idtf n111-copenhagen discussion doc-17may10 tuesday plenary

8/9/2019 IDTF N111-Copenhagen Discussion Doc-17May10 Tuesday Plenary

1/23

ISO/TMB/WG SR IDTF N111 Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document4 May 2010 Page 1(23)

Page 1

Handled by email:

Jonathon Hanks

[email protected]

Copenhagen Discussion Document

Copenhagen Key Topics (CKTs) 4 May 2010

This document compiled by the Integrated Drafting Task Force presents the Copenhagen Key Topics (CKTs) that have been identified following a review by

the IDTF of all the written comments on the D IS (as contained in ISO/TMB/WG SR N176). The proposed way forward on each of these Key Topics will be

presented for approval in an opening plenary meeting of all the Clause Specific Meetings (CSMs). If necessary, further discussion on particular CKTs will be

undertaken during one of the following Clause Specific Meetings (CSMs) as specified in the Table below.

CSM 1 Foreword, Introduction, Clauses 0-4

CSM 2 Overarching Clause 6, Organizational Governance, Fair Operating Practices, Consumer Issues and The Environment

CSM 3 Human Rights, Labour Practices and Community Involvement and Development

CSM 4 Clause 5, Clause 7, Annex and Bibliography

The process used by the IDTF in identifying these Copenhagen Key Topics is outlined in the Report of the IDTF Cape Town Meeting (IDTF_N107). The table inthis Discussion Document identifies the underlying question/s pertaining to each CKT, provides a brief summary of some of the main comments and suggestions

by experts relating to that CKT, and proposes a way forward for addressing the CKT. The summary of main comments (column two) is intended to assist those

experts who have not been able to full y analyse the consolidated comments on ISO 26000. The summary is not intended to replace the full set of comments, but

rather provides a synthesis of some of the main comments relating to the identified Topic.

On the basis of a review of the written comments it is suggested that the following Key Topics need to be considered, in addition to the numerous clause-specific

drafting suggestions that will be handled in the CSMs through consideration of the accompanying bracketed version of ISO 26000 (IDTF_N112):

1. Accessibility and length

2. Applicability

3. International Guidance Standard

4. Annex / certifiable standards

5. WTO / trade barrier issue

6. International norms

7. Precautionary approach

8. Common but differentiated responsibilities

9. Sexual orientation

10. Provision for animal welfare

11. Government / state

12. Sphere of influence

13. Stakeholder / engagement / interests

14. Due diligence

15. Philanthropy / social investment

This document should be read in conjunction with IDTF_N112, which contains suggested revisions to the D IS in bracketed text.

NOTE: all lines numbers below refer to the line numbering in ISO 26000 DIS (ISO/TMB/WG SR N 172).


2/23


Page 2

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated

comments on DIS)

Proposed way forward

1. Accessibility and lengthAccepted as presented

What can be done to improvethe accessibility of thedocument and reduce itslength without compromisingthe agreement that has beenreached on the existingsubstantive content of thedocument?

Some comments suggest that the document is too complex and difficult toread, and that its sheer length will reduce the likelihood that organizations ofany size will be able to understand or use much of what is covered withoutprofessional assistance. Particular concern is expressed regarding theimplications that this will have on the use of the Standard by SMOs.

Some have suggested that an Executive Summary be developed.

Various comments highlight the need to avoid instances of unnecessaryduplication and to ensure greater consistency in the use of terms andphrases throughout the Standard.

The following is proposed as the way forward:

It is recognised that in seeking to find a balance between providingcomprehensive coverage of social responsibility issues, and ensuringconciseness, the WGSR has chosen to focus primarily on providingcomprehensive guidance. There is seen to be a significant challengein substantially shortening the document without compromising theagreement that has been reached on the existing substance of thedocument. Efforts are being taken to address concerns relating toaccessibility and length without undermining this existing support.

With this in mind, the following way forward is proposed:

Edits have been made throughout the text aimed at addressingspecific concerns regarding the length and/or complexity of particularsections. These changes are identified in the revised version of ISO26000 (IDTF N112) and will be considered in the various CSMs.

Recognising the concern that a formal Executive Summary may beseen by some as a sufficient substitute for the full document, andnoting the significant challenges associated with agreeing thesubstance of such a summary, it is proposed that instead ofproducing an Executive Summary further guidance be providedwithin the Standard on how to use the document. Text has beenproposed (bracketed in IDTF N112) to accompany Box Figure 1, forconsideration in CSM1.

Instances of duplication have been identified in the revision version(IDTF N112); proposed deletion of text will be considered in CSMs.

A consistency check has been undertaken of the document; specific

suggestions for ensuring greater consistency have beenincorporated in IDTF N112 for consideration by CSMs.

2. ApplicabilityAccepted as presented, details to be discussed in CSM1 and

CSM4

How to ensure that thisStandard provides guidancethat is applicable to all types oforganization, regardless of

Various comments suggest that the text fails to meet its stated intent toprovide guidance to all types of organizations, regardless of their size orlocation". Several parties raise the concern that much of the text seems to bedirected primarily at industry organizations, specifically multinational


As a general principle, it is suggested that there is sufficientagreement that the standard is seen to provide guidance that isapplicable to all organizations and that significant changes to the


3/23


Page 3

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions

(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidatedcomments on DIS)


their size or location? companies, and that it is particularly unsuitable for small organizations. Somecomments propose editing the scope to remove the unjustified claim that itprovides guidance to all types of organizations, regardless of their size orlocation. Others suggest that terminology that is business oriented should beremoved to make the text more neutral. It has also been proposed that claritybe provided that this guidance is meant for larger organizations and thatSMOs may use it only as they feel fit. Some also suggest that the concept oforganization is not clearly defined.

substantive guidance provided in existing text would undermine theexisting support for the document. Nevertheless there is seen to bescope for further improvements to the document.

With this in mind, the following way forward is proposed:

Various specific examples of text that some deem is too business-oriented have been bracketed in the revised version of ISO 26000(IDTF N112) for consideration in relevant CSMs.

The opening statement in the Scope should be retained as it isdeemed to be a true and accurate statement; it is also one that hasbeen considered in numerous previous WGSR meetings and is seento reflect an appropriate agreed compromise on the way forward.

Further clarity is provided regarding the definition of organization,through a revision to Note 1 of that definition (as outlined in CKT 11below).

If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1

- Further issues: guidance for organizations in areas under

occupation, to be treated in CSM Human Rights, if necessary

-

Respect for differences: no comment provided, text that

addresses the issue is already included in the bracketed

text, to be addressed in CSM1

3. International GuidanceStandard

Generally accepted with modifications, further details to be

discussed in CSM1.

How do we make it clear that

this international Standard is aguidance Standard, whileconforming to ISOnomenclature?

Some comments suggest that while the use of the term "international

Standard" may conform to normal ISO usage, it is misleading to use the termin relation to this document; the term "guidance" or "document" is seen to bemore appropriate and would help to address potential misunderstandings.The counter argument is that this document, within ISO terminology, is anInternational Standard, and such a description has been used on previousoccasions to describe other guidance standards.


Insert in Introduction after DIS line 167:

This International Standard provides guidance to users and isnot intended or appropriate for certification purposes. Any offerto certify, or claims to be certified to ISO 26000 would be amisrepresentation of the intent and purpose of thisInternational Standard.

Insert into Box 1 after DIS line 185:

An International Standard providing guidance does not contain


4/23


Page 4




requirements but may contain recommendations.

In terms of ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 a recommendation isdefined as an: expression in the content of a documentconveying that among several possibilities one isrecommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning orexcluding others, or that a certain course of action is preferredbut not necessarily required, or that (in the negative form) acertain possibility or course of action is deprecated but notprohibited.

Note: An International Standard does not in itself impose anyobligation upon anyone to follow it. However, such anobligation may be imposed, for example, by legislation or by acontract. In order to be able to claim compliance with a

document, the user needs to be able to identify therequirements he/she is obliged to satisfy.

Therefore, any claim to be certified to ISO 26000 would be amisrepresentation of the intent and purpose of thisInternational Standard.


- Indian proposal to refine introduction text generallyaccepted

- Proposal to delete note and last sentence of PWF in Box1 accepted

-

Proposal to add clarification what an (international)

standard is, will be discussed in CSM1

4. Annex / certifiablestandards

Note: Please see also IDTF N095, N095-A1, N095-A2, N099, N100 andN103.

Accepted as presented

NOTE: Sustained opposition by India, and check what the ISO

Code of Ethics says

(opposition though not sustained by China and Oman)

4.1 Should there be a web-based annex that replaces (orcomplements) Annex A?

Some argue that a web-based Annex would have several advantages over aprinted version of the Annex, suggesting for example that it would: allowinclusion of a broader range of initiatives and tools; facilitate more precise


Although there are some recognised advantages of a web-basedAnnex there are also some concerns: it requires a robust and


5/23


Page 5




searching; reduce the overall length of ISO26000; and enable it to beupdated. Some feel that this should replace the printed Annex, others havesuggested that it should complement the printed document. Others arguethat although a web-based annex would technically be easy to update, theproblem would be the governance of its updates, since the WG will not beactive after ISO26000 is published.

representative governance system within the WGSR timeframe andmandate; there are significant challenges in producing a feasiblesolution for consideration at Copenhagen meeting; and it may be seento undermine the intention that the Annex be simply a non-exhaustivelist of initiatives and tools. Removing the Annex entirely from theprinted version of the document would make it less accessible tocertain parties, and is seen to be contrary to the carefully negotiatedcompromise that was reached earlier on this issue.

The proposed way forward, thus, is to keep Annex A as part of theprinted document, and not to create a separate web-based version.

4.2 How does one ensure thatinclusion within the Annex of

certifiable initiatives is notinterpreted as being anendorsement by ISO of thoseinitiatives and as being arequirement to be sociallyresponsible?

Some argue that because Annex A makes reference to certifiable standards,this suggests that ISO has implicitly endorsed these standards and may also

suggest that certification against these standards may be a requirement interms of ISO 26000; this is further seen to raise potential WTO/TBTconcerns. Some have also suggested that by being certified under somevoluntary initiatives and tools (VITs) mentioned in the Annex someone couldclaim to be certified under ISO 26000. Various comments express concernthat the existing disclaimer language and clarification on these topics is notenough to remedy their concerns. However, very few improvements in thedisclaimer language are provided. Comments on this issue predominantlycall for deletion of the whole Annex A, for deletion of all certifiable VITs or fordeletion of all VITs except those categorized as IntergovernmentalInitiatives.


The WG has already agreed that not mentioning any VITs would be

misleading to the users, as they are widely used by organizations inaddressing their social responsibility. The WG has also agreed thatthe simple fact of mentioning certifiable VITs is not and should not betaken as an endorsement or recommendation for their use.

The proposed way forward on this issue is to include in IDTF N112(as bracketed text for consideration in CSM4) the suggestions byexperts to improve the disclaimer and clarification language. To nowchange the inclusion criteria and/or delete the A

nnex, without strongand unavoidable new reasons (which have not been provided) woulddecrease the existing level of consensus.

4.3 Should reference toAnnex A be permitted in thebody of the text?

Some comments argue that Box 1 (lines 187191) suggests that referencesto Annex A in the body text of the Standard are not allowed, and yet suchreferences have been made (such as in Box 1 itself and in 6.5.5.2.1, 6.5.6.2and 7.8, and Boxes 15 and 16). Some argue further that by mentioningcertification and verification and by referencing the existence of VITs, ISO26000 is conveying the message that those are essential practices of asocial responsible organization.


As noted earlier, the WGSR has agreed that mentioning certification,verification and any other methodologies does not automatically implyan endorsement by ISO 26000 of such practices, nor does it suggestthat this is a precondition for being socially responsible. The existing

language in the document is very clear on this issue. Similarly, thereis no prohibition on mentioning Annex A in the body of the text, aslong as this is adequately framed.

The proposed way forward on this issue is to retain reference in thetext to certification or verification, as well as the existing references tothe Annex. Some of the suggestions by experts regarding the use ofcertification and verification have been included in IDTF N112 (asbracketed text for consideration in CSM4) with the aim of improvingclarity and balance in the guidance provided (while not deleting thereferences). Bracketed provision has also been made in IDTF N112 to


6/23


Page 6




a proposal to amend lines 187-191 to avoid confusion.

4.4 Should the text in Box 16be edited to avoid anynegative tone and / or the useof convoluted language?

While not disagreeing with the purpose and core message of Box 16, somesuggest that the wording in this box is convoluted, has not yet been edited forreadability, is too negative, and is not compatible with the language used inthe rest of the Standard. Yet, no alternative text was provided to address thisconcern.


The current clarifying language adopted in this specific box is a resultof the discussion held in the informal discussion group on Annex Aand in the IDTF after the Quebec meeting. This text seeks to addresssome of the principal concerns raised by those who areuncomfortable with the mention of certifiable standards and VITs bothin the main text and in Annex A. The proposed way forward is to keepexisting text, as it is the result of careful compromise, and has notbeen objected to by almost all of the parties.

4.5 What can be done toaddress the suggestedconcern that the process ofidentifying the listed voluntaryinitiatives and tools (VITs)wasnt sufficiently accurate ortransparent, and that it didntprovide sufficient time forexperts to assess the accuracyof the information provided?

Some comments argue that none of the information in Annex A has beenchecked for accuracy, and therefore propose that either the information mustbe verified or the Annex should be removed from the Standard. Theassumption that checking for accuracy has not been performed comes fromthe statement at the top of Annex A that "the ISO 26000 drafters have notindependently verified the information provided in this table". It is also arguedthat Annex A was not developed in an open and transparent manner. Finally,there are concerns that the list includes some local or national initiatives,what would be in contradiction with the inclusion criteria established.


Regarding these process-related concerns it is important to note the

following issues: the template for submitting VITs by experts has been available to all

experts since shortly after the Santiago WGSR meeting;

all VITs have been properly submitted through the appropriatetemplate, and open to review and comment by WGSR experts ascomments on the CD and the DIS

all basic information on VITs included in Annex A has been checkedat a high level by IDTF members.

The proposed way forward is to include in IDTF N112 (as bracketedtext for consideration in CSM4) alternative disclaimer language at thetop of the Table in Annex A. The aim of this text is to avoid furtherconfusion on this issue, while making the necessary clarification forusers. Comments proposing inclusion or exclusion of particular VITs,as well as edits to the information on VITs, shall also be included inIDTF 112 as bracketed text for consideration by CSM4.

4.6 Should changes bemade to the structure of VITs,the criteria for selection and/orthe nature of information thatis provided?

Various comments were made regarding the structure and layout of theAnnex including that: the VITs be re-organized and/or presented withdifferent information; tools and initiatives be listed separately; theorganization of information be changed for better readability. One commentsuggests that the categorization of "intergovernmental initiatives" should bemore strictly applied, so as to include under "Intergovernmental Initiatives"those that were "developed and launched" by such bodies.

The question on the presentation of information in Annex A has beencarefully and deeply discussed since the WGSR meeting in Vienna.Various alternatives have been tested, either at IDTF or at the WGSRmeeting and ad hoc/small/informal groups. The structure/designpresented in the DIS is the latest version of such process, and hasreceived very little criticism from the WGSR members, showing thatmost of them are satisfied with the current solution. Recognizing thebroad support for the current text, the proposed way forward is toretain the existing structure. Minor amendments have been bracketed


7/23


Page 7




for consideration in CSM4.

4.7 Is there a need to furtherclarify the role of Bibliographyand its relative importance ascompared with Annex A?

Some comments state that further clarity is needed to highlight that theBibliography is more important than the Annex, for instance by placing itbefore the Annex or by providing an introduction that explains its purposeand importance. There is a concern that the Bibliography (unlike the Annex)is not sufficiently presented as a valuable source of further practical guidance

The following is proposed as the way forward

Integrate the elements contained in the following text within Box 1 andin the Introduction to the Annex (in the manner as shown inIDTF_N112):

The Bibliography, which is an integral part of this InternationalStandard, consists of references to international instrumentsthat are considered authoritative sources for identifying theexpectations concerning what constitutes socially responsiblebehaviour. These instruments may contain additional usefulguidance and information; ISO 26000 users are encouraged toconsult them to better understand and implement social

responsibility.

This multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM4

5. WTO / trade barrier issueDeferred to CSM1

What language should beadded to make it clearer that,in accordance with the NWIP,this Standard should facilitatetrade liberalization and removetrade barriers?

Various comments express the concern that the document has the potentialto create non-tariff barriers.

The IDTF believes that the existing text on the relationship between the ISO26000 Standard and the World Trade Organization is sufficient to allay thisconcern, and reflects an appropriate compromise on this issue.


The proposed way forward is to retain the existing text, as this reflectsthe outcome of a carefully negotiated compromise.

PWF was changed on short notice! (see text in bracketed text)

New text proposal (from India) to be further discussed in CSM1.


6. International normsAccepted as presented

This is an issue on which

carefully negotiated agreementwas reached in Chile andCanada, but on which someexperts have continued toexpress reservations. Is therescope for addressing some ofthese reservations, withoutotherwise affecting the natureof the compromise that was

Some argue that the concept of international norms could lead to conflicts

with local laws and norms, and that the latter should serve as the primarybasis of behaviour. The existing text effectively holds that there exist certaininternational norms that represent a basic standard of socially responsiblebehaviour. The proposed way forward is that this concept of internationalnorms be retained. Without undermining the existing agreement on thisconcept, there is seen to be room for further improvement to the text. Somesuggestions have been bracketed in the revised text.


The proposed way forward is to retain the existing reference tointernational norms. Some proposed textual changes, that seek to addclarity to certain issues without undermining the existing compromise,have been included in IDTF N112, as bracketed text for considerationin CSM14.

This multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1


8/23


Page 8




earlier achieved on this issue?

7. Precautionary approachDeferred to CSM2

Recognising the previouscompromises reached on thisissue, how does one ensureconsistency in the referencesto the precautionary approachin the consumer andenvironment clauses?

Numerous comments made reference to the inconsistency between thereferences to the precautionary approach in the environment and consumerclauses; some also emphasised the need to ensure closer correlation withthe text provided in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration.


The proposed way forward is to revise the reference to theprecautionary approach in both 6.5 and 6.7 to read as follows:

This is drawn from the Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment [119]and subsequent declarations andagreements[109][131][94], which advance the concept that wherethere are threats of serious or irreversible damage to theenvironment or human health, lack of full scientific certaintyshould not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effectivemeasures to prevent environmental degradation or damage to

human health.

- Canada: Deletion of note 94 to Cartagena protocol ORadditional sentence: precautionary action should be based onsound scientific evidence OR remove human health

- Consumer proposal to show that cost-effective relates tosociety, CSM2 should further discuss

- Way forward: seek to obtain better text in CSM2


8. Common butdifferentiatedresponsibilities

Original way forward rejected, no changes to the text

(Opposition from China and India, however not sustained)

Should provision be made inthe document for the principleof common but differentiatedresponsibility?

Some comments call for provision in the Standard for the principle of"common but differentiated responsibility" noting that this principle is includedin various intergovernmental agreements such as the Rio Declaration onEnvironment and Development, the Kyoto Protocol of the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change, and the Stockholm Convention on PersistentOrganic Pollutants. Some also suggest that this issue is seen to be relevantto the concept of "fair and practical treatment ('fair sharing') of costs andbenefits of social responsibility throughout the value chain.

The following is proposed as the way forward:Recognizing the general acceptance of this principle in multi-lateralenvironmental agreements, it is proposed that specific provision bemade for this issue in 6.5. However, as this principle explicitlyaddresses the difference between developed and developingcountries and thus applies specifically and only between states itis proposed that this principle should not be included as a principlethat applies to organisations (listed in 6.5.2.1), but rather within aguidance box in 6.5. It is proposed that this box be placed after DISline 1842.


9/23


Page 9




The following text is proposed for inclusion in such a box:

Common but differentiated responsibilityThis principle is drawnfrom the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

[119]and

subsequent declarations and agreements[109][131][94]

. The principle,which applies between states, recognizes the historical differences inthe contributions of and developing states to global environmentalproblems, and the differences in their respective economic andtechnical capacity to tackle these problems. It includes twofundamental elements: the common responsibility of states for theprotection of the environment at the national, regional and globallevels; and the need to recognize the different circumstances,particularly each state's contribution to the evolution of a particularproblem and its ability to prevent, reduce and control the threat.

New proposed way forward: delete the box! Retain existing text -AGREED

If required, this topic will be addressed in CSM2

9. Sexual orientationDeferred to small group to report back to the plenary Wednesday

What provision should bemade in 6.3 and 6.4 for thenon discrimination on the basisof sexual orientation?

The issue of non discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is one onwhich there are some strongly diverging views:

A number of written comments argue that the guidance in the Standard thatsexual orientation is a prohibited or impermissible ground for discriminationis incorrect, as it conflicts with religion, national laws and local culture, andthat it does not have sufficiently widespread recognition to constitute aninternational norm. They thus call for references to sexual orientation to be

deleted. Many of those who express this concern voted no on the DIS.Some experts argue that while non-discrimination on sexual orientation (as

well on some other grounds) is currently not an international norm, it isnevertheless recognized as a fundamental human right and an employmentright in a growing number of jurisdictions globally. On this basis it has beensuggested that the Standard be revised to reflect that such non-discrimination is recognized as an emerging international norm.

Other experts argue that the existing text has been developed in consensusand has been in the Standard over several working drafts. They note also


It is proposed that that the following text be considered in thediscussions in CSM3 (see IDTF N112 to see how this compares withthe existing text). If this text is not considered as acceptable by thosewho have commented on this matter and as sufficient grounds forvoting "yes" on the FDIS, it is proposed that the existing DIS text beretained.

Propose for consideration that DIS Lines 1269-1275 (Human Rights 6.3.7.1) be changed to read:

Discrimination involves any distinction, exclusion or preferencethat has the effect of nullifying equality of treatment oropportunity, where that consideration is based on prejudicerather than a legitimate ground. Illegitimate grounds fordiscrimination include but are not limited to: race, colour,gender, age, language, property, nationality or national origin,


10/23


Page 10




that there was full consensus in the last human rights working group toretain this reference in that section. Some have suggested that deleting thisreference will move some who voted yes on the DIS to now vote no.

An important aim of the Copenhagen meeting is to seek as far as possible toaddress all concerns on the current DIS, with the aim of further improving theguidance as well as in the hope of obtaining the support of those who votedagainst the DIS without losing the support of those who voted in favour.

With this in mind, some proposed compromise text has been proposed forconsideration by experts in the discussions in CSM3. If this text is notconsidered as acceptable by those who have commented on this matter andas sufficient grounds for voting "yes" on the FDIS, it is proposed that theexisting text be retained.

religion, ethnic or social origin, caste, economic grounds,disability, pregnancy, political affiliation or political or otheropinion. Emerging prohibited grounds also include sexualorientation, marital or family status and health status such asHIV/AIDS status. The prohibition of discrimination is one of themost fundamental principles of international human rights law.

Propose for consideration that DIS Lines 1418-1423 (LabourPractices 6.3.10.2) be changed to read:

equal opportunities and non-discrimination[22][24][25]

Anorganization should confirm that its employment policies arefree from discrimination based on race, colour, gender,religion, national extraction, social origin, political opinion, age,

or disability. Emerging prohibited grounds also include sexualorientation, marital or family status and health status such asHIV/AIDS status, which are in line with the general principlethat hiringpolicies and practices, earnings, employmentconditions, access to training and promotion, and terminationof employment should be based only on the requirements ofthe job.

Propose for consideration to delete all grounds from DIS lines 1284/5and from DIS lines 1559-1562

This topic will be addressed in CSM3

New proposed way forward for the time being: create smallgroup to solve the problem:

10. Provision for animalwelfare

Accepted as presented

What edits are needed toensure a balanced guidanceon ethical treatment of animalsthroughout the Standard?

Various comments have been regarding the need to make greater provisionfor guidance on animal welfare. This issue has been discussed at variousprevious WGSR meetings. Recognising the concerns voiced by variousparties regarding the provision of additional text on this issue, and in thebelief that the current text provides a carefully agreed compromise way


Retain the current text on this issue.



11/23


Page 11




forward on this issue, it is recommended that the current text on this issue beretained

11. Government / stateAccepted as presented, with minor modifications

Can clearer, unambiguousguidance be providedregarding the application ofthis Standard to governmentalorganizations?

This is an issue on which carefully negotiated agreement was reached inSantiago and consolidated in Quebec. Some comments suggest that there isscope to provide great clarity and less ambiguity on the agreement thatwas reached on this issue, namely that the guidance in the Standard isrelevant to governmental organizations except in those instances associatedwith governments unique role in making and enforcing law, and formulatingand implementing public policy. Various comments were made specifically onNote 1 regarding the definition of organization, and on 3.4


2.1.12organization

NOTE 1 For the purpose of this International Standard "organization"does not include government acting in its sovereign role to create andenforce law, exercise judicial authority, carry out its duty to establishpolicy in the public interest and honor the international obligations ofthe state. -Accepted

3.4 The state and social responsibility

This International Standard cannot replace, alter or in any way changethe duty of the state to act in the public interest. This InternationalStandard does not provide guidance on what should be subject tolegally binding obligations; neither is it intended to address questionsthat can only properly be resolved through political institutions.Because the state has the unique power to create and enforce thelaw, it is different from organizations. For instance, the duty of thestate to protect human rights is different from those responsibilities oforganizations(2.1.12) with respect to human rights that areaddressed in this International Standard.

The proper functioning of the state is indispensible for sustainabledevelopment. The role of the state is essential in ensuring theeffective application of laws and regulations so as to foster a culture of

compliance with the law. Nonetheless, gGovernmental organizations,like any other organization, may wish to use this InternationalStandard to inform their policies, decisions and activities related toaspects of social responsibil ity. Governments can assistorganizations in their efforts to operate in a socially responsiblemanner in many ways such as in the recognition and promotion ofsocial responsibility. However, state actions promoting the socialresponsibility of organizations is not and cannot be a substitute for theeffective exercise of state duties and responsibilities. Accepted withminor modifications


12/23


Page 12





12. Sphere of influenceAccepted with modifications

What edits are needed tomake the guidance in theStandard compatible with theframework proposed byProfessor John Ruggie (theSpecial Representative to theUnited Nations Secretary-General on Business and

Human Rights)?

Various comments were raised on the issue of sphere of influence, withsome strongly diverging views expressed on the concern raised by ProfessorJohn Ruggie (the Special Representative to the United Nations Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights) regarding the use and scope of thisconcept within the Standard, and in particular his identified concern regardingthe conflation of influence and responsibility in parts of the Guidancedocument that is seen to be contrary to the UN framework.

Recognising this concern, and the diverging views on this issue, the IDTF

has proposed a way forward that seeks to further clarify the nature of theduty to exercise influence.


Insert the following changes to 2.1.19, 5.2.3, 6.6.6, 6.6.6.2 and 7.3.2

2.1.19

sphere of influence

range/extent of political, contractual, economic or other relationships

through which an organization (2.1.12) has the ability to affect the

decisions or activities of individuals or organizations

NOTE 1 The ability to influence does not, in itself, mean there is aresponsibility to exercise that influence.There is no necessarylinkbetween the ability to influence and the responsibility to exercise thatinfluence

NOTE 2 Where this term appears in the standard, it should always beunderstood in the context of the guidance in 5.2.3 and 7.3.2

5.2.3

Social responsibility and the organization's sphere of influence

An organization is responsible for the impacts of decisions andactivities over which it has formal and/or de facto control

1. Such

impacts of decisions and activities can be extensive. In addition tobeing responsible for its own decisions and activities, an organizationmay, in some situations, have the ability to affect the behaviour oforganizations/parties with which it has relationships. Such situationsare considered to fall within an organizations sphere of influence.

This sphere of influence will include relationships within and beyondan organizations value chain. However, not all of the organizationsvalue chain will fall within its sphere of influence. It may include theformal and informal associations in which it participates, as well aspeer organizations or competitors.


13/23


Page 13




An organization does not always have a responsibility to exerciseinfluence purely because it has the ability to do so. For instance, itcannot be held responsible for the impacts of other organizations overwhich it may have some influence if the impact is not a result of itsactivities. However, there will be situations where an organization willhave a responsibility to exercise influence. These situations will bedetermined by the extent to which the organizations relationship iscontributing to negative impacts.

And there will be situations where, though the organization does nothave a responsibility to exercise influence, it may nevertheless wish,or be asked, to do so voluntarily.

An organization may decide whether to have a relationship withanother organization and the nature and extent of this relationship.

There will be situations where an organization has the responsibility tobe alert to the impacts created by the decisions and activities of otherorganizations and to take steps, through exercising due diligence, toavoid or to mitigate the negative impacts connected to its relationshipwith such organizations.

When assessing its sphere of influence and determining itsresponsibilities, an organization should exercise due diligence in orderto avoid contributing to negative impacts through its relationships.Further guidance can be found in 7.3.21de facto control refers to situations where one organization has the

ability to dictate the decisions and activities of another organization,even where it does not have the legal or formal authority to do so.

7.3.2 An organizations sphere of influence

7.3.2.1 Assessing an organization's sphere of influence

An organization derives influence from sources such as:

ownership and governanceThis includes the nature and extent ofownership or representation, if any, on the governing body of theassociated organization;

economic relationship:This includes the extent of the economicrelationship and the relative importance of that relationship for eitherorganization: greater importance for one organization can creategreater influence for the other organization

legal/political authorityThis is based, for example, on provisions in


14/23


Page 14




legally binding contracts or the existence of a legal mandate grantingthe organization the ability to enforce certain behaviours on others;and

public opinionThis includes the ability of the organization toinfluence public opinion, and the impact of public opinion on those itis trying to influence.

An organizations influence may depend on a number of factors,including physical proximity, scope, length and strength of therelationship.

7.3.2.2

Exercising influence

An organization can seek to exercise its influence with others either to

enhance positive impacts on sustainable development, or to minimizenegative impacts, or both. When assessing its sphere of influence anddetermining its responsibilities, an organization should exercise duediligence.

Methods of exercising influence include:

setting contractual provisions or incentives

public statements by the organization

engaging with the community, political leaders and otherstakeholders

making investment decisions

sharing knowledge and information

conducting joint projects

undertaking responsible lobbying and using media relations;

promoting good practices; and

forming partnerships with sector associations, organizations and

others.An organization should consider the environmental, social andorganizational governance aspects and the social responsibility of theorganizations with which it has or seeks to have a relationship

An organization can influence its stakeholders through its decisionsand activities, and through the information that it provides tostakeholders about the basis for these decisions and activities.

The exercise of an organizations influence should always be guidedby ethical behaviour and other principles and practices of social


15/23


Page 15




responsibility (see Clauses 4 and 5). When exerting its influence, anorganization should first consider engaging in dialogue aimed atimproving awareness of social responsibility and encouraging sociallyresponsible behaviour. If dialogue is not effective, alternative actionsshould be considered, including changing the nature of therelationship.

Where an organization has de facto control1

over others, itsresponsibility to act can be similar to the responsibility that existswhere the organization has formal control.

1de facto control refers to situations where one organization has the

ability to dictate the decisions and activities of another organization,even where it does not have the legal or formal authority to do so.

6.6.6 and 6.6.6.2

Promoting social responsibility in the sphere of influence

and

Related actions and expectationsIn clauses 6.6.6 (DIS line 2160) and 6.6.6.2 (DID line 2172), for

consistency with the PWF above, sphere of influence should be

replaced by value chain, since the guidance in this sub-clause is

limited to the value chain, not to the whole sphere of influence.


13. Stakeholder /engagement / interests

Major parts of the way forward accepted as presented

Agreement on newly proposed way forward for 3.3.1 pending tobe addressed by CSM or IDTF experts

Can the definition ofstakeholder and stakeholderinterests be made clearer, anduse of the terms be mademore consistent, throughoutthe standard?

Some comments state that the use of the terms stakeholder and stakeholderinterests are not as clear as they should be, given the importance of theseconcepts.

The IDTF has proposed a number of wording changes to make the use andmeaning of these terms clearer. These changes are proposed for3.3.1; 4.5;5.1; 5.2.1; 5.3.2 and 5.3.3.


2.1.20

The current definition of stakeholder is maintained without change.

Insert the following changes to 3.3.1; 4.5; 5.1; 5.2.1; 5.3.2 and 5.3.3

Note: The edit below brings earlier in the standard the explanation ofstake, which was formerly in 5.3.2 (l.853-858). It adds further


16/23


Page 16




guidance on the subject, keeping the concepts already agreed, whileclarifying them. Proposed new text is underlined; existing text fordeletion has been struck through.

3.3.1 Characteristics of social responsibility(DIS line 477)

This implies both transparent and ethical behaviour thatcontributes to sustainable development, takes into account theinterests of stakeholders, is in compliance with applicable lawand consistent with international norms of behaviour, and isintegrated throughout the organisation and practiced in itsrelationships and takes into account the interests ofstakeholders.

A stakeholder is a party in a relationship with an organization.This relationship is established by the fact that it has one ormore interests that can be affected by the decisions andactivities of this organization. This interest gives the party astake in the organization. Stakeholders can be referred to asinterested parties. The relationship between the stakeholderand the organization need not be formal or evenacknowledged or recognized by either party. The interest mustbe consistent with sustainable development, e.g. criminal orsimilarly illegitimate interests cannot make someone astakeholder in any particular organization.

OR newly proposed way forward

A stakeholder has one or more interests that can be affectedby the decisions and activities of an organization. This interestgives the party a stake in the organization and creates arelationship to the organization based on this stake. This

relationship may not be formal or even acknowledged by thestakeholder or the organization. Stakeholders can be referredto as interested parties. The interestmust shouldbeconsistent with sustainable development, e.g. criminal orsimilarly illegitimate interests cannot make someone astakeholder in any particular organization

Agreed to use newly proposed way forward as a basis,detailed wording however still to be agreed


17/23


Page 17




The edits below clarify the role of interests in the relationship betweenorganization and stakeholders.

4.45 Respect for stakeholder interests(DIS line 675)

An organizations behaviour should be based on the ethics ofhonesty, equity and integrity. These ethics imply a concern forpeople, animals and the environment and a commitment toaddress the impact of its activities and decisions on

stakeholders interests.

4.5 Respect for stakeholder interests (DIS line 675)Change to DIS line 690-692:

consider the views of stakeholders that may whose interestsare likely to be affected by a decision or activity even if theyhave no formal role in the governance of the organization orare unaware of these theirinterests in the decisions oractivities of t he organization.

5.1 General(DIS Line 755-757)

The recognition of social responsibility also involves therecognition of an organizations stakeholders. As described in4.5, a basic principle of social responsibility is that anorganization should respect and consider the interests of itsstakeholders that will be affected by its decisions and activities.

The edit below deletes guidance moved to 3.3.1 and adapts theremaining text. Cross reference is made to 3.3.1

5.2.1 Impacts, interests and expectations (DIS Line 765-768)

.An organization should be aware of its various stakeholders.These are the individuals or groups whose interests could be


18/23


Page 18


comments on DIS)


affected by the decisions and activities of an the organization.(see 3.3.1) may have potential and actual impacts on theseindividuals and organizations. These potential or actualimpacts are the basis of the stake or interest that causes theorganizations or individuals to be considered stakeholders;

The edits below clarify the idea of claim used to explain the conceptof stakeholder interests, and delete unnecessary guidance.

5.3.2 Stakeholder identification (DIS Line 853-855)

Stakeholders are organizations or individuals that have one ormore interests in any decision and activity of an organization.Because these interests (or stakes) can be affected by theorganization, a relationship with the organization is c reated.

DIS lines 859-860:

In this context, interest refers to the actual or potential basis ofa claim, that is to demand something that is owed or todemand respect for a right. Such a claim does not need toinvolve financial demands or legal rights. Sometimes it cansimply be the right to be heard.

DIS lines 867-868

The meaning of the term stakeholder is very broad, and oOrganizations may have many stakeholders. Moreover,different stakeholders have various and sometimes competingor conflicting i nterests.

()

(DIS lines 872-874)

Some stakeholders are an integral part of an organization.These could include the members or employees of theorganization, as well as the shareholders or other owners ofthe organization. It should be recognized that t Thesestakeholders share a common interest in the purpose of the


19/23


Page 19


comments on DIS)


organization and in its success.

()

(DIS lines 876-878)

The interest of most stakeholders can be related to the socialresponsibility of the organization and often are very similar tosome of the interests of society. The common interests ofstakeholders can be related to the broader expectations ofsociety. An example is the interest of a property owner whoseproperty loses value because of a new source of pollution.

The edit below clarify the role of interests in the relationship betweenorganization and stakeholders.

5.3.3 Stakeholder engagement (DIS Line 944)

An organization should be conscious of and respect the effect of itsactions and decisions on the interests and needs of its stakeholders. Itshould respect its stakeholders as well as and their varying relativecapacityies and needs to contact and engage with the organization.

()

DIS lines 946-651:

Because there are two bulleted lists in clause 5.3.3 and this is notpermitted under ISO rules, it is proposed to reform these lines so thatthey appear as a paragraph.

Additional bracketed text/comments related to the lines changedabove will be addressed in the relevant CSMs, insofar they dontcontradict this approved pwf.


14. Due diligenceAccepted with modifications

Is the topic of due diligenceproperly located in 6.3 only?

Some comments point out that while the concept of due diligence is referredto in several core subjects, it is only dealt with methodically in 6.3. Somesuggested that greater provision should be made for the concept in Clause 7since it is a tool for enhancing SR in respect all core subjects.

To address the comments the IDTF has proposed that the definition be


Revise the definition and replace as follows:


20/23


Page 20


comments on DIS)


slightly adjusted for greater clarity. A number of suggested editing changesrecommended in the comments have been proposed in 6.3.3 and 7.4.3.

2.1.4

Due Diligence

comprehensive, proactive process to identify the actual and potentialnegative social, environmental and economic impacts of anorganizations decisions and activitiesover the entire life cycle of aproject or organizational activity, with the aim of avoiding andmitigatingthose negativeimpacts.

Make the following changes to the text :

6.3.3 Human rights issue 1: Due diligence

6.3.3.1 Description of the issue

To respect human rights, organizations have a responsibility toexercise due diligence to identify, prevent and address actual orpotential human rights impacts resulting from their activities, includingthrough their relationships. Due diligence may also alert anorganization to a responsibility to influence the behaviour of others,where they may be the cause of human rights violations in which theorganization may be implicated.

6.3.3.2 Related actions and expectationsBecause due diligence applies to all core subjects, including humanrights, further guidance on due diligence may be found in 7.4.3.Specific to human rights, a due diligence process should, in a mannerthat is appropriate to the organization's size and circumstances,include the following components:

a human rights policy for the organization that givesmeaningful guidance to those within the organization andthose closely linked to the organization;

means of assessing how existing and proposed activitiesmay affect human rights;

means of integrating the human rights policy throughout theorganization;and

means of tracking performance over time, to be able to makenecessary adjustments in priorities and approach; and

Appropriate actions to address the negative impacts of itsdecisions and activities.

--


21/23


Page 21


comments on DIS)


7.4.3 7.3.1 Due diligence as a tool for enhancing socialresponsibility

Due diligence in the context of social responsibility is acomprehensive, proactive process to identify the actual and potentialnegative social, environmental and economic impacts of anorganizations decisions and activities, with the aim of avoiding andmitigating those impacts.

Due diligence may also entail influencing the behaviour of others,where they be the cause of human rights or other violations in whichthe organization may be implicated.

In any due diligence process, an organization should consider thecountry context in which it operates or in which its activities takeplace; the potential and actual impacts of its own activities; and thepotential for negative consequences resulting from the actions ofother entities or persons whose activities are significantly linked tothose of the organization.

It should include in a due diligence process, in a manner appropriateto the organization's size and circumstances, the followingcomponents:

organizational policies related to the relevant core subject that givemeaningful guidance to those within the organization and thoseclosely linked to the organization;

means of assessing how existing and proposed activities may affectthose policy goals;

means of integrating social responsibility core subjects throughoutthe organization;and

means of tracking performance over time, to be able to makenecessary adjustments in priorities and approach; and

Appropriate actions to address the negative impacts of its decisionsand activities.

In identifying potential areas for action, an organization should striveto better understand challenges and dilemmas from the perspective ofthe individuals and groups potentially harmed.

In addition to this self-evaluation, an organization may find that insome cases it is both possible and appropriate to seek to influencethe behaviour of other entities towards enhancing their socialresponsibility performance, particularly those with which it has close


22/23


Page 22


comments on DIS)


ties or where the organization considers the issues to be particularlycompelling or relevant to its situation. As an organization gainsexperience in the area of enhancing social responsibility performance,it may grow in its capacity and willingness to work with other entitiesto achieve this goal.


15. Philanthropy / socialinvestment

Accepted with modifications

How to address philanthropyconsistently with the guidancein Clause 6? Is socialinvestment related to an

organizations core activities?

Some comments identified a negative tone related to philanthropy in 3.3.4and 6.8.1. The current text is seen as disregarding / ignoring /underestimating the potential for philanthropy to be a component of astrategy for social responsibility.

Even though 3.3.4 is about integrating into the organization lines 509-511, intheir present form, give the impression that philanthropy is not addressed inrelation to the subject of the section. The paragraph is seen as having anegative tone.

Further, for line 2583 in 6.8.1, the tone is seen as negative in relation tophilanthropy, although some following recommendations can be understoodas being philanthropic. To address the topic consistently, it is proposed thatline 2583 be aligned to the proposal for lines 509-511

In addition, philanthropy is mentioned in relation to social investment in 6.8.9,lines 2864-2866. Some comments are concerned with the idea that theconcept of social investment excludes an organizations core activities (Ref.lines 2575-2578). Experts offering those comments are of the opinion thatthis may not be true, in the sense that there may be cases, where thealignment of social investment with the core activities of an organization mayimprove the benefits of social investment for the community development.

Also, there is a suggestion to move the lines 2575-2578 into 6.8.9.


Change DIS lines 509-511 to highlight possible relationships betweenphilanthropy and integration of into the organization to read as follows :

Integrating social responsibility into the organization mayinclude philanthropic activities. However, philanthropicactivities alone do not achieve the objective of integratingsocial responsibility into the organization. Philanthropicactivities that are unrelated to the organizations impact onsociety and the environment are neither necessary norsufficient to address an organizations social responsibility.

OR (newly proposed way forward by IDTF):

Philanthropy (in this context understood as giving to charitablecauses) can have a positive impact on society [and be anelement ofanorganization's SR practices]. However, it shouldnot be used by an organization as a substitute for[engagingstakeholders,][integrating SR into the organization]oraddressing any adverse impacts of its decisions or activities.

Newly proposed way forward accepted with modifications!

The text should recognize that social investment may or may not bepart of core operations of organizations. The following text isproposed for DIS lines 2575-2578:

Social investment is a means by which organizations cancontribute to the development of the communities in which theyoperate. Social investments that contribute to communitydevelopment can sustain and enhance an organizations


23/23


Page 23


comments on DIS)


relationships with its communities, and may or may not beassociated with an organizations core operational activities.

The CSM will decide whether this paragraph should move into 6.8.9or stay in 6.8.1.

Replace DIS Line 2583 as follows:

While some aspects of the actions discussed in this sectioncan be understood as philanthropy, philanthropic activitiesalone do not achieve the objective of integrating socialresponsibility into the organization (as discussed in 3.3.4).

The current text in lines 2864-2866 addresses the relationshipbetween philanthropy and social investment adequately. It isproposed that the existing text be retained.


idtf n111-copenhagen discussion doc-17may10 tuesday plenary

Documents