Systematic review meeting

Systematic review meeting

admin 2 comments
ISO 26000

PPO Secretariat met with the stakeholder advisory group on the topic “What do we recommend ISO to do based on the results of the systematic review 2017?”

The ISO member countries voted 11 CONFIRM (keep as it is) and 12 REVISE (update/change) with an additional 7 abstentions which are noted.
52 % in favour of revision is indeed a single majority, but a weak indication. Thus, the content of the technical comments sent together with the votes must be carefully analyzed and discussed before PPO Secretariat sends its recommendation to ISO TMB (who decides the next steps).

A preliminary interpretation of the stakeholder meeting advice taking the comments from the ISO member bodies:

  • we should not recommend only a minor revision (editorial, minor update)
  • we should not recommend only a partial revision (an amendment)
  • we should recommend a revision with limitations based on the comments

Some of the technical comments affecting such limitations that were discussed:

  • include updates made in key international instruments (NOTE: there are 170+ references in the bibliograph such as the ILO Conventions, UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, OECD Guidelines
  • include updates made in relevant ISO standards, e.g. ISO 20400 Sustainable Procurement and ISO 37001 Anti-bribery management system
  • include Agenda 2030 and the SGDs

In addition, the “New Work Item Proposal” that set out the scope of ISO 26000 in 2005 is still valid. This means that much of the tone, scope, structure is expected to be similar in a future revised version.

PPO Secretariat is now developing a statement capturing the boundaries of a proposed revision. If TMB, after consulting with ISO 26000 PPO and others, finds that ISO 26000 should be revised, the international work is likely to start at the end of 2017 or beginning 2018.

2 Comments

Mitchell L Gold

July 16, 2017 at 11:02 pm

Why is there no discussion on why the UNGC did not fulfill it’s commitment to promote the ISO26000 through its networks. Blindly accepting their SDG’s also challenges the credibility of the ISO Group that has been so accepting of the obstructive nature of all UN agencies.
Do we just ignore their past role? Or continue accepting UN mediocrity.

 Reply

admin

July 17, 2017 at 7:17 am

Hi Mitchell. ISO is not a political body that decides which international bodies are credible or not. Instead , ISO members’ experts decide in consensus what are relevant standards for companies/organizations to voluntarily use in their operations. Such nominated experts found several documents from UN, ILO, OECD, ISO, etcetera to be the best references for to build ISO26000. You seem to have a list of better references so please engage in the practical standardization and speak for your case. That would be more constructive than sending angry comments accusing people of being blind, ignoring, non-credible. You have sent emails to me before and they have all been angry and accusational. Therefore: this was the last time I reply. / Staffan

 Reply

Leave a Reply

16 − one =