ISO/TMB AG CSR N32

Recommendations to the ISO Technical Management Board
Background
In September 2002, the ISO Technical Management Board (TMB) approved Resolution 78/2002
establishing the Advisory Group on Social Responsibility (AG) with the following terms of reference:
To determine whether ISO should proceed with the development of ISO deliverables in the field of corporatesocial responsibility;
If so, to determine the scope of the work and the type of deliverable.
The AG conducted meetings in January 2003, February 2003, July 2003, January 2004, and April 2004, andheld several conference calls between meetings.
IntroductionThe AG has conducted extensive research and has held lengthy discussions reflecting the viewpoints of an
extremely diverse group of experts and interested parties. We have found that the field of social
responsibility is difficult to define and very complex, with many honest differences of opinion on how issues
should be addressed. With the exception of one minority position (see Annex), the AG members havereached the following consensus (as defined by ISO Directives) with regard to the questions posed by theTMB.
Recommendations
Should ISO proceed with development of deliverables in the area of social responsibility?
ISO should only proceed if:
1. ISO recognizes that social responsibility involves a number of subjects and issues that arequalitatively different from the subjects and issues that have been already dealt with by ISO.
2. ISO recognizes that it does not have the authority or legitimacy to set social obligations orexpectations which are properly defined by governments and intergovernmental organizations.
3. ISO recognizes the difference between on the one hand, instruments adopted by authoritative global
inter-governmental organizations (such as the United Nations Universal Declaration on HumanRights, international labour conventions and other instruments adopted by the ILO and relevant UNConventions) and on the other hand, private voluntary initiatives that may or may not reflect theuniversal principles contained in the above instruments
4. ISO narrows the scope of the subject so as to avoid addressing issues that can only be resolved
through political processes.
5. ISO recognizes through a formal communication the ILO's unique mandate as the organization thatdefines, on a tripartite basis, international norms with respect to a broad range of social issues.
6. ISO recognizes that, due to the complexity and fast-evolving nature of the subject, it is not feasible
to harmonize substantive social responsibility commitments.
7. ISO reviews its processes and where necessary makes adjustments to ensure meaningful
participation by a fuller range of interested parties.
What should be the scope of the work and the types of deliverables?
A guidance document, and therefore not a specification document against which conformity can be assessed.
for use by business and other organizations.

/Q:\Hamasaka\CSR\Submission to the TMB\SAG-Recs-to-TMB (Apr 30) rev.doc

Page 2that emphasizes results and performance improvement.
that adopts a common terminology in this area.
that assists organizations in effectively addressing their social responsibilities in various cultures,societies and environments.
that can complement other relevant instruments and tools.
that stipulates it is not intended to reduce government's authority to address the social
responsibility of organizations.
that is of use to business and other organizations of all sizes.
that provides practical guidance on methods and options for:o operationalizing social responsibility,o identifying and engaging with stakeholders,o enhancing credibility in claims made about social responsibility.
that should be written in clear and understandable language.

Process Recommendations
ISO should make every effort to ensure that developing countries can meaningfully participate in this work.
In light of the distinctive and new nature of this work, ISO should convene a new Technical Committee todevelop this work, not use an existing Technical Committee.
The new Technical Committee should adopt as part of its terms of reference all of the items contained inthese recommendations.
The Advisory Group recommends that any Technical Committee that is convened and any of its constituent
bodies includes the range of interested parties such as those included within the Advisory Group.
ISO should ensure that the work of this new Technical Committee is coordinated with that of existing
Technical Committees.

/Q:\Hamasaka\CSR\Submission to the TMB\SAG-Recs-to-TMB (Apr 30) rev.doc

Annex to ISO/TMB AG CSR N32
Page 3

Minority View
30 April 2004

Dear Dan,WWF would like to acknowledge that the AG has accomplished an incredible amount of work and broughttogether through lively discussions some very disparate views. This says much for the willingness of themembers to listen to and understand each other and your skills as chair.
The shear volume of material produced alone is impressive as is the detail of the content. However thevolume of material and the need to crystallise a recommendation means that the Recommendations to theISO TMB will in effect be regarded as a stand-alone document.
WWF believes that a process of engagement between ISO and a broader range of stakeholders could make avaluable contribution to sustainable development. Therefore WWF agrees with the general thrust of theRecommendations that the ISO should proceed but only if a set of pre-requisites are met and that thedeliverable should be a guidance and not a specification document. While we understand that someambiguity will exist where consensus is sought, WWF considers the AG's recommendations need to be
more explicit when addressing several critical issues both in terms of the pre-conditions and the scopeof the work. Our concerns with the Recommendations document are summarized below:
Other CSR Tools, Instruments and Initiatives: We feel the document needs to more clearly state
as a pre-requisite that the ISO deliverable should add value to existing CSR instruments, tools andinitiatives.
The Environment: We remain concerned that the document does not explicitly recognise theimportance of environmental issues. While “social responsibility” may implicitly include
environmental concerns, we feel basing the document on such an assumption is not sufficient.
Scope of Deliverable: The document needs to state more clearly that the deliverable should be aguidance document to be used primarily by business though we accept it could be of potential value
to other organisations. While this may indeed be the intent, it is not apparent in the formulation
used in the document
Stakeholder Engagement: We feel the document needs to firmly state that any future ISO work inthis area will require broader and more diverse stakeholder engagement than has characterised not
only ISO’s past processes but also the process leading up to the Recommendations document.
While the AG had diverse members, there were gaps in representation that will need to be addressed
for any future ISO work on CSR. This will be critical to the future credibility of this work.
Transparency & Reporting: As with diverse stakeholder engagement, we feel the document needs
to more clearly state that the need for transparency and public reporting on implementation must bea critical element of any future ISO deliverable

In particular the participation and representation issues are ones with which WWF has a considerable
amount of experience and which we have found to be critical to the success of establishing guidelines onenvironmental and social issues. And these are clearly linked to capacity and the commitment to facilitatesuch processes. We feel the recommendations require more to be said on these issues so that support can begathered for them. This need is further highlighted by the confusing wording of pre-condition (4) on politicalprocesses, which may give rise to unfortunate misinterpretations.

/Q:\Hamasaka\CSR\Submission to the TMB\SAG-Recs-to-TMB (Apr 30) rev.doc

Page 4
It is our hope and belief that these clarifications are consistent with the AGs discussions to date and that theymight have been addressed without major changes to the document. We have greatly appreciated the efforts
extended by some AG members to accommodate changes however we accept that, given the process, thiswas not possible.
Finally, WWF hopes you can understand why we felt we had to submit this minority report and that if it isconsidered constructive we are willing to stay in the process to help in its development and to see if theseconcerns can be addressed as it moves forward.
We wish the AG well in its efforts and WWF hopes the work it does will make a valuable contribution tosustainable development.
Yours,Gordon Shepherd
Director International Policy
WWF International/Q:\Hamasaka\CSR\Submission to the TMB\SAG-Recs-to-TMB (Apr 30) rev.doc