Csr Codes, Guidelines and ISO 26,000 articles 2011-12

Published on Ethical Corporation (http://www.ethicalcorp.com)

Codes of conduct and standards: the pick of the bunch

Posted by [1] on Feb 21, 2011

Deborah Leipziger has picked her top ten codes and standards. In the first of a two-part report, here

she gives her views on five

While there are a wide range of codes and standards in the field of corporate responsibility, here are

five of my personal top ten of the most influential initiatives.

The UN Global Compact

Global Reporting Initiative

AA1000 Series

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Social Accountability 8000

The UN Global Compact Description:

Launched in 2000, the Compact addresses the environment, human rights, workers rights and

corruption. The Global Compact unites global principles with local networks to create fluid networks.

With more than 80 regional and national sub-networks, the UN Global Compact is a global

multi-stakeholder, multi-issue network. As a voluntary initiative, the Global Compact convenes all

key social actors: companies, labour, civil-society organisations and governments.

Unique selling points: With its local networks, the Global Compact operates at many levels:

globally, regionally and locally. The UN Global Compact benefits from the engagement of several UN

bodies, including the International Labour Organisation (ILO), The UN Development Programme

(UNDP), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human

Rights and the UN Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO).

The UN Global Compact differs from nearly all other corporate responsibility initiatives in that it

seeks to promote development through good corporate citizenship. By focusing on development, the

compact provides a new direction for corporate responsibility, giving voice to the poor and tackling

such issues as the digital divide and HIV/Aids.

Strengths and weaknesses: No other CR initiative has the moral authority and convening power

of the UN secretary-general. With these assets, the Global Compact has succeeded in promoting

corporate responsibility broadly through networks around the world.

The compact has also mobilised an impressive database of corporate activities on corporate

responsibility. The Global Compact is a truly global initiative, with significant participation from

companies in the south. If the principles of the Global Compact lack the specificity of SA8000 and

other initiatives it is because they were designed to meet the needs of a very global and diverse

constituency of governments and businesses.

The key difference is that the compact was never intended to supplant any regulatory initiatives.

Instead it complements them. The Global Compact office does not have the mandate or the

resources to monitor company activity.

The general nature of the principles can be perceived as both a strength and a weakness. It is easier

to attract a critical mass of companies with general principles than with highly specialised criteria.

Moreover, general principles make it easier for companies to integrate the compact into their own

internal codes or policies.

By developing a general standard, and by forging alliances with highly specialised initiatives such as

of 4


GRI and SA8000, the compact is able to build critical mass. The Global Compact has been criticised

for lacking an assurance mechanism.

How it has evolved: Since its inception, the Global Compact has

grown dramatically to include 7,700 corporate participants with

networks in 80 countries. In 2008, alone, the Global Compact grew

by 30%. http://www.unglobalcompact.org [2]/

Global Reporting Initiative Description:

The Global Reporting Initiative has pioneered sustainability reporting, providing guidelines that serve

as a framework for economic, social and environmental reporting. In 2006, GRI launched the G3

Guidelines. Although the GRI Guidelines are not a code of conduct, a management system or

standard, they are extremely useful to companies working on code implementation.

The guidelines promote the communication of actions taken to improve economic, environmental

and social performance; the outcome of such actions; and future strategies for improvement. The G3

Guidelines are structured in two parts.

Part 1 includes principles to define report content: materiality, stakeholder inclusiveness,

sustainability context, and completeness and guidance on how to set boundaries for the report.

Part 2 includes standard disclosures, strategy and profile, management approach and performance

indicators.

Unique selling point: The GRI Guidelines are the product of an intensive, multi-stakeholder

consultation process, involving thousands of NGOs, companies, business groups, trade unions, and

accountancy organisations. GRI has developed sector-specific guidelines for a wide range of sectors,

including financial services, electric utilities, mining and metals, food processing and NGOs.

Strengths and weaknesses: GRI encourages companies to set targets and then to report on

whether or not those targets have been met. If the company has not met its targets, it should give

reasons. By encouraging companies to set and report on targets, stakeholders have standards to

which they can hold the company accountable.

Many companies find the large number of indicators within the GRI framework daunting. Reporting

can also be expensive, especially for large organisations.

Progress to date: Thousands of companies in over 60 countries

issue reports which follow the GRI Guidelines. GRI is to be

commended for its cooperative work with a wide range of

organisations, including the Carbon Disclosure Project and others. http://www.globalreporting.org [3]/

AA1000 series Description: Launched in 1999 by AccountAbility, the AA1000 Series is designed to

assist companies, stakeholders, auditors, consultants and standard-setting bodies. AA1000 can be

used in two ways: on its own or in conjunction with other corporate responsibility standards.

It provides a road map for companies on key CR issues, explaining points of divergence and

convergence with other major standards. Founded in 1995, AccountAbility is a global, organisation

set up to promote accountability innovation for sustainable development (though it is in the midst of

a controversial re-structuring).

The AA1000 Series has as its premise three principles: inclusivity, materiality and responsiveness.

The AA1000 Series includes three standards: AA1000APS Accountability Principles AA1000AS

Assurance Standard AA1000SES Stakeholder Engagement Standard

Unique selling point: The AA1000 Principles are compatible with the UN Global Compact, the GRI

and ISO 26000. The AA1000 Assurance Standard can be used with audits of factory compliance with

labour standards and carbon emissions.

of 4

http://www.unglobalcompact.org

http://www.globalreporting.org


Strengths and weaknesses: The AA1000 Series provides an overarching framework for corporate

responsibility. The AA1000 Assurance Standard (a part of the series) is designed to cover assurance

processes across the spectrum of sustainability issues.

It is accessible on-line at no cost. The accessibility of the standard is important, as it facilitates

consultation with stakeholders. The consultation process for the AA1000 Assurance Standard has

been thorough, benefiting from input into a wide range of organisations. A major challenge facing

the field of assurance will be to build capacity among assurance providers.

Progress to date: The AA1000 series is used by a wide range of

organisations, including multinational companies, small and medium

sized enterprises, governments and civil society. http://www.accountability.org [4]

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises Description:

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises feature recommendations from governments to

companies. Unique among corporate responsibility tools in its comprehensive nature, the OECD

guidelines address all aspects of corporate behaviour, from taxation and competition to consumer

interests and science and technology.

The guidelines are voluntary and non-binding. To fully understand the objectives of the guidelines, it

is necessary to review the role of OCED. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development promotes policies that contribute to economic growth and development.

Founded in 1961, OECD has made a significant contribution to corporate social responsibility by

developing CR-related principles, including the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance and the

OECD Convention on Combating Bribery.

Unique selling points: The OECD guidelines are among the most comprehensive of CR tools,

addressing a range of issues unparalleled in any single CR instrument. The guidelines are a map for

companies of the type of CR issues they may encounter. OECD requires each member state to

appoint a National Contact Point (NCP) to promote the guidelines. The NCPs provide local

infrastructure for the guidelines.

Strengths and weaknesses: The guidelines encourage companies to observe standards of

employment and industrial relations not less favourable than those observed by comparable

employers in the host country.

In many regions, observance of local norms would be insufficient to meet basic standards set by the

International Labour Organisation. The ILO participated in the negotiations and views the Guidelines

as being compatible with its own conventions and declarations.

The words not less favourable than mean that companies are asked to observe the other

recommendations on human rights, core labour standards, and supply chain codes.

Progress to date: The 42 governments that adhere to the guidelines have

begun work to update the guidelines. The last revision occurred in 2000. http://www.oecd.org [5]

Social Accountability 8000 Description:

Social Accountability 8000 is a global and verifiable standard designed to make workplaces more

humane. The standard combines key elements of the ILO conventions with the management

systems of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). SA8000 is a certification

standard developed, overseen and updated through multi-stakeholder dialogue with trade unions,

companies, NGOs and academics.

Unique selling point: SA8000s management systems differentiate the standard from most codes

of conduct and statements of intent. Its requirement of the creation of management systems

of 4

http://www.accountability.org

http://www.oecd.org


ensures that social issues are integrated into all aspects of company policy and day-to-day

operations. Management systems include the need for training programmes, communications,

elected representatives, management reviews, control of suppliers, and planning and policies,

among others.

Strengths and weaknesses: SA8000 applies to companies around the world and across industries,

serving as a common benchmark that ensures basic rights are respected within the supply chain of

companies and industries.

Social Accountability International, which developed SA8000, has implemented extensive training

programmes and capacity building efforts around the world. SA8000 has been criticised for being too

rigorous and by others for being too weak.

Like other standards that include management systems, SA8000 is biased towards companies that

have already established management systems. As such, it may be easier for large companies to

implement SA8000 than for smaller companies.

Progress to date: As of June 2010, there are 2,258 workplaces certified to

SA8000 in 60 countries and 66 industries. Over 1.3 million workers are

employed in facilities which have received SA8000 certification. http://www.sa-intl.org [6]/ In part

two, I will examine the following.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

ILO Tripartite Declaration

OECD Convention for Combating Bribery

The Ethical Trading Initiative Base Code, and the

Ceres Principles

Deborah Leipziger is the

author of The Corporate

Responsibility Code Book.

EC readers can save 40%

on the fully revised second

edition here: http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/productdetail.kmod?productid=3095 [7] by using

the discount code EC4CODE at the checkout.

Links:

[1] http://www.ethicalcorp.com/user/9332

[2] http://www.unglobalcompact.org

[3] http://www.globalreporting.org

[4] http://www.accountability.org

[5] http://www.oecd.org

[6] http://www.sa-intl.org

[7] http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/productdetail.kmod?productid=3095

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

of 4

http://www.sa-intl.org

http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com/productdetail.kmod?productid=3095

http://www.tcpdf.org


Codes of conduct and standards: the top ten, part II

Posted by [1] on Jun 27, 2011

Deborah Leipziger has picked her top ten codes and standards. In the second of a two-part report,

here she analyses another five

In the first [2] part of my report, I analysed the following international codes of conduct and

standards.

The UN Global Compact

Global Reporting Initiative

AA1000 Series

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Social Accountability 8000

Here, I will examine the other five that make up my top ten:




The Ethical Trading Initiative Base Code

Ceres Principles


Description: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the most significant documents

ever drafted. It enshrines the concept of human rights broadly, to include not only political rights but

also social and economic rights. Universally accepted, the UDHR has formed the basis of many

constitutions around the world. Moreover, the UDHR is cited in many corporate responsibility codes

and principles.

Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, the UDHR was unanimously adopted by the then 48

member states of the United Nations. In 1993, 171 governments adopted the Vienna Declaration

which affirms support for the UDHR. The declaration is not legally binding but is accepted as

customary law. The UDHR is elaborated on in two UN international covenants – one on civil and

political rights and one on social, economic and cultural rights. These two covenants are binding for

states that decide to become a party to these treaties.

Unique selling point: One of the greatest strengths of the UDHR is its acceptance around the world

as a cornerstone of human rights. The clarity of its composition is also a great strength.

Strengths and weaknesses: Despite the fact that it is already over a half century old, the UDHR

remains as relevant in 2010 as it was in 1948. However, it is important to remember that the

drafters of the UDHR were predominantly of western background, leading some critics to argue that

the concept of human rights is a “western” notion. To refute this argument, it is worth noting that

very few governments have filed significant reservations on any human right treaties (which are

based on the UDHR) they have ratified. The UDHR has also been criticised for its lack of focus on

minorities and indigenous peoples. However subsequent UN documents have compensated for this

oversight. The declaration is not easily translatable into corporate action but is a starting point for

companies seeking to commit to human rights principles.

Page 1 of 5

http://www.ethicalcorp.com/governance-regulation/codes-conduct-and-standards-pick-bunch


Progress to date: One of the challenges in the human rights field is to translate the UDHR [3] into

business principles. Social and economic rights are being translated into business codes but civil and

political rights are rarely included in business principles. The Danish Centre on Human Rights has

made significant progress in translating the articles of the UDHR into business principles with the

support of companies and stakeholders.


Description: Launched in 1977, the International Labour Organisation’s Tripartite Declaration of

Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy is directed towards companies,

governments, trade unions and employer organisations. The declaration refers to 28 ILO

conventions, and as many recommendations, that were negotiated within a multilateral framework.

Unique selling point: The Tripartite Declaration provides a very useful reference for governments

as well as companies on their role in promoting corporate responsibility as well as social and

economic development.

Strengths and weaknesses: The declaration includes procedures for examining disputes that arise in

its implementation. A government or trade union can seek to establish whether or not the behaviour

of a company is in accordance with the declaration. As for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational

Enterprises, companies are encouraged to observe standards comparable to the host country in

which they operate. For many parts of the developing world, the observance of local norms could still

involve poor working conditions.

Progress to date: The declaration has had a significant impact on corporate responsibility codes

and standards, many of which draw on ILO [4] conventions.


Description: Launched in 1999, the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public

Officials in International Business Transactions is a landmark agreement, defining key terms and

developing a legal framework for addressing bribery. The convention applies to bribery of foreign

officials anywhere, regardless of where the incident takes place.

The convention criminalises offering and/or paying bribes, but not soliciting and/or accepting bribes.

It covers only the bribery of foreign officials and not private-to-private corruption. The convention

allows “small facilitation payments” to low-ranking officials.

Unique selling point: The OECD works with a wide range of regional programmes to combat

bribery.

Strengths and weaknesses: Despite the OECD’s wide-spread co-operation with regional programmes,

the corruption of public officials continues. According to Transparency International’s Bribe Payers

Index, local firms are more likely to bribe government officials than multinational companies are. The

convention does not address bribery of officials by local business and it has been criticised for failing

to capture the full extent of bribery. For example, it does not cover bribery of private-sector

employees. Moreover, it fails to address the bribery of political parties and political candidates. The

convention provides no protection for whistle-blowers who uncover corruption, which can lead to

reluctance to disclose incidents of bribery.

Progress to date: The convention has been ratified by all 33 members of the OECD [5] and by a

growing number of non-members as well.

Page 2 of 5

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

http://www.ilo.org

http://www.oecd.org


AA1000 Series

Description: Launched in 1999, the AA1000 Series is designed to assist companies, stakeholders,

auditors, consultants and standard-setting bodies. AA1000 can be used in two ways: on its own or in

conjunction with other corporate responsibility standards. It provides a road map for companies on

key CR issues, explaining points of divergence and convergence with other major standards.

The AA1000 Series has been developed and established by AccountAbility, and has as its premise

three principles: inclusivity, materiality and responsiveness.

The AA1000 Series includes three standards:

AA1000APS Accountability Principles

AA1000AS Assurance Standard

AA1000SES Stakeholder Engagement Standard

Unique selling point: The AA1000 Principles are compatible with the UN Global Compact, the GRI

and ISO 26000. The AA1000 Assurance Standard can be used with audits of factory compliance with

labour standards and carbon emissions.

Strengths and weaknesses: The AA1000 Series provides an overarching framework for corporate

responsibility. The AA1000 Assurance Standard (a part of the series) is designed to cover assurance

processes across the spectrum of sustainability issues. It is accessible online at no cost. The

accessibility of the standard is important, as it facilitates consultation with stakeholders. The

consultation process for the AA1000 Assurance Standard has been thorough, benefiting from input

into a wide range of organisations. A major challenge facing the field of assurance will be to build

capacity among assurance providers.

Progress to date: The AA1000 [6] series is used by a wide range of organisations, including

multinational companies, small and medium sized enterprises, governments and civil society.

The Ethical Trading Initiative

Description: The Ethical Trading Initiative seeks to improve the lives of workers in global supply

chains by creating a forum to identify and promote good practice in the implementation of codes of

conduct. The ETI is tripartite, consisting of membership groups from three sectors: companies, NGOs

and trade unions. It is funded by the UK government’s Department for International Development

and from membership fees.

Unique selling points: The ETI is interested in sharing the lessons learned from various different

approaches to monitoring, verification and other aspects of code implementation. In pursuit of its

aims, ETI conducts experimental projects into aspects of code implementation, hosts seminars,

events and conferences and has a research and publications programme.

Strengths and weaknesses: Company members report that the ETI provides a valuable forum in

Page 3 of 5

http://www.accountability.org


which to engage trade unions and NGOs. In addition, the ETI catalyses learning by sharing good

practice and networking while providing a peer review of corporate progress and co-operation rather

than competition.

The forging of new partnerships is also an important priority for the ETI and it works in partnership

with industry stakeholders in all its experimental work. For example, in the South African province of

Western Cape, the ETI has helped to establish the Ethical Trading Forum, which brings together

producers, trade unions, NGOs and government to promote better working conditions within the field

of agriculture.

One of the major lessons learned through ETI consultations is the degree of complexity and

ambiguity within the field. As the pilot studies replicate the ETI tripartite model they are forging

important alliances. However, working within the tripartite structure can be time-consuming and

expensive.

Progress to date: The ETI’s [7] members include companies with a combined turnover of over

£107bn, from a wide range of sectors, including supermarkets, fashion retailers, department stores

and stone sourcing companies, as well as major suppliers to retailers of food and drink, flowers,

clothing, shoes, home, promotional and other products.

Ceres Principles

Description: The ten Ceres Principles cover the major environmental concerns facing companies,

including energy conservation, reduction and disposal of waste, and risk reduction. Originally known

as the Valdez Principles, they were launched in 1989 as a response to the environmental disaster of

the Exxon Valdez oil tanker.

Endorsing companies must commit publicly to the principles, address issues raised by the Ceres

network and other stakeholders and report annually on their progress in meeting the Ceres

Principles. Ceres is a coalition of more than 80 companies, with Sunoco being the first Fortune 500

signatory, joining in 1993. Coca-Cola, the Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Polaroid are

among some of the most well-known companies that have endorsed the principles.

Unique selling point: One of the greatest strengths of the Ceres Principles is the degree to which

Ceres engages with companies in on-going dialogue. Unlike the majority of the other principles and

standards featured here, a company cannot unilaterally decide to adopt the Ceres Principles.

Endorsing the principles is a two-way process which includes both the commitment of the company

and the acceptance of the board of directors of Ceres.

Strengths and weaknesses: The Ceres Principles are among the few initiatives profiled in this

report that include a clause to protect whistle-blowers. This is very important to safeguard those

employees who disclose damaging information from suffering retaliation for going public.

Ceres is a US-based organisation addressing global issues. It would be a challenge for an

organisation such as Ceres to expand globally and still maintain its cohesive network and sense of

trust. Ceres maintains its US roots and identity, but with a global reporting mechanism.

Progress to date: There are nearly 100 Ceres [8] companies, including Bank of America, Gap, Nike

and Timberland. Ceres also works with investors worldwide.

Links:

[1] http://www.ethicalcorp.com/user/9332

[2] http://www.ethicalcorp.com/governance-regulation/codes-conduct-and-standards-pick-bunch

[3] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

[4] http://www.ilo.org

[5] http://www.oecd.org

[6] http://www.accountability.org

[7] http://www.ethicaltrade.org/

[8] http://www.ceres.org/page.aspx?pid=705

Page 4 of 5

http://www.ethicaltrade.org/

http://www.ceres.org/page.aspx?pid=705



Page 5 of 5



ISO 26000: Sustainability as standard?

Posted by Jon Entine [1] on Jul 11, 2012

Jon Entine asks if, almost two years on since its launch, ISO 26000 is working

Is ISO 26000 – from the International Organisation for Standardisation – meeting its goal of

pressuring governments, business and NGOs to operate according to a set of global social

standards? That’s a challenging question considering the final document was simultaneously

ambiguous, ambitious and toothless.

The standard’s goal is in fact modest. It’s not a management system but a guide to “socially

responsible” organisational behaviour. It offers social philosophy without certification – which critics

say makes it a limp noodle. After all, with no verification, corporations can use it to boost their public

image by trumpeting standards that for the most part require little more than high-minded rhetoric.

“Many companies will be happy to proclaim their use of the standard [whether legitimate or

not],” warns Adrian Henriques [2], chair of the UK committee on ISO 26000 and visiting

professor of accountability at Middlesex University business school. Henriques cites Toshiba, whose

most recent corporate responsibility report is structured on ISO 26000, although it is not referenced.

Often, the standard appears to be invoked as a public relations gimmick. Henriques notes that

Showa Denko, a leading Japanese chemical engineering firm, writes in its 2011 social responsibility

report that it used the standard to “ensure compliance with guidelines for social responsibility”, but

provides no data to support this claim.

Nevertheless, ISO 26000 has its defenders, based on the rationalisation that something is better

than nothing. “I strongly believe that a guidance document is exactly what is needed at the

moment,” says ISO secretary-general Rob Steele, rejecting criticism that it lacks enforcement

mechanisms.

Let’s be clear: the 26000 standard is nothing like the guidelines put forth by the ISO on other aspects

of business. Because of the charged issues here, ISO 26000 is both vague and highly political. Each

section has a laundry list of daunting societal problems, mostly in developing countries, followed by

a wish list of NGO-supported solutions, the bill for which would be picked up by developed countries

or multinational companies.

The standard is being used. Various aspects are providing blueprints for left-leaning European

countries, empowering advocacy groups and inspiring activist judicial systems to embrace these

“universally agreed upon” principles when conflicts involving corporations come to a head.

National standards

An Austrian national version is expected to mandate actions that are only recommended in ISO

26000. Denmark has used it to adopt a national standard, DS 26001, which offers a “socially

responsible management system” certification. The Swedish local government procurement

standard, launched in 2007, was influenced by developing drafts.

Not surprisingly, developing countries, for example St Lucia, Nigeria and Malaysia, are also

vehement supporters. They believe they could gain from tighter reins placed on multinational

corporations.

The United States and India, which supported early drafts of ISO 26000, ultimately voted, along with

three other countries, against the final version. Critics believe it contains problematic proclamations

about contested notions of environmental impacts and employee and consumer rights, but no

endorsement of shareholder rights.

Page 1 of 2

http://www.ethicalcorp.com/users/jon-entine

http://www.henriques.info/


Much of the concern revolves around ISO 26000’s embrace of the “precautionary principle” to

resolve environmental conflicts. Although that conforms to EU practices, it’s rejected by the US,

Japan and other countries, and is considered problematic by scientists because it often eschews

cost-benefit analysis. After much haggling, the final draft eliminated the only criterion that would

have specifically recognised that firms could weigh the costs of taking action on principles of social

responsibility.

Conservative critics also fret that ISO 26000 could be a stalking horse for a United Nations-type

transnational government, threatening national sovereignty. It does not address how to resolve

conflicts between shareholders and stakeholders – direct stakeholders such as employees or indirect

ones such as NGOs that often proclaim to represent “the environment” or “consumers”.

Does an activist group legitimately represent the environment just because it makes aggressive

pronouncements and has ready access to the echo chamber of the media and web? To what degree

should advocacy groups be granted “stakeholder status”?

Many industry leaders, particularly in the US, believe these kind of standards encourage

protectionism ahead of innovation, which is an economic drag, dampening economic recovery. There

are also worries that if ISO 26000 does lead to transnational regulation, it could put a pillar of market

capitalism – the ability of companies to transact business – up for grabs.

Through all the scepticism surrounding ISO 26000, its advocates remain adamant that its potential

for mischief is overstated and its long-range impact will turn out to be both profound and mostly for

the good.

Jon Entine is senior fellow at the Center for Health and Risk Management at George Mason University

and founder of the consulting firm ESG MediaMetrics.

Links:

[1] http://www.ethicalcorp.com/users/jon-entine

[2] http://www.henriques.info/


Page 2 of 2


Csr Codes, Guidelines and ISO 26,000 articles 2011-12

Documents

Transcript of Csr Codes, Guidelines and ISO 26,000 articles 2011-12