ISO26000 ... Re: [Ailist] Corporate Social Responsibility

[Lionel Boxer]

Several excellent points Ron

Regarding the problem is us, I have a paper somewhere that was presented at the 1989 American Society of Quality Control (ASQC) conference in Toronto - "I have found the problem - it is us".  This was originally a Pogo cartoon caption and the ASQC paper was written with quality in mind.  However, it has broader implications (including CSR).  We westerners have alot to answer for.  What we take as personal liberties and rights are highly offensive to many people in the west let alone the Muslim world.  Having worked with a number of Muslims in Muslim countries over the past few years I can see why some Muslims hate the west.  The people I worked with were very accomodating of my western culture and I was very accomodating of theirs.  I was certain not to behave in a way that they might view as being offensive.  We are all God's children is a good mantra to carry oneself through life.

Regarding ISO standards and certification/registration, I have worked with ISO standards and the certification/registration process for over 20 years now.  I view the pursuit of certification/registration as being marketing motivated.  Very very few organisations pursue ISO9001 for the productivity benefits that can be derived.  In the new year I am about to start work as a third party certification/registration auditor.  It would be a wonderful world if corporations behaved as if they were God's children, but they are not.  Corporations are the children of mortal human beings.  ISO standards are a way to impose a sort of conscience on corporations, but the problem is the mortal human beings keep on getting in the way.  I have witnessed examples of very senior people telling significant mistruths in order to achieve certification/registration.  Not everyone behaves this badly, but many very senior people do behave badly in this regard to one degree or another.

I have noticed that senior managers do take safety far more seriously now that they realise they can be put in jail for safety mishaps that they cause.  Environmental oversights can result in similarly serious fines and penalties, but not to the degree of being jailed.  Quality can be taken seriously, but not as much as environment or safety.  However, corporate social responsiblity is not really tied to the same sort of disciplinary action.

ISO9001 is developed by TC176, while ISO2600 is developed by the ISO working group on CSR.  With the gradual move to integrated management system (environmental, safety, quality and perhaps CSR), there may be a more integrated standard one day.  However, at this stage these are all created independently and there is a degree of overlap.

Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - +1-416-482-3203
Associate of RMIT University - lionel.boxer at rmit.edu.au
Graduate School of Business
my "Assessment of Quality Systems with Positioning Theory" 
now in a googe book - see link at http://intergon.net
>>> "Cyber Smtp Mexico" <ronsmith at santafelearning.com> 19/12/08 2:01 PM >>>
Regarding Corporations:

I hope you have seen the interview between Bill Moyers and Andrew Bacevich 
or read his book Limits of Power. I hope I can explain the connection to 
this discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6HLD5eDeGU

Bacevich's contention is that we are the problem in Iraq not Bush or any 
other president. They are just going out to get what we the american society 
want, constant flow of oil, cheap goods from china etc. We are responsible. 
That is why Bacevich says Obama will not change anything, "no president can" 
so perhaps he (Obama) will shift our efforts to Afghanistan but the 
fundamental goal of maintaining our way of life remains unchanged.

I feel that the same is true of Corporations. The structure is actually very 
beautiful. A publicly, community if you will....owned enterprize with a CEO 
to run things for us the shareholders. The governing board (there are many 
types) guide the CEO towards the goals set by the shareholders. (okay ....so 
this is a bit polyanna-ish but structurally this is the way it works). So as 
long as our stock portfolio is performing, we are happy and don't question 
the Madoffs in the world nor the overpaid CEO's nor the dysfunctional 
"rubber stamp" board. I am hoping we can see the positive potential for 
corporations to become increasingly socially responsible but we must provide 
the "push". Many are working in this direction.

I have been working 80% corporate over the last 15 years with a 1+ year 
break to set up a leadership institute in a university here in Mexico. I am 
now moving into the board governance arena using John Carver's model of 
policy-based board governance and improving board performance through 
transparency and sustainability models. I am hoping this will help 
corporations reflect the broader and perhaps more sustainable interests of 
their shareholders. Not just the ROI bottom line. I am working with board 
members to look deeper into their own interests and desires because I 
believe in the basic goodness of people.

The managers of our investments, our retirement plans etc are just pushing 
(with their investment choices and rating systems) our desire to make money. 
So the "they" is "us" and we are not as helpless in this area as we make 
out. I feel like we are entering into a "victim" phase and my hope is we 
pass through it rapidly so our "investment vehicles" can increase 
transparency and sustainability as we move forward. I don't see the 
corporate structure going anywhere soon because it is designed to protect 
the owners (us) from liability (not responsibility) for the actions of the 
enterprise.

Corporate social responsibility indexes are being established in many 
countries and the ISO is working in this area as well (see iso.org and go to 
ISO 26000)  Wouldn't it be great if there was a comprehensive widely 
accepted ISO like rating in the area of corp social responsibility (CSR) 
that could be used by investors who would tell their brokers to buy only 
"CSR" rated companies with a transparancy index of "X" or higher or with a 
"Sustainable Practices Index" of  "X" or higher.

I understand that being socially responsible doesn't prevent corporate greed 
but I think it is a move in the right direction and will change the dynamic 
that we have been living with for some time.

I have faith and hope that this will happen,

Ron Smith

 

_______________________________________________
The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list administrator. For subscription information, go to:
http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist