This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Transcript
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:
The impact of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 on standardisation ofsocial responsibility—an inside perspective
Pavel Castkaa,�, Michaela A. Balzarovab
aDepartment of Management, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New ZealandbLincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand
Accepted 20 February 2007
Available online 13 November 2007
Abstract
Following a growing interest in corporate social responsibility, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
announced plans for development of the ISO 26000—guidance standard for social responsibility. Despite initial signals
that ISO 26000 will be built on the intellectual and practical infrastructure of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, the Advisory
Group on Social Responsibility set a different direction: a guidance standard and not a specification standard against
which conformity can be assessed. This paper aims to investigate what views ISO member body delegations and invited
participants in international standardisation of social responsibility had about the divergence from the meta-standard
approach towards a guidance standard. To answer the research question, the discussions at the ISO International
Conference on Social Responsibility, where ISO member body delegations and approximately 40 invited organisations
commented on this matter, have been analysed. As a result of this understanding, not only will insight into the first steps of
standardisation of social responsibility be provided, but it will also shed light on the perception of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000
that are held by standard developers.
r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: ISO 26000; ISO 9000; ISO 14000; Corporate social responsibility; Management systems; Standardisation
1. Introduction
In the past, companies were facing growingdemands from customers, who hugely impacted onthe way they operated, whereas today’s demandshave shifted toward addressing a wider spectrum ofstakeholders (Rosam and Peddle, 2004). Thisevolution of business and societal environment isbringing quality management closer with other
fields, such as corporate social responsibility(CSR), corporate governance and business ethics.Many scholars have started to point towards thisevolutionary trend and some of them argue that forquality to remain ‘‘a viable concept in the 21stcentury, it must embed more deeply and firmly theissues of virtue’’ (Ahmed and Machold, 2004). AsCSR is gaining its momentum, other scholars pointto obvious parallels in quality and CSR evolution(Peddle and Rosam, 2004; Waddock and Bodwell,2004; Castka et al., 2004a, b) as well as assert theconvergence of these two fields of study.
Indeed, this convergence is happening at manylevels—one of which is the arena of international
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe
0925-5273/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
standardisation. In the 1980s, following on fromBritish Standard BS 5750, the International Orga-nization for Standardization (ISO) developed ISO9000—a generic quality management systems stan-dard (MSS), which became accepted globally.Followed by the ISO 14000 environmental manage-ment system in 1996, a similar scenario has beenhappening with the social responsibility field. In2004, ISO announced a new work item: ISO 26000-guidance standard for social responsibility to beintroduced by 2008. The pre-standardisation pre-paratory work suggested that the impact of ISO9000 and ISO 14000 on the standardisation of socialresponsibility is likely to be substantial. ISO/Bulletin (2002) informed that ISO standard forsocial responsibility would evolve from quality andenvironmental standards (ISO 9000 and ISO14000). Specifically, the ISO Committee on Con-sumer Policy (ISO COPOLCO, 2002) recommendeda meta-standard approach to the social responsi-bility standard against which firms could self-declare compliance or could seek certificates fromauthorised third parties. However, the AdvisoryGroup on Social Responsibility, which was estab-lished as a result of Resolution 78/2002 and giventhe purpose of determining whether ISO shouldproceed with the development of ISO deliverables inthe field of corporate social responsibility, recom-mended that ‘‘a guidance document, and thereforenot a specification document against which con-formity can be assessed’’ should be developed (ISO/AG/SR, 2004a, b). As the next step in this pre-standardisation work, ISO held the ISO Interna-tional Conference on Social Responsibility andinvited ISO member body delegations and otherinternational organisations to debate recommenda-tions made by the Advisory Group on SocialResponsibility.
We conducted our research at this stage ofthe process of the social responsibility standardisa-tion, i.e. before the process of the developmentof ISO 26000 started. Our aim was to investigatethe question ‘‘what impact has ISO 9000 andISO 14000 had on the direction of the develop-ment of ISO 26000 guidance standard for socialresponsibility?’’ In particular, we aimed to investi-gate what views ISO member body delegationsand invited participants had on the proposal tomove from the meta-standard approach towards aguidance standard. To answer our research ques-tion, we analysed the discussions at the ISOInternational Conference on Social Responsibility,
where ISO member body delegations and approxi-mately 40 invited organisations commented on thismatter.
The paper has the following structure. Firstly,we look at ISO MSS and discuss the situationin this area. Secondly, we shift the focus towardssocial responsibility standardisation and presentrecent developments within the ISO related tosocial responsibility standardisation. Thirdly, wedescribe in detail our research engagement.Fourthly, the results are presented, analysedand concluded with a discussion of socialresponsibility standardisation, limitations ofour research and implication for future develop-ments in the arena of social responsibility standar-disation.
2. ISO management systems standards: state-of-the-
art
Uzumeri (1987) explains that in the late 1980sstandards bodies made major breakthroughs inmanagement standardisation by developing MSS.These standards emerged in fields as diverse asproduct quality, financial controls (the COSOFramework), white-collar crime prevention andenvironmental management. The most prominentare ISO MSS, namely ISO 9000 and ISO 14000. Bydeveloping this voluntary set of standards, ISOaimed to facilitate international exchange of goodsand services as well as simplify business-to-businessoperations. In order to be certified, organisationshave to comply with the requirements described inthese standards. This compliance is verified by athird-party audit carried out by an accreditedcertification agency.
ISO 9000 is designed as an MSS, i.e. a system toestablish policy and objectives as well as a way toachieve these objectives. Uzumeri (1987) refers toISO 9000 as a meta-standard—a standard based ona list of ‘‘design rules to guide the creation of entireclasses of management systems’’. Since its introduc-tion in 1987, ISO 9000 has been revised in 1994 and2000 (Kartha, 2002; Laszlo, 2000; Struebing, 1997).Of paramount importance is the 2000 revision thatfurther strengthened the focus on a ‘‘systemsapproach to management’’, which was less empha-sised in previous versions. The revised ISO9000:2000 family of standards includes a ‘‘modelof a process-based quality management system’’ anda much stronger emphasis on systems nature of thestandard. Furthermore, ISO 9000:2000 promotes a
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–87 75
Author's personal copy
set of eight principles (customer focus, leadership,involvement of people, process approach, systemsapproach to management, continual improvement,factual approach to decision making and mutuallybeneficial supplier relations), which form a basis forthe quality management principles within the ISO9000 family and beyond. ISO 14000, introduced in1996 and revised in 2004, shares the same approachand principles with ISO 9000. Moreover, bothstandards contain appendices that directly demon-strate the link between respective clauses of thesestandards.
Both standards have spread globally. In 2004, theISO reported over 670,000 ISO 9000 certificates in154 economies and over 90,000 ISO 14000 certifi-cates in 127 economies (ISO/Survey, 2004). Indeed,many influential organisations adopted thestandard, despite the fact that ISO 9000/14000are voluntary and not a mandatory directive(Brunsson and Jacobsson, 2000). This in turnforced others (directly or indirectly) to adopt ISOstandards. Indeed, the research into the diffusionof ISO 9000/14000 standard demonstrates that therole of multinational networks here is crucial—they are viewed as key actors responsible forcoercive isomorphism (Guler et al., 2002; Neumayerand Perkins, 2005; Corbett and Kirsch, 2001).The diffusion mechanisms usually involve contrac-tual requirements imposed by multinationals, theindustry or key players in the supply chain.Cohesive trade relationships between countries(Guler et al., 2002) play a similar role. In thedomestic context, the number of past adoptions,share of manufacturing GDP and level of educationare positively correlated with the adoption of ISO9000. However, bureaucracy and/or corrupt reg-ulatory interventions by governments are reportedas key deterrents in the diffusion (Neumayer andPerkins, 2005). Hence this ‘‘popularity’’ of thestandard does not necessarily originate from itsappropriateness. This is one of the major criticismsof ISO 9000. ISO 9000 is often imposed uponorganisations and organisations are also seen to beopportunistic in pursuing certification to increasesales rather than to improve quality (Abrahamet al., 2000).
Related to previous discussion is the questionwhether ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 actually bring anyvalue for certified organisations. Many studiesstrongly advocate for the benefits that organisationsgain from ISO 9000 certification (Sharma, 2005;Briscoe et al., 2005). For instance, Poksinska et al.
(2003) summarise the following benefits stemmingfrom ISO 9000 and ISO 14000:
However, recent discussions on ISO 9000 (bothacademic and from practitioners) report contra-dictory and ambiguous findings and opinions. Forinstance, van der Wiele et al. (2005) reportimprovements in companies’ perception of the ISO9000 standard, whilst Casadesus and Karapetrovic(2005) argue that benefits that organisations obtainfrom the ISO certification are eroding. Corbett et al.(2005) found that ISO 9000 certification leads toimproved financial performance measured by returnon asset. On the other hand, studies set up toconfirm that the market values ISO 9000 (Martinez-Costa and Martinez-Lorente, 2003; Aarts and Vos,2001) did not reveal any linkage. In a similar vein,Corbett and Klassen (2006) argue that the linkbetween financial performance and environmentalmanagement is inconclusive after more than threedecades of research. More important is to look atfactors moderating successful implementation. Heresome studies conclude that the ones who benefitfrom ISO 9000 are those who learn (Naveh et al.,2004) and that the certification provides littleguarantee of high-performance outcomes unless itis accompanied by transformational and transac-tional change (Abraham et al., 2000; Briscoe et al.,2005; Balzarova et al., 2006; Castka et al., 2004c).This is further emphasised by Takakusa (2005), whowarns that the benefits of ISO 9000 ‘‘could beconstrained by the way different organizationsimplement the QMS standard and how committedthey are to an ISO 9000-based system’’. Indeed,organisations differ in sizes, have different structur-al and infrastructural designs and ownership ar-rangements. All of these factors influence theapproach toward adoption of ISO 9000 standards.This stems from the meta-standard nature of thestandard (Uzumeri, 1987), which is clearly a double-edged sword: on the one hand it makes the standard
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–8776
generic in nature and gives organisations freedom totranslate it into their unique settings. On the otherhand, the consistency and ‘quality’ of this transla-tion becomes problematic.
To assure this consistency, the ISO certificationprocess includes a third-party certification auditcarried out by an accredited verification body. Theaim is also to reduce the number of second-partyaudits, assist organisations in creating networks andfacilitate the business-to-business operations. How-ever, the credibility of certification has becomeincreasingly criticised by organisations, consultantsand members of the ISO community. For example,Lal (2004) states:
Judging by the views expressed in variousforums, one cannot help but conclude that ISO9000 certification has fallen short of expectations.The main reason for laxity and malpractice inISO 9000 certification is that what was originallymeant to be a service to industry is increasingly abusiness motivated by profit.
Lal (2004), similar to Seddon (2000), furthermoresummarises the weakness of the present system:
� The commercial nature of the relationshipbetween the certifier and the audited organisa-tion� The technical competence of auditors� Accountability of the certification body to the
final customers and end users of the auditedcompany’s products and services
In conclusion, there is a large body of literatureon ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, which providesrich evidence on various aspects of these twostandards. However, there seems to be onesignificant difference between empirical studies(such as Briscoe et al., 2005; Casadesus andKarapetrovic, 2005; Corbett et al., 2005; Navehet al., 2004; van der Wiele et al., 2005) andviews expressed by practitioners (Dalgleish, 2005;Lal, 2004; Seddon, 2000). Whereas the authorsof empirical studies in general agree that ISO9000 certification is beneficial (even Casadesusand Karapetrovic, 2005 conclude in this waydespite their overall criticism), many practitioners,deriving from largely anecdotal evidence, argueagainst ISO 9000 (Seddon, 2000) and claimthat ‘‘ISO 9000 proves ineffective’’ (Dalgleish,2005).
3. Towards ISO 26000
With over a decade of delay after ISO 9000 andshortly after the introduction of ISO 14000, the firstattempts were made to provide standards for socialresponsibility. Similar to quality, where a nationalstandard produced by the British Standards Institu-tion (BS5750, 1987) led to an international stan-dardisation of quality management, the first socialresponsibility standards were developed by theNational Standards Bodies in Australia, France,Mexico, Japan—to name but a few. Furthermore,other standards outside National Standards Bodieswere developed, such as AA 1000 (1999) and SA8000 (2001). In ISO/Bulletin (2002), the ISOannounced its intention to grasp the area of socialresponsibility with further possibility to develop astandard. Firstly, ISO formed the ISO Committeeon consumer policy (ISO COPOLCO), whichannounced that a trio of ISO management stan-dards—ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO corporatesocial responsibility MSS (CSR MSS)—wouldsupport business efforts to show that an organisa-tion cares about quality, environment and the socialeffects of a production or activity (ISO COPOLCO,2002). In their report, the committee has, amongstother issues, recommended that (ISO COPOLCO,2002):
ISO CR MSSs would constitute an internation-ally agreed-upon framework for operationaliza-tion of corporate responsibility commitments,capable of producing verifiable, measurable out-puts. The ISO CR MSSs would build on theintellectual and practical infrastructure of ISO9000 quality MSSs and ISO 14000 MSSs, and themomentum associated with close to one-halfmillion firms certified as compliant with thesestandards. As with ISO 9000 and ISO 14000,firms could self-declare compliance with theproposed ISO CRMSSs or could seek certificatesfrom authorized third parties. It should beemphasized, however, that ISO CR MSSs wouldbe insufficient by themselves to assure that a firmhas developed and implemented an effective CRapproach. Thus, ISO CR MSSs would be onepiece—albeit a fundamental building block—ofeffective CR approaches.
Where ISO COPOLCO’s report shows the linkbetween social responsibility standard, ISO 9000,ISO 14000 and MSS approach, the lately formedISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–87 77
(AG SR) dismissed this intent and recommended a‘‘guidance document, and not a specification docu-ment against which conformity can be assessed’’(ISO/AG/SR, 2004b):
� for use by business and other organisations,� that emphasises results and performance im-
provement,� that adopts a common terminology in this area,� that assists organisations in effectively addres-
sing their social responsibilities in variouscultures, societies and environments,� that can complement other relevant instruments
and tools,� that is not intended to reduce the government’s
authority to address the social responsibility oforganisations,� that is of use to business and other organisations
of all sizes,� that provides practical guidance on methods
and options for operationalising social respon-sibility, identifying and engaging with stake-holders, enhancing credibility in claims madeabout social responsibility, that should bewritten in clear and understandable language.
By this step, ISO 26000 has taken a differentapproach in comparison to ISO 9000 and ISO14000. Apart from a shift from the meta-standardapproach and from third-party certification, ISO26000 has a much broader content (see Table 1—key elements). It not only gives guidance fororganisations to implement social responsibilities
(SRs), but also provides guidance on SR context,SR principles and guidance on core SR subjects/issues.
4. Research engagement
As a new standard for social responsibilityemerges, the inevitable question arises: is thestandardisation in social responsibility fundamen-tally different from quality and environment? Whatare the similarities and differences between quality,environment and social responsibility? What can weexpect from social responsibility standardisation?
Apparent parallels can be identified that wouldsuggest that standards in social responsibility,quality and environment should show certainsimilarities. All of these concepts are somehow‘‘elusive’’ and multiple meanings and definitionsexist (Waddock and Bodwell, 2004; ISO/AG/SR,2004a; Lockett et al., 2006). According to Waddockand Bodwell (2004), this was a problem in the earlydays of quality movement and consequently manymanagers questioned whether quality was measur-able and whether there was a business case forquality—similarly to social responsibility. In otherwords, these concepts are organisation and sectorspecific and a standard needs to take this intoconsideration. In the case of ISO 9000 and ISO14000, a meta-standard approach provided a solu-tion. ISO 26000 also aims to assist organisations todeal with social responsibility and also aims to begeneric. Hence from the perspective of design, wewould expect that ISO 26000 would be built on the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
A comparison of ISO 9000, ISO 14000 and ISO 26000
Standard ISO 9000 ISO 14000 ISO 26000
General description Quality management systems
standard
Environmental management
systems standard
Guidance on social
responsibility
Third-party certification Yes Yes No
Key elements � Quality management
system
� Management
responsibility
� Resource Management
� Product realization
� Measurement, analysis
and improvement
� Environmental policy
� Planning
� Implementation and
operation
� Checking
� Management review
� The SR context in which
all organisations operate
� SR principles relevant to
organisations
� Guidance on core SR
subjects/issues
� Guidance for
organisations
implementing SR
Note: Key elements of ISO 26000 are based on the Design Specification (ISO/TMB/WG SR N49, 2005).
P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–8778
intellectual and practical infrastructure of ISO 9000and ISO 14000, as well as be designed as a meta-standard.
However, social responsibility requires a muchwider stakeholder base to be considered in compar-ison to quality. The ISO 9000 quality managementstandard is focused predominantly on the customerand meeting the customer’s requirements. Socialresponsibility, in contrast, considers stakeholdersranging from customers to society in large. Afurther difference is the control and feedbackmechanism. Quality is much more market drivenand customers can mostly directly assess the qualityof products and services. However, this is differentfor social responsibility as well as environment. AsTerlaak (2002) asserts, for stakeholders to distin-guish and to make informed decision on whetherISO 14000-certified firms outperform in environ-mental terms than those that are not certified isdifficult. Despite possible differences between qual-ity and social responsibility, with respect to controlmechanisms of organisational quality and socialperformance, there are clear similarities betweensocial responsibility and environment. Social re-sponsibility ‘‘performance’’, which is similar toenvironmental performance, is often less transpar-ent than quality. This suggests that environmentaland social responsibility standards should be resultbased. However, ISO 14000 (developed through thesame standard development process as ISO 26000)is designed as a process-based standard and not as aresult-based standard. Therefore, we expect ISO26000 to be closely aligned with ISO 14000 and torequire organisations to develop their managementsystems around their social responsibility aspectsand impacts. Similarly, we expect ISO 26000 to bebased on processes as ISO/AG/SR (2004b) statethat ISO has to recognise that it does not have eitherthe legitimacy or the authority to set socialobligations that are defined by governments.
The work on international standardisation in-evitably brings with it a conflict of interests andprinciples (Hallstrom, 2004). In comparison to ISO9000, the development of ISO 26000 requires amuch wider stakeholder base to be involved. Thisincludes stakeholders that have different expecta-tions, benefits and views on social responsibilitystandardisation. Since the ISO process of interna-tional standards development is based on a con-sensus of involved parties, we expect that the finalproduct, a guidance standard for social responsi-bility, will reflect this. The preceding review of the
literature on benefits from ISO 9000 and ISO 14000certification not only highlighted certain decouplingof empirical findings and practitioners’ perceptionof ISO MSS, but also showed that practitioners arerather doubtful about the empirical results. Wetherefore expect that the standard developmentagenda will be largely politically driven and thatparticipants will show contradictory views based ontheir interests and personal beliefs.
This last point led us to an exploratory design forthis study. Hence, we aim to answer the ‘‘what’’ and‘‘why’’ questions stated previously. In our quest toinvestigate the research question ‘‘what impact hasISO 9000 and ISO 14000 had on the direction in thedevelopment of ISO 26000 guidance standard forsocial responsibility?’’, we investigate what viewsISO member body delegations and invited partici-pants (further referred to as ‘‘standard developers’’)had on the proposal to move from the meta-standard approach towards a guidance standard.We conduct this inquiry in the three research areas(RAs) that capture the difference between the ISO9000, ISO 14000 approach and that of ISO 26000:
RA1—MSS,RA2—process approach,RA3—certification.
In other words, we want to understand what arethe views of the standard developers in terms ofMSS, process approach and certification. In parti-cular, who supports/dismisses these approaches andwhy as well as what alternatives are available. Ouroverall aim is to explore this area and provide an in-depth picture of the views surrounding this matter.
4.1. Sample
Our sample consists of ISO member bodydelegations, invited international groups and orga-nisations at the ISO International Conference onSocial Responsibility. The conference took place inStockholm, Sweden, on June 2004. It drew together355 participants from 66 countries, including 33developing countries, representing the followingstakeholder groups:
� national standards bodies,� industry,� government,� labour,� consumers,
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–87 79
Author's personal copy
� international and nongovernmental organisa-tions (NGOs).
4.2. Data gathering
The conference consisted of plenary sessions,stakeholder presentations, panel discussions andparallel breakout sessions. The first two (plenarysession and stakeholder presentations) consisted ofpresentations from the Advisory Group on SocialResponsibility members and invited speakers, whilethe remaining two were made up of round-tablediscussions. We tape-recorded all presentations anddiscussions, which were then transcribed verbatim.We did not take part in the discussions, allowing theparticipants to express their views openly. Ourapproach was to analyse what was said, rather thanforce the discussion or use of other means, such asindividual interviews, to collect additional data.This would undoubtedly strengthen our researchdesign, yet it was physically and politically impos-sible.
4.3. Data analysis
For the purposes of data analysis, we have usedthe coding system depicted in Fig. 1. We had threehigh-level codes that corresponded to the mainresearch areas (RAs 1–3; discussed previously).Secondly, for each cluster, we used a second tierof codes that consisted of ‘‘stakeholder group’’,‘‘stakeholder position’’ and ‘‘stakeholder rationale’’(all described in Fig. 1).
At the first stage of data analysis, we reviewed thewhole transcript and selected the data that wereapplicable to this research (i.e. statements from the
participants related specifically to issues in RA 1–3).Consequently, we worked independently from eachother and used the high-level codes to cluster thedata. Afterwards, we came together and comparedour results. We followed the advice of Miles andHuberman (1994) as well as Druskat and Wheeler(2003) to assess the inter-rater reliability, i.e. anumber of agreements divided by the sum of thetotal number of agreements and disagreements. Theinitial result was 0.91, which exceeded the minimallevel set by Miles and Huberman (1994). Weconcluded that this was because (a) the codingscheme was set at a high level (we had only threecoding clusters as described above); (b) we are bothexperienced coders; and (c) we have both priorexperience in this area and therefore were able tounderstand the ‘jargon’ used by the participants. Wehave furthermore decided to resolve the discrepan-cies.
After this initial clustering, we coded the in-formation using the second tier of codes (see Fig. 1).We used an identical coding system for all clusters.For instance, the statement ‘‘I fully agree with [theprevious speaker] about PDCA [Plan Do-CheckAct]. It has the operational element companieswant’’ by a participant from industry was coded as[Stakeholder group—industry], [Stakeholder posi-tion—agreement], and the statement ‘‘it has theoperational element companies want’’ was coded as[Stakeholder rationale—justification].
At this stage of the data analysis, we alsodiscussed the possibility of introducing a moredetailed coding system. This idea was howeverdismissed. The discussions (hence the data) ap-peared to be rather generic without needing a greatlevel of detailed analysis. In general, participants
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Management
System StandardsCertificationProcess Approach
Stakeholder groups
Stakeholder position
(agreement vs. disagreement)
Stakeholder rationale
(justification of stakeholders’position)
∗national standard bodies∗industry
∗government∗labour
∗consumers∗international and nongovernmental
organisations (NGOs)
Fig. 1. Coding system for the study.
P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–8780
Author's personal copy
expressed their agreement or disagreement with theissue of MSS, process approach and certification, aswell as provided a short explanation (see exampleabove). Here our coding system proved sufficient. Insome cases, however, we were not able to use thevery element in our coding system. For instance,discussions based around certification in many casesbrought statements such as ‘‘certification would notbring any value’’ without either rationale behind the
statement or justification. However, this was in linewith our expectation that the process of ISO 26000development is in its infancy and also that it wouldbe politically driven. Hence at this stage, standarddevelopers would focus predominantly at clarifica-tion of their positions and general views. In Table 2,we present extracts from the data to illustrate thenature of the data. In the following sections, wepresent the results of this study.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Excepts from the data
Management systems
standard
The advisory group recommends guidance not a specification document against which the conformity can
be assessedyy. The background, the discussion of this topic was that classical management system
approach not promotedy enhancing credibility that is the area where ISO can add valuey. ISO guidance
document must be more than addressing management systems standard, it should give the practical
guidance on diversity of issues and how to handle them, business needs (small and medium, different sizes),
national regulations.
AG Member, ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility
I like very much the concept of SA 8000 standard, which uses the concept of conventions and that is the
correct one for the companies. And I think that is a good approach because at the one hand it fulfils the
recommendation of the report that the existing laws are not changed and are taken as they are, and make
the requirements for the companies.
Participant, Plenary
y a management system framework is not agreeable.
Participant, NGO
I heart my colleague that he is seeking the certifiable standard in order to supersede SA 8000 and its
requirements with the presumption that ISO has a powerful enough brand to supersede these other
requirements. That is the question to answer whether ISO has the powerful enough brand. And whether it
will just become another requirement.
Participant; Industry session
I do not agree with ICC what they said yesterday and I do not agree with SIEMENS. Yes it will be difficult
and yes it is a complex area. If ISO will not do it, we will have others who will produce international,
national, local difficult initiatives that will all make this area and make it more difficult to move around.
ISO needs to take this forward not just as a guidance document but also as a standard documenty.
Definitely the standard, we need to take discussions.
Participant, Plenary
I fully agree with [the previous speaker] about PDCA. It has the operational element companies want.
Maybe multinationals do not want the standardy. it is a well-known methody. we need to give
[companies] a tool to prioritize because companies cannot address these issues at the same time.
Participant; Industry session
Process approach Over last 2 years we have benchmarked many standards, Australian, Spain, Japan, Mexico; if go to
AA1000 or SA 8000, what is the main component? PDCA.
Participant; Industry session
As we discussed in the AG, this PDCA method smells much too much as a future management system
standard, this is not the way to tackle CSR. CSR needs some better tools, some better guidance than a
classical management system standard. This is why the recommendations say this is not the subject to
guidance document.
AG Member; ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility
Certification There is a very strong concern within the NGO community that ISO document will become the alibi
document to use the standard for advertising purposes and that is the reason why we want to have a
standard that contains ethical requirements and not the management system standard. A management
system standard would be hardly agreeable with the NGO.
Participant, NGO
P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–87 81
Author's personal copy
5. Results
5.1. Management systems standard (MSS)
The topic of the MSS approach, as a basis for thesocial responsibility standard, became a leitmotifthroughout the entire conference. Overall, our datashows that the participants were polarised into twogroups. There were those who favoured the MSSapproach and those who opposed it. This polarisa-tion was predominantly influenced by (a) a personalstance towards meta-standards, (b) belonging to aparticular stakeholder group and (c) demography-developed versus developing countries.
Advocates (including past ISO 9000 and ISO14000 developers, consultants, company representa-tives, etc.) pointed to the benefits that companiesobtain from ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certification—such as ‘‘improved performance’’, ‘‘acquiring of
best practices’’ or ‘‘improved communication’’ inthe supply chain. Furthermore, ISO 9000 waspresented as an established platform that couldcontribute to the dissemination of, and learningabout, social responsibility standard as well. Theopponents representing NGOs, Labour and someIndustry, especially large multinational corpora-tions, strongly dismissed the idea of MSS. Industryrepresentatives argued that an MSS is not necessarybecause the industry has their own solutions to dealwith social responsibility and ethical issues. Further-more, it was mentioned that ISO 9000 often doesnot fulfil the internal requirements of multinationalcorporations, and yet another standard wouldonly increase the cost with little impact onimprovement of social responsibility in organisa-tions. In case of NGOs and Labour participants,they were against an MSS—their alternative being aguidance document.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2 (continued )
You cannot have any system without some kind of process of verification. However, I think that the
problem with the certification has been, that it is one process of verification and there many different
processes of verification that are dependant upon who is relying on claims; and the size of the organisation
and the purpose of making the claims, so I think that one of the benefits of the document or standard
document might be to set out alternative methods of verification so that they match the organisation and so
they match the intent, of what the claim is being used for and who is being relying it upon.
Participant, Others
I think to set a standard for this matter would be a huge mistake. Because what is a standard? We put a
standard in place in order to prevent people from doing things that should not have been done or to give the
guidance how they should do things they do not know. Now, in this subject matter, we need to give
guidance to different corporation how to be leaders in this world by giving example of leadership to other
corporation, suppliers, environment, to the public.
Participant, Motorola
y Certification would not bring any value for the company and its suppliers and that they would only put
millions into certification.
Participant, siemens
I know that there might be a cost [for certification] that customers will have to pay but they are also paying
$200mil fines for doing bad marketing. So we need to discuss what is ethical pay and what is SR for
organisations not just companies. And also take into consideration countries where governments don’t
have the same strengths and same resources for doing this. We need to be fair as organisations. We need to
help each other to move this forward because it is our responsibility.
Participant, Industry
The key question is how to make it credible. And I am afraid that there are no options available than to go
for 3rd party certification.
Participant, Industry
I fundamentally disagree with the notion of guidance document being satisfactory. Regardless of whether
or not the certification has been done up to date, there are ways to verification [agrees with previous
speaker] to getting this credibility, perhaps better than it exists.
Participant, National Standards Body
Note: Language in the quotes was not corrected; PDCA ¼ Plan Do Check Act; NGO ¼ non-governmental organisations; AG ¼ Advisory
Group; CSR ¼ Corporate Social Responsibility.
P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–8782
Author's personal copy
Participants from developing countries showedconsiderable agreement on the benefit of having aninternational standard for social responsibility.Some of these explicitly pointed out that an MSSwould be preferable. The major argument was thatmany CSR ‘standards’ are imposed on suppliersfrom developing countries. These organisationshave to comply with them and that is a prerequisitefor these organisations to enter some markets andnetworks. Here, as one participant said, ‘‘it wouldbe better to have one leader [ISO] than hundreds ofdifferent schemes.’’ Furthermore, participants fromdeveloping countries emphasised the need to involvetheir representatives in the ISO 26000 developmentprocess. They typically stated that with ISO‘‘developing countries can at least influence thestandard’’.
The participants showed disunity over the funda-mental approach to standardisation of socialresponsibility. Some were in favour of guidance
standard, while others were in favour of manage-
ment systems standard. Whilst the plenary was askedto indicate by vote who was in favour of theseapproaches, the result was a 50:50 split.
5.2. Process approach
Process approach is one of the eight qualityprinciples (ISO 9004) and a fundamental buildingblock of ISO 9000/ISO 14000. Therefore, it wasanother key theme of the discussions. Similar to thediscussions around the suitability of the MSSapproach, the participants remained divided in theiropinions.
Firstly, it was argued by the member of theAdvisory Group on Social Responsibility that theprocess approach is not suitable for social respon-sibility standardisation:
ISO must focus on results. Not on process. ISO14000 is a process—it does not work with socialresponsibility. That is why we are talking aboutthe guidance documenty [we need to] providepractical methods and guidance for operationa-lizing SR, fulfilling the expectations of thesociety, identifying and engagement with stake-holders.
Even though many participants acknowledgedthat the process approach does not a priori ensureresults, they also pointed out possible drawbacksembedded in the results approach such as ‘‘introdu-cing uniformity of views on social responsibility’’,
‘‘the danger of ignoring local differences’’, ‘‘forcingthe focus on results instead of on improvement’’.Furthermore, many of these drawbacks were closelydiscussed in relation to the differences in regulatorysystems, which limited the success of reinforcementof international law in many countries and thelegitimacy of ISO’s social responsibility standard. Itwas generally acknowledged that these were clearlythe forces constraining, and significantly affecting,the design of the social responsibility standard.
Secondly, the PDCA approach, mostly used byquality practitioners and advocated by leadingquality experts, is a critical mechanism in ISO9000 and ISO 14000, became another controversialtopic in the discussion. Here again, it was thedismissive position of the Advisory Group on SocialResponsibility towards the PDCA that triggered thedebate. Many participants expressed their supportfor the PDCA approach explicitly. They had twocommon arguments: (a) it is a well-establishedmechanism ‘‘to learn’’ and (b) many national andother standards employed this approach. Theformer argument was that PDCA ‘‘has the opera-tional elements that companies want’’, ‘‘it is a wellknown method’’ and ‘‘we need to give companiesthe tool to prioritise because they cannot addressthese issues at the same time’’. The latter argumentslinked the PDCA to other standards like SA8000,AA1000 or national initiatives/standards in coun-tries such as Australia, Spain, Japan, Mexico.
5.3. Certification
The issue of certification came across hand inhand with the discussion on the feasibility of anMSS and experience with the ISO 9000/ISO 14000certification. Here, the credibility of certificationwas often questioned and many participants com-mented sarcastically about ‘‘the verification indus-try’’ or ‘‘a small number of consultants having jobsout of that’’. The following themes, underlying mostof the arguments, are addressed below.
Firstly, some participants expressed a ‘‘fear’’about a possible misuse of certification. Especially,NGOs and labour participants were very vocal indismissing the idea of certification, which they feltcould become an ‘‘alibi document for advertisingpurposes’’ rather than a real commitment to socialresponsibility. At the other side of the spectrum,some industry participants pointed out that if‘‘some activist groups start to mandate that youcan sell and must have a SR standard on this or that
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–87 83
Author's personal copy
market’’, it will become quasi-mandatory to do abusiness.
Secondly, it was often reported that the nature ofMSS drives the behaviour towards ‘‘compliance’’with minimal requirements rather than seekingimprovements or encouraging a genuine effort intoimprovement-related activities. Many participantsstrongly asserted that social responsibility standar-disation should be voluntary and based on leadingby example, not by imposing rules and require-ments:
y to set a standard in this matter would be ahuge mistakey leadership is never imposed.Leadership is earned and therefore we should notdo the standard and [force] corporations to bethe leaders of so and so. The right way is to letcorporations earn the leadership. The right wayis to give an opportunity to guide smallerorganisation and public in order to get the rightresults. We should provide the guidance fororganisations to be leaders in the world.
Many participants were pointing out that if thereare no requirements in ISO 26000, it would be verydifficult to judge organisations’ commitment tosocial responsibility and ISO 26000. As oneparticipant put it:
it is a risk for ISO itself and its reputation iforganisations will claim that they follow ISOguidance. We will not know because of themissing requirements.
However, the representatives of multinationalspointed out that ISO 9000/ISO 14000 requirementsare often not sufficient for their business and thattheir corporations require more from their suppli-ers. They also stressed that certification would notbring any value for the company nor the suppliers,and would just put millions into the certificationindustry—increasing the cost for their customersand suppliers.
However, other participants, even though ac-knowledging that the certification process was notfully satisfactory thus far, probed further discussioninto how to improve the certification process and, infact, redesigning it in order to suit the changingsocietal needs. Firstly, it was mentioned that ISOshould come with alternative methods of verifica-tion—to match different needs of various organisa-tions. Here participants mentioned, for instance,that social responsibility intensity in various in-dustries differs—with some organisations and some
industry sectors having rarely problems with ethicalissues and others having those more often (see alsothe quote in Table 2). Secondly, it was suggestedseveral times that ISO can establish a web-sitelisting organisations following the standard andtheir results—a proposition favoured by some andregarded as not sufficient by others.
6. Discussion
Through this study we have confirmed that thestandard development agenda in its initial stages hasbeen driven by politics and the participants haveshown contradictory views based on their personalinterests and beliefs. At the same time, the studyprovided a rich picture of the views of standarddevelopers on the divergence from a meta-standardtowards a guidance standard. The study alsohighlighted the impact of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000on the development of ISO 26000.
Our first conclusion from this study is thatstandard developers have polarised opinions overthe nature of the future social responsibilitystandard. Our research shows that despite theexistence of ISO 26000 development primary as a‘guidance standard’, there is a large percentage ofstandard developers who strongly advocated amanagement systems approach and third-partycertification, which would be similar to ISO 9000and ISO 14000. What should also be noticeable isthe disparity of views of different stakeholdergroups on these issues; as shown, there was a strongopposition from the ‘labour’ and ‘NGO’ stake-holder group, as well as a division of opinionsamongst ‘industry’ stakeholders. However, third-party certification was almost unanimously seen as aproblematic area—no matter whether participantssupported certification or not. Proponents ofcertification typically argued that there was nobetter way whilst the opponents dismissed certifica-tion pointing at disfunctionality, malpractice anddisreputable practices in the certification industry.Overall, the disagreement of standard developersover the issue of third-party certification is probablyone of the major forces towards a different directionfor standardisation of social responsibility.
Our second conclusion was that the shift toward aguidance standard (as opposed to MSS) was largelya politically driven decision. The direction set by theAdvisory Group on Social Responsibility was todevelop a guidance standard, and therefore not aspecification standard against which conformity
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–8784
Author's personal copy
could be assessed. This has been maintained eventhough a large percentage of standard developersexpressed different points of view. From this weconclude that the decision to develop a guidancestandard rather seems to be a platform for aconsensus of involved parties and not necessarily adirective to develop a substantial standard for socialresponsibility. As shown, politics played a signifi-cant role in the early stages of ISO 26000 develop-ment. Here, our conclusion is echoed by Bowers(2006):
The International Labor Organization (ILO) isparticipating, but only under the security of itsmemorandum of understanding [effectively giv-ing ILO veto power over labor related sections inthe standard]. The Global Reporting Initiative(GRI), a privately organized and funded NGOthat develops standards, is participating, butcertainly in part to protect its own interests.Other NGOs and consumers who are participat-ing would prefer a mandatory minimum stan-dard that could be more demanding than anational labor or environmental standard. Gov-ernments, to the limited extent they are partici-pating, are either protecting their turf or seekingpowers they do not have statutorily or finan-cially.
Our final conclusion from this research study is acall for future research in the arena of ISOmanagement standards. Some of the argumentsand opinions of standard developers that were usedto influence the development of ISO 26000 deserveattention and empirical investigation. In particular,the arguments over the malpractice in third-partycertification and inefficiencies of ISO managementsystems standards in general require further inquiry.Our experience, from working with practitionersand professional bodies in quality in severalcountries and with the ISO community, confirmsthe somewhat negative attitude amongst practi-tioners towards ISO management system standardsand third-party certification. However, apart fromthis anecdotal evidence, we have not found anyempirical study that has credibly dealt with theseissues.
7. Limitations of the research
There are some limitations to our research thatwe would like to acknowledge. This research islimited to the investigation of the impact of ISO
9000 and ISO 14000 on the development of socialresponsibility standard. Hence, other topics that areclosely related (such the role of governments, therole of legislation, legislative enforcement in devel-oping countries, alignment with ILO Conventions)are outside the scope of this paper. Furthermore, itshould be noticed that the data collected in thisresearch were focused largely at the high-levelissues, such as the feasibility of an MSS orcredibility of certification. The research at this stagedid not allow for deeper inquiry into furtherexplanations. Hence this research should be seenas a reflection of the first stages in the developmentof social responsibility standards and as a basis forfuture investigations.
Further limitation of this research is in the choiceof the participants for our study. This studyprovides an inside perspective on the standarddevelopment and includes its direct participants.The study, therefore, relies on the appropriatenessof the nomination process of the ISO, and henceinevitably has its limitation. For instance, somecountries choose not to get involved, some stake-holder groups can be under-represented (Hallstrom,2000) and the whole process of standardisation isinfluenced by self-interest of standard developersand their respective stakeholder groups (Bowers,2006; Hallstrom, 2000; Seddon, 2000). Nevertheless,our research aimed to investigate those views, so itmay only be appropriate for the purpose of thisstudy.
8. Future research
The introduction of ISO 26000 will inevitablybring fruitful ground for future research. Amidst theplethora of options, we would like to highlight andrecommend several areas. Firstly, studies intodiffusion patterns of ISO 26000, which determinewhy, under what circumstances and which organi-sations and supply chains adopt ISO 26000, willshed more light on the role of ISO 26000 in thepursuit of the SR agenda. Here, the work ondiffusion of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 (i.e. Corbett,2006) and first predictions on the diffusion of ISO26000 (Castka and Balzarova, 2007) can serve asuseful starting points. Secondly, since ISO 26000will not be certifiable, evaluations of claims made inrelation to ISO 26000 will also be necessary. Hereresearchers can initially focus on the theoreticaldevelopments and debates (before the introductionof ISO 26000) and later on the evaluation of the
ARTICLE IN PRESSP. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 74–87 85
Author's personal copy
claims organisations will make in relation to ISO26000. Thirdly, recent debates within ISO suggestthat there is a willingness in ISO to tightencertification and accreditation practices (Wade,2002; Lal, 2004). The International AccreditationForum and ISO stepped forward to address thecriticism by revisions of the requirements foraccreditation bodies, who accredit conformity, andfor auditor competences (Feary, 2005). Futurestudies can focus on analysis and evaluation ofthese activities to determine whether this can bringISO 26000 towards third-party certification.
9. Conclusion
ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 significantly influencedthe first steps in standardisation of social responsi-bility. Indeed, the global diffusion of both of thesestandards and its meta-standard approach tostandardisation of ‘management practice’ gave theinitiators of social responsibility standardisation anapproach to grasp the social responsibility agenda(ISO/Bulletin, 2002). This is true not only fornational standards such as DR03028 (2003) andSII10000 (2001), but also for standards such asSA8000 (2001) and AA1000 (1999). SA8000 wasdesigned as an auditable standard for a third-partyverification system and AA1000 is an accountabilitystandard, focused on securing the quality of socialand ethical accounting, auditing and reporting.Both of these are built around notions of policies,audits, management reviews and continuous im-provement, which are typical elements of ISO 9000and ISO 14000.
ISO 26000 avoided third-party certification, yetthis can cause problems and raise further questions.Research shows that guidance documents are oftenwidely unknown and their purpose is unclear (Boyset al., 2004). The risk here is that a guidancedocument, without a clear purpose and question-able credibility, can hamper the adoption anddiffusion process of ISO 26000. Indeed, third-partycertification can provide at least some level ofconfidence even if it is perceived as having erodedcredibility. Hence ISO 26000 will have to find otherways to insure that the standard is not misused. Oneof the ways would be to use the approach of UNGlobal Compact and require companies to discloseinformation about the ways it supports ISO 26000and its principles. Other approaches can encompassdifferent certification schemes tailored to the type ofclaims that the organisation makes. Developments
in these areas are necessary for ISO 26000 to addvalue to the uptake of the social responsibilityagenda.
References
AA1000, 1999. AA 1000 Standard, AccountAbility–Institute of
Social and Ethical Accountability, London.
Aarts, F.M., Vos, E., 2001. The impact of ISO registration on
New Zealand firms’ performance: A financial perspective. The
TQM Magazine 13, 180.
Abraham, M., Crawford, J., Carter, D., Mazotta, F., 2000.
Management decisions for effective ISO 9000 accreditation.
Management Decision 38, 182.
Ahmed, P.K., Machold, S., 2004. The quality and ethics
connection: Toward virtuous organizations. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 15, 527.
Balzarova, M., Castka, P., Bamber, C., Sharp, J., 2006. How
organisational culture impacts on the implementation of ISO
14001:1996—a UK multiple-case view. Journal of Manufac-
turing Technology Management 17, 89.
Boys, K., Karapetrovic, S., Wilcock, A., 2004. Is ISO 9004 a path
to business excellence? Opinion of Canadian standards
experts. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 21, 841.
Bowers, D., 2006. Making social responsibility the standard.
Quality Progress 39, 35.
Briscoe, J.A., Fawcett, S.E., Todd, R.H., 2005. The implementa-
tion and impact of ISO 9000 among small manufacturing
enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management 43, 309.
Brunsson, N., Jacobsson, B., 2000. The contemporary expansion
of standardization. In: Brunsson, Jacobsson (Eds.), A World
of Standards. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–17.
BS5750, 1987. Quality Systems. British Standards Institution,
London.
Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., 2005. The erosion of ISO 9000
benefits: A temporal study. The International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management 22, 120.
Castka, P., Balzarova, M., 2007. ISO 26000 and supply chains—
on the diffusion of the social responsibility standard and
practices. International Journal of Production Economics,
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.10.017.
Castka, P., Bamber, C., Bamber, D., Sharp, J.M., 2004a.
Integrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) into ISO
management systems—in search of a feasible CSR manage-
