but that it ispremature – and that lessons from current experience are rare and ill-understood.
239. Second, there is a concern that SR standardization would reduce the flexibility
that organizations need to ensure that SR policies and programs are appropriate tospecific circumstances. The fundamental belief behind this concern is that SR
depends on subtle local and organizational differences that could not possibly be
accommodated in generic standards, particularly at the international level.
240. Third, there is a concern that SR standardization could create barriers to market
access and capital, particularly if they are integrated into public and private
procurement policies. This concern arises out of the belief that SR standardization
would increase the integration of SR issues into commercial agreements but, at thesame time, might impose inappropriate or unjustified requirements on organizations,in particular SMEs and organizations in developing countries.
241. Fourth, there is a concern that SR standardization would impose inappropriate
models of development on countries that have not been actively involved in thestandardization process. This concern is grounded on the well-recognized fact thatdeveloping countries – and least developed countries in particular – play a relatively
small role in all types of standardization activity.
242. Fifth, there is a concern that SR standardization could be detrimental to the
public interest if SR deliverables were used to convince the public that something was
being addressed that was not in fact being addressed (i.e. “to cover up” problems).
243. Finally, there is a concern that SR standardization will distort the debate on SR
by creating the impression that there is a source of expertise that does not exist. It issuggested that this will result in the creation of bodies of false authority in order toredefine or reinterpret already established expectations, or to convince others that
there are technical solutions to political problems.
244. The AG has also identified some costs specific to international SR
standardization, including:squeeze out existing SR initiatives that are better suited to specific countries,
issues or sectors;

64restrict innovation in the area of SR implementation;
overlap with and weaken national legislation;
mislead organizations and interested parties by implying that compliance withinternationally agreed minimum requirements is enough;it might provide a disincentive for governments, particularly in developing
countries, to establish an appropriate national regulatory framework;
it could create conflicting requirements with national legal obligations, forcompanies and organizations;
if it focused purely on process, it has the potential to force out otherapproaches that seek to integrate normative criteria with management systems
approaches; andit could be used to create a false authority or be used as an inappropriate
arbitrator of issues.
2.6 Discussion on the Costs and Benefits of International SR Standardization
245. Some AG members contend that international standardization of genericguidance on SR would fail to reflect the national and local economic, social andenvironmental characteristics that are integral to priority-setting and implementationof SR. They conclude that national- or sectoral- SR standards would be more
effective than a generic, international SR standard. Others note that an international
SR deliverable could nonetheless act as a template on which different but comparable
national or sectoral SR standards could be developed. It has also been noted that aninternational SR deliverable could be based on existing internationally-recognized anduniversally accepted norms. Although this is qualified by the warning that it would beinappropriate for standardization to be used to addresses issues that can only be
addressed through governmental negotiations
246. In theory, then, an international SR deliverable could provide a more effective
approach for understanding and implementing SR than do existing nation-, sector- or
issue-specific SR initiatives. But given that nation-, sector- or issue-specific SR
standardization can more easily provide detailed and useful guidance to organizations,
it is unlikely that the greatest value of international SR standardization will be in its
ability to provide more effective guidance.
247. It is generally agreed that there already exist a wide variety of tools available in
the form of guidelines etc to help organizations understand and implement various
aspects or components of SR. While some AG members believe that some of thesetools would benefit from the increased credibility and legitimacy offered by thedesignation of an international standard, others believe that the costs associated withinternational SR standardization would not be justified by this benefit alone.
248. One of the main areas of contention is whether SR is mature enough to makeinternational standardization possible, and to avoid restricting innovation. On one
hand, some AG members assert that international standardization is not appropriate
for areas without clear definition of the scope, where understanding can be expected
to continue to evolve over time, and for issues where appropriate performance isdefined on a local basis. They note that international agreement even on theindividual elements of SR, such as environmental management, has taken many years,
and suggest that it will take even longer to arrive at international understanding and65

agreement on SR. In addition, given that many of the issues related to SR may haveto be addressed through political processes or regulations, there is a concern thatpremature standardization could also pre-empt the treatment of these issues throughother processes.
249. On the other hand, it is suggested that the problem may not be that the concept of
SR is changing, but rather that organizations’ understanding of, commitment to, andmanagement of SR is evolving. They contend that, as long as an international SR
deliverable has enough flexibility to enable companies to adapt their application of thestandard over time to fit their evolving understanding/commitment/management ofSR, there is not likely to be a problem. They also suggest that any genericinternational standard that has enough flexibility to accommodate any sector and any
country will also have enough flexibility to accommodate any “conception” of SR.
They also note that ISO’s processes are designed to deal with evolving issues, since
all deliverables must be reviewed at least every 5 years, at which point they may berevised or revoked if they are deemed out of date.
250. Some AG members believe that, ultimately, a response to the question “Isinternational SR standardization desirable” can only be given in relation to a specific
type of SR standard. They believe that the feasibility of international SR
standardization also depends on the specific scope and type of deliverable being
considered. The next section will consider some general issues relating to thefeasibility of international SR standardization.
2.7 Is International SR Standardization Feasible
251. It is generally agreed that SR is a topic of significant interest that deservesattention from the international community. There is also a general agreement thatvoluntary SR initiatives, including formal standards, have a role to play in promoting
SR. That said, there is less agreement on the need for international SR
standardization; while this is partly due to the failure to agree on the primary objectiveof international SR, or at least a starting point, there are also some more fundamental
challenges. These challenges reflect on the feasibility of different types ofinternational SR standardization, and can be summarized in 6 key questions:
1. Can international SR Standardization be undertaken in the absence of acommonly accepted definition of SR?
2. How specific does the objective have to be?
3. Is it possible to integrate performance requirements into international SR
standardization?
4. How can a balance be struck between flexibility and consistency?
5. Is verification needed, and are there alternatives to third-party certification?
and6. To what extent should international SR standardization be guided by the
economic incentives and pressures for SR?
252. It is important to note that there are a number of tests for feasibility, including
political, technical, and logistical feasibility. This is not a straightforward issue, andthere may be a trade-off between these elements. To a certain extent, however, thefact that there already exist a number of SR standards would suggest that SR66

standardization is feasible. There are at least 10 ongoing or completed national SR
standardization initiatives, as well as a large number of issue- or sector-specific SR
standards already published. AG members have qualified this evidence with two
points.
253. First, some AG members have noted that all of the existing national SR standards
have focused on developing “tools” with almost no guidance or requirements on“ethical standards”. As a result, they claim that the existence of these standards
should not be taken as evidence that all types of SR deliverables can be developed.
254. Second, some AG members have stated that the existence of SR standards should
only be taken as evidence of the feasibility of SR standardization if there isaccompanying evidence that they are effective at achieving their objectives. They
claim that, at present, there are no commonly accepted indicators for assessing theeffectiveness of SR standards. In addition, they aver that it is unclear in someinstances what the specific objective of the SR standard is. As a result of these twopoints, Some AG members conclude that the simple fact that SR standards exist
should not be taken as evidence that SR standardization is feasible. There are anumber of other issues that need to be considered to assess the feasibility of SR
standardization.
2.7.1 Common Definition for SR
255. It is generally accepted that the feasibility of most kinds of SR standardization
depends, at a fundamental level, on whether there exists a commonly-accepted visionof what SR entails. A review of existing SR initiatives suggests that there is nocommonly held definition of SR, nor a common understanding of its components.
This suggests that it may be difficult to reach a single, commonly accepted outline ofwhat constitutes good SR practice. Alternatively, it suggests that standardization
would have to be undertaken in a way that is not dependent on a specific definition. It
is unclear, however, how standardization can be successful in defining a commonlyaccepted vision of SR unless it is based on a common definition.
256. Some AG members have made the point that the absence of an existing
internationally agreed definition of SR does not mean that it one would be impossible
to reach. They note that, although the AG did spend some time compiling a list of
preliminary issues relating to SR, it has to date made relatively few efforts to reach acommon definition of SR. Some sticking points include the balance between
voluntary and legal requirements, the specific components of SR, and more
fundamentally, the amount of detail that is needed when describing specificcomponents and sub-components.
257. The feasibility of standardization also depends on whether the provisions
required to achieve the common vision of CSR can be communicated effectively.
Effectiveness is judged in terms of clarity, comprehensiveness, consistency andcredibility. To a certain extent, and particularly with an issue as complex as SR, theclarity and consistency of the information being communicated will depend on thediversity of the target audience: the more diverse the audience, the more likely thateach interested party has its own perceptions and interpretations of what SR means,
and also of what the provisions in a SR standard means.

672.7.2 A Specific Objective
258. Just as there is no single definition of SR, there is also no single objective of SR
initiatives. While the common goal of most SR initiatives is to promote social andenvironmental responsibility, they seek to fulfill this goal in different ways. As
mentioned above, some SR initiatives seek to link economic rewards with SR actions;other seek to provide tools to help organizations manage or report on SR; others seek
to define baselines of what can be considered SR, usually in the context of specificissues or sectors.
259. Either way, it was noted that it is not possible to develop a single deliverable toachieve all objectives, and that different characteristics are required for different
purposes. Some key differences in characteristics include: the nature of therequirements or guidance (process- or performance-based); the focus (geographic-,
sector- and issue-specific); and the incentive structures behind it. Until there is acommon agreement on the objective of international SR standardization, it is unlikelythat there can be agreement on the type or content of a specific international SR
deliverable. At the moment, however, there is no agreement on what the primaryobjective of international SR standardization should be. Indeed, there are also some
AG members who cannot see any role for ISO in this area.
260. Of those that do see a possible role, some believe that the focus should be oninternal management – to help organizations improve the implementation of SR. In
this context, some think that the definition of SR should be left entirely up to theorganization, while others suggest that the definition of SR must reflect existing
international norms, and the interests and priorities of communities, workers, NGOs,
governments and others. On the other hand, there is a feeling among some AG
members that the primary objective should be to facilitate the establishment ofcommercial relationships that integrate SR conditions by establishing a commonly
accepted baseline for what SR means – a sort of “safe harbor” for organizations thatwant to demonstrate their commitment to SR. This would, for instance, be consistent
with ISO’s mandate to develop standards that facilitate trade. Another view is thatinternational SR standardization should be avoided if it simply delays theimplementation of more useful measures, including government regulation.
2.7.3 Integrating Performance Requirements
261. While AG members are generally in agreement that the most significant elementof an organization’s SR is not how it manages it, but what it actually achieves, there isa diversity of views on the feasibility of integrating performance requirements into aninternational SR standard.
262. On one hand, some AG members feel that, because the international SR
standardization would have to accommodate such a diversity of different interest
groups, it could only ever result in a generalized distillation of internationallyrecognized and universally applicable principles. This view suggests that, althoughgenerally desirable, SR standardization would not be helpful because it would create
only a lowest common denominator that would not challenge any organization

68

enough. If this was the case, then international SR deliverables would simply add yet
another document to the many that already exist.
263. Other AG members reach a different conclusion. They suggest that international
SR standardization could be performance-relevant without necessarily integrating
specific performance requirements directly into a standard. They draw on the exampleof the FSC model, which includes an international standard built on Principles ofsustainable forest management, and complemented by criteria and indicators. This
international standard is treated as a template with which other, more refined andspecific standards are developed at the national, regional or eco-system level, as
appropriate. Proponents of this approach note that, strictly speaking, international
standards are adopted through a national review and consultation process. This
process could be used to refine and adapt an international template SR standard tobetter suite domestic conditions, and to better reflect domestic priorities. In this way,international SR standardization would not create performance requirements, butwould create a template from which countries, sectors, regions, etc… could develop
different but technically equivalent SR standards.
2.7.4 The balance between flexibility and consistency
264. As mentioned, the definition of “standard” refers to documents that aredeveloped for “common and repeated use”. One of the touchstones of international
standardization, then, is to ensure that the requirements are communicated in a clear
and consistent fashion, so that any organization anywhere in the world can read it andunderstand the same message. If there was no consistency, then the value of theinternational standard would be reduced because organizations would not know if they
were complying with its requirements, and interested parties would not know if anorganization had complied with the same requirements that they expected it to. Froma certain perspective, there is a real value in consistency.
265. On the other hand, it is also recognized that there is a need for flexibility in SR
initiatives – including in terms of both the prioritization of the components of SR andthe approaches to achieving the requirements in SR initiatives. In particular, there is aneed to ensure that international SR standardization is sufficiently flexible toaccommodate differences at the local level. AG members concerned about inflexible
SR initiatives suggest that there are a number of ways that this flexibility could beachieved without sacrificing the clarity, consistency, comprehensiveness andcredibility of the relevant provisions.
266. One approach would be to focus on the management system elements needed tounderstand and manage SR issues. In this respect, it is noted that ten different national
standards bodies are developing or have already developed SR standards that take theform of management systems. However, there is a general agreement that a Plan-DoCheck-Act (PDCA) model would add relatively little to SR without a stronger focus
on performance – including perhaps by referencing existing international SR norms.
Another approach could be to build on what appears to be the only truly common
thread to all SR initiatives – stakeholders – and to standardize the process of helping
organizations identify, address and respond to local, national and international
concerns. Again, it is recognized that this approach would also have to have a focus
on performance – perhaps again by referring to, or distilling, existing international

69

norms. It has been suggested, however, that any focus on stakeholders would have to
avoid inappropriate consultation processes, and also avoid consultations withinappropriate stakeholders (that is organizations that do not really have a genuine
claim that arises out of the interests of society). It has been noted, though, thatstakeholder-based processes tend to focus more on outcomes than processes, andtherefore require a some measurement and communication of performance impacts.
2.7.5 Verification and Alternatives to 3rd Party Certification
266. There are a number of different views expressed on the issue of 3rd party
certification. Some feel that 3rd party certification is a useful soft-policy tool that has
been a catalyst for improved social and environmental performance and that facilitates
informed consumer choice. Others feel that there is a need to re-consider the role ofthird-party certification. Although the issue initially was raised in the context ofManagement System Standards and process requirements, there is a general agreementthat – while the opportunity to obtain some kind of assurance on the implementationof SR initiatives is probably needed – there has not been enough consideration ofalternatives, and perhaps improvements, to 3rd party certification. There are threeelements to this point: first, certification is often prohibitively costly for small andmedium organizations, although new approaches to group or phased certification are
still evolving; second, the quality of oversight provided by certifiers is not always
consistent; and third, there may be other, more constructive ways to provide
assurance. That said, it was also noted that there will undoubtedly be a supply ofcertification services available – and also a good chance that some organizations willcontinue to see a value in certification.
267. The AG reached consensus in February 2003 that an SR Management System
Guideline standard should exclude third-party certification. While the AG did not go
into the alternatives to 3rd party certification, the feasibility of finding alternatives andassessing the relative merits and potential inter-related roles was generally seen as animportant component in assessing the overall feasibility of international SR
standardization. There also seemed to be relatively less concern about independent
verification of data, as opposed to independent verification of systems, because dataverification was deemed of relatively more value to the organization. Some members
felt that the unique nature of SR and related standards calls for greater verification andtransparency in order to ensure credibility and public confidence, and that reporting on
actual organizational performance and progress could be an important determinant ofpublic and consumer confidence.
2.7.6 Economic Pressures and Incentives for Socially Responsible Behaviour
268. Another issue that remained just under the surface of many of the AG’s
discussions was the degree to which international SR standardization should be
guided by the economic incentives and pressures for socially responsible activities.
This manifested itself in a number of ways, including in terms of the role that parties
with an interest, but not an expertise in SR, such as socially responsible investment
funds, should have in international SR standardization processes. At a very basic
level, this question has to do with the extent to which international SR standardization
should reduce barriers to trade and investment, and the extent to which it should seek
to create new economic incentives and pressures. For instance, if SR requirements

70based on international SR standards could be integrated into government procurement
policies with less risk of running foul of international trade rules, should this be anargument in favour of, or against, international SR standardization?
2.8 Evidence from existing SR initiatives
269. Given the fact that any international SR standardization could be expected to
draw on some of the existing initiatives, it would be useful to consider some of thelessons learned from their development and use. There are two general categories of
information: first, information on the scope and objectives of existing SR initiatives;and second, information on their effectiveness.
2.8.1 Scope and Objectives
270. It is worth noting that most of the SR standards being developed through ISO’snational member bodies have adopted a systems-approach that enables theorganization to define SR in its own terms. There is a degree of uncertainty whether
this approach is appropriate, or even credible, in the context of SR; some AG
members have expressed their doubts on this.
271. Almost all of the SR initiatives being developed by other non-governmental
bodies address issues of concern to specific interest groups, or they represent theviews of specific groups on how SR should be managed. Some have taken this tosuggest that conceptions of what SR means, and how it should be addressed, are so
dependent on the specific perspective of the interested parties that it may be difficult
to find common ground. Others note that it is wrong to presume that different
interests necessarily imply an inconsistency in the conception of SR. For example,
just because someone is interested in the labor conditions in a textile mill and anotheris interested in the preservation of wildlife does not necessarily mean that they havedifferent definitions of SR – just that they have different priorities. Often theindividual objective can not be assured in the long term without consideration of theother priorities. This would seem to support the view that, even if some kind ofcommon ground can be found, some parties may want to continue to address their
specific issues in their own ways separately from other issues and other interest
groups.
272. Not only do the existing initiatives have different conceptions of SR, they alsouse different sources for the guidance or requirements that they contain. Some of theinitiatives have relied upon already established and widely accepted standards, norms,
guidelines and codes, such as the Fundamental Conventions of the ILO or the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In other cases there has been a redefining or
reinterpretation for the purpose of applying these international norms in unanticipatedsituations or for changing – and often reducing – the relevant obligations. However,
because many SR initiatives make no specific reference to the sources of theirguidance or requirements, it is not always easy to ascertain the degree to which
existing international norms are being used.
273. There appears to be a general agreement that the differences between many of theexisting initiatives can be explained – to some degree – by the nature of the interest
groups involved in creating them. In some cases this has led to the evolution of71

private standard setting (often imitating the ISO process) to fill vacuums or to address
the needs of stakeholders that are not involved with, or not content with, traditional
standard-setting bodies. Perhaps the best example of this is the evolution of theInternational Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling (ISEAL) Alliance– which is an institutional association of some of the main NGO-led SR initiatives,
including Social Accountability International (SAI), the International Federation ofOrganic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), theMarine Stewardship Council (MSC), the FairTrade Labelling Organizations (FLO),
and others. Some national ecolabeling programs are also run by non-governmental
bodies – although often under a government-issued mandate.
274. While the evolution of these non-traditional standards-bodies has been welcomedin some quarters, others consider that many of the SR initiatives developed by NGOs
have been produced without sufficient involvement of private sector interests, andcontend that the non-involvement of business leads to the fact that some of these
initiatives do not have much market relevance. Others have noted that there issometimes also a lack of relevant NGOs involved in these initiatives. There are also
some serious concerns with respect to the possibility that private standard setting inthe social area is based on questionable processes that lack legitimacy, and may
therefore actually undermining more legitimate norms. These objections reflect the
belief that setting of social expectations really requires representative and not justparticipatory structures, and note that the consultation processes involved in thesestandard setting processes may not always be genuine and the real decision making
processes may lack necessary transparency.
275. A review of the existing initiatives suggests that they have a number of different
objectives, including to guide behavior; define the terms of commercial relationships;
provide incentives for changes in behavior; and to bring credibility to SR claims. It
has also been suggested that some of these initiatives were elaborated by the SR
industry – consultants, auditors, or certification bodies – to serve their own
commercial purposes.
2.8.2 Effectiveness276. Given the large number of existing SR initiatives, it would be useful to consider
whether these have been successful, and to draw some lessons for different types of
SR standardization. Unfortunately, there is a serious lack of tangible, independent
data on the effectiveness of SR initiatives. There are no commonly accepted
assessment criteria with which to monitor and judge the effectiveness of SR
initiatives. As a result, the most common way in which their effectiveness is
portrayed is in terms of the number of signatories and certifications, or the number of
products on the market or sites under SR management. Few of these indicators
actually indicate the effectiveness of the SR initiative in helping a company tounderstand and implement SR, or its effectiveness in helping to promote better SR
performance. As a result, opinions on existing SR initiatives are largely based on
personal experience.
277. On that basis, some AG members consider that the effectiveness of SR initiatives
varies between some impact and relatively little impact. They also contend that themost useful initiatives are those that have been developed in response to a specific72instance or pattern of misbehavior. They also believe that the degree of impact isclearly related to the degree of participation of all affected stakeholders during thedevelopment of the initiative. Some concern has also been shown for the possibility
that voluntary SR initiatives may actually act as a substitute for more meaningfulactions or responses, including regulation, and thereby delay more substantive
progress on some issues. On the other hand, it was suggested that some SR standards
have evolved specifically because of a resistance to develop legal measures or failure
to implement existing laws. Some AG members have also concluded that the benefitof SR standardization may be less a factor of the information that is being
communicated (i.e. the guidance) than the incentive mechanisms that they enable (e.g.
socially responsible procurement and investment policies).
2.9 What type of international standard is needed?
278. Ultimately, any decision to proceed with international SR standardization must
be based on a clear impression of what is needed. The final part of Section 2 will
review the AG’s deliberations on this issue. The intention of this section is not toreach a conclusion on what type of standard is needed, but rather to highlight thekinds of issues and debates that characterize any effort to focus on a single type ofinternational SR deliverable.
279. Overall, opinions on the need for a new process of international SR
standardization are quite mixed, ranging from general support to general opposition.
Common to all these positions is the recognition that the need depends on theobjective of the standard being developed. It has also been suggested that there is no
existing international SR deliverable that is comparable to what is presently being
discussed (i.e. generic, international). So the question might not be “Is a newinternational SR standard needed?” but rather “What sort of international SR standard
is needed to achieve what sort of objective?”280. Support for new international SR standardization tends to focus on the value ofcreating a common language or framework that organizations from any jurisdiction
can use, which would also overcome problems caused by the evolving multiplicity ofnational, regional, sectoral and other standards. These proponents suggest that thelarge number of existing standards may demonstrate the viability of standards in thisarea, and may also provide various methods of proceeding at the international level.
However, this presumes that either: (1) significant differences in culture, national
characteristics, prioritization of topics, definitions, and other issues could be identified
and an approach could be agreed upon to accommodate them; or (2) a standard could
be developed that would be flexible enough to allow for differences between
countries, sectors, and sizes and types of organization.
281. There is a great deal of doubt as to whether another PDCA management tool
would add much on its own – or whether it would be substantially different for SR
than it is for environmental management. When considering this, it is important toconsider what purposes another PDCA management tool would NOT serve?
Experience to date suggests that ISO 14001 is rarely used for external purposes and soan ISO 14001-model for SR would on its own not solve any of the “external”
problems. In particular, an ISO 14001 model would not facilitate the establishment ofrelationships that are defined in terms including SR. This school of thought suggests

73that there may be a value to an ISO 14001-style tool if companies need an internal
tool for internal purposes, but go on to note that the economic incentives andpressures for socially responsible behaviour do not appear to be entirely, or evenmostly, internal in nature. However, others point out that an ISO SR management
system standard could create a new certification system with high costs and no added
value to society, and that an ISO SR management system standard would detract frompromoting SR by imposing compliance to a minimum set of internal, process-type
requirements.
282. This does not suggest that the PDCA model is without merit, just that it isunlikely to be effective on its own, or as it has been developed in the past without astronger focus on performance. This view is consistent with other comments thatclaim that many organisations are apprehensive about establishing another standard
that is incompatible with what they have already established, especially in thequality, safety and health and environmental areas. An ISO standard could bedesigned to be compatible with all of these.
283. Skeptics of the need for new international SR standardization suggest that amarket demand by organizations is not visible. According to this view, multiple SR
initiatives may address local or national SR issues more effectively because they are
more specific by their very nature. Similarly, internal organizational initiatives may
be more effective in addressing the specific issues of concern for an organization andits stakeholders. From a broader perspective, different approaches can be useful andmight generate more and better solutions to the challenges facing businesses, while
standardization might stifle innovation. International standards would be so basic,
that they would not help to solve societal issues. More appropriate would be a process
which would identify where universally binding rules/regulations are not in place orviolated – e.g. in specific countries.
284. There is a difference of opinion on whether the existence of multiple SR
initiatives creates problems that need to be resolved. The most commonly referenced
problem is the potential negative impact on market access for developing countries
and SMEs that must satisfy a variety of different, sometimes contrasting,requirements.
2.9.1 What should be standardized in an International SR Standard?
285. Much effort has been made to agree upon a common definition of SR, and on therelevant issues and dimensions of SR . Many are of the opinion that this should be
agreed upon first before any standardization of SR can take place. However, although
the concept and the definition of SR are not cast in stone, many organizations alreadyaddress SR aspects (issues) that are relevant in their specific context.
286. Some AG members said, as a general statement on international SR
standardization, that in regard to elements of SR, an international standard can only
present the globally applicable and/or recognized components of SR, and in regard toprocess related aspects of SR, a framework could be standardized how to come from a
SR requirement - or set of requirements - on the front end side to an assessment/self
assessment/reporting at the back end.

74

287. Further, it was stated that global issues can at best provide a direction and that in
specific situations these issues can become more concrete based on analysis and in
consultation with stakeholders, without losing sight of the 'big picture'. As such, aninternational SR Framework could possibly provide a structured approach and the bestpractice on how an organization should manage its SR aspects (issues), encouraging
them to think globally and act locally while complementing other standards andguidelines that are already in use.
288. Others point out that there is a need for a common international framework to
help organizations coordinate the implementation of SR using existing tools, althoughothers note that this would be of little value to organizations that already have amanagement system framework in place. One tool that could be usefully developed is
guidance on stakeholder involvement, although it would have to be flexible enough toallow for local and national cultural variations. Also, although guidance alreadyexists on performance indicators and reporting of SR performance, some AG
members believe that they are extremely complex and not practical for mostorganizations. As a result, international standardization could conceivably provide
simpler guidance on how to report SR results.
2.9.2 Integrating Social, Environmental and Economic Issues into a Single
Standard
289. A variety of views was expressed in the AG, from desirable to non-desirable.
One view said that such an integration of environmental, social and economic aspects
is possible only on a theoretical basis, and would result in a very generic standard
with low practical relevance. Another view expressed that there is no reason to thinkthat an integrated or at least an aligned international standard could not addressenvironmental, social and economic issues. The fact that ISO already has developed
standards pertaining to economic (quality) and environmental (14000) aspects would
appear to demonstrate its desirability and feasibility. However it has also been notedthat 14000 does not include the kinds of universally applicable performancerequirements that characterize other SR standards, and that audits of ISO 14001 do
not consider the actual environmental impacts of an enterprise in terms of the healthof ecosystems or abundance of natural resources, species etc. A further statement wasthat it would need to be respected that there are significant qualitative differences
between the economic, environmental and the social issues and that, in general, the“social” ones involve more intangibles and are less capable of being quantified andcompared, and that this has important implications for management processes.
290. Another view stated that it is possible for an international standard or guideline
to apply to several subject areas as long as they have a common foundation, such as“an impact on quality of life”. However, this common foundation would have to be
defined. General sub-categories could also be integrated into the common foundation,for example, the eight areas in the AG’s preliminary working definition of social
responsibility, which are:- Human rights- Labor practices and industrial relations- Unfair business practices- Organizational governance75

- Environmental Aspects- Marketplace and consumer issues- Community involvement- Social development.
291. But it is unclear whether there is in fact a common foundation for all these subcategories that would support international standardization. Environmental aspects
are already covered by extensive standards (though it is noted that degradation is still
accelerating in many areas); and economic issues seem to be separate from social
issues (depending on how the two areas are defined). Any attempt to internationallystandardize should focus first on whether or not there is a common foundation for theelements involved. There could then be a step-by-step process for such integration.
292. Further, it was said that it would be very difficult for a standard to apply toseveral subject areas. Subject areas, in themselves, can be very complex and astandard that applies to several of them may be pitched at too general a level.
293. Another view expressed that, in practice, many organizations are alreadyaddressing economic, environmental, quality, OH&S (Occupational, Health and
Safety) and social aspects of their activities, and in some cases they have to cope withtrade-offs between these different aspects. SR implies an even broader range ofissues, and it is argued that it is up to an organization to set priorities in dialogue withstakeholders to address the most significant issues, based on its own values, legal andother normative frameworks and its actual impact (direct and indirect) on society. A
more acute concern is that, if CSR is defined as voluntary actions beyond legal
requirements, then organizations will determine both the stakeholders who they will
work with, and the expectations or values that they will address in their CSR
activities.
294. A fundamental concern which has been recognized by all AG members is that
there is a danger of presuming that all SR issues can be treated equally within thesame framework. In particular, it is noted that “social” aspects are more intangible
and sometimes difficult to quantify compared to other aspects, such as environmentand quality. As a result, a framework that does not recognize the differences between
the various aspects – by, for instance, presuming that indicators exist and are equally
relevant for all types of SR issues – will be unlikely to succeed in promoting abalanced and holistic approach to all SR issues.
2.9.3 Integrating legal or other requirements into an international SR standard
295. Again, a variety of views, some of them complementary, were expressed. One isthat difficulties may occur because of the wide variety in nature, origin and status oflegal and other normative frameworks related to SR, with at least two different
dimensions:252. International Norms. While most international conventions are
written for governments and not for companies or organizations, a number oflegitimate instruments have also been created that have obvious and direct
implications for organizations. These include,for example, the ILO Tripartite
Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social

76

Policy, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Other
instruments have also been recognized as containing universally applicableprinciples; for instance, the UN Declaration on Human Rights is recognized as
being applicable to “every individual and organ in society”, even though only
roughly 30% of its articles are directed at companies. It is therefore necessary
to carefully separate the responsibilities of companies from the responsibilitiesof other actors. In some cases, even those instruments that are directed atgovernments may contain principles that are commonly accepted as bearing
implications for other organs of society, regardless of the national regulatory
process. In other cases, international norms have no bearing unless they areincorporated by national governments into domestic regulations. It is also
important to note that some internationally negotiated norms have a degree of
flexibility built into their provisions to accommodate countries at different
levels of development.
253. National Legislation. Companies should always follow national
legislation. But this may be problematic if:• National legislation or adaptation to national legislation, or
enforcement capabilities are lacking.
• Local social practices or moral values are in contradiction to
fundamental principles, such as human rights.
• Local legislation is contrary to fundamental principles, such as
human rights.
296. Another view remarked that, currently, legal regimes in several jurisdictions implicitly or explicitly - refer to and draw on ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 standards insupport of their legislative regimes, that ISO 14000 demonstrates the potential of aninternational standard to work in a compatible manner with different legal regimes,
and that there are no apparent barriers to an ISO SR standard operating in acompatible and supportive manner with different legal regimes, particularly if it werea process oriented standard.
297. This was more differentiated by another view, saying that legal requirements –whatever their source – could be incorporated into a standard. However, this would
be nothing more than what already exists in every culture: an expectation ofcompliance with legal requirements. (Whether the laws are effectively enforced isanother question.) This view was complemented by saying that an international
standard could only address internationally applicable and/or recognized
requirements, and that legal requirements beyond (e.g. UNDHR or ILO) naturally
vary from country to country according to differing societal needs and differing
degrees of local development.
298. Another view emphasized that (1) it will be difficult for a standard to avoid
reference to other (also legal) norms, and it is also difficult to see how a standard
could avoid indicating the importance of distinguishing some norms as being morelegitimate or authoritative than others; (2) there is a lack of experience in the use of
performance indicators in the social area. Social reporting as it is developing is more
related to the interests of investors concerned about risk and intangibles than it isabout the broader interests of society; and (3) there are questions with respect to77

compliance verification in the area of labor practices and at the workplace.
2.9.4 International Standardization of Processes or Performance
299. One view was: Given the range of different opinions on what is exactly coveredby SR and what are acceptable performance levels related to SR issues such asenvironmental protection, healthy working conditions, fair wages etcetera, a systemapproach could be one alternative for organizations to manage their activities in asound way to maximize societal benefits and minimize negative social, financial andecological impacts. Processes related to, and being part of, such a system approach
might also be subject to standards/guidelines (providing good/best practice), such as
stakeholder identification, consultation and involvement, monitoring and assessing
results, reporting, identification and assessment of SR issues.
300. Another view expressed that it is possible to provide a standard on management
systems, and simply leave it to each organization to address the specific SR issues thatare important to it. The real question is, however, whether this is desirable. The
answer to this depends on whether such a standard would achieve the desired results:
enhancement of social responsibility activities. Opinions differ on this. Some argue
that management system standards would indirectly enhance SR by helping
organizations to focus on the issue. Others argue that other approaches would be
more effective, particularly if they increase transparency and the quality of data andcommunications. These other approaches might include guidelines on stakeholder
involvement, designation of performance indicators, or public reporting of SR results.
301. Further thoughts were that the existence of some 10 different national SR
standards which seem to follow the process oriented management system approachseems to demonstrate that it is both possible and desirable to create SR process
standards. However, some AG members noted that credibility of or demand for thesestandards has not yet been established, and neither the standards themselves nor theirimplications are widely known or understood. In terms of performance based
standards, one view is that there does not appear to be any evident design obstacles todeveloping performance elements (e.g., indicators), which are sufficiently flexible towork in different contexts. However, other AG members believe it could be very
difficult to do this effectively.
302. Another view made strict differentiation between process and performance
related questions and said that, (1) if internationally applicable and/or recognizedsocial issues can be identified that are process based, standardization of the process,maybe in a PDCA approach, may be possible; and (2) if internationally applicable
and/or recognized social issues can be identified that are performance based,
standardization of a performance analysis may be possible, but both process andperformance based standardization must be based on an agreed definition of SR which
is not available so far.
303. Another view expressed support by stating that it is possible and desirable todevelop a management system standard, and that this has been proven not only in theprevious standards that ISO has published but is also used for strategic planning. In
particular the planning methodology called “policy deployment”.

78

2.9.5 Treating performance requirements in an international standard
304. Here also, the opinions varied between “not possible/desirable” and“possible/desirable”.
305. Some AG members suggested that, due to different expectations in different
cultures, it may not be possible to set common international performancerequirements. The exceptions would be: (1) an expectation of compliance with legal
requirements (already the case even without a standard); and (2) an expectation ofcompliance with internationally recognized and universally applicable principles(assuming that agreement could be reached on universal principles). In regards toprocess, they say that it is possible to design a process that will help organizations set
their own performance requirements, but that the real question is whether this is
desirable or even necessary. All organizations must already have their own processes
for setting performance requirements since this is inherent in accomplishing theorganization’s goals. Thus, process-based standards would have limited value.
306. They add that performance requirements should better be set at a local level inagreement with all affected stakeholders and that an international document (not a
standard) could describe how best to organize a local stakeholder dialogue (in regard
to participation, identifying locally relevant SR components and priorities, agreeingon actions and who undertakes them, etc.).
307. Others said that it would be possible to design an “ISO framework for SR
operationalization standard”, which was designed to operate alongside specificperformance requirements as set in law or in international norms, or elsewhere,
particularly if key international institutions such as UN and ILO and domestic
governments participated in its development to ensure its compatibility. However,they add that this would need to define performance requirements in terms of how SR
is implemented rather than performance measures which should be reported as
performance indicators. They say that performance indicators could be used, taking
ISO 14031 (Environmental Performance Evaluation) as a reference, that mechanisms
could be built in which stimulate improvements, and that these mechanisms could
serve for benchmarking.
308. As a bottom line, it seems useful to establish a clearer link between 'global'
principles/values on SR issues and organization-specific performance objectives. The
Global Compact might serve as an example. It describes nine universally applicableprinciples in the field of Human Rights, Labour and Environment. Companies thatparticipate in the program commit themselves to uphold these principles so that they
become part of their strategy, culture and day-to-day operations. Others expressed
concern about the degree of flexibility and interpretation in the Global Compact’s
Principles, noting that such issues need to be addressed by any standardization of SR.
2.9.6 SR Standards and Conformity Assessment
309. Any organization that runs an effective SR program will generate information tomonitor and assess what it actually achieves, and will verify whether plannedarrangements are indeed implemented and effective. Internal reporting, monitoringand internal auditing/assessments are logic tools. Taking this as a generally agreed

79view, the ways and means on possibly standardized compliance verification
mechanisms differ substantially.
310. On the one hand, the view is that:- Compliance verification implies there is a requirement that must be compliedwith. If a standard includes a requirement, then of course it is possible to link
this with a verification mechanism. In fact, even if it were a guideline rather
than a requirement, it is still possible to link the guideline with a verification
mechanism.
- The purpose of any verification mechanism is ultimately to determine whether
the desired results are being achieved. In this case, the desired results arepresumably environmental and social performance. One then must ask: whatis the best way to verify that social and environmental performance are beingenhanced? And, can the enhancement of socially responsible activities orprogrammes be considered a proxy for direct measurement of environmental
and social performance? The latter can be done indirectly with a mechanism
to verify whether a process is in place to address social responsibility issues.
The former can be done directly with a mechanism to verify the social
responsibility results actually being achieved. The latter type of mechanism
would seem to have more value to organizations and their stakeholders, and tohave a better chance to provide for public confidence in the standard.
- A robust verification mechanism would need to rely on factual data, notopinions. A robust mechanism would also focus directly on results, not on
indirect indicators such as processes. Thus, the most robust and effective
mechanism would be one where an organization reports the results of its
activities, backed up with factual data that can be verified.
- A Compliance verification mechanism could be bound to clear criteria (passor fail), but such clear criteria are not available in SR when going beyond thecore elements like UNDHR or ILO; and compliance cannot deal withintangible issues.
- The linkage of SR with compliance verification will create fundamental
opposition from business because it would bind resources that are better
invested into SR means.
- It was added that if product labels concerning such issues as content, safety or
environmental protection can be verified, other areas, including labor
practices, are more problematic. At this point, only Belgium has implemented
at a national level social labeling and its verification process is still
controversial.
311. On the other hand the view was that there is compliance verification at the levelof “systems” and there is compliance verification at the level of meeting “substantive
normative social responsibilities”. Quite different compliance verification approaches
may be used by one or the other but both appear to be achievable. It was added thatcompliance verification involving professional “registrar” third parties should not be
considered the only option, particularly for small firms and particularly as pertains to
issues of verification of compliance with substantive norms. Here, local stakeholders
could play a key role. And further, this side remarked that evaluation could be
handled compatibly with ISO 14031, and reporting compatibly with ISO 14063 and
GRI. As a bottom line it can be said that a key issue in compliance verification is
stakeholder identification, dialogue/consultation and involvement, at the local level.
802.9.7 The Application of SR standards at the sectoral level
312. The question of sectoral standards was not answered unanimously but with aconsiderable level of consensus:---

Current practice seems to support the sectoral approach. A number of industry
sectors have developed their own guidelines addressing specific issues ofconcern to the specific industry and its stakeholders. NGOs and industry
associations have also developed their own guidelines for specific groups ofissues; and national standards bodies are developing their own deliverables fortheir own specific groups of issues.
But, common, consistent approaches are not yet evident.
It is quite possible, and may be desirable that regional or sectoral versions ofan international SR standard could be developed. This is happening withrespect to quality and environmental management in the automotive sector.
There is much to be said for development of sectoral approaches on a baseinternational “framework”.
A sector approach takes into account a good part of the necessary SR inherent
flexibility.
An analysis of commonalities between different sectors can be helpful toallow sectors to learn from each other (good practice sharing among sectors
and among the organizations acting in the sectors).

2.9.8 At what level should a SR standard be applied?
313. A number of different views were expressed on the question of thestandardization level, as follows.
314. As regards the international level: If the objective of further ISO work is to
apply a standards-based approach to SR, ideally all components of SR should be taken
into account. However, the view could also be taken that existing ISO standards
already cover some elements of SR, environmental management for example –although only from a management “systems” approach, which some critics have
deemed inadequate. Therefore, the purpose of further ISO work in this area could beto address only those elements of SR not already dealt with by ISO, i.e. the social
component of SR.
315. It should be borne in mind though that “social issues” would probably be themost difficult element of SR to deal with through a standards-based approach at theinternational level. Setting international performance-based requirements risks
creating barriers for companies, SMEs especially in developing countries who alreadylack resources and capacity. In this regard, as mentioned further up, it would again
not be desirable to link SR standards with compliance verification mechanisms.
However an alternative could involve a phasing in of compliance verification, startingwith capacity building and following a step-wise adoption and verification process.
316. Transparency and reporting should be encouraged but the extent to whichorganizations wish to report and communicate on their social responsibility
performance with external parties should be left to them. Nevertheless, someparticularities have to be taken into account: the desire of social responsibility
81investors to be able to compare the performance of listed companies belonging to thesame sector on an international basis, the multiplication of domestic laws imposing
reporting obligations upon listed companies or pension funds. In short, for someorganizations, transparency and reporting may be essential for the process to gain
public support and facilitate market decision making. .
317. As regards the facility and product level: some say that if the ISO 9000 or 14000
experiences are any indication, there would appear to be value in adopting the facilityby-facility application model also for SR, but this does not rule out other approaches,
including on particular product lines or at the corporate level (i.e. all-or-none of the
facilities). Some AG members believe that, independent of the existence of astandard, SR is most relevant and should be applied at the facility level. This is also
consistent with the need to fine-tune SR programs to suit local conditions.
Nevertheless, a multi-level implementation approach can probably not be avoided. If
the facility level corresponds to certain needs, a national level is often required to
implement social policies, and the international level is required by SR investors whoare interested in global/international results.
318. As regards the labeling of products, different views were expressed. One saysthat labeling of products will expectably lead to opposition from business. Others arein favor of giving guidance for product labeling, or considering the conditions underwhich compliance with an SR standard could give an organization the right to label
their products. It would be necessary to ensure that the communications on any
product made very clear what was being attested to. Some also suggested that SR
application on product line or product level should be clearly limited to products withspecial impacts. Others believe that developing SR related guidance and/or
requirements for products could hinder innovation.
319. One important criticism of social product labeling relates to the fact that – forthis sort of non-product related process and production methods – there is no tangible
difference in the product and so the only way to assess compliance is through what
have been to date relatively unproven and ineffective or controversial workplaceinspection processes. It has also been suggested that labeling of this kind shouldcome with an associated mechanism whereby companies could be held liable formaking false claims in order to gain market advantage.

Section 3 – Capacity of ISO to undertake work in SR area
3.1. Does ISO have the competence to develop a credible SR deliverables?
320. One aspect the AG discussed was the need to consider the question of ISO
competence in relation to the process that it would use to develop a CSR deliverable,
including the question of whether ISO should focus on process-oriented work. One
view held that if CSR deliverables become process oriented then ISO might not needto get outside experts deeply involved in standard making processes. Furthermore, if
SR deliverables become result-oriented then ISO might need to get outside experts
deeply involved in standard making processes. In the first case deliverables would
probably include general normative objectives such as ILO conventions and universal
human rights so that ISO might need some help from those international82

organizations. In the second case deliverables would include details on normative
objectives which each of outside SR bodies has pursued. Therefore, the ISO might
have to ask international organizations, NGOs and other public organizations toparticipate in standard-making processes. In this second case three issues are
involved: First, whether ISO directives are flexible enough to establish processes andprocedures suitable to CSR and acceptable to CSR practitioners. In this context it isimportant to keep in mind that CSR is a very broad concept involving a range of
specific components. Second, the willingness of the ISO Council, the TechnicalManagement Board as well as ISO member bodies to use the flexibility built into ISO
directives. Third, the availability of the resources needed to support participation byinterested parties (particularly from developing countries) who have no underlying
commercial interest in CSR standardization and who may need funding to participate
effectively. Some AG members pointed out that while certain types of work could bedone using existing ISO processes, other types of work would require reviewing ISO
processes and still other types of work would need to involve completely different
modalities. In the end, the general view was that before starting with the developmentof a CSR deliverable, it would be necessary to review ISO procedures and theirsuitability for the type of standard being considered (process-oriented or performanceoriented).
321. Some AG members considered that ISO had no competence to set normative
standards on CSR components in the areas of human rights, labour and community
development and should not enter an area that has potential implications for the legal
and institutional frameworks by which management is held accountable, or treat
questions and issues that can only be resolved through legitimate political processes.
Others felt that ISO is uniquely placed to do this work including because otherorganizations like the UN and the OECD do not have ISO’s technical capacity.
3.2. Range of expertise needed by ISO to undertake work in SR area
322. A variety of views were expressed with respect to which expertise ISO would
need in CSR. The first area of agreement was that ISO would need expertise.
However there was no agreement on the types of expertise needed. It is important tonote that most of the expertise does not necessarily concern controversial ideas andrather complement each other. One view was that ISO processes would be particularly
challenged when taking the cultural differences into account that would need to berespected: the more experts are invited from outside the ISO community, the more
likely the ISO creates very complicated, rigid and heavy SR deliverables, which could
eventually ignore subtle differences of culture, value, tradition and ways of thinking.
323. One view was that ISO would need to bring a wide range of perspectives
including governmental, civil society and developing country views. This viewemphasized that legitimacy in SR standard setting depends not only on technicalexpertise but also on representation. Simply making sure all perspectives are present
around the table is not enough and it is necessary to consider the weight that isaccorded to the different perspectives. For example, it may not be legitimate forbusiness to have the strongest voice when societal values are under discussion (i.e. abroader SR deliverable is being discussed), while, if business is the primary “usergroup”, its views become significantly more important.

83324. Another view was that it would be more appropriate to think in terms ofexpertise related to the components of CSR. For example, there are experts inenvironmental protection, human rights and industrial relations, and other labour
issues, which all are components of CSR, but these same individuals, may not be“CSR experts”. This question needs further discussion since it also has relevance tothe question of how to differentiate between expertise and interests. Indeed the more
important question may not be whether experts exist but rather whether ISO has thecapacity to organize appropriate stakeholder engagement to fill the perceived
expertise gap.
325. A discussion further took place on how ISO would treat the expertise it obtained,
something that would be particularly important when dealing with expertise on thesame CSR component from different organizations. One possibility would be to rely
on expertise from inter-governmental organizations such as the UN but expertise may
also be obtained from interested parties groups, in which case the political processes
at work need to be considered.
3.3 Credibility of ISO standard setting process for SR deliverables
326. A variety of views was expressed on whether the ISO standard- setting process
was adequate to address social issues and be credible. Some AG members felt thatthe consensus driven nature of the ISO process would result in a standard reflecting
the lowest common denominator and that any attempt to modify the ISO standardsetting process to cover SR could undermine the reputation of ISO as a technicalstandardization body. Others argued that these risks could be minimized if thequestion dealt with in section 3.1 was resolved satisfactorily.
327. A number of AG members argued that the ISO standard-setting process wasinadequate for a number of reasons; including the fact the interests of the different
parties may not be adequately secured by the ISO standard-setting process. Related tothis is the view that where technical standard setting involves taking positions onsocial issues, as in the case of SR, representative structures are needed. ISO does notpossess such structures and thus should not engage in this kind of standard setting.
Addressing these challenges also requires a transparent standard setting process.
328. Other views emphasized that national delegations may result inoverrepresentation by consultants and that the ISO standard setting processes lacksubstantive participation from all parts of society. All the options described above arestandard-making processes. But if it was agreed that CSR should be oriented towards
societal expectations by local communities where organizations operate, one might
better think of structured stakeholder involvement in objective making processes
within each actors such as corporations. In this case, one of the difficult problems is
how to select adequate representatives, how to incorporate their opinions into
organization’s SR objectives, how to report the results to them, and how to improve
the objectives and measures to pursue them. In a sense, in order to create such a
stakeholder engagement framework, the ISO might need expertise.
3.4. Should ISO engage others in the SR development process?

84329. ISO could engage other interested parties, organizations and institutions in theprocess in a variety of ways. Some AG members recommended that this be done
through national standards bodies. National committees would be requested to ensure
representation of different groups in their national delegations, as is alreadyhappening with some national committees that use a “balanced composition”
approach. Other AG members expressed concern at this approach because national
standards bodies would not necessarily be able or willing to set up appropriate andrepresentative delegations. Another view held that national standard setting bodies
could be restructured to include different interests in their work. This would involve a
process to set guidelines for this restructuring and rules on how national standard
setting bodies should take into account different interests. Yet another view was thatnational bodies would not work very well for the development of a SR deliverable.
330. Some AG members suggested that ISO should work in partnership with intergovernmental organizations (such as UN bodies), akin to the Global Forum a few
years ago that brought together ISO, UN, and other global bodies. Other AG members
pointed out that this would risk politicizing the process and might fundamentallychange the status of any deliverable in terms of international trade law, for example
WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) agreement.
331. A suggestion was made to collect feedback and views through seminars andconferences. One source of advice on this can be found in the paper “Increasing theeffectiveness of NGO participation in ISO TC207.” This paper makes a series ofrecommendations for increasing NGO participation, some of which are relevant for a
SR deliverable. For example, the paper recommends that national standards bodies
should be encouraged to make an effort to have balanced stakeholder representation atinternational meetings. The paper also recommends that the committee review its
implementation of ISO Directives with the purpose of identifying where refinement or
additional specific guidance is warranted to achieve more balanced stakeholder
involvement.
332. Some AG members considered that the currently available liaison options would
ensure sufficient inclusion of relevant organizations in the ISO process. Therefore,
ISO rules would not need to be changed or amended to develop a SR deliverable.
Others pointed out that ISO rules may not be sufficient with respect to liaisonorganizations since liaison organizations do not have a vote and have no right ofappeal regarding the non-application of ISO directives.
333. Whatever the process and or mechanism used to engage other interested parties
and organizations, it was necessary to distinguish between participatory processes andrepresentative ones. Participatory decision making processes, while inclusive, often
leave the actual decision making processes open-ended. Representative decision
making processes assign weight to different interests and expertise and include themin the process.
3.5. How should ISO relate to others developing SR initiatives?
334. There was broad agreement within the AG that if ISO proceeds, it will benecessary to consider the activities of other bodies that have developed or aredeveloping SR standards, norms, guidelines and tools. Some felt that the United

85

Nations (Global Compact) and other inter-governmental organisations, e.g ILO,
OECD, OHCHR and UNEP, would need to be included in the process, in view of thefact that they already have or are developing international standards. With respect tothe wide range of existing non-governmental international SR initiatives such as the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Fair
Labor Association (FLA), one view held that these be involved since their standards
could be affected by the introduction of an ISO deliverable. Some of these initiatives
might also have expertise of use to ISO. Building on this, another suggestion was thatan ISO SR deliverable should be compatible with and/or complementary to otherstandards and preferably add value. Another view emphasized that it was important
to distinguish private standard setting bodies from those that are public or intergovernmental, and in not treat them as equivalent or give them the same recognition
as democratic and public institutions such as international organisations andgovernments. This view emphasized that the United Nations and its agencies had
universal legitimacy and were subject to democratic decision-making processes,
which was mostly not the case for the private initiatives.
335. A proposal was made to leave actual standard-setting on SR to intergovernmental bodies but for ISO to develop a different type of SR deliverable,possibly in the form of an ISO guidance document that would also bear the logo of theinternational organizations on whose standards it was based. Another proposal wasthat to develop such a guidance document it would be useful to consult with businessoriented organizations that develop and promote CSR via their business excellencemodels, such as the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM andMalcom Baldridge) or comparable initiatives in Japan. There was no consensus on
these proposals however and some AG members had serious doubts about thedesirability and feasibility of any joint approach to an ISO SR deliverable.
3.6. Capacity of ISO to develop performance requirements on SR issues
336. AG members held widely differing views on the capacity of ISO to develop
performance requirements in SR. Some believed that this could be dealt with throughnational delegations, assuming the national standards bodies have the necessary
expertise. Others emphasized that the ISO process provides ways to engage thenecessary experts and organizations for the development of performancerequirements. Yet others believed that ISO did not have this capacity and were
skeptical that this expertise even existed. They stressed that there was a fundamental
difference between measuring social issues and measuring technical or quality issues.
They asserted that society dealt with the social behavior of business not through social
performance requirements but through regulation, corporate governance, freedom ofspeech, the competitive marketplace, and collective bargaining. Others believed that
performance requirements – in contrast to performance expectations - can only beapplied for measurable values and limits, and that such values and limits will be very
difficult to find since there is neither a common understanding nor an agreed
definition of SR, nor a common understanding of the relative importance of different
SR components.
3.7. Ability of ISO to accommodate sector- and issue-specific SR deliverables

86337. Some AG members considered that ISO could accommodate sector- and issuespecific standards and other tools. Others expressed certain concerns about sectoral
standards. One concern was that sector-specific standards might limit cross-sectoral
initiatives. Another concern was that often the operations of one business enterpriseare not limited to one particular sector and involve different products, production
processes or services. Therefore, some companies would have difficulty managing
sector-specific standards.

87Annex A -- Possible Social Responsibility Components
Note that this is a non-exhaustive list and was not the subject of consensus
SR Component

Most common understanding

Relation to Government
Regulation82

Trade Practices
Fair trading
Ethical advertising
Avoidance of the abuse of market
dominance…others
Anti-competitive behaviour
Rules of Origin…others
Corporate GovernanceRegulatory compliance systems
Board composition and integrity
Transparent reporting andaccountability
Risk management
Internal audit systems
Protection of intellectual property
Anti-fraud mechanisms
Protection of Whistleblowers… others
Employment and Industrial
Relations
Equal opportunity
Fair wages and conditions
Right of freedom of association
Non-discriminatory employment
and advancement
No child labor
No forced labor
Reasonable disciplinary practices
Reasonable working hours andconditions
Protection of individual privacy
Fair, non-discriminatory disputeand issue resolution mechanisms
Internal communication
mechanisms… others
Product Stewardship
Design for recycling/re-use
Energy efficiency
Non-hazardous materials andmanufacturing processes
82

Relations to governmental regulation can only roughly be judged at the international and/or regional
level (like respect of human rights), but needs to be specified at the local level, i.e. the site of anorganization

88

Minimization of environmental
impacts
Product recycling
Product disposal/waste
management… others
Business Relationships
Ethical purchasing
Non-colusive tendering
Avoidance of price fixing… others
Health and Safety
Safe working practices
Safe working environment
Occupational hygiene
Workplace facilities
Control of hazardous substancesand dangerous goods
Ergonomics
Emergency preparedness
Fair worker’s compensation,
rehabilitation and return-to-work
programmes…others
Environment Protection /Sustainability
Sustainable production
Energy reduction
Waste and discharge management
Protection of flora, fauna andcultural heritage
Stakeholder
consultation/communication…others
Good Corporate Citizenship
Contribution to societal wellbeing
Philanthropy
Organizational accountability
SR reporting
Rejection of bribery andcorruption….others

8990