ISO 26000 CSR Guidelines Standardization Risks Isolating Complex Issues

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
*Correspondence to: Karina Tilling PhD, Mälardalen University, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology, P.O. Box 883,
S-721 23, Västerås, Sweden. E-mail: karina.tilling@mdh.se
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 16, 289–299 (2009)
Published online 27 July 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/csr.211
‘ISO-lating’ Corporate Social Responsibility in the
Organizational Context: A Dissenting Interpretation
of ISO 26000
Birgitta Schwartz and Karina Tilling*
Mälardalen University, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology, Västerås, Sweden
ABSTRACT
Sustainable development is frequently an object of standardization, and over 100 000
organizations hold ISO 14001 certificates proving they have legitimate environmental man-
agement systems. Guidelines for social responsibility are now the object of standardization,
resulting in the upcoming ISO 26000 standard. This paper examines the rationale behind
developing ISO 26000, highlighting the tendency to decouple complex CSR issues in the
organizational context. This is relevant to current problems of poor working conditions,
weak regulatory compliance, and corruption often encountered in the production context
in low-income countries. In addition, existing codes of conduct are frequently decoupled
from actual organizational performance. We highlight how CSR standardization risks isolat-
ing complex and contested social issues, more radical attempts at change conflicting with
striving for legitimacy. Like the decontexualizing tendency proceeding from the standard-
ized treatment of complex sustainable development issues in organizations, CSR issues
also risk becoming decontextualized with the application of standardized approaches
such as the ISO 26000 standard. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP
Environment.
Received 11 October 2007; revised 26 February 2009; accepted 9 March 2009
Keywords: standardization; ISO 26000; corporate social responsibility; low-income countries; sustainable development;
decoupling; legitimacy; contextualizing
Introduction
S
USTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
1
IS DEFINED AS BUILDING ON THE THREE ‘PILLARS’ OF ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND
social development. Sustainability management in the organizational context has largely focused on envi-
ronmental issues, resulting in an increasing number of organizations implementing standardized envi-
ronmental management systems. Debate on sustainable development in the organizational management
1
The term ‘sustainable development’ is usually defined with reference to the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development, Our Common Future (WCED, 1987), stating that future economic development must go hand in hand with long-term social and
environmental development to be sustainable.

290 B. Schwartz and K. Tilling
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 16, 289–299 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/csr
context started with environmental issues in the face of demands for the business community to take more respon-
sibility for environmentally damaging activities. These demands were mainly made by various actors, such as
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), politicians, media, and customers. In response, environmental manage-
ment standards such as the British BS 7750 standard, the European Union EMAS regulation, and the international
ISO 14001 standard were developed. These generic2
standards have become popular models with which to handle
environmental demands in both the private and public sectors (Tilling, 2006, 2008), and over 100 000 organiza-
tions in almost 140 countries have implemented and certified ISO 14001 systems (ISO World, 2007).
In recent years, social responsibility has entered the organizational sustainable development debate due to glo-
balization and NGO demands. These demands call for strengthening human rights in relation to the production
sector in low-income countries such as those in Asia. In 1997, a voluntary international management standard on
social accountability, SA8000, entered the scene, building on several international human rights conventions.
Compliance with this standard is controlled by third-party verification (Social Accountability International,
2008).
In the global economy, low-income countries can offer inducements such as low-paid employees, long working
days, low taxes, and short delivery times. Meanwhile, poor working conditions in these countries have been high-
lighted by NGOs and media in the Western world, where Western companies have been criticized for exploiting
employees to make larger profits and give consumers, likely in the Western world, cheap consumer goods. To
meet demands for improved working conditions, several actors are now interested in the approach earlier used
for environmental issues, namely, developing a new standard, ISO 26000. This social responsibility standard will
be generic and voluntary like the ISO 14001 environmental standard and is said to lead to common guidance on
concepts, definitions, and methods for evaluating social responsibility (ISO, 2008a). The ISO 26000 standard
defines the issue simply as ‘social responsibility’, since this concept can be applied to all types of organizations –
not just companies. We will, however, discuss ISO 26000 mainly from a corporate perspective when considering
experiences in developing countries, so we will define the social issues and social responsibility of interest as
corporate social issues and corporate social responsibility (CSR), respectively. ISO 14001 concerns ‘the way an orga-
nization goes about its work...’ (ISO, 2007a), and therefore seeks to standardize organizational processes. ISO
26000, on the other hand, standardizes definitions of social responsibility issues in organizations. This means
that, as we show in the paper, ISO 14001 and ISO 26000 standardize processes and definitions, respectively,
rather than focusing on performance results in relation to sustainable development and CSR.
This paper takes a critical approach to the emerging trend of standardizing sustainable development in the
organizational context, based on a social constructionist view of reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1967; Burr, 2003).
We examine the social construction of the standardization rationale, contrasting it to the contextualization rationale
in relation to CSR issues, such as working conditions and human rights. Our critical approach is inspired by the
lens metaphor (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000) used in comparing the standardization and contextualization rationales,
emphasizing their different underlying logics and foci. Against the background of the standardization of sustain-
able development in terms of environmental management and experiences and the consequences of using ethical
codes of conduct in industry, we highlight the ongoing process of developing standard CSR guidelines. The ratio-
nale underlying the ISO 26000 standard is the focus, based on arguments used by involved actors. In particular,
we problematize the gap between legitimate management action and actual change in the production context in
low-income countries.
ISO standards for sustainable development, such as ISO 14001 and related standards for environmental man-
agement, as well as the upcoming ISO 26000 standard for CSR, may be seen as global codes and standards
incorporating sustainable development ideas. Alternately, the standardization idea as such can be viewed as a
powerful idea in itself, which influences the development and application of sustainable development ideas. In
the field of social responsibility management at the organizational level, we find it productive to add the latter
perspective on the ongoing ISO 26000 development process. This lets us consider the influence of the standard-
ization, or ‘one size fits all’, rationale in relation to the development of the CSR concept and practice. This paper
therefore aims to contrast some central ideas and images of sustainable development to the concept of CSR. We
2
‘Generic’ in that these standards are intended to fit all kinds of organizations, no matter the field of activity.

‘ISO-lating’ Corporate Social Responsibility in the Organizational Context 291
DOI: 10.1002/csr
argue that these ideas and images are important for political and organizational strategies as well as CSR
practice.
The trend toward standardizing organizational sustainable development performance is examined by citing
examples from research and reports on the experiences and consequences of environmental management and
earlier CSR initiatives. Observations of public seminars, arranged by the Swedish Foreign Ministry, reporting on
the ISO 26000 development process, as well as interviews and documents relating to the ISO 26000 process are
also cited in discussing expectations of the upcoming standard. Thus the rationale underlying the ISO 26000
process, as expressed by the involved actors, becomes the focus of our study.
Sustainable Development Becomes Formalized by the Standardization Rationale
Discussion of developing a new ISO standard for social responsibility guidelines started in 2002, and ISO started
to develop the upcoming ISO 26000 standard in 2004 (ISO, 2007g). Several actors have been involved in devel-
oping the standard, and the working group contains 355 experts, 35 organizations, and 72 national representatives;
the industry stakeholder group is the largest one involved in this process.3
ISO felt that organizations that wanted to gain credit both internally and from their stakeholders could uphold
their social responsibility and demonstrate their engagement in society with the help of ISO standards (ISO, 2007e,
2007f). This standard development process is led by the member organizations of Sweden and Brazil.4
The ISO
26000 standard for organizational social responsibility guidelines should, according to the latest work item pro-
posal (ISO, 2008b), accomplish the following: (1) ‘assist organizations in addressing their social responsibilities
while respecting cultural, societal, environmental and legal differences and economic development conditions; (2)
provide practical guidance related to operationalizing social responsibility, identifying and engaging with stakehold-
ers, and enhancing credibility of reports and claims made about social responsibility; (3) emphasize performance
results and improvement; (4) increase confidence and satisfaction in organizations among their customers and
other stakeholders; (5) be consistent with and not in conflict with existing documents, international treaties and
conventions and existing ISO standards; (6) not be intended to reduce government’s authority to address the social
responsibility of organizations; (7) promote common terminology in the social responsibility field; and (8) broaden
awareness of social responsibility’. ISO 26000 thus aims to help organizations organize and manage their social
responsibility, helping to improve people’s working and living conditions and fostering better opportunities for
comparing the social responsibility efforts of different organizations (Swedish Standards Institute, 2007).
Regarding standardization as a rationale, let us start by defining what a standard is. According to ISO, a standard
is ‘a document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and
repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the
optimum degree of order in a given context’ (ISO, 2007d).
Turning to the field of organizational theory, standards can be seen as recipes for what should be done by their
adopters, while the standardization process can be defined as the production of a specific kind of rules (Brunsson
and Jacobsson, 2000). In terms of the ISO 26000 development process, ISO describes the upcoming standard as
striving for a voluntary, common basis for organizational social responsibility: ‘Our work will aim to encourage
voluntary commitment to social responsibility and will lead to common guidance on concepts, definitions and
methods of evaluation’ (ISO, 2007c).
The need for sustainable development standards can be seen as arising from the complex nature of the issues,
which involve many conflicting interests. From that perspective, describing standardization as a drive to devise a
‘one-size-fits-all’ tool is not far fetched. Since it is hard to agree on what CSR should be in practice, the focus of a
standard like ISO 26000 is on what can be agreed on, i.e., the lowest common denominator. Describing the aims
and scope of ISO 26000, ISO describes the upcoming standard as the ‘golden middle way’ (ISO, 2007c, Internet):
‘There is a range of many different opinions as to the right approach ranging from strict legislation at one end to
3
Foreign Ministry of Sweden (Utrikesdepartementet/Globalt Ansvar), Seminar, 27 February 2007, Stockholm: ISO 26000 Social responsibility –
Ökad samsyn mellan intressentgrupperna – Aktuell rapport från förhandlingarna i Sydney.
4
That is, the Brazilian Association of Technical Standards and the Swedish Standards Institute.

DOI: 10.1002/csr
complete freedom at the other. We are looking for a golden middle way that promotes respect and responsibility
based on known reference documents without stifling creativity and development.’ From a critical perspective, the
standardized ‘golden middle way’ as described by ISO may perhaps not only be golden. Let us briefly review earlier
experiences of standardizing sustainable development in terms of environmental management.
Standardization: Both a Popular and a Criticized Organizational Trend
Generic environmental management standards, such as ISO 14001 EMAS and BS7750, all build on the assump-
tion that standardization as such is both possible and positive in relation to sustainable development. The same
goes for the social accountability standard, SA8000, which applies to working conditions. The above standards
build on the organization implementing a management system complying with the requirements set in the stan-
dards. The management system builds on the logic of the PDCA or Deming cycle, including the four steps of
planning, doing, checking, and acting in order to achieve continual improvement in performance. The manage-
ment system in turn refers to the structure of managing processes, which are also what are verified in third-party
certification, leading to recognition if all formal criteria are fulfilled.
Standardization seems popular as both a rationale and practice in approaching environmental and social aspects
of sustainable development in the organizational context. Alongside this popularity, other voices have criticized
the effects of standardization. Brunsson (2002) says that by following a legitimate external standard, an organiza-
tion can avoid having to make its own decisions on necessary actions. Orders and directives may also be more
easily implemented with reference to standards. Implementing a standardized system in an organization can also
be viewed as a symbolic action, according to Jacobsson (2000). Such action is primarily viewed as seeking legiti-
macy from the surrounding world rather than being the most effective tool for change, i.e., the focus is to imple-
ment ‘the right procedures and produce the right documents, rather than whether they are actually doing something
differently’ (Jacobsson, 2000, p. 45).
The above view is also supported by Ammenberg (2003), who focuses on Swedish companies implementing
environmental management systems, stating that it is fully possible to have an environmental management system
implemented and certified without attaining important environmental improvements. That is, it is fully possible
(and necessary) to set goals of one’s own choice as long as the logic of ISO 14001 can be said to have been fol-
lowed. Using ISO 14001, it is also difficult to judge whether one company is better than another in environmen-
tal performance, since ratios are just ratios: they are not contextualized and are therefore not really comparable.
On the same theme, Rikhardsson and Welford (1997) argue that environmental strategies often exist outside
the day-to-day running of a business, referring to the organizational environmental management developments
of the late 1990s. At a societal level, the ISO 14001 standard can be seen as promoting ‘business as usual’ rather
than fundamentally challenging or rethinking environmental problems. Rikhardsson and Welford (1997) explain
this in terms of the interest of business in setting the new environmental agenda by themselves, the desire to
define environmental problems as management problems solvable using environmental management systems
such as ISO 14001.5
Similarly, Power (1997) describes the development of environmental issues in the organizational context in the
1990s in terms of normalization, shifting from viewing business as the problem in relation to environmental
degradation to viewing it as part of the solution. According to Power’s analysis, this development is facilitated by
a managerial shift largely inspired by the established procedures for managing economic resources, including the
use of standardized environmental management systems. At the organizational level, sustainable development
issues become accounting and auditing issues, rather than issues entailing any actual change in regular activities.
This development focusing on management techniques and related rituals, rather than on actual outcomes in
terms of more responsible actions, in turn influences the construction of what sustainable development is actually
about. The accounting and audit rationale easily becomes the filter through which sustainability issues must pass
5
Referring to M. Hajer, Welford (1997) describes the ISO 14001 trend as part of the eco-modernization paradigm, focusing on environmen-
tal efficiency in business as usual rather than challenging the dominant business logic that created the environmental problems in the first
place. The business establishment ‘hijacks’ the environmental agenda, turning it into eco-modernization, since the alternatives would be too
frightening for them.

DOI: 10.1002/csr
to qualify as legitimate management issues. Accounting and auditing thus not only measure and evaluate perfor-
mance, but set the actual scene for what types of performance can be carried out and even examined (Power, 1997;
Tilling, 2008).
Summing up the critique, the results of environmental management systems can arguably be discussed in terms
of levels of results and a focus on activities due to both the scope and the voluntariness of management standards.
An organization’s obtaining of an ISO 14001 certificate can be interpreted as a symbolic action, indicating a quest
for legitimacy without necessary making any important changes in environmental performance.
Contextualization
Contextualizing can be seen as the contrasting rationale to standardization, the dominant trend in current
organizational sustainability work. The standardization rationales of decontextualization and voluntariness are
illustrated when ISO describes the aim of the ISO 26000 process and content: ‘Our work will aim to encourage
voluntary commitment to social responsibility and will lead to common guidance on concepts, definitions and
methods of evaluation’ (ISO, 2007c). The terms ‘voluntary’ and ‘common’, like the ‘golden middle way’ cited above,
are positive terms assuming consensus and freedom guiding CSR activities. However, it might not only be desir-
able to place the CSR work of an organization in a middle way, as indicated by ISO, since conflicts and contextual
aspects are not addressed.
Turning again to organizational theories of standardization and focusing on a contrasting picture of why there
is a need for standardization in the first place, Brunsson (2000, p. 31) explains the popularity of standards in rela-
tion to the lack of other control instruments: ‘The use of standardization is at least partly explainable by the need
for it: if other instruments of control and co-ordination are not available, standards will be in demand’.
Against that background, it could be argued that ISO 26000 developed because nothing else could be agreed
on, other than a voluntary standard for social responsibility, open to be freely filled with content of one’s choice
as long as it fulfils the guidelines of the standard. ISO 26000 aims at providing guidelines for organizational social
responsibility. It will be voluntary and is not intended for third-party certification.6
So what do the actors involved
in developing the ISO 26000 standard expect of this new standard? This will be discussed in the next section,
which presents the results of a seminar held in Stockholm in May 2005.
Actors’ Expectations of the ISO 26000 for Standardizing CSR
In Stockholm, on 24 May 2005, the Swedish Standards Institute arranged a seminar about work on the new ISO
26000 standard. At this seminar, several organizations involved in this work were represented, and they presented
their views on the upcoming standard. One common opinion was that it was important that organizations apply
only one standard: today there are several ethics standards, creating difficulties for suppliers in developing coun-
tries. The ISO standard is also seen as the most attractive due to ISO’s good reputation gained from corporate
experience of the ISO 14001 environmental standard and the ISO 9000 quality standard. As a financial investor
representative said, ‘ISO has a history and is a well-known standard; other standards are not so well known and
are difficult to understand.’ The AB Volvo representative said that it would be good to have a common CSR stan-
dard, and that ISO is well known and lends credibility to an organization. She also claimed that multinational
companies are forced to work on social issues that impinge on their brands, and that the mass media focuses on
companies that mishandle these issues.7
At the seminar, it became clear that organizations are demanding a definition of what CSR in the organizational
context is all about, and that they expect the new standard to supply such a definition. Organizations currently use
various definitions of CSR, as exemplified by Volvo receiving many questionnaires on social issues from different
organizations. The Volvo representative hoped that the ISO 26000 standard could be used in communicating
with all stakeholders, saving time in these contacts.8
The NGOs represented seemed to be content with CSR
6
Foreign Ministry of Sweden (2007) op. cit.
7
Swedish Standards Institute, SIS/TK 478, Seminar, 24 May 2005, Stockholm: ISO 26000 – Social Responsibility, Vad har man kommit
fram till hittills? Hur ser arbetet ut framöver?
8
Ibid.

DOI: 10.1002/csr
standardization as such, although they wanted their own perspectives to be included in the standard content. The
Ecpat representative stressed that an ISO standard was accorded legitimacy from all sectors of society.9
Taken
together, we can regard these sentiments as reflecting the demand side of management concepts, defining a
legitimate action in relation to CSR.
Representatives of the Swedish NGO Fair Trade Center (FTC) developed their thoughts regarding the positive
aspects of the ISO 26000 standard in a follow-up interview after the seminar, stressing the possibilities offered
by making social behavior measurable and accounting for it. Their experience was that results tend to be retained
internally and are not published in any official documents, making it difficult for stakeholders to follow up on
companies’ own monitoring of their ethical codes. At the same time, the FTC feared that CSR standardization
would not guarantee that companies would make progress. The risk of standardizing social issues could be that
the focus would be on the standardization process itself instead of on actually improving the working conditions
of the employees of suppliers in developing countries.10
The International Labour Organization (ILO), also involved in the ISO 26000 development process, argued for
a guidance standard, since it saw difficulties certifying organizations according to the standard. Many collective
agreement processes already apply in organizations and companies, processes that differ between countries. Social
responsibility is also seen by the ILO as a public responsibility including social and political processes; this distin-
guishes the ISO 26000 standardization work from other standardization work related to technical processes.11
The seminar referred to above came to circle around an agenda of legitimacy, addressed by various stakeholders
from various perspectives represented in the ISO 26000 standardization process. Some actors highlighted the
legitimacy gains accrued by society from using the ISO 26000 standard, whilst others stressed that radical changes
in working conditions in developing countries would not necessarily occur in the wake of ISO 26000. Assuming
that gaining legitimacy is the purpose and underlying agenda of the actors involved in developing ISO 26000, we
now turn to the experiences and consequences of standardizing CSR.
How do Ethical Codes of Conduct Work in Practice?
Corporate interest in ethical codes can be discussed from a contextual perspective. The idea of improving working
conditions in the production sector in developing countries seems mainly driven by stakeholders such as NGOs
and consumers in developed countries. The standardization idea that is the basis of ISO 26000 is institutionalized
in developed countries, and the rules established in the standard are expected to be followed by organizations that
implement the standard, even though the rules are voluntary. The differences between the contexts of the developed
and developing countries are highlighted in some examples below, where ethical demands from Western compa-
nies are interpreted by suppliers in developing countries as additional demands subordinated to the overall
dominant business model of profit maximization and lowest price. This makes the demands difficult for suppliers
in developing countries to handle, and they are often the business partners who must solve contradictory
demands.
The experience of companies that have worked with ethical codes for several years indicates that it is not easy
to change the circumstances of labor in developing countries. There is a discrepancy between what is called for in
ethical codes and organizational CSR policies and what is done in practice. A report from Insight Investment Ltd
and Acona Ltd (2004) notes that current supply chain management practices and the drive for ever-greater effi-
ciency exert pressure on suppliers, essentially forcing them to contravene certain ethical standards to meet buyer
requirements. Some companies may be inadvertently pursuing a buying strategy that creates tension, or in some
cases directly conflicts, with their commitments to ethical sourcing. Such pressures are often exerted on suppliers
needlessly, as they result from poor buying practices – inefficiencies, indecision, poorly designed incentives, and
a lack of trusting business relationships.
9
Ibid.
10
Fair Trade Center, Interview with two Project leaders [24 June 2005].
11
Swedish Standards Institute (2005) op. cit.

DOI: 10.1002/csr
It is not only the buying companies that decouple (Weick, 1976; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Brunsson, 2002) their
activities, but also the suppliers. A study by Egels-Zandén (2007) of the toy industry found that the Chinese sup-
pliers had consciously developed methods for deceiving the organizations that monitor their activities to determine
whether they were fulfilling the demands of buying companies. The formal system being monitored was decoupled
from the suppliers’ actual operations, which led to few areas of non-compliance with the ethical codes being
detected, though in practice there were multiple areas of non-compliance. For example, suppliers deceived moni-
toring organizations by instructing employees on what to say, offering compensation for ‘correct’ answers, forging
salary lists and timecards, hiding part of workforce, and forging employee contracts. The study found that the
buying companies, the retailers, were surprised when this was pointed out to them, and they seemed unaware of
their suppliers’ lack of compliance with their codes of conduct (Egels-Zandén, 2007).
This tendency for decoupling between what was said and what was done was also exemplified in an interview
with an experienced ethical financial investor. When visiting Western companies, he often experienced problems
finding convincing evidence of actual CSR results, especially regarding their production sites in developing coun-
tries. Instead, he was most often provided with many sustainable development and CSR policies stating the com-
panies’ aims. These issues were also rarely understood by CEOs, reflecting an ‘add on’ approach rather than CSR
being treated as integral to core business activities.12
Critical views have also been expressed by researchers, who
point out that social and environmental sustainability today tend to get measured and presented in glossy reports,
guided by financial reporting traditions and aims, not focused on qualitative social improvements. (Norman and
McDonald, 2004).
Bjurling (2004) demonstrated that Chinese workers in the toy industry do not know the ethical codes or their
legal rights, making it difficult to improve their conditions. The CSR approach has also met with criticism that its
underlying assumptions are false, since voluntary reporting does not improve performance, voluntary codes and
management systems do not actually change corporate behavior, the consumer will not drive change, and the
investment industry cannot provide the strongest incentives for CSR (Doane, 2005). Bjurling (2004) found that
some of the investigated companies that had not organized the ethical codes proved to have better working condi-
tions than those that had.
Another example is that of Levi Strauss, which started to use a supplier ethical code of conduct back in 1991.
By 1996, the company had begun developing tools for use worldwide in factory social auditing. After some time,
however, it realized that this model had inherent flaws. The cost of Levi’s annual non-financial audit is US$3.5
million, and it has proven to be ineffective when using traditional methods of checking factory compliance with
the company’s code of conduct. Levi’s is now more interested in the dialogue models pioneered by some trade
unions, and stresses that it needs the participation of workers, NGOs, other companies, unions, and governments.13
The company notes the importance of brands giving up some control in the process to workers and to enlightened
suppliers and that there is a need to collaborate with suppliers and stakeholder groups in these new approaches
to raising supply chain standards (Ethical Corporation Magazine, 2004). The Levi’s example shows that to gain
legitimacy and effectiveness in handling social issues, the purchasing company can chose another approach than
auditing, which they found ineffective. In relation to this, the ISO way of including stakeholders in the ISO 26000
development process is important, but the question remains as to how the stakeholders will be involved when the
guidelines are implemented locally in developing countries. For example, local actors often promoted different,
and sometimes conflicting, definitions of CSR and sustainable development, and tried to obstruct what they viewed
as an infusion of values from outside partners (Egels-Zandén, 2007). We can conclude from the above examples
that the good intentions embodied in ethical codes of conduct are not easy to fulfil in practice. What will then
happen with the social issues when they are standardized?
12
Banco Fonder, Interview with Head of Responsible Investing & Engagement [6 February 2007].
13
Levi’s is now trying out a participatory approach, with pilot projects and initial trials of a new worker-dialogue-based system to improve factory
conditions. In a pilot project with one supplier, the parties jointly decided that meetings with workers were needed to hear worker concerns
and give them more representation to factory management. Due to the large number of workers (500), they began to hold monthly meetings
involving management, worker-elected representatives, and some 50 randomly selected workers.

DOI: 10.1002/csr
Analysis: The Generic Form, Supposed to Fit all Organizations, Contexts, and Issues
‘I would like to buy four liters of “medusin”’, Pippi told the pharmacist.
‘What sort of medicine?’ the pharmacist asked impatiently.
‘It would be best if it helped against disease,’ Pippi said.
‘What sort of disease?’ the pharmacist responded.
‘Well, I think I would like one that is for whooping-cough, chafed feet, stomach pain, rubella, and if you have
caught a pea up your nose and such. It would also be good if you could polish furniture with it. A really proper
“medusin” it should be.’
(Lindgren, 1992 (1946) p. 30, our translation).
The above quotation from Pippi Longstocking illustrates how tempting it is to look for just one ‘medusin’ – to use
Pippi’s own word – to solve all kinds of different problems at the same time. That is, an ‘all-in-one solution’, so
to speak. We argue that it is not all that far fetched to see the same rationale as Pippi’s underlying the emerging
trend to standardizing organizational sustainable activities.
Standardizing methods, for example, standardizing environmental management and social responsibility, as is
done in ISO 14001 and ISO 26000, can be compared to Pippi Longstocking’s ‘medusin’, helping one regardless
of the problem, or to be more correct, for all possible purposes. ISO labels the ISO 9000 (on quality) and 14000-
series standards, alike ISO 26000, as generic management standards, meaning that ‘the same standards can be
applied to any organization, large or small, whatever its product – including whether its “product” is actually a
service – in any sector of activity, and whether it is a business enterprise, a public administration, or a government
department’ (ISO, 2007b). From a critical perspective, this ‘one management standard fits all organizations and
contexts’ approach can be questioned, not only for its assumptions on organizational rationality but also for being
‘slippery’ and more concerned with symbolic value than actual results.
Legitimacy, Decoupling, and the Imaginary Results of Standards
Implementing management standards seems to be a process that places the standard itself in the spotlight, as a
legitimizing symbol of responsible organizational action. As Power (1997) states regarding environmental manage-
ment systems and auditing, the risk is that standards make abstraction from complex environments possible and
the verifiable assertion can be shifted away from these complexities.
At the same time, the actual performance or doing is not questioned; in fact, evidence of practices not working
could be overlooked since compliance with standard definitions and demands is the focus (Tilling, 2008). It is
relevant to see the experiences cited earlier of inadequate application in companies paying lip service to CSR codes
rather than actually changing things for the better. This could in turn be interpreted in the theoretic frame of
decoupling and hypocrisy (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Brunsson, 2002) as a logical consequence of organizations’
conflicting agendas (social responsibility versus profit) and quest for legitimacy. Against that background, ISO
26000 can come to serve as a decoupling tool rather than a reforming force for social responsibility. It could also
be argued, according to the view that the quest for legitimacy is a driving force, that ISO only includes NGOs and
labor organizations in order to reach formal consensus in the ISO 26000 standard development process. At the
same time, these organizations and their interests become ‘hijacked’ when standardized. The FTC, however, said
that even though it was positive regarding the focus on its issues, it would leave the cooperation if unsatisfied with
the results.14
14
Fair Trade Center, Interview with two Project leaders [24 June 2005].

DOI: 10.1002/csr
Standardization and the Complexity of CSR Issues
As expressed by the Volvo representative in the earlier-cited ISO 26000 seminar, there is a need to define and
find an appropriate approach to CSR because of its complexity and many interpretations. This is also the point
made by ISO, as mentioned above, when espousing the benefits of generic standards. In contrast, we would like
to highlight the possible negative consequences of standardized ways of acting in relation to environmental and
social issues in organizations. As Furusten (1995, p. 164f) argues regarding the influence of what he calls ‘the
popular management discourse’, local organizational discourses and language will be greatly influenced by what
is articulated in the popular management discourse. The upcoming ISO 26000 standard, like ISO 14001, can be
seen as an expression of such a popular management discourse, influencing the language and interpretation of
the questions it addresses (Tilling, 2008). From a social constructionist point of view, the talk and actions linked
to the work on management standards are constructs of the concepts of environmental and social responsibility.15
The appropriateness and legitimacy aspect of possible interpretations of environmental and social performance
– i.e., what is possible and impossible to say and do – is now being institutionalized by the generic management
approach. As we see it, management standards, generic though they may seem, come with specific assumptions
that are more or less explicitly articulated but not addressed or problematized. At the same time as the standard-
ized management approach is becoming institutionalized, context-specific, cultural-difference, political, and
power-related issues are pushed out of the spotlight (Tilling, 2008). It is reasonable to argue that social and envi-
ronmental sustainable development issues become apolitical at the same time as they become generic and man-
ageable by standards. A risk, rarely discussed, in what the standardization of CSR actually does to promote
sustainability can be identified: in defining sustainable development as inter-organizational, CSR standardization
ignores the existence of socially and politically contested issues that challenge the structures of today’s society.
This should be especially highlighted in the production context of low-income countries, where it is closely
connected with complexity in terms of, for example, poor working conditions, weak legislative compliance, and
corruption. Earlier experiences reveal the decoupling tendency of ethical codes, which, though a legitimate way
to acknowledge CSR at the organizational management level, still do not necessarily change actual conditions or
performance in the production context.
Conclusions
What then does the upcoming ISO 26000 standard seek to address? The popularity of sustainable development
standardization could also be problematized based on another contextual rationale, overlooked in the ISO 26000
attempt to standardize CSR based on consensus. An applicable perspective would be that of what will actually be
changed in organizational practice and in society by ISO 26000, beyond the immediate purpose of providing
‘legitimate’ proof of CSR compliance.
This should also be seen in relation to the fact that standards spread very rapidly compared with norms, which
develop by socialization processes, over long timeframes, and require particular social conditions to emerge at all
(Brunsson and Jacobsson, 2000). Depending on whether we view socially responsible action as a fixed state, able
to be standardized, or as contextually dependent, we will regard CSR standardization quite differently. From a
developing country perspective, CSR contextualization indicates that production conditions are strongly influenced
by profit maximization, often in contradiction to the contents of CSR policies and ethical codes of conduct. Whilst
social norms are contextually dependent, the ISO 26000 standard is generic and will consist of voluntary guide-
lines. It will not necessarily challenge the business logic of profit maximization, which is what necessitated CSR
initiatives in the first place.
Returning to the play on words in the title of this paper – ‘ISO-lating’ corporate social responsibility – the isola-
tion can be seen in the tendency, by standardizing CSR, to define issues of social responsibility regardless of their
specific organizational or cultural contexts. However, ISO 26000 could, like codes of conduct, arguably be justified
15
Our reasoning here is based on Berger and Luckmann’s theory of externalization, objectification, and internalization, institutionalizing how
we perceive and perform in society (adapted from Wenneberg, 2001, p. 70ff).

DOI: 10.1002/csr
in a global context, in order to have at least some common basic ‘rules of the game of business’, as called for by
former UN Secretary General Kofﬁ Annan. The ISO 26000 development process, aiming to deﬁne guidelines for
what constitutes CSR and how it should be understood at the organizational level, is built on consensus logic. In
contrast, it could be argued that CSR is a construct that must be open to debate if it is to develop constructively
in different societal contexts. An interesting question is whether ISO 26000 will bring about any change for people
working under poor conditions in low-income countries, or whether it simply will grant companies in the high-
income, Western world greater legitimacy and self-satisfaction. Remembering the words of Pippi, one wonders
whether the upcoming ISO 26000 standard will truly be for curing, or just perhaps for making organizations feel
cured.
References
Alvesson M, Deetz S. 2000. Kritisk samhällsvetenskaplig metod. Studentlitteratur: Lund: Sweden.
Ammenberg J. 2003. Do standardised environmental management systems lead to reduced environmental impacts? Linköping University Studies in
Science and Engineering, Dissertation No. 831. Environmental Technology and Management, Linköping University: Sweden.
Berger PL, Luckmann T. 1967. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books: New York.
Bjurling K. 2004. Billig, snabb och lydig – en rapport om kinesiska leksaksarbetare. Fair Trade Center: Stockholm.
Brunsson N. 2000. Organizations, markets and standardization. In A World of Standards, Brunsson N, Jacobsson B (eds). Oxford University
Press: Oxford/New York; 21–39.
Brunsson N. 2002. The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations, 2nd ed. Copenhagen Business School Press:
Copenhagen.
Brunsson N, Jacobsson B. 2000. The contemporary expansion of standardization. In A World of Standards, Brunsson N, Jacobsson B (eds).
Oxford University Press: Oxford/New York; 1–17.
Burr V. 2003. Social constructionism, 2nd ed. Routledge: London/New York.
Doane D. 2005. Beyond corporate social responsibility: minnows, mammoths and markets. Futures 37(2–3): 215–229.
Egels-Zandén N. 2007. Suppliers compliance with MNCs’ codes of conduct: behind the scenes at Chinese toy suppliers, Journal of Business
Ethics 75(1): 45–62.
Ethical Corporation Magazine. 2004. Levi Strauss and participatory approaches to social auditing challenges, 9 March, 2004. www.EthicalCorp.
com [9 March 2004].
Furusten S. 1995. The managerial discourse: A study of the creation and diffusion of popular management knowledge. Department of Business
Studies, Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden.
Insight Investment Management Ltd and Acona Ltd. 2004. Buying your way into trouble? The challenge of responsible supply chain management:
www.insightinvestment.com/documents/responsibility/ir_bulletin_winter2004.pdf [30 May 2005].
ISO. 2007a. ‘ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 – in brief’: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000–14000/understand/inbrief.html [12 February 2007].
ISO. 2007b. ‘The magical demystifying tour of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000’: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000–14000/understand/basics/
general/basics_1.html [10 February 2007].
ISO. 2007c. ‘Social responsibility’: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/830949/3934883/3935096/home.html?nodeid=445
1259&vernum=0 [10 February 2007].
ISO. 2007d. ‘Social responsibility FAQ’: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/830949/3934883/3935096/07_gen_info/faq.
html [12 February 2007].
ISO. 2007e. ‘About ISO SR’: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/830949/3934883/3935096/07_gen_info/about.html
[5 February 2007].
ISO. 2007f. ‘About the standard’: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/830949/3934883/3935096/07_gen_info/aboutStd.
html. [5 February 2007].
ISO. 2007g. ‘Background’: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/830949/3934883/3935096/07_gen_info/backg.html.
[5 February 2007].
ISO. 2008a. ‘Social responsibility’: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/830949/3934883/3935096/home. [22 December
2008].
ISO. 2008b. ‘About the standard’: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/830949/3934883/3935096/07_ge...[22 December
2008].
ISO World. 2007. http://www.ecology.or.jp/isoworld/english/analy14k.htm [10 February 2007].
Jacobsson B. 2000. Standardization and expert knowledge. In A World of Standards, Brunsson N, Jacobsson B (eds). Oxford University Press:
Oxford/New York; 40–49.
Lindgren A. 1992/1946. Pippi Långstrump går ombord. Rabén och Sjögren: Stockholm.
Meyer JW, Rowan B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–
363.
Norman W, McDonald C. 2004. Getting to the bottom of ‘triple bottom line’. Business Ethics Quarterly 14(2): 243–262.

DOI: 10.1002/csr
Power M. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of veriﬁcation. Oxford University Press: Oxford/New York.
Rikhardsson P, Welford R. 1997. Clouding the crisis: the construction of corporate environmental management. In Hijacking environmentalism:
Corporate response to sustainable development, Welford R (ed.). Earthscan: London; 40–62.
Social Accountability International. 2008. Social Accountability 8000. Social Accountability International: New York.
Swedish Standards Institute (SIS). 2007. Socialt ansvarstagande – SIS/TK 478 A’: http://www.sis.se/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabname=%40Pro
jekt&PROJID=1478 [12 February 2007].
Tilling K. 2006. When environmental issues meet the logic of business and quality management: a study of the environmental management
system project in Swedish government agencies. In Science for sustainable development: Starting points and critical reﬂections, Frostell B
(ed.). Intellecta Docusys: Uppsala, Sweden; 256–266.
Tilling K. 2008. Att styra hållbar utveckling. Miljöledning och dess översättningar i statsförvaltningen. Mälardalen University Press: Västerås,
Sweden.
Weick K. 1976. Educational organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 1–19.
Welford R. 1997. Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development. Earthscan: London.
Wenneberg SB. 2001. Socialkonstruktivism: positioner, problem och perspektiv. Liber Ekonomi: Malmö, Sweden.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press: Oxford/New York.

ISO 26000 CSR Guidelines Standardization Risks Isolating Complex Issues

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ISO 26000 CSR Guidelines Standardization Risks Isolating Complex Issues

Similar to ISO 26000 CSR Guidelines Standardization Risks Isolating Complex Issues (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ISO 26000 CSR Guidelines Standardization Risks Isolating Complex Issues