You are on page 1of 23

ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document

4 May 2010 – Page 1(23)

Handled by email:
Jonathon Hanks
jon@incite.co.za

Copenhagen Discussion Document


Copenhagen Key Topics (CKTs) – 4 May 2010
This document – compiled by the Integrated Drafting Task Force – presents the Copenhagen Key Topics (CKTs) that have been identified following a review by
the IDTF of all the written comments on the DIS (as contained in ISO/TMB/WG SR N176). The proposed way forward on each of these Key Topics will be
presented for approval in an opening plenary meeting of all the Clause Specific Meetings (CSMs). If necessary, further discussion on particular CKTs will be
undertaken during one of the following Clause Specific Meetings (CSMs) as specified in the Table below.
 CSM 1 – Foreword, Introduction, Clauses 0-4
 CSM 2 – Overarching Clause 6, Organizational Governance, Fair Operating Practices, Consumer Issues and The Environment
 CSM 3 – Human Rights, Labour Practices and Community Involvement and Development
 CSM 4 – Clause 5, Clause 7, Annex and Bibliography

The process used by the IDTF in identifying these Copenhagen Key Topics is outlined in the Report of the IDTF Cape Town Meeting (IDTF_N107). The table in
this Discussion Document identifies the underlying question/s pertaining to each CKT, provides a brief summary of some of the main comments and suggestions
by experts relating to that CKT, and proposes a way forward for addressing the CKT. The summary of main comments (column two) is intended to assist those
experts who have not been able to fully analyse the consolidated comments on ISO 26000. The summary is not intended to replace the full set of comments, but
rather provides a synthesis of some of the main comments relating to the identified Topic.
On the basis of a review of the written comments it is suggested that the following Key Topics need to be considered, in addition to the numerous clause-specific
drafting suggestions that will be handled in the CSMs through consideration of the accompanying bracketed version of ISO 26000 (IDTF_N112):
1. Accessibility and length 7. Precautionary approach 13. Stakeholder / engagement / interests
2. Applicability 8. Common but differentiated responsibilities 14. Due diligence
3. International Guidance Standard 9. Sexual orientation 15. Philanthropy / social investment
4. Annex / certifiable standards 10. Provision for animal welfare
5. WTO / trade barrier issue 11. Government / state
6. International norms 12. Sphere of influence

This document should be read in conjunction with IDTF_N112, which contains suggested revisions to the DIS in bracketed text.

NOTE: all lines numbers below refer to the line numbering in ISO 26000 DIS (ISO/TMB/WG SR N172).

Page 1
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 2(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)

Accepted as presented
1. Accessibility and length
What can be done to improve Some comments suggest that the document is too complex and difficult to The following is proposed as the way forward:
the accessibility of the read, and that its sheer length will reduce the likelihood that organizations of It is recognised that in seeking to find a balance between providing
document and reduce its any size will be able to understand or use much of what is covered without comprehensive coverage of social responsibility issues, and ensuring
length without compromising professional assistance. Particular concern is expressed regarding the conciseness, the WGSR has chosen to focus primarily on providing
the agreement that has been implications that this will have on the use of the Standard by SMOs. comprehensive guidance. There is seen to be a significant challenge
reached on the existing Some have suggested that an Executive Summary be developed. in substantially shortening the document without compromising the
substantive content of the agreement that has been reached on the existing substance of the
Various comments highlight the need to avoid instances of unnecessary
document? document. Efforts are being taken to address concerns relating to
duplication and to ensure greater consistency in the use of terms and
phrases throughout the Standard. accessibility and length without undermining this existing support.
With this in mind, the following way forward is proposed:
 Edits have been made throughout the text aimed at addressing
specific concerns regarding the length and/or complexity of particular
sections. These changes are identified in the revised version of ISO
26000 (IDTF N112) and will be considered in the various CSMs.
 Recognising the concern that a formal Executive Summary may be
seen by some as a sufficient substitute for the full document, and
noting the significant challenges associated with agreeing the
substance of such a summary, it is proposed that instead of
producing an Executive Summary further guidance be provided
within the Standard on how to use the document. Text has been
proposed (bracketed in IDTF N112) to accompany Box Figure 1, for
consideration in CSM1.
 Instances of duplication have been identified in the revision version
(IDTF N112); proposed deletion of text will be considered in CSMs.
 A consistency check has been undertaken of the document; specific
suggestions for ensuring greater consistency have been
incorporated in IDTF N112 for consideration by CSMs.

Accepted as presented, details to be discussed in CSM1 and


2. Applicability
CSM4
How to ensure that this Various comments suggest that the text fails to meet its stated intent to The following is proposed as the way forward:
Standard provides guidance provide guidance “to all types of organizations, regardless of their size or As a general principle, it is suggested that there is sufficient
that is applicable to all types of location". Several parties raise the concern that much of the text seems to be agreement that the standard is seen to provide guidance that is
organization, regardless of directed primarily at industry organizations, specifically multinational applicable to all organizations and that significant changes to the

Page 2
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 3(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
their size or location? companies, and that it is particularly unsuitable for small organizations. Some substantive guidance provided in existing text would undermine the
comments propose editing the scope to “remove the unjustified claim” that it existing support for the document. Nevertheless there is seen to be
provides guidance to all types of organizations, regardless of their size or scope for further improvements to the document.
location. Others suggest that terminology that is business oriented should be With this in mind, the following way forward is proposed:
removed to make the text more neutral. It has also been proposed that clarity  Various specific examples of text that some deem is too “business-
be provided that this guidance is meant for larger organizations and that oriented” have been bracketed in the revised version of ISO 26000
SMO’s may use it only as they feel fit. Some also suggest that the concept of (IDTF N112) for consideration in relevant CSMs.
organization is not clearly defined.
 The opening statement in the Scope should be retained as it is
deemed to be a true and accurate statement; it is also one that has
been considered in numerous previous WGSR meetings and is seen
to reflect an appropriate agreed compromise on the way forward.
 Further clarity is provided regarding the definition of organization,
through a revision to Note 1 of that definition (as outlined in CKT 11
below).

If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1

- Further issues: guidance for organizations in areas under


occupation, to be treated in CSM Human Rights, if necessary

- Respect for differences: no comment provided, text that


addresses the issue is already included in the bracketed
text, to be addressed in CSM1

Generally accepted with modifications, further details to be


3. International Guidance
discussed in CSM1.
Standard
How do we make it clear that Some comments suggest that while the use of the term "international The following is proposed as the way forward:
this international Standard is a Standard" may conform to normal ISO usage, it is misleading to use the term
guidance Standard, while in relation to this document; the term "guidance" or "document" is seen to be Insert in Introduction after DIS line 167:
conforming to ISO more appropriate and would help to address potential misunderstandings. This International Standard provides guidance to users and is
nomenclature? The counter argument is that this document, within ISO terminology, is an not intended or appropriate for certification purposes. Any offer
International Standard, and such a description has been used on previous to certify, or claims to be certified to ISO 26000 would be a
occasions to describe other guidance standards. misrepresentation of the intent and purpose of this
International Standard.

Insert into Box 1 after DIS line 185:


An International Standard providing guidance does not contain

Page 3
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 4(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
requirements but may contain recommendations.
In terms of ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 a recommendation is
defined as an: “expression in the content of a document
conveying that among several possibilities one is
recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or
excluding others, or that a certain course of action is preferred
but not necessarily required, or that (in the negative form) a
certain possibility or course of action is deprecated but not
prohibited.”
Note: An International Standard does not in itself impose any
obligation upon anyone to follow it. However, such an
obligation may be imposed, for example, by legislation or by a
contract. In order to be able to claim compliance with a
document, the user needs to be able to identify the
requirements he/she is obliged to satisfy.
Therefore, any claim to be certified to ISO 26000 would be a
misrepresentation of the intent and purpose of this
International Standard.

If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1

- Indian proposal to refine introduction text generally


accepted

- Proposal to delete note and last sentence of PWF in Box


1 accepted

- Proposal to add clarification what an (international)


standard is, will be discussed in CSM1
Note: Please see also IDTF N095, N095-A1, N095-A2, N099, N100 and Accepted as presented
4. Annex / certifiable
N103. NOTE: Sustained opposition by India, and check what the ISO
standards
Code of Ethics says
(opposition though not sustained by China and Oman)

4.1 Should there be a web- Some argue that a web-based Annex would have several advantages over a The following is proposed as the way forward:
based annex that replaces (or printed version of the Annex, suggesting for example that it would: allow Although there are some recognised advantages of a “web-based
complements) Annex A? inclusion of a broader range of initiatives and tools; facilitate more precise Annex” there are also some concerns: it requires a robust and

Page 4
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 5(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
searching; reduce the overall length of ISO26000; and enable it to be representative governance system within the WGSR timeframe and
updated. Some feel that this should replace the printed Annex, others have mandate; there are significant challenges in producing a feasible
suggested that it should complement the printed document. Others argue solution for consideration at Copenhagen meeting; and it may be seen
that although a web-based annex would technically be easy to update, the to undermine the intention that the Annex be simply a non-exhaustive
problem would be the governance of its updates, since the WG will not be list of initiatives and tools. Removing the Annex entirely from the
active after ISO26000 is published. printed version of the document would make it less accessible to
certain parties, and is seen to be contrary to the carefully negotiated
compromise that was reached earlier on this issue.
The proposed way forward, thus, is to keep Annex A as part of the
printed document, and not to create a separate web-based version.

4.2 How does one ensure that Some argue that because Annex A makes reference to certifiable standards, The following is proposed as the way forward:
inclusion within the Annex of this suggests that ISO has implicitly endorsed these standards and may also The WG has already agreed that not mentioning any VITs would be
certifiable initiatives is not suggest that certification against these standards may be a requirement in misleading to the users, as they are widely used by organizations in
interpreted as being an terms of ISO 26000; this is further seen to raise potential WTO/TBT addressing their social responsibility. The WG has also agreed that
endorsement by ISO of those concerns. Some have also suggested that “by being certified under some the simple fact of mentioning certifiable VITs is not and should not be
initiatives and as being a voluntary initiatives and tools (VITs) mentioned in the Annex someone could taken as an endorsement or recommendation for their use.
requirement to be socially claim to be certified under ISO 26000”. Various comments express concern
responsible? that the existing disclaimer language and clarification on these topics is not The proposed way forward on this issue is to include in IDTF N112
enough to remedy their concerns. However, very few improvements in the (as bracketed text for consideration in CSM4) the suggestions by
disclaimer language are provided. Comments on this issue predominantly experts to improve the disclaimer and clarification language. To now
call for deletion of the whole Annex A, for deletion of all certifiable VITs or for change the inclusion criteria and/or delete the Annex, without strong
deletion of all VITs except those categorized as “Intergovernmental and unavoidable new reasons (which have not been provided) would
Initiatives”. decrease the existing level of consensus.
4.3 – Should reference to Some comments argue that Box 1 (lines 187–191) suggests that references The following is proposed as the way forward:
Annex A be permitted in the to Annex A in the body text of the Standard are not allowed, and yet such As noted earlier, the WGSR has agreed that mentioning certification,
body of the text? references have been made (such as in Box 1 itself and in 6.5.5.2.1, 6.5.6.2 verification and any other methodologies does not automatically imply
and 7.8, and Boxes 15 and 16). Some argue further that by mentioning an endorsement by ISO 26000 of such practices, nor does it suggest
certification and verification and by referencing the existence of VITs, ISO that this is a precondition for being socially responsible. The existing
26000 is conveying the message that those are essential practices of a language in the document is very clear on this issue. Similarly, there
social responsible organization. is no prohibition on mentioning Annex A in the body of the text, as
long as this is adequately framed.
The proposed way forward on this issue is to retain reference in the
text to certification or verification, as well as the existing references to
the Annex. Some of the suggestions by experts regarding the use of
certification and verification have been included in IDTF N112 (as
bracketed text for consideration in CSM4) with the aim of improving
clarity and balance in the guidance provided (while not deleting the
references). Bracketed provision has also been made in IDTF N112 to

Page 5
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 6(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
a proposal to amend lines 187-191 to avoid confusion.
4.4 – Should the text in Box 16 While not disagreeing with the purpose and core message of Box 16, some The following is proposed as the way forward:
be edited to avoid any suggest that the wording in this box is convoluted, has not yet been edited for The current clarifying language adopted in this specific box is a result
negative tone and / or the use readability, is too negative, and is not compatible with the language used in of the discussion held in the informal discussion group on Annex A
of convoluted language? the rest of the Standard. Yet, no alternative text was provided to address this and in the IDTF after the Quebec meeting. This text seeks to address
concern. some of the principal concerns raised by those who are
uncomfortable with the mention of certifiable standards and VITs both
in the main text and in Annex A. The proposed way forward is to keep
existing text, as it is the result of careful compromise, and has not
been objected to by almost all of the parties.

4.5 – What can be done to Some comments argue that none of the information in Annex A has been The following is proposed as the way forward:
address the suggested checked for accuracy, and therefore propose that either the information must Regarding these process-related concerns it is important to note the
concern that the process of be verified or the Annex should be removed from the Standard. The following issues:
identifying the listed voluntary assumption that checking for accuracy has not been performed comes from
initiatives and tools (VITs) the statement at the top of Annex A that "the ISO 26000 drafters have not  the template for submitting VITs by experts has been available to all
wasn’t sufficiently accurate or independently verified the information provided in this table". It is also argued experts since shortly after the Santiago WGSR meeting;
transparent, and that it didn’t that Annex A was not developed in an open and transparent manner. Finally,  all VITs have been properly submitted through the appropriate
provide sufficient time for there are concerns that the list includes some local or national initiatives, template, and open to review and comment by WGSR experts as
experts to assess the accuracy what would be in contradiction with the inclusion criteria established. comments on the CD and the DIS
of the information provided?  all basic information on VITs included in Annex A has been checked
at a high level by IDTF members.
The proposed way forward is to include in IDTF N112 (as bracketed
text for consideration in CSM4) alternative disclaimer language at the
top of the Table in Annex A. The aim of this text is to avoid further
confusion on this issue, while making the necessary clarification for
users. Comments proposing inclusion or exclusion of particular VITs,
as well as edits to the information on VITs, shall also be included in
IDTF 112 as bracketed text for consideration by CSM4.

4.6 – Should changes be Various comments were made regarding the structure and layout of the The question on the presentation of information in Annex A has been
made to the structure of VITs, Annex including that: the VITs be re-organized and/or presented with carefully and deeply discussed since the WGSR meeting in Vienna.
the criteria for selection and/or different information; “tools” and “initiatives” be listed separately; the Various alternatives have been tested, either at IDTF or at the WGSR
the nature of information that organization of information be changed for better readability. One comment meeting and ad hoc/small/informal groups. The structure/design
is provided? suggests that the categorization of "intergovernmental initiatives" should be presented in the DIS is the latest version of such process, and has
more strictly applied, so as to include under "Intergovernmental Initiatives" received very little criticism from the WGSR members, showing that
those that were "developed and launched" by such bodies. most of them are satisfied with the current solution. Recognizing the
broad support for the current text, the proposed way forward is to
retain the existing structure. Minor amendments have been bracketed

Page 6
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 7(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
for consideration in CSM4.

4.7 – Is there a need to further Some comments state that further clarity is needed to highlight that the The following is proposed as the way forward
clarify the role of Bibliography Bibliography is “more important” than the Annex, for instance by placing it
Integrate the elements contained in the following text within Box 1 and
and its relative importance as before the Annex or by providing an introduction that explains its purpose
and importance. There is a concern that the Bibliography (unlike the Annex) in the Introduction to the Annex (in the manner as shown in
compared with Annex A? IDTF_N112):
is not sufficiently presented as a valuable source of further practical guidance
The Bibliography, which is an integral part of this International
Standard, consists of references to international instruments
that are considered authoritative sources for identifying the
expectations concerning what constitutes socially responsible
behaviour. These instruments may contain additional useful
guidance and information; ISO 26000 users are encouraged to
consult them to better understand and implement social
responsibility.
This multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM4
Deferred to CSM1
5. WTO / trade barrier issue
What language should be Various comments express the concern that the document has the potential The following is proposed as the way forward:
added to make it clearer that, to create non-tariff barriers. The proposed way forward is to retain the existing text, as this reflects
in accordance with the NWIP, The IDTF believes that the existing text on the relationship between the ISO the outcome of a carefully negotiated compromise.
this Standard should “facilitate 26000 Standard and the World Trade Organization is sufficient to allay this
trade liberalization and remove PWF was changed on short notice! (see text in bracketed text)
concern, and reflects an appropriate compromise on this issue.
trade barriers”? New text proposal (from India) to be further discussed in CSM1.

If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1


Accepted as presented
6. International norms
This is an issue on which Some argue that the concept of international norms could lead to conflicts The following is proposed as the way forward:
carefully negotiated agreement with local laws and norms, and that the latter should serve as the primary The proposed way forward is to retain the existing reference to
was reached in Chile and basis of behaviour. The existing text effectively holds that there exist certain international norms. Some proposed textual changes, that seek to add
Canada, but on which some international norms that represent a basic standard of socially responsible clarity to certain issues without undermining the existing compromise,
experts have continued to behaviour. The proposed way forward is that this concept of international have been included in IDTF N112, as bracketed text for consideration
express reservations. Is there norms be retained. Without undermining the existing agreement on this in CSM14.
scope for addressing some of concept, there is seen to be room for further improvement to the text. Some
these reservations, without suggestions have been bracketed in the revised text. This multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1
otherwise affecting the nature
of the compromise that was

Page 7
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 8(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
earlier achieved on this issue?
Deferred to CSM2
7. Precautionary approach
Recognising the previous Numerous comments made reference to the inconsistency between the The following is proposed as the way forward:
compromises reached on this references to the precautionary approach in the environment and consumer The proposed way forward is to revise the reference to the
issue, how does one ensure clauses; some also emphasised the need to ensure closer correlation with precautionary approach in both 6.5 and 6.7 to read as follows:
consistency in the references the text provided in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration.
to the precautionary approach “This is drawn from the Rio Declaration on Environment and
in the consumer and Development [119] and subsequent declarations and
environment clauses? agreements[109][131][94], which advance the concept that where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the
environment or human health, lack of full scientific certainty
should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation or damage to
human health.”
- Canada: Deletion of note 94 to Cartagena protocol OR
additional sentence: precautionary action should be based on
sound scientific evidence OR remove human health
- Consumer proposal to show that cost-effective relates to
society, CSM2 should further discuss
- Way forward: seek to obtain better text in CSM2

If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM2

Original way forward rejected, no changes to the text


8. Common but
differentiated (Opposition from China and India, however not sustained)
responsibilities
Should provision be made in Some comments call for provision in the Standard for the principle of The following is proposed as the way forward:
the document for the principle "common but differentiated responsibility" noting that this principle is included Recognizing the general acceptance of this principle in multi-lateral
of “common but differentiated in various intergovernmental agreements such as the Rio Declaration on environmental agreements, it is proposed that specific provision be
responsibility”? Environment and Development, the Kyoto Protocol of the UN Framework made for this issue in 6.5. However, as this principle explicitly
Convention on Climate Change, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent addresses the difference between developed and developing
Organic Pollutants. Some also suggest that this issue is seen to be relevant countries – and thus applies specifically and only between states – it
to the concept of "fair and practical treatment ('fair sharing') of costs and is proposed that this principle should not be included as a principle
benefits of social responsibility throughout the value chain. that applies to organisations (listed in 6.5.2.1), but rather within a
guidance box in 6.5. It is proposed that this box be placed after DIS
line 1842.

Page 8
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 9(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)

The following text is proposed for inclusion in such a box:


Common but differentiated responsibility This principle is drawn
from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [119] and
[109][131][94]
subsequent declarations and agreements . The principle,
which applies between states, recognizes the historical differences in
the contributions of and developing states to global environmental
problems, and the differences in their respective economic and
technical capacity to tackle these problems. It includes two
fundamental elements: the common responsibility of states for the
protection of the environment at the national, regional and global
levels; and the need to recognize the different circumstances,
particularly each state's contribution to the evolution of a particular
problem and its ability to prevent, reduce and control the threat.

New proposed way forward: delete the box! Retain existing text -
AGREED

If required, this topic will be addressed in CSM2

Deferred to small group to report back to the plenary Wednesday


9. Sexual orientation
What provision should be The issue of non discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is one on The following is proposed as the way forward:
made in 6.3 and 6.4 for the which there are some strongly diverging views: It is proposed that that the following text be considered in the
non discrimination on the basis  A number of written comments argue that the guidance in the Standard that discussions in CSM3 (see IDTF N112 to see how this compares with
of sexual orientation? sexual orientation is a prohibited or impermissible ground for discrimination the existing text). If this text is not considered as acceptable by those
is incorrect, as it conflicts with religion, national laws and local culture, and who have commented on this matter and as sufficient grounds for
that it does not have sufficiently widespread recognition to constitute an voting "yes" on the FDIS, it is proposed that the existing DIS text be
international norm. They thus call for references to sexual orientation to be retained.
deleted. Many of those who express this concern voted no on the DIS.
 Some experts argue that while non-discrimination on sexual orientation (as Propose for consideration that DIS Lines 1269-1275 (Human Rights –
well on some other grounds) is currently not an international norm, it is 6.3.7.1) be changed to read:
nevertheless recognized as a fundamental human right and an employment Discrimination involves any distinction, exclusion or preference
right in a growing number of jurisdictions globally. On this basis it has been that has the effect of nullifying equality of treatment or
suggested that the Standard be revised to reflect that such non- opportunity, where that consideration is based on prejudice
discrimination is recognized as an emerging international norm. rather than a legitimate ground. Illegitimate grounds for
 Other experts argue that the existing text has been developed in consensus discrimination include but are not limited to: race, colour,
and has been in the Standard over several working drafts. They note also gender, age, language, property, nationality or national origin,

Page 9
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 10(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
that there was full consensus in the last human rights working group to religion, ethnic or social origin, caste, economic grounds,
retain this reference in that section. Some have suggested that deleting this disability, pregnancy, political affiliation or political or other
reference will move some who voted yes on the DIS to now vote no. opinion. Emerging prohibited grounds also include sexual
An important aim of the Copenhagen meeting is to seek as far as possible to orientation, marital or family status and health status such as
address all concerns on the current DIS, with the aim of further improving the HIV/AIDS status. The prohibition of discrimination is one of the
guidance as well as in the hope of obtaining the support of those who voted most fundamental principles of international human rights law.
against the DIS without losing the support of those who voted in favour.
With this in mind, some proposed compromise text has been proposed for Propose for consideration that DIS Lines 1418-1423 (Labour
consideration by experts in the discussions in CSM3. If this text is not Practices – 6.3.10.2) be changed to read:
considered as acceptable by those who have commented on this matter and – equal opportunities and non-discrimination [22][24][25] An
as sufficient grounds for voting "yes" on the FDIS, it is proposed that the organization should confirm that its employment policies are
existing text be retained. free from discrimination based on race, colour, gender,
religion, national extraction, social origin, political opinion, age,
or disability. Emerging prohibited grounds also include sexual
orientation, marital or family status and health status such as
HIV/AIDS status, which are in line with the general principle
that hiring policies and practices, earnings, employment
conditions, access to training and promotion, and termination
of employment should be based only on the requirements of
the job.

Propose for consideration to delete all grounds from DIS lines 1284/5
and from DIS lines 1559-1562

This topic will be addressed in CSM3

New proposed way forward for the time being: create small
group to solve the problem:

Accepted as presented
10. Provision for animal
welfare
What edits are needed to Various comments have been regarding the need to make greater provision The following is proposed as the way forward:
ensure a balanced guidance for guidance on animal welfare. This issue has been discussed at various Retain the current text on this issue.
on ethical treatment of animals previous WGSR meetings. Recognising the concerns voiced by various
throughout the Standard? parties regarding the provision of additional text on this issue, and in the If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1
belief that the current text provides a carefully agreed compromise way

Page 10
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 11(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
forward on this issue, it is recommended that the current text on this issue be
retained
Accepted as presented, with minor modifications
11. Government / state
Can clearer, unambiguous This is an issue on which carefully negotiated agreement was reached in The following is proposed as the way forward:
guidance be provided Santiago and consolidated in Quebec. Some comments suggest that there is
regarding the application of scope to provide great clarity – and less ambiguity – on the agreement that
this Standard to governmental was reached on this issue, namely that the guidance in the Standard is 2.1.12
organizations? relevant to governmental organizations except in those instances associated organization
with government’s unique role in making and enforcing law, and formulating NOTE 1 For the purpose of this International Standard "organization"
and implementing public policy. Various comments were made specifically on does not include government acting in its sovereign role to create and
Note 1 regarding the definition of organization, and on 3.4 enforce law, exercise judicial authority, carry out its duty to establish
policy in the public interest and honor the international obligations of
the state. - Accepted

3.4 The state and social responsibility


This International Standard cannot replace, alter or in any way change
the duty of the state to act in the public interest. This International
Standard does not provide guidance on what should be subject to
legally binding obligations; neither is it intended to address questions
that can only properly be resolved through political institutions.
Because the state has the unique power to create and enforce the
law, it is different from organizations. For instance, the duty of the
state to protect human rights is different from those responsibilities of
organizations (2.1.12) with respect to human rights that are
addressed in this International Standard.
The proper functioning of the state is indispensible for sustainable
development. The role of the state is essential in ensuring the
effective application of laws and regulations so as to foster a culture of
compliance with the law. Nonetheless, gGovernmental organizations,
like any other organization, may wish to use this International
Standard to inform their policies, decisions and activities related to
aspects of social responsibility. Governments can assist
organizations in their efforts to operate in a socially responsible
manner in many ways such as in the recognition and promotion of
social responsibility. However, state actions promoting the social
responsibility of organizations is not and cannot be a substitute for the
effective exercise of state duties and responsibilities. – Accepted with
minor modifications

Page 11
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 12(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)

If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM1


Accepted with modifications
12. Sphere of influence
What edits are needed to Various comments were raised on the issue of “sphere of influence”, with The following is proposed as the way forward:
make the guidance in the some strongly diverging views expressed on the concern raised by Professor Insert the following changes to 2.1.19, 5.2.3, 6.6.6, 6.6.6.2 and 7.3.2
Standard compatible with the John Ruggie (the Special Representative to the United Nations Secretary-
framework proposed by General on Business and Human Rights) regarding the use and scope of this
Professor John Ruggie (the concept within the Standard, and in particular his identified concern regarding 2.1.19
Special Representative to the the “conflation of influence and responsibility in parts of the Guidance sphere of influence
United Nations Secretary- document” that is seen to be contrary to the UN framework. range/extent of political, contractual, economic or other relationships
General on Business and Recognising this concern, and the diverging views on this issue, the IDTF through which an organization (2.1.12) has the ability to affect the
Human Rights)? has proposed a way forward that seeks to further clarify the nature of the decisions or activities of individuals or organizations
duty to exercise influence.
NOTE 1 The ability to influence does not, in itself, mean there is a
responsibility to exercise that influence.There is no necessary link
between the ability to influence and the responsibility to exercise that
influence

NOTE 2 Where this term appears in the standard, it should always be


understood in the context of the guidance in 5.2.3 and 7.3.2

5.2.3
Social responsibility and the organization's sphere of influence
An organization is responsible for the impacts of decisions and
activities over which it has formal and/or de facto control1. Such
impacts of decisions and activities can be extensive. In addition to
being responsible for its own decisions and activities, an organization
may, in some situations, have the ability to affect the behaviour of
organizations/parties with which it has relationships. Such situations
are considered to fall within an organization’s sphere of influence.
This sphere of influence will include relationships within and beyond
an organization’s value chain. However, not all of the organization’s
value chain will fall within its sphere of influence. It may include the
formal and informal associations in which it participates, as well as
peer organizations or competitors.

Page 12
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 13(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)

An organization does not always have a responsibility to exercise


influence purely because it has the ability to do so. For instance, it
cannot be held responsible for the impacts of other organizations over
which it may have some influence if the impact is not a result of its
activities. However, there will be situations where an organization will
have a responsibility to exercise influence. These situations will be
determined by the extent to which the organization’s relationship is
contributing to negative impacts.
And there will be situations where, though the organization does not
have a responsibility to exercise influence, it may nevertheless wish,
or be asked, to do so voluntarily.
An organization may decide whether to have a relationship with
another organization and the nature and extent of this relationship.
There will be situations where an organization has the responsibility to
be alert to the impacts created by the decisions and activities of other
organizations and to take steps, through exercising due diligence, to
avoid or to mitigate the negative impacts connected to its relationship
with such organizations.
When assessing its sphere of influence and determining its
responsibilities, an organization should exercise due diligence in order
to avoid contributing to negative impacts through its relationships.
Further guidance can be found in 7.3.2
1
“de facto control” refers to situations where one organization has the
ability to dictate the decisions and activities of another organization,
even where it does not have the legal or formal authority to do so.

7.3.2 An organization’s sphere of influence


7.3.2.1 Assessing an organization's sphere of influence

An organization derives influence from sources such as:


 ownership and governance This includes the nature and extent of
ownership or representation, if any, on the governing body of the
associated organization;
 economic relationship: This includes the extent of the economic
relationship and the relative importance of that relationship for either
organization: greater importance for one organization can create
greater influence for the other organization
 legal/political authority This is based, for example, on provisions in

Page 13
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 14(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
legally binding contracts or the existence of a legal mandate granting
the organization the ability to enforce certain behaviours on others;
and
 public opinion This includes the ability of the organization to
influence public opinion, and the impact of public opinion on those it
is trying to influence.
An organization’s influence may depend on a number of factors,
including physical proximity, scope, length and strength of the
relationship.

7.3.2.2
Exercising influence
An organization can seek to exercise its influence with others either to
enhance positive impacts on sustainable development, or to minimize
negative impacts, or both. When assessing its sphere of influence and
determining its responsibilities, an organization should exercise due
diligence.
Methods of exercising influence include:
 setting contractual provisions or incentives
 public statements by the organization
 engaging with the community, political leaders and other
stakeholders
 making investment decisions
 sharing knowledge and information
 conducting joint projects
 undertaking responsible lobbying and using media relations;
 promoting good practices; and
 forming partnerships with sector associations, organizations and
others.
An organization should consider the environmental, social and
organizational governance aspects and the social responsibility of the
organizations with which it has or seeks to have a relationship
An organization can influence its stakeholders through its decisions
and activities, and through the information that it provides to
stakeholders about the basis for these decisions and activities.
The exercise of an organization’s influence should always be guided
by ethical behaviour and other principles and practices of social

Page 14
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 15(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
responsibility (see Clauses 4 and 5). When exerting its influence, an
organization should first consider engaging in dialogue aimed at
improving awareness of social responsibility and encouraging socially
responsible behaviour. If dialogue is not effective, alternative actions
should be considered, including changing the nature of the
relationship.
Where an organization has de facto control1 over others, its
responsibility to act can be similar to the responsibility that exists
where the organization has formal control.
1
“de facto control” refers to situations where one organization has the
ability to dictate the decisions and activities of another organization,
even where it does not have the legal or formal authority to do so.

6.6.6 and 6.6.6.2


Promoting social responsibility in the sphere of influence
and
Related actions and expectations
In clauses 6.6.6 (DIS line 2160) and 6.6.6.2 (DID line 2172), for
consistency with the PWF above, “sphere of influence” should be
replaced by “value chain”, since the guidance in this sub-clause is
limited to the value chain, not to the whole sphere of influence.

If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM4


Major parts of the way forward accepted as presented
13. Stakeholder /
engagement / interests Agreement on newly proposed way forward for 3.3.1 pending – to
be addressed by CSM or IDTF experts
Can the definition of Some comments state that the use of the terms stakeholder and stakeholder The following is proposed as the way forward:
stakeholder and stakeholder interests are not as clear as they should be, given the importance of these
interests be made clearer, and concepts.
use of the terms be made 2.1.20
The IDTF has proposed a number of wording changes to make the use and
more consistent, throughout The current definition of stakeholder is maintained without change.
meaning of these terms clearer. These changes are proposed for 3.3.1; 4.5;
the standard? 5.1; 5.2.1; 5.3.2 and 5.3.3.
Insert the following changes to 3.3.1; 4.5; 5.1; 5.2.1; 5.3.2 and 5.3.3
Note: The edit below brings earlier in the standard the explanation of
“stake”, which was formerly in 5.3.2 (l.853-858). It adds further

Page 15
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 16(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
guidance on the subject, keeping the concepts already agreed, while
clarifying them. Proposed new text is underlined; existing text for
deletion has been struck through.

3.3.1 Characteristics of social responsibility (DIS line 477)


This implies both transparent and ethical behaviour that
contributes to sustainable development, takes into account the
interests of stakeholders, is in compliance with applicable law
and consistent with international norms of behaviour, and is
integrated throughout the organisation and practiced in its
relationships and takes into account the interests of
stakeholders.
A stakeholder is a party in a relationship with an organization.
This relationship is established by the fact that it has one or
more interests that can be affected by the decisions and
activities of this organization. This interest gives the party a
“stake” in the organization. Stakeholders can be referred to as
“interested parties”. The relationship between the stakeholder
and the organization need not be formal or even
acknowledged or recognized by either party. The interest must
be consistent with sustainable development, e.g. criminal or
similarly illegitimate interests cannot make someone a
stakeholder in any particular organization.
OR newly proposed way forward
“A stakeholder has one or more interests that can be affected
by the decisions and activities of an organization. This interest
gives the party a “stake” in the organization and creates a
relationship to the organization based on this stake. This
relationship may not be formal or even acknowledged by the
stakeholder or the organization. Stakeholders can be referred
to as “interested parties. The interest must should be
consistent with sustainable development, e.g. criminal or
similarly illegitimate interests cannot make someone a
stakeholder in any particular organization
Agreed to use newly proposed way forward as a basis,
detailed wording however still to be agreed

Page 16
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 17(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)

The edits below clarify the role of interests in the relationship between
organization and stakeholders.

4.45 – Respect for stakeholder interests (DIS line 675)


An organization’s behaviour should be based on the ethics of
honesty, equity and integrity. These ethics imply a concern for
people, animals and the environment and a commitment to
address the impact of its activities and decisions on
stakeholders’ interests.

4.5 – Respect for stakeholder interests (DIS line 675)


Change to DIS line 690-692:
– consider the views of stakeholders that may whose interests
are likely to be affected by a decision or activity even if they
have no formal role in the governance of the organization or
are unaware of these their interests in the decisions or
activities of the organization.

5.1 – General (DIS Line 755-757)


The recognition of social responsibility also involves the
recognition of an organization’s stakeholders. As described in
4.5, a basic principle of social responsibility is that an
organization should respect and consider the interests of its
stakeholders that will be affected by its decisions and activities.

The edit below deletes guidance moved to 3.3.1 and adapts the
remaining text. Cross reference is made to 3.3.1

5.2.1 – Impacts, interests and expectations (DIS Line 765-768)


.An organization should be aware of its various stakeholders.
These are the individuals or groups whose interests could be

Page 17
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 18(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
affected by the decisions and activities of an the organization.
(see 3.3.1) may have potential and actual impacts on these
individuals and organizations. These potential or actual
impacts are the basis of the “stake” or interest that causes the
organizations or individuals to be considered stakeholders;
The edits below clarify the idea of “claim” used to explain the concept
of stakeholder interests, and delete unnecessary guidance.

5.3.2 – Stakeholder identification (DIS Line 853-855)


Stakeholders are organizations or individuals that have one or
more interests in any decision and activity of an organization.
Because these interests (or “stakes”) can be affected by the
organization, a relationship with the organization is created.

DIS lines 859-860:


In this context, interest refers to the actual or potential basis of
a claim, that is to demand something that is owed or to
demand respect for a right. Such a claim does not need to
involve financial demands or legal rights. Sometimes it can
simply be the right to be heard.

DIS lines 867-868


The meaning of the term stakeholder is very broad, and o
Organizations may have many stakeholders. Moreover,
different stakeholders have various and sometimes competing
or conflicting interests.
(…)
(DIS lines 872-874)
Some stakeholders are an integral part of an organization.
These could include the members or employees of the
organization, as well as the shareholders or other owners of
the organization. It should be recognized that t These
stakeholders share a common interest in the purpose of the

Page 18
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 19(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
organization and in its success.
(…)
(DIS lines 876-878)
The interest of most stakeholders can be related to the social
responsibility of the organization and often are very similar to
some of the interests of society. The common interests of
stakeholders can be related to the broader expectations of
society. An example is the interest of a property owner whose
property loses value because of a new source of pollution.

The edit below clarify the role of interests in the relationship between
organization and stakeholders.
5.3.3 – Stakeholder engagement (DIS Line 944)
An organization should be conscious of and respect the effect of its
actions and decisions on the interests and needs of its stakeholders. It
should respect its stakeholders as well as and their varying relative
capacityies and needs to contact and engage with the organization.
(…)
DIS lines 946-651:
Because there are two bulleted lists in clause 5.3.3 and this is not
permitted under ISO rules, it is proposed to reform these lines so that
they appear as a paragraph.

Additional bracketed text/comments related to the lines changed


above will be addressed in the relevant CSMs, insofar they don’t
contradict this approved pwf.
If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM4
Accepted with modifications
14. Due diligence
Is the topic of due diligence Some comments point out that while the concept of due diligence is referred The following is proposed as the way forward:
properly located in 6.3 only? to in several core subjects, it is only dealt with methodically in 6.3. Some
suggested that greater provision should be made for the concept in Clause 7
since it is a tool for enhancing SR in respect all core subjects. Revise the definition and replace as follows:
To address the comments the IDTF has proposed that the definition be

Page 19
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 20(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
slightly adjusted for greater clarity. A number of suggested editing changes 2.1.4
recommended in the comments have been proposed in 6.3.3 and 7.4.3.
Due Diligence
comprehensive, proactive process to identify the actual and potential
negative social, environmental and economic impacts of an
organization’s decisions and activities over the entire life cycle of a
project or organizational activity, with the aim of avoiding and
mitigating those negative impacts.

Make the following changes to the text :

6.3.3 Human rights issue 1: Due diligence


6.3.3.1 Description of the issue
To respect human rights, organizations have a responsibility to
exercise due diligence to identify, prevent and address actual or
potential human rights impacts resulting from their activities, including
through their relationships. Due diligence may also alert an
organization to a responsibility to influence the behaviour of others,
where they may be the cause of human rights violations in which the
organization may be implicated.

6.3.3.2 Related actions and expectations


Because due diligence applies to all core subjects, including human
rights, further guidance on due diligence may be found in 7.4.3.
Specific to human rights, a due diligence process should, in a manner
that is appropriate to the organization's size and circumstances,
include the following components:
 a human rights policy for the organization that gives
meaningful guidance to those within the organization and
those closely linked to the organization;
 means of assessing how existing and proposed activities
may affect human rights;
 means of integrating the human rights policy throughout the
organization; and
 means of tracking performance over time, to be able to make
necessary adjustments in priorities and approach; and
 Appropriate actions to address the negative impacts of its
decisions and activities.
--

Page 20
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 21(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)

7.4.3 7.3.1 Due diligence as a tool for enhancing social


responsibility
Due diligence in the context of social responsibility is a
comprehensive, proactive process to identify the actual and potential
negative social, environmental and economic impacts of an
organization’s decisions and activities, with the aim of avoiding and
mitigating those impacts.
Due diligence may also entail influencing the behaviour of others,
where they be the cause of human rights or other violations in which
the organization may be implicated.
In any due diligence process, an organization should consider the
country context in which it operates or in which its activities take
place; the potential and actual impacts of its own activities; and the
potential for negative consequences resulting from the actions of
other entities or persons whose activities are significantly linked to
those of the organization.
It should include in a due diligence process, in a manner appropriate
to the organization's size and circumstances, the following
components:
 organizational policies related to the relevant core subject that give
meaningful guidance to those within the organization and those
closely linked to the organization;
 means of assessing how existing and proposed activities may affect
those policy goals;
 means of integrating social responsibility core subjects throughout
the organization; and
 means of tracking performance over time, to be able to make
necessary adjustments in priorities and approach; and
 Appropriate actions to address the negative impacts of its decisions
and activities.
In identifying potential areas for action, an organization should strive
to better understand challenges and dilemmas from the perspective of
the individuals and groups potentially harmed.
In addition to this self-evaluation, an organization may find that in
some cases it is both possible and appropriate to seek to influence
the behaviour of other entities towards enhancing their social
responsibility performance, particularly those with which it has close

Page 21
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 22(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
ties or where the organization considers the issues to be particularly
compelling or relevant to its situation. As an organization gains
experience in the area of enhancing social responsibility performance,
it may grow in its capacity and willingness to work with other entities
to achieve this goal.

If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM3


Accepted with modifications
15. Philanthropy / social
investment
How to address philanthropy Some comments identified a negative tone related to philanthropy in 3.3.4 The following is proposed as the way forward:
consistently with the guidance and 6.8.1. The current text is seen as disregarding / ignoring / Change DIS lines 509-511 to highlight possible relationships between
in Clause 6? Is social underestimating the potential for philanthropy to be a component of a philanthropy and integration of into the organization to read as follows:
investment related to an strategy for social responsibility.
Integrating social responsibility into the organization may
organization’s core activities? Even though 3.3.4 is about integrating into the organization lines 509-511, in include philanthropic activities. However, philanthropic
their present form, give the impression that philanthropy is not addressed in activities alone do not achieve the objective of integrating
relation to the subject of the section. The paragraph is seen as having a social responsibility into the organization. Philanthropic
negative tone. activities that are unrelated to the organization’s impact on
Further, for line 2583 in 6.8.1, the tone is seen as negative in relation to society and the environment are neither necessary nor
philanthropy, although some following recommendations can be understood sufficient to address an organization’s social responsibility.
as being philanthropic. To address the topic consistently, it is proposed that
line 2583 be aligned to the proposal for lines 509-511 OR (newly proposed way forward by IDTF):
In addition, philanthropy is mentioned in relation to social investment in 6.8.9, Philanthropy (in this context understood as giving to charitable
lines 2864-2866. Some comments are concerned with the idea that the causes) can have a positive impact on society [and be an
concept of social investment excludes an organization’s core activities (Ref. element of an organization's SR practices]. However, it should
lines 2575-2578). Experts offering those comments are of the opinion that not be used by an organization as a substitute for [engaging
this may not be true, in the sense that there may be cases, where the stakeholders,] [integrating SR into the organization] or
alignment of social investment with the core activities of an organization may addressing any adverse impacts of its decisions or activities.
improve the benefits of social investment for the community development.
Newly proposed way forward accepted with modifications!
Also, there is a suggestion to move the lines 2575-2578 into 6.8.9.

The text should recognize that social investment may or may not be
part of core operations of organizations. The following text is
proposed for DIS lines 2575-2578:
Social investment is a means by which organizations can
contribute to the development of the communities in which they
operate. Social investments that contribute to community
development can sustain and enhance an organization’s

Page 22
ISO/TMB/WG SR – IDTF N111 – Copenhagen Key Topics Discussion Document
4 May 2010 – Page 23(23)

Question to be addressed Synopsis of main comments and suggestions Proposed way forward
(as raised by different WG experts and contained in the consolidated
comments on DIS)
relationships with its communities, and may or may not be
associated with an organization’s core operational activities.
The CSM will decide whether this paragraph should move into 6.8.9
or stay in 6.8.1.
Replace DIS Line 2583 as follows:
While some aspects of the actions discussed in this section
can be understood as philanthropy, philanthropic activities
alone do not achieve the objective of integrating social
responsibility into the organization (as discussed in 3.3.4).
The current text in lines 2864-2866 addresses the relationship
between philanthropy and social investment adequately. It is
proposed that the existing text be retained.

If required, this multi-clause topic will be addressed in CSM3

Page 23