Baptiste COIRIER, Student at Sciences Po Grenoble - UGA

Anne BARTEL-RADIC, Professor at Sciences Po Grenoble - UGA and researcher at CERAG, UGA

Published on November 1, 2010 by the International Standard Organization (ISO), ISO 26000 is considered one of the most comprehensive CSR standards available. However, the experience of CSR managers shows that, although the standard is a theoretical guide for many of them, it is little or not at all appropriate to the scale of their CSR and organizational strategies.

The ISO 26000 standard represents a real innovation for ISO, because of the subject it covers: ISO has traditionally avoided contentious social issues. The standard was developed in a process spanning several years, by a committee including multiple intergovernmental, trade union and standards organizations. In theory, ISO 26000 is aimed at all types of organization, whatever their size, country of origin or location (Discover ISO). It is supposed to appeal both to beginners as an introduction to CSR, and to more experienced organizations wishing to improve their practices (Gond & Igalens, 2014).

The ISO 26000 standard is based on seven general principles of corporate social responsibility: Governance; Human Rights; Working Conditions; Environment; Fair Business Practices; Consumer Issues; Social Commitment (Gond & Igalens, 2014).
Unlike other standards, it is not certifiable, and claims to cover all CSR issues. As a voluntary standard structured around guidelines, the standard is opposed to hard law as soft law. However, despite the importance attached to stakeholder inclusiveness in the standardization process, and the desired ambition to be useful to all organizations and professionals, ISO 26000 does not meet with unanimous approval among the eight corporate CSR managers we interviewed. 

Exploratory research based on interviews with CSR managers

This research is based on a qualitative method, the most appropriate for dealing with such a subject. In view of the limited academic literature available, our research is based on an exploratory research design. The eight interviewees work or have worked as CSR managers in public or private organizations. The semi-structured interviews lasted an average of 31 minutes, and involved professionals from a wide range of professions, such as CSR project manager, CSR project manager, hospital director and CSR consultant.

The paradoxical observation of theoretical relevance but a lack of appropriation of the standard at the strategic level

ISO 26000 is seen as a dense and complex standard, which is hardly used in the strategies and practices of many CSR managers. The main limits to the dissemination and appropriation of the standard cited by CSR managers are its notable complexity, the need to be initiated into it, and a lack of pragmatism and relevance to the specific contexts of organizations. The lack of pragmatism of the ISO 26000 standard explains its non-appropriation, as CSR managers are confronted with four internal and external pressures: the need to operationalize stakeholders; the need to work with employees on concrete issues linked to the company; the lack of appropriation and knowledge of the standard's stakeholders; pressure from managers on the need to operationalize the company. Beyond these concepts, the standard seems ill-suited to different economic sectors, thus limiting its appropriation and mobilization by CSR managers. As a result, ISO 26000 is not considered to be advantageous in terms of application and appropriation by all stakeholders. 

The choice of whether or not to adopt a standard is not a matter for CSR managers alone, but depends on two variables. On the one hand, the choice of the standard on which the organization's CSR strategy will be based also depends on internal or external stakeholders. On the other hand, some CSR managers within companies suffer from a lack of partial authority over the various CSR issues, as well as a lack of cross-functionality and communication between the various departments within the company. In some cases, the human resources department is exclusively responsible for the social aspects of CSR, leaving the environmental aspect to the CSR managers. In this way, we can observe a division of domains between departments, which does not encourage the appropriation of a common frame of reference such as ISO 26000 by all stakeholders. Paradoxically, however, for many, the standard remains a theoretical guide, a benchmark that is sometimes useful to mobilize in the course of their work to ensure that CSR is properly covered within their organization.

ISO 26000 in competition with alternative standards

Faced with the intrinsic shortcomings of ISO 26000, as well as stiff competition from other standards, CSR managers and stakeholders are opting for alternatives to ISO 26000, which can take very different forms. One of the first arguments put forward by CSR managers for choosing alternative standards is that they are simpler to use. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in particular meet this requirement, being considered far more intuitive, spontaneous and straightforward than ISO 26000. Labels, too, such as those issued by AFNOR, provide a more nuanced and straightforward approach to CSR. Organizations can situate themselves at different levels, unlike ISO 26000 audits or guidelines. The CSRD, on the other hand, seems to fulfill several roles: that of theoretical guide, binding regulation and mandatory extension of ISO 26000. 

More broadly, the choices made by CSR managers and stakeholders in terms of standards are part of a context of international normative competition, notably between Anglo-Saxon and European standards, mandatory standards and labels. The results on the issue of certification reveal another paradox. CSR managers consider it unthinkable, given the complexity of the CSR concept that would have to be assessed within organizations, and yet the absence of certification is perceived as one of the main limits to the spread of the standard. Moreover, certification represents an important variable in the normative decision-making process of CSR managers and stakeholders. ISO 26000 would therefore benefit just as much from being certifiable, in terms of legitimacy, standardization, dissemination and competitive advantage.

ISO's reputation has not, however, been conducive to its adoption. The complex nature of the CSR concept poses real limits to its dissemination. It also seems that the long standardization process, based on consensus and the inclusion of numerous stakeholders, has not helped ISO 26000 to be more widely disseminated and integrated into organizations. On the contrary, it does not enjoy any favorable consensus among those surveyed, and really suffers from its political nature. Alternatives" to the standard appear simpler, more attractive and better adapted to the corporate context.

References

Gond, J. & Igalens, J. (2014). The contemporary challenges of CSR. In: Jean-Pascal Gond ed, La responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise, 106-114. Paris cedex 14: Presses Universitaires de France.

ISO. On-line document. Discover ISO 26000 - Guidance on social responsibility. Available at: https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/fr/PUB100258_fr.pdf ( Accessed June 09, 2024).