Wake up daily to our latest coverage of business done better, directly in your inbox.
Get your weekly dose of analysis on rising corporate activism.
The best of solutions journalism in the sustainability space, published monthly.
Select Newsletter
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy. You can opt out anytime.
From the editor of 'Terms for Endearment: Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development'
The proposal for an ISO standard on business conduct (Vol. 3, issue 5) will not be hailed as an entirely positive development by some groups working on CSR. ISO14001 has been criticised for giving the semblance of environmental quality and consistency when it allows companies to set their own environmental standards and priorities (apart from requiring legal compliance). Therefore an ethical ISO standard could disguise very different levels of ethical performance amongst ISO registered companies.
This is a concern, given that many corporate codes currently ignore key issues of good business conduct such as freedom of association and collective bargaining. In addition, some may be concerned that as ISO standards are suited to large companies who can document complex management systems, so the widespread adoption of ISO Business Conduct Management Systems (BCMS) might marginalise already disadvantaged producers and independently run SMEs.
The Ethics Officer Association’s suggestion that the BCMS could be based on a company’s self-declaration of commitment and performance may concern many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which have for a number of years advocated the importance of independent verification. Commercial auditing firms, whose 1SO14001 auditing services have proved lucrative in the past five years, may echo their concerns. However, these auditing firms and NGOs may disagree on the appropriate form of independent verification, given the high costs of commercial audits, and their current limited expertise on labour rights issues.
In addition, those local NGOs already involved in monitoring factories’ codes of conduct may question the legitimacy of ISO, given that its membership is restricted to national standards organizations and that it has developed a methodology for auditor accreditation that is more suited to commercial auditing companies. For example, the Independent Monitoring Working Group (IMWG) has developed a form of ethical standards monitoring that is predicated on a less technical and more participatory approach to auditing, involving local NGOs as ongoing monitors, advisors and arbitrators of disputes.
Clearly, companies are interested in CSR for a variety of reasons, one of which is satisfying civil society of their efforts and intentions. Therefore the business case for an ISO BCMS will depend as much on ISO's credibility with civil society as its credibility with the international business community. Unless ISO is more transparent and accountable to civil society the success of a BCMS in delivering either for business or for society is in doubt.
Sincerely,
Jem Bendell
The proposal for an ISO standard on business conduct (Vol. 3, issue 5) will not be hailed as an entirely positive development by some groups working on CSR. ISO14001 has been criticised for giving the semblance of environmental quality and consistency when it allows companies to set their own environmental standards and priorities (apart from requiring legal compliance). Therefore an ethical ISO standard could disguise very different levels of ethical performance amongst ISO registered companies.
This is a concern, given that many corporate codes currently ignore key issues of good business conduct such as freedom of association and collective bargaining. In addition, some may be concerned that as ISO standards are suited to large companies who can document complex management systems, so the widespread adoption of ISO Business Conduct Management Systems (BCMS) might marginalise already disadvantaged producers and independently run SMEs.
The Ethics Officer Association’s suggestion that the BCMS could be based on a company’s self-declaration of commitment and performance may concern many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which have for a number of years advocated the importance of independent verification. Commercial auditing firms, whose 1SO14001 auditing services have proved lucrative in the past five years, may echo their concerns. However, these auditing firms and NGOs may disagree on the appropriate form of independent verification, given the high costs of commercial audits, and their current limited expertise on labour rights issues.
In addition, those local NGOs already involved in monitoring factories’ codes of conduct may question the legitimacy of ISO, given that its membership is restricted to national standards organizations and that it has developed a methodology for auditor accreditation that is more suited to commercial auditing companies. For example, the Independent Monitoring Working Group (IMWG) has developed a form of ethical standards monitoring that is predicated on a less technical and more participatory approach to auditing, involving local NGOs as ongoing monitors, advisors and arbitrators of disputes.
Clearly, companies are interested in CSR for a variety of reasons, one of which is satisfying civil society of their efforts and intentions. Therefore the business case for an ISO BCMS will depend as much on ISO's credibility with civil society as its credibility with the international business community. Unless ISO is more transparent and accountable to civil society the success of a BCMS in delivering either for business or for society is in doubt.
Sincerely,
Jem Bendell
TriplePundit has published articles from over 1000 contributors. If you'd like to be a guest author, please get in touch!
