The ISO 26000 DIS to FDIS. Major changes
Finally after 5 years of discussions and a long way (during which they received thousands of comments) is already in service on FDIS (First Draft International Standard) of the ISO 26000 to be considered and voted by national standards for approval as an international standard in December this year.
From the first meeting in Salvador de Bahia, Brazil which was a time when it was thought that never reach a consensus, to Copenhagen where he passed his way to the FDIS stage.
Given that many are curious to know how you resolved the key points (CKTs) discussed at CPH, then I will give a description of each of the critical points that were discussed, and how they were treated and was the response which was given in the FDIS.
Accessibility and length of the document / content too detailed and complex
CKT1/CKT2
The document still has the same length and complexity, however after a detailed study of it and despite its complexity could become a valuable tool for understanding and implementing social responsibility.
Developing a tool so that it could be applied in SMEs. In
keep the length I've been saying from the beginning on in the document include aspects that are addressed in other documents of universal application, a typical example of this is all related to human rights and other
many International standards provide guidelines
This CKT3
point was resolved in the document including the following sentence: "An international standard that provides guidance does not contain requirements, but may contain recommendations." Additionally, references in the box does support 1 to the directives of the ISO / IEC Part 2. Annex / certifiable standards to keep or remove CKT4
Standards certifiable character remain in the standard bibliographic reference. However it is clear that being certified with any of these rules does not have any links with any certification to ISO 26000, as a reference to this will be interpreted as a misuse of the standard.
technical barrier to trade
CKT 5
The document does not define anything additional to that provided in the DIS and therefore is considered sufficiently clear intention not to be used as a technical barrier to trade. Clarify
regard to international norms of behavior and its relationship with local laws applicable CKT6
On this point I did not find any point in the FDIS addition to what already existed in the DIS, except for the inclusion of Note 3 in the definition of international standards of behavior on the development of standards over time. This was one of the most discussed during the previous stages of the document with strong opposition from the industry.
Principle (focus) CKT-7
precautionary
The precautionary approach on the subject of the environment is one of the unresolved issues in their entirety, although the text was improved, at the plenary meeting of government representatives United States supported by the Canadian government expressed sustained opposition to the text of the precautionary principle. Aspects
common but differentiated responsibilities CK-8
This item according to the proposal of the IDTF integrated translation should be treated in a hint box 11 but was not included in the FDIS. Sexual Orientation CKT9
This theme also of the precautionary principle was one of the most difficult to agree in Copenhagen at the end was achieved, and in spite of opposition from some people and especially the Swedish delegation, an agreement with Muslim countries changing the term "sexual orientation" with "personal relationships "because homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment in these countries.
In this regard many theories were discussed in a group created to resolve this conflict, on the one hand there was a risk that these countries were opposed to the standard and another that did not. Prevailed at the end that we must be aware that there are different cultures and to make an International Standard on social responsibility has to understand that cultures are very different and need to adapt to local realities of each situation and each company.
CKT10 Animal Welfare
There was no change to the DIS in this regard
clearly differentiate the responsibilities of state government and its administrative functions CKT11
The issue of government and state, issue widely discussed in recent reviews CD and DIS was resolved by making clear in the definition as in Chapter 3 "Understanding the Social Responsibility" on the point of the state and the RS.
Special emphasis on the fact that while organizations can operate in a socially responsible way that is not a substitute for effective discharge of the duties and responsibilities of the state. It was also pointed out that the purpose of this Standard the term "organization" did not include the actions of their own governments as sovereign role in the development and enforcement of the law as well as others derived from nature such as the establishment of policies public interest or international obligations as a state. Sphere of influence
CKT12
The theme of the sphere of influence is clarified in the definition as in Chapter 5. Recognizing Social Responsibility.
A point very decisive was the state that an organization is responsible for the impacts of their decisions and activities over which it has formal control and sphere of influence includes relationships within and beyond the value chain of the organization, but clarifying that entire value chain of an organization lies within the sphere of influence of an organization.
interested parties, involvement, interest
CKT13
This issue was addressed in Chapter 3 "Recognizing the RS" in the role of stakeholders and interested parties and society in Chapter 5 Recognition of the RS and involvement with the parties concerned.
Clarifies that stakeholders having one or more interests that may be affected by decisions and activities of an organization and this relationship is not formal or recognized by the stakeholders of the organization. Due diligence
CKT14
This issue was addressed in the definition, as in chapters 6 to Human Rights. Due diligence can also alert an organization about the responsibility to influence the behavior of others, in cases where the others can be the cause of human rights violations in which the organization could be involved.
difference between philanthropy and social investment CKT15
addition to leaving very clear that philanthropy understood as matters of charity can be positive to society can not be used as a substitute for the integration of CSR within the organization.
Another very important is the fact that clear and contrary to the opinion of many that social investments that contribute to the development of the community may or may not be associated with the core operational activities of the same.
Next step, wait for FDIS vote which ends Sept. 12 date on which we will know the final results.
Posted in: Blog ISO
0 comments:
Post a Comment