The Global Compact Office has requested the Secretary-General of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to remove the reference to the Global Compact from the annex of the ISO 26000 standard – an international standard that provides guidance on social responsibility. In a recent letter to ISO, the executive director of the Global Compact Office states that it is "disappointed that neither in the body of the standard nor in the annex is there any recognition of the world's foremost social responsibility initiative". The Office believes that "the current reference to the UN Global Compact does not provide the UNGC with the prominence it deserves".In 2006, the Global Compact Office signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ISO related to the development of the ISO 26000 standard. The purpose of this MoU was to encourage cooperation and mutual support between ISO and the Global Compact Office. Specifically, both parties agreed to collaborate extensively on the development, promotion and support of the ISO 26000 standard. In an explanatory note published in November 2006, the executive director of the Global Compact Office said that the outcome of the ISO 26000 process as a minimum should be consistent with and complement the ten principles of the UN Global Compact.
Although the current version of ISO 26000 is indeed consistent with the principles of the Compact, it seems that the Global Compact Office would have expected to receive more credit from the ISO 26000 working group, which consists of 435 experts from over 90 countries.
2 comments:
The idea that UNGC has any say in how others will reference it is laughable. What typical arrogance... instead of negotiating their position with other stakeholders they attempt to usurp the process completely. Shameful.
Very odd all round. The Compact's self-rating as 'the world's foremost social responsibility initiative' seems extraordinary. Has any independent third party ever concluded this is the case? (Leaving aside the fact that "social responsibility" as opposed to "corporate social responsibility" didn't really exist til ISO 26000 invented it). It will also be interesting to know, as the other post says, whether the Compact's wish to be removed can trump the views of other stakeholders in a multistakeholder consensus-building process. And I wonder whether governments who negotiated the international instruments that form the basis of the Compact would agree with Mr Kell's view. Somehow I feel something's got lost along the way here..
Post a Comment