The purpose of this site is helping to understand ISO 26000 correctly and to prevent its misuse through increased awareness and mutual learning. As guidance standard ISO 26000 is a new category of standards and possibly not understood correctly, in the first time. Therefore, examples shown do not intend to blame anyone; they intend simply to help accelerating a global learning process on how best to avoid misconceptions and misuse, among others by object lessons.

For learning more about the correct and readily achievable use please click on User Guide ISO 26000 for English, Guía del Usuario por Español, Guide d’utilisation pour Français, Nutzung des ISO 26000 für Deutsch, or you click on Chinese User Guide ISO 26000 for Chinese. For any other language please go to User guide ISO 26000 in other languages.

Note: the author of this site has been one of the industry group’s contributors to the development of ISO 26000 guidance standard; this site now addresses the application phase, follows the guidance standard’s purpose, by letter and spirit, but does not necessarily represent the views of ISO.

Misconceptions and Misuse

Contents:
Live honest, the Internet makes it all transparent!
Notifications to ISO

Object lessons:
SWISS TS and CWK-SCS Winterthur  misuse ISO 26000 for certification
Four cases of misrepresentation and the Role of the ISO 26000 PPO Post-Publication-Organization

ISO press release ” It’s crystal clear: there is no ISO 26000 certification...”
The IAF/ISO joint communiqué on acting against misuse of ISO 26000
The important source
The main misconceptions about ISO 26000
Examples of incorrect use or misconception (before autumn 2010)
Kinds of Misuse (English) and Tipos de abuso (in Spanish)

Introduction: Live honest, the Internet makes it all transparent
Thomas Friedman, author of the best-seller The world is flat, insightfully describes how small and transparent the world has become through the internet. His general recommendation is to live an honest life, because once pronounced guilty on the internet, one can have tremendous difficulty trying to restore one’s image regardless of how specious the claim. This observation seems to be both true and critical, as examples illustrate.

Reflecting this wisdom on the use of ISO 26000, there may very well appear on the internet or in other venues, instances of using the guidance standard, unintentionally or by intent, for commercial and other purposes. Since a “guidance standard” seems to be a new type of an ISO Standard, its character, purpose and kind of use may not yet be known sufficiently well. Therefore, this site intends to help by

• increasing general awareness of ISO 26000
• foster sound knowledge about its purpose (providing guidance, advice and recommendations)
• point on its voluntary use, and
• emphasize that it is not the least bit intended for certification or contractual purposes (as decided by the ISO Technical Management Board with oversight and responsibility for the project).

Application and use of the ISO 26000 is a learning process for all involved. Since there is always a convenient and often practical temptation to use standards for facilitating business, there seems to be a bigger need for “education” and clearing up misconceptions about what the guidance is actually intended for, and what would be seen as a misuse of its purpose.
(End of introduction)

Notifications to ISO: According to its scope (excerpt) “- Gather information to identify good and bad practices in using ISO 26000, and report to ISO/CS“ the ISO 26000 PPO (Post-Publication Organisation) is interested in learning more about good and bad practices. "Notification" means that cases mentioned here are brought to the PPO’s attention.
Feedback received from ISO is marked yellow at the end of a case.

Notified cases:
ACI Ltd Hong Kong, AIF-KLM, Air France Industries and BV; DNV Det Norske Veritas; Ecocert (France); Ferngas (Austria); Fokus Prinzip (Austria); Fuchs&Consorten (Germany); INUR-Quanteo (Germany);  Limasa, (Spain); Milk Industry Association (Germany); QSI America (USA); SGS (Austria); SGS (Germany); shimadzu, (Austria); TourCert (Germany); VORERST AG (Germany); Wessem (The Netherlands);

SGS, Germany

QSI America, Florida

ACI Accredited Certification International Limited, Hong Kong

shimadzu, Austria

                                   ISO/PPO Action, feedback 2012-11: ISO CS informed

VORERST AG, Germany

                   ISO/PPO Action, feedback 2012-11: None. Local NSB should handle such issues. (NSB is DIN Berlin).

INUR-Quanteo, Germany

                    ISO/PPO Action, feedback 2012-11: ISO CS informed to take action.

SGS, Austria

Fokus Prinzip, Austria

                ISO/PPO Action, feedback 2012-11: Email sent twice, no reply. NSB should handle. (NSB is Austrian Standards)

Limasa, Spain

                     ISO/PPO Action, feedback 2012-11: As with Air France PPO informed ISO CS to take action.

Fuchs&Consorten, Germany

Wessem, The Netherlands

Air France Industries

ISO feedback from the PPO meeting November 2011, according to annex G of the meeting results:
PPO Action: The local NSB should handle this. If no action ISO Central Secretariat will act.
Comment: Will the French or the Netherlands ISO member body take action?
 

Ferngas, Austria

Summary:
It is a cunning proceeding to certify against a national ISO 26000-based standard and then claim to be "ISO 26000 certified". It will be interesting to see whether ISO tolerates this because it discredits the essence of a "guidance standard".

ISO feedback from the PPO meeting November 2011, according to annex G of the meeting results:
PPO Action: The local NSB should handle this. ON is aware.
For normal reading:. the local National Standards Body should handle this. The Austrian Standards Institute is aware of.

to top

DNV Det Norske Veritas

Case1 link http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:47NUKKdEyssJ:www.dnv.de/Binaries/Agenda%2520and%2520Description_tcm70-468530.pdf+dnv+csr+performance+ladder&hl=de&gl=de&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjVUcZWeCwLSz9-YFVCz5PaDf_SIHN-bOpqnP6O2_87F2GwdguWGTvaTL0vMmCsAhhhw1x4pncKmlqd46Rvzb_bBzCI1tr8I-udHwaQvpvpAJjwWsoL-v7HJdlFWJNYYjjK3jPR&sig=AHIEtbRKwmYTxqAVLY7ZzGGrHdugj8M85Q

Case2 link http://www.dnv.de/Binaries/Nachhaltigkeitskonferenz_Agenda_tcm70-468530.pdf

ISO feedback from the PPO meeting in November 2011, according to annex G of the meeting results:
PPO Action: Gap-analysis and training is OK.
Comment: there is a very fine line between the DNV practice on testing performance like a requirement and a  gap
analysis.

to top

TourCert, Germany

ISO feedback from the PPO meeting in November 2011, according to annex G of the meeting results:
PPO Action: The local NSB should handle this. DIN is aware.

to top

Milk Industry Association, Germany

to top

Ecocert, France

to top

SWISS TS and CWK-SCS Winterthur misuse ISO 26000 for certification; an object lesson

Just to realize:
- the certificate was issued on 29 July 2010, a few months before the publication of ISO 26000:2010, an indication how eager certification bodies must be on increasing revenues by selling certificates
- SWISS TS is an accredited certification body. Such bodies, members of the IAF International Accreditation Forum, do know what is correct and what is incorrect. Like preceding drafts, the FDIS (Final Draft International Standard as of July 2010 explains  clearly that ISO 26000 is a guidance standard and not for certification. SWISS TS is accredited by the Swiss Accreditation Services SAS, see accreditation number
STS 052 at http://www.seco.admin.ch/sas/akkreditiertestellen/index.html?lang=de&
- The case was widely discussed in the “LinkedIn Forum ISO 26000”
- The case was brought to the attention of the ISO Secretary-General on 19 November, who – by letter of 25 November 2010, practising the  joint IAF-ISO Communiqué – sent a letter to Swiss TS urging them to withdraw this certificate
- attempting repeatedly to contact Swiss TS between 17 November and 14 December 2010 by mail and phone in order to learn whether this certificate will be withdrawn resulted in silence.

Key statement: The scope of ISO 26000 says “Any offer to certify, or claims to be certified, to ISO 26000 would be a misrepresentation of the intent and purpose and a misuse of this International Standard. As this International Standard does not contain requirements, any such certification would not be a demonstration of conformity with this International Standard.”
SWISS TS seems to have overlooked this essential statement, mislead its customer, violates its own accreditation, and damages the general trust in the IAF global accreditation system (where SWISS TS is a member of).

Final notes:
1. by e-mail of 18 December 2010 both the issuer and the receiver of the certificate were made aware of this website and have been asked to propose any changes if needed
2. a web search on 20 December 2010 showed that the receiver’s site where ISO 26000 was mentioned as a certifiable management system standard was no longer available, while the certificate itself could still be downloaded from
http://www.cwk.ch/cwk/pdf/iso_26000_d_f_e.pdf
3. On 26 January 2011the SAS (Swiss Accreditation Services) management systems group met. The participants list includes from Swiss TS Mr Bieler, see the minutes of the meeting (in German only, the minutes contain the link to download them also from the SAS website). The ISO 26000 related paragraph reads, in free translation:
“In November 2010 ISO has published the standard ISO 26000 "Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility". SAS wants to point out that this standard is not intended for certification. It is known to SAS that customers, now and then, request their certification services to perform audits on the basis of standards which are not intended for certification (for example ISO 9004). As long as this does not take place under the accreditation, the SAS cannot forbid it.
However, it is urgently recommended that in such cases no certificates are issued but, at the utmost, a "confirmation" or a "written confirmation", because otherwise the market will be made insecure and confused/misled by the diverted/misused use of the term "certificate".”
It will be interesting to see whether this now leads to the withdrawal of the above shown certificate.

ISO feedback from the PPO meeting in November 2011, according to annex G of the meeting results:
PPO Action: ISO CS (Secretary General) wrote a letter and requested the certificate to be withdrawn which was done.
Comment: Good result, while the certificate can still (3 January 2012) be downloaded from http://www.cwk.ch/cwk/pdf/iso_26000_d_f_e.pdf ....that seems to be a risk when using the Internet.

to top

Four cases of misrepresentation and the Role of the ISO 26000 PPO Post-Publication-Organization:

• Coop Genossenschaft, Switzerland, see also here.
• Dutch Brewer Bavaria, The Netherlands
• Wavin North-West Europe
• Air France Industries (AFI)

Source: Crosslands Bulletin, January 17, 2011

Terms Blurred for Social Responsibility Standard

Companies proudly declare conformance with ISO 26000, but how they do that runs the risk of misrepresentation

The members of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) make sure the registrars they approve have the skills needed to audit global management system standards — but not ISO 26000.  IAF and the International Organization for Standardization say why:  “It’s crystal clear.”  The new, social responsibility guideline is not intended for regulatory or contractual use. 

“There will be no accredited certification to ISO 26000 as this is contrary to the intent and spirit of the standard,” IAF and ISO avow in a joint statement.  Nonetheless, some registrars are testing the limits of the prohibition by verifying the claims of companies that voluntarily follow the guidance. 

Coop Genossenschaft, Switzerland

A subsidiary of Coop Genossenschaft says without qualification that it is certified to ISO 26000 by Swiss TS Technical Services, a division of the international inspection consultancy TÜV SÜD   (see Certification to ISO 26000 Draws Fire, 27 December 2010).

ISO feedback from the PPO meeting November 2011, according to annex G of the meeting results:
PPO Action: ISO CS has contacted Swiss TS.

Dutch Brewer Bavaria, The Netherlands

In the Netherlands the Dutch brewer Bavaria says it “demonstrably implemented ISO 26000 in full.”  Bavaria is the brand accused by Fifa of ambush marketing at its World Cup matches in 2006 and 2010.

The lager beer company says its operations are “in line with the international consensus on what sustainable business entails” and that Lloyd’s register group was asked to verify the application of the standard within the business. 

Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance, along with Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and Kiwa, a Dutch quality inspection and consulting firm, developed the performance ladder approach for corporate social responsibility (CSR).  The management system has five ascending steps to demonstrate progress.  Kiwa says the third-party certification is “inspired by ISO 26000.” 

ISO feedback from the PPO meeting November 2011, according to annex G of the meeting results:
PPO Action: The local NSB should handle this. ISO CS has contacted NEN.

Wavin North-West Europe

The first CSR performance ladder certification “based on ISO 26000” went to Wavin North-West Europe, part of the publicly trade plastic pipe manufacturing group.  Wavin says the certification from Kiwa means that the company “is doing much more in the area of CSR than legally required and is leading in its business looking at CSR topics.”

ISO feedback from the PPO meeting November 2011, according to annex G of the meeting results:
PPO Action: The local NSB should handle this. Certified against a ladder?

Air France Industries (AFI)

Drawing the most attention for its claims about ISO 26000 is Air France Industries (AFI), which repairs and overhauls airplanes.  AFI is certified to eight standards, like ISO 9001 for quality and ISO 14001 for environmental management, by Bureau Veritas Certification (BVC).  Renewing the single, global certification in November 2010, AFI said the scope “now includes nine major sets of guidelines,” specifically mentioning ISO 26000.

“The extension of AFI’s single and global certification rewards the group’s long-standing commitment to CSR programs,” AFI declared.

“BVC did not provide Air France Industry with certification.  What was provided is assessment against ISO 26000 guidelines (gap- analysis) based on a tool that was developed by Bureau Veritas,” explains Anna Kalacheva, technical manager of BVC. “However, Air France Industry is certified to several other ‘certifiable’ norms with Bureau Veritas Certification (like ISO 9001 and ISO 14001), this is why it put some ambiguity on its  press release.”

“More precisely, and as written in our press release, an ‘evaluation’ has been conducted in all the AFI facilities in France from 2 to 5 November 2010.  The results were considered by Bureau Veritas Certification as positive ones,” says AFI Communications Director Aurélien Gomez.  “Definitely, we adopted this new social responsibility international standard,” she says.  “For us the next step will deal with continuous improvement.

Crosslands Bulletin anticipates that AFI may issue an addendum to its communiqué elaborating on the situation.

ISO feedback from the PPO meeting November 2011, according to annex G of the meeting results:
See further up on this page.

Role of the ISO 26000 PPO Post-Publication-Organization

A post-publication organization (PPO)  followed the release of ISO 26000.   One of the jobs of the PPO is to identify good and bad practices by organizations and companies using the guidance.  The PPO secretariat, held by the PPO founders — the Swedish and Brazilian standards bodies, SIS and ABNT; the PPO is not an ISO body! — will develop operating guidelines for addressing issues of interpretation and questions related to authoritative instruments. 

During the first teleconference of the PPO on 20 December 2010, Vice Chair Staffan Söderberg said the role to be played in dealing with claims made about ISO 26000 is yet to be settled, beyond bringing concerns to the attention of the ISO Central Secretariat.  So far ISO has not issued statements on any of the specific claims.  

For information contact Anna Kalacheva, Bureau Veritas Certification, 67/71 Boulevard du Château, 92200 Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. Tel: +33 1 55 24 76 92; Fax: +33 1 55 24 70 35; E-mail: [email protected].  Aurélien Gomez, Air France Industries KLM Engineering & Maintenance, 45, Rue de Paris, 95747 Roissy CDG Cedex, France.  Tel: +33 6 30 49 61 72; E-mail: [email protected].  Rense Kuil, Kiwa, Sir W. Churchill-laan 273, P.O.Box 70, 2280 AB Rijswijk, The Netherlands.  Tel: +31 70 414 46 06; E-mail: [email protected].   

Source: Visit www.crosslandsbulletin.com           © Victor House News, Co.

Publication on www.26k-estimation.com  with friendly permission of William D’Alessandro, Victor House.

to top

ISO press release of 30 November 2010:
It's crystal clear. No certification to ISO 26000 guidance standard on social responsibility
Quote:
“ISO, developer of the newly published ISO 26000 standard giving guidance on social responsibility, is reinforcing the point that ISO 26000 is not able to be and may not be used for certification. ISO indicates that it will take action against claims of certification to the standard....ISO reinforces the ..... position by declaring:

• ISO 26000 has the purpose of globally enhancing social responsibility, sustainability and ethical behaviour in all kinds of organizations
• There will be no accredited certification to ISO 26000 as this is contrary to the intent and spirit of the standard
• Any claims of certification to ISO 26000 are misleading and are not a demonstration of conformity to ISO 26000
• ISO members will report any organizations providing certification to ISO 26000 to the ISO Central Secretariat
• ISO shall communicate this to its members who will be requested to communicate within their own countries to regulators, stakeholders and industry.

http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1378 gives further details.
 

The IAF/ISO joint communiqué on acting against misuse of ISO 26000
 

IAF and ISO joint action against ISO 26000 misuse

IAF is the International Accreditation Forum; its mission is to care – through its national members – for orderly and proper operations of certification bodies: this “surveillance” of certification bodies is called “accreditation”.
ISO is the International Standards Organization.

A recent General Assembly of IAF took place in Shanghai, end of October 2010. ISO Secretary-General Rob Steele was present and the discussion of jointly counteracting the misuse of ISO 26000 resulted in the resolution:

IAF Resolution 2010–10 – (Agenda Item 7) IAF/ISO Joint Communiqué on Certification to ISO 26000

The General Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the Technical Committee, resolved that there will not be any accredited certification to ISO 26000 (publication date 1 November 2010).

ISO 26000 explicitly states that it is not intended or appropriate for certification, and any certification would be a misuse of the standard.

Therefore, Certification Bodies are strongly urged not to promote or provide certification to ISO 26000 and Accreditation Bodies and Certification Bodies are requested to report any misuse or need for certification, to the ISO Secretariat.
Source: IAF document “IAF-AM-10-006 IAF.24 General Assembly – 2010”

Understanding:

• “there will not be any accredited certification to ISO 26000” 
  means that IAF-accredited certification bodies cannot issue any ISO 26000 certificate;
  all major and well-known certification bodies are IAF-accredited;
• “certification bodies are strongly urged not to promote or provide certification to ISO 26000”
  means that IAF-accredited certification bodies should keep off from any ISO 26000  certification because they would act against the accreditation rules and thereby discredit the whole scheme of accreditation;
• “accreditation bodies and certification bodies are requested to report any misuse or need for certification to the ISO Secretariat”
  means that ISO Central Secretariat will maintain a list (not to say blacklist) of organizations offering certification to ISO 26000, regardless of being accredited certification or non-accredited certification; one can assume that the purpose of this list is not only the fact that organizations are listed.

                     Congratulations to IAF and ISO for this good way forward in counteracting misuse of ISO 26000!

 Published here on 16 November 2010; this communiqué can be downloaded as Word document.

    to top

THE IMPORTANT SOURCE

The ISO 26000 is a guidance standard, i.e. it offers advice, proposals, recommendations and an orientation on how possibly to enhance the social responsibility of an organization. Its use is voluntary.

For the purpose of this site one of the important sources to refer to is the Scope of ISO 26000 DIS (Draft International Standard). Part of its language has been strengthened in the Quebec City meeting (18 to 22 May 2009) that now reads:

• "This International Standard is not a management system standard. It is not intended or appropriate for certification purposes or regulatory or contractual use. Any offers to certify, or claims to be certified, to ISO 26000 would be a misrepresentation of the intent and purpose of the International Standard."

Another important part is in the Fair Operating Practices section that reads:

6.6.1.1 Organizations and fair operating practices
Fair operating practices concern ethical conduct in an organization’s dealings with other organizations and individuals. These include relationships between organizations and government agencies, as well as between organizations and their partners, suppliers, contractors and competitors, and the associations of which they are members.

Certification bodies are “organizations”, companies are “organizations”. The Scope says that ISO 26000 is not for certification.
In consequence: offering an ISO 26000 certificate is neither ethical nor following the guidance of ISO 26000 itself.

The most important paragraph of the scope reads in its final version (FDIS/IS, 12 September 2010), which successfully passed the vote by ISO national member bodies:
“This International Standard is not a management system standard. It is not intended or appropriate for certification purposes or regulatory or contractual use. Any offer to certify, or claims to be certified, to ISO 26000 would be a misrepresentation of the intent and purpose and a misuse of this International Standard.
As this International Standard does not contain requirements, any such certification would not be a demonstration of conformity with this International Standard.”
It is hoped that this wording is now clear enough to avoid any further misuse.

    to top

The main misconceptions about ISO 26000

Content:
Guidance versus “Guideline”
Guidance vs. “Requirements”
Guidance vs. “Implementation”
Guidance vs. “Audits” and “Certification”
Guidance vs. “International Standard”
The Management Systems Standards’ trap
 

Guidance versus “Guideline”
Standardization is about an exact use of language because otherwise all experts in this realm would be governed by misunderstandings.
If there wasn’t a difference between guidance and guideline, the language wouldn’t carry both words. The difference is in essence, that guidance offers something to accept and to follow, and a guideline gives the direction of how to act; one cannot “fulfil guidance but one can fulfil a guideline. A guideline can contain requirements, a guidance document as the ISO 26000 does not contain any requirements.

This difference may be an unconscious reason why those preferring the term guideline  want to make business with ISO 26000.  But such a behavior is not in line with the ISO 26000 clause on “Fair operating practices”.   This can easily be demonstrated by one of thousands of examples, see the picture.

    to top

Guidance vs. “Requirements”

It has been said many times but for reasons of completeness it should be reiterated here: guidance is something telling you what you could do, it is not about any requirements. In consequence, the ISO 26000 does not contain requirements. This is important to keep in mind because requirements would be needed for any type of audit or certification, both being clearly excluded from the scope of ISO 26000.

Guidance vs. “Implementation”

This is again a question of a correct use of language: one can follow guidance but one cannot “implement” guidance. When used the word implement or implementation slips into the discussion mainly by those coming from the area of management system standards.

    to top

Guidance vs. “Audits” and “Certification”

ISO 26000 does not contain requirements which would be needed for execution of audits and certification efforts; in consequence there is no ISO 26000 certificate. If a certificate was offered, it was an evident misuse of ISO 26000.

Guidance vs. “International Standard”

ISO 26000 is called a guidance standard, its substance is offering guidance. The DIS [Draft International Standard] quotes itself at various instances as “…this International standard…”. Some parties insisting in this wording may aim at creating the impression as if the ISO 26000 was a normal ISO standard, because normal ISO standards contain requirements, with all possibly intended but undesired tendencies towards auditing and certifying.

While ISO 26000 will be published as international standard, like any other ISO standard, it is important to remember that its content offers orientation, recommendations, and advice but nothing standardized in the sense of technically harmonized solutions.

    to top

The Management Systems Standards’ trap

Understanding ISO 26000 as a management system standard would be a major mistake because it is definitely not, as clearly expressed in its scope. But there are particular parties who want to make business with ISO 26000 by offering their services for consulting, auditing and certifying as they do for other ISO management systems standards like ISO 9000 for quality management or ISO 14001 for environmental management. Putting the guidance of ISO 26000 into the neighborhood of ISO 9000 or ISO 14001 contradicts the scope of ISO 26000 and can be considered as a trap, with transparent intentions. Offering to handle an ISO 26000 certification jointly with ISO 9000 or other ISO management systems certifications is a particular artful trap in this context because it pretends to save money and detracts from recognizing that there is no ISO 26000 certificate.

The originators of such practices should be encouraged to better study the ISO 26000 guidance document and especially its chapter on “purpose and objective”, which is headlined “scope” in the English version, “Zweck” in German and “Objetivo” in Spanish.

    to top

EXAMPLES OF INCORRECT USE or MISCONCEPTION (before autumn 2010, new ones you see first)
This section is intended to show factual cases , and more importantly cases of potentially incorrect use trusting that this is the best way preventing further incorrect use.

next
Publication by “emol economía” in Chile
Corporativo Grupo Tampico
he Vanheede environmental group, Belgium
Mondial Movers receives ISO 26000 Leader Award, from DHV
CSR Training in Asia
Training Courses by a certification body in the Middle East
Naming ISO 26000 a regulatory instrument
ACI Limited, Hong Kong (Accredited Certification International);

Publication by “emol economía” in Chile

A publication in Chile (emol economía, November 2010) is headlined:

“Lanzan en Chile nueva norma ISO sobre Responsabilidad Social

Norma de certificación involucra una serie de aspectos relacionados con la responsabilidad social, no sólo de empresas, sino de
cualquier organización.”

This would read in English:

“In Chile the ISO standard on social responsibility has been launched

The certifiable standard includes a series of aspects related to social responsibility, not only of enterprises but of any kind of
organization.”

This headline is a misconception. You may wish to look at the full article at http://www.emol.com/noticias/economia/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=445103 (2010-11-10)

Thanks go to Carolina for having given the hint.

Corporativo Grupo Tampico; http://www.milenio.com/node/420339 (2010-05-05)

Key quote: "Ahora, el objetivo de Corporativo Grupo Tampico será obtener la certificación ISO 26000, la cual tiene que ver con la responsabilidad social a nivel internacional."

English this reads: “Now, it will be our objective to obtain an ISO 26000 certificate, the one which has to be seen in the context of social responsibility at international level.”

Comment: as demonstrated with other cases, this is firstly an obvious misconception in believing that ISO 26000 would be certifiable (obviously the objective of ISO 26000 as described it the scope has been misinterpreted) and secondly a misuse of ISO 26000 if certification would take place.

The Vanheede environmental group, Belgium; http://www.vanheede.com/ (2010 -05 -04)

The key quote from this website is:
The company is already certified to ISO 9001 (quality) and ISO 14001 standards (environment) but in relation to sustainability, there are no official standards and related audit - ISO 26000 is in the making.

This is also an interesting statement, at least for two aspects of misconception:
1. ISO 26000 is put into context of sustainability, while it deals with social responsibility, and social responsibility can be
      regarded only as a subset of sustainability, and
2. Being certified to ISO 9001 and ISO 14,001 and expecting ISO 26000 for the next audit speaks volumes for itself, because
     ISO 26000 is neither certifiable nor can it be audited.

Mondial Movers ontvangt ISO 26000 Koploperbokaal
Mondial Movers receives ISO 26000 Leader Award, from DHV
The website http://tinyurl.com/y4fdmog (2010-05-04) reports about a Dutch company that has received an "ISO 26000 Leadership Award" from the consultancy company (DHV) that helped them to "implement" the ISO 26000 “guideline”.

This is an interesting example of incorrect use of terminology, especially regarding the terms “guideline” versus “guidance” and CSR versus SR. But the even greater misconception is the fact that DHV as a professional consultancy puts ISO 26000 right next to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and SCC, all being well known as certifiable management system standards.
In so doing, DHV promotes the wrong impression as if ISO 26000 would be a certifiable management system standard. This is an obvious misconception and, at the end of the day, a misuse of ISO 26000.
While DHV recognizes on their own website that ISO 26000 is not certifiable, they put it also there directly next to 14001, OSHA 18001, and SA 8000, again all being certifiable.

Such cases add to  the potential to make ISO 26000 the first ISO standard being extremely misused before and right after publication.

CSR Training in Asia
The announcement early March 2010 was:
ISO 26000 Training - 29 Mar 2010, <location>

The training will help to build the competencies of attendees looking to implement the guidelines within their organization by examining the necessary systems and structures, performance reviews and communication required.

Topics include:
 The social responsibility of the organisation
 Principles of social responsibility
 Scope and rationale of ISO 26000
 Stakeholder engagement
 Guidance on core social responsibility issues
 Trends in social responsibility

The advice offered reads:
Sir,   Congratulations to your action, but allow me a few words. There are many such training offers and they shouldn’t be needed if the i6 would meet its requirement of the “new work item proposal” to be EASY TO UNDERSTAND and EASY TO USE. And many of those training offers mistakenly use a language close to ISO management system standards; so does yours in part, too:

• ISO 26000 is not a “guideline” but a “guidance standard”; a guideline tells you what to do (all of the guideline, no selection), a guidance document gives advice, orientation and recommendations of what you could do and you take the selection and prioritize actions.
• Use of the verb “implement”? One can “follow” or “use” guidance but one can’t implement it.
• In the website announcement under the headline “Course overview” the ISO 26000 is put next to the ISO management system standards 9000 and 14001 so that the reader is misleadingly given the impression the ISO 26000 were also a management system standard, which it is definitively not (as clearly stated in its scope).  

Hope you find this comment useful.

Reaction the next day:
Hi, Thanks a lot for your comment.
Cheers

    to top

Training Courses by a certification body in the Middle East

2010-02-23  Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please allow me to address you as a person well acquainted with the ISO 26000 project and its contents, since I am engaged in it since its inception and feel committed to its global success. This success implies that this new guidance standard is advertised and used in a correct way.

With great interest I have seen your announcement on the Internet, see annex, and would like to offer a few clarifications that you may wish to use for an update of your announcement:

• “QM015” may be misleading because QM is understood as quality management and this is combined with certifiable management system standards like ISO 9000; the ISO 26000 is quite different and an association with, or being put close to, a certifiable management system standards  is not correct; proposal: open a new class for guidance standards and name the ISO 26000 course for example “GS001”
• Objective: “…to understand the requirements…”; ISO 26000 does not contain requirements; proposed wording: to understand the guidance offered
• Objective: “…the participant should be capable of … implementing…ISO 26000”; a guidance standard  can be used or the guidance can be followed, but a guidance standard cannot be implemented; proposed wording: …the participant should be capable of prioritizing the guidance offered… and integrating …ISO 26000…into daily practices
• Contents: “Detailed review of the requirements…”; proposed wording: review of the guidance offered
• Contents: “Implementation of ISO 26000”; proposed wording: Integration of ISO 26000
• Contents: “Creating value through ISO 26001”; since an ISO 26001 does not exist, this may be just a misprint and could be corrected to ISO 26000
  I hope you find these hints useful.

Reaction 2010-02-23, same day: We really appreciate … your observation and advise we will do the needful at the earliest. Thanks

    to top

Naming ISO 26000 a regulatory instrument

2010-02-07 The ISO member body has been approached as follows:

“On the XXXXX website the information reproduced below has been discovered and your help would be appreciated on two issues.

• The statement “ISO 26000 is designed to become a regulatory instrument…” seems to be misleading: to the best of my knowledge regulatory instruments are e.g. governmental regulations, multilateral agreements, international treaties, international conventions etc., but ISO 26000 is a guidance standard and nothing else. May be that the use of “regulatory instrument” is just a translation error or that the website author was not aware that “regulatory” is internationally only used in connection with governmental action. If you would share this opinion, my question is whether you would feel fit to approach xxxxx to get the website changed, e.g. by saying:
   
• “ISO 26000 in a nutshell
  The guidance standard ISO 26000 is designed to become an orientation for organizations to enhance their socially responsible behavior. Its…”
   
• The other issue is that ISO 26000 is presented next to certification and assessment and one would wonder whether there is a purpose behind or not. As currently presented, the site allows to be read (or pretends) as if there were certification and assessment services for ISO 26000, which are excluded by its scope.”

Reaction: 2010-03-30 active communication pending, but the website has been changed; now it quotes correctly what the ISO 26000 is about, but neglects saying that ISO 26000 is not a management system standard and not for certification or any contractual use. So, customers of that ISO member body are given the impression that ISO 26000 was a “norm” like any other ISO norm.

Quote from the website on 2010-03-30:
“Standard ISO 26000 in a nutshell
The ISO 26000 standard presents guidelines for all types of organizations which voluntarily seek to assume the responsibility for the impacts of their decisions and activities and to be accountable for them. It defines social responsibility as:
Responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethical behaviour that:

• contributes to sustainable development, including health and welfare of society
• takes into account the expectations of stakeholders
• is in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international norms of behaviour
• is integrated throughout the organization and practised in its relationships

It addresses two fundamental practices of social responsibility which are:

• the identification of the impacts of the decisions and activities of the organization regarding the core subjects of the ISO 26000 standard
• the identification of the stakeholders and the dialogue with the latter.

These two practices are aimed at determining the fields of action that are relevant and of priority for an organization from:

• the impacts on the entire value chain (life cycle of the activity/product/service)
• the systematic taking into account of the seven (7) core subjects
• an extended perimeter of its responsibility within its sphere of influence
• its stakeholders.”

end of quote

    to top

ACI Limited, Hong Kong (Accredited Certification International)

quote taken from the ACI website, November 2009
Sang Hing Construction Company Limited awarded ISO/CD 26000 Certificate
Accredited Certification International Ltd has recently granted the ISO/CD 26000
Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development Management certification to
Sang Hing Construction Company Limited in August 2009. This management system
helps them to maintain a high standard level in the area of social responsibility.
End of quote

Surprisingly here has been issued a certificate against an ISO Committee Draft (CD), which is an internal document of the ISO Working Group and was “published” only for the purpose of getting comments and votes from the actively participating ISO member bodies. ACI has been notified by 16 November 2009 in case they wish to change this incorrect practice, and again on
24 January 2010.

A visit to the ACI Ltd website on 14 September 2010 offers this information:
 ...

    to top

KINDS of MISUSE
From the statement in the scope the following kinds of misuse can be deducted. This table is also available in English as Word document for download, and in Spanish as PDF document. This table “Kinds of misuse” is shown in Spanish further down here.

Any comments are welcome; please send your e-mail to the author.

Tipos de uso incorrecto de la Norma ISO 26000;  “….conocer sobre usos incorrectos potenciales es prevenirlos!”

La Norma ISO 26000 establece en su objeto:
“Esta norma internacional no es una norma de sistemas de gestión. No es apropiada, ni pretende servir para propósitos de certificación, o uso regulatorio o contractual. Cualquier demanda de certificación, o petición para obtener una certificación, desde la perspectiva de la Norma ISO 26000, se consideraría una tergiversación del propósito e intención de esta norma internacional.”

De esta frase se desprenden los siguientes usos incorrectos potenciales o reales.

Redactado (2010-02-18)por:                         Traducido (2011-03-08) por:
Guido Guertler                                                   Miguel H. Núñez
ICC observer to the                                          Coordinador Técnico
ISO/TMB/WG on social responsibility      CEADS (Argentina BCSD)
+49 173 350 27 22                                              +54 11 4512 4128
[email protected]                             [email protected]

    to top