Orwellian ISO 26000 Guidance On Social Responsibility

To Standardize Social Responsibility Worldwide?

Since when is the International Standards Organization into such politically loaded standardization? This has decidedly an Orwellian taste. What kind of brainwashing is this? What are they trying to dictate?

Here is an excerpt from the official Abstract of this ISO 26000 standard released in November 2010 (emphasis added):

“ISO 26000:2010 provides guidance to all types of organizations, regardless of their size or location, on:

 • concepts, terms and definitions related to social responsibility;

 • the background, trends and characteristics of social responsibility;

 • principles and practices relating to social responsibility;

 • the core subjects and issues of social responsibility;

 • integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible behaviour throughout the organization and, through its policies and practices, within its sphere of influence;”

To read this ISO 26000 standard you have to pay CHF 196.00 (Swiss francs).

Social Responsibility Equals Sustainable Development?

What are they smoking at the ISO?

According to the Abstract of this ISO 26000 standard it “… is intended to assist organizations in contributing to sustainable development. It is intended to encourage them to go beyond legal compliance, recognizing that compliance with law is a fundamental duty of any organization and an essential part of their social responsibility.” (emphasis added).

To stress the harmlessness of this ISO 26000 standard, the Abstract goes on to say “ISO 26000:2010 is not a management system standard. It is not intended or appropriate for certification purposes or regulatory or contractual use.” So what is this standard all about?

I have in a separate blog written a scathing critique of this “Flawed Ideology Of Sustainable Development”.

Further Reading

I have to give credit to Jon Entine who in a well-written article dated 7/11/2012 for the AEI (American Enterprise Institute) alerted me to this Orwellian ISO 26000 standard. The article is titled “ISO 26000: Sustainability as standard?”

Some excerpts from his article (emphasis added):

·         “… Various aspects are providing blueprints for left-leaning European countries, empowering advocacy groups and inspiring activist judicial systems to embrace these “universally agreed upon” principles when conflicts involving corporations come to a head. …”

·         “… The United States and India, which supported early drafts of ISO 26000, ultimately voted, along with three other countries, against the final version. Critics believe it contains problematic proclamations about contested notions of environmental impacts and employee and consumer rights, but no endorsement of shareholder rights. …”

·         “… Much of the concern revolves around ISO 26000’s embrace of the “precautionary principle” to resolve environmental conflicts. Although that conforms to EU practices, it’s rejected by the US, Japan and other countries, …”

·         “…Many industry leaders, particularly in the US, believe these kind of standards encourage protectionism ahead of innovation, ..”

One is not surprised to learn that the so called precautionary principle was a bone of contention. Further, it is no surprise to find this principle jointly with social responsibility and sustainable development.

In a separate blog I have critiqued the precautionary principle in “The Precautionary Principle” as a modern superstition and a handy tool for ever power hungry politicians.