Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of ISO’s Standard on Social Responsibility: A Review and Appraisal

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
ISO 26000 - A Standardized View on Corporate Social Responsibility

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

Abstract

The International Organization for Standardization’s ISO 26000 on social responsibility supports organizations of all types and sizes in their responsibilities toward society and the environment. The standard’s core subjects respect the rule of law as well as international norms on human rights and non-discrimination. ISO 26000 recommends that organizations ought to follow its principles on accountability, transparency, ethical behaviors and fair operating practices that safeguard organizations and their stakeholders’ interests. Hence, this chapter presents a critical analysis of ISO 26000 and also features a descriptive case study of a multinational retail business that is currently following the social responsibility standard. This contribution suggests that there are both costs and benefits for those organizations who have taken on board ISO 26000’s guiding principles. There are positive and negative implications for practitioners, policy makers and standard setting organizations. The comprehensive standards’ guidelines will support the practicing organizations in their social responsibility behaviors. However, since ISO 26000 is a non-certifiable standard, it is not an enforceable instrument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aravind, D., & Christmann, P. (2011). Decoupling of standard implementation from certification: Does quality of ISO 14001 implementation affect facilities’ environmental performance? Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(01), 73–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzova, S. B. (2009). Turkey: CSR in practice. In Global practices of corporate social responsibility (pp. 373–391). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ávila, L. V., Hoffmann, C., Corrêa, A. C., Rosa Gama Madruga, L. R., Schuch Júnior, V. F., & Júnior, S., et al. (2013). Social responsibility initiatives using ISO 26000: An analysis from Brazil. Environmental Quality Management, 23(2), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzarova, M. A., & Castka, P. (2012). Stakeholders’ influence and contribution to social standards development: The case of multiple stakeholder approach to ISO 26000 development. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, N., & Walgenbach, P. (2005). Technical efficiency or adaptation to institutionalized expectations? The adoption of ISO 9000 standards in the German mechanical engineering industry. Organization Studies, 26(6), 841–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, M., & Hallström, K. T. (2010). NGO power in global social and environmental standard-setting. Global Environmental Politics, 10(4), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, D. (2006). Making social responsibility the standard. Quality Progress, 39, 35–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2000). The contemporary expansion of standardization. A World of Standards, 1, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camilleri, M. A. (2012). Creating shared value through strategic CSR in tourism. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh. Retrieved July 1, 2016, from https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/6564/Camilleri2012.pdf?sequence=1

  • Caprar, D. V., & Neville, B. A. (2012). “Norming” and “conforming”: Integrating cultural and institutional explanations for sustainability adoption in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(2), 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castka, P., & Balzarova, M. A. (2008a). ISO 26000 and supply chains—On the diffusion of the social responsibility standard. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 274–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castka, P., & Balzarova, M. A. (2008b). The impact of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 on standardisation of social responsibility—An inside perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(1), 74–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2004). Environmental self-regulation in the global economy: The role of firm capabilities. Research in Global Strategic Management, 9, 119–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claasen, C., & Roloff, J. (2012). The link between responsibility and legitimacy: The case of De Beers in Namibia. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 379–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, M. E. (2007). Branded! How the certification revolution is transforming global corporations. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, C. J., & Kirsch, D. A. (2001). International diffusion of ISO 14000 certification. Production and Operations Management, 10(3), 327–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A. (2002). The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and the United States: An institutional perspective. Policy Sciences, 35, 91–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). The impact of a corporate culture of sustainability on corporate behavior and performance (no. W17950). National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransen, L. W., & Kolk, A. (2007). Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization, 14(5), 667–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graffin, S. D., & Ward, A. J. (2010). Certifications and reputation: Determining the standard of desirability amidst uncertainty. Organization Science, 21(2), 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R. (2013). ISO 26000 and the standardization of strategic management processes for sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(7), 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Weidtmann, C. (2016). Transnational governance, deliberative democracy, and the legitimacy of ISO 26000 analyzing the case of a global multistakeholder process. Business & Society, 55(1), 90–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W., & de Jesus Salazar, J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idowu, S. O., & Leal Filho, W. (2009). Global practices of corporate social responsibility. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ISO. (2004). ISO/TMB policy and principles statement global relevance of ISO technical work and publications. TMB/SC/GR 2004-06-30. Retrieved June 10, 2016, from http://www.iso.org/iso/global_relevance.pdf

  • ISO. (2014). ISO 26000: Guidance on social responsibility. Retrieved June 8, 2016, from http://www.iso.org/iso/discovering_iso_26000.pdf

  • ISO. (2015). M&S champions sustainable business with ISO 26000. Retrieved June 12, 2016, from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref1997

  • King, A. A., Lenox, L. J., & Terlaak, A. (2005). The strategic use of decentralized institutions: Exploring certification with the ISO 14001 management standard. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok, P., Van der Wiele, T., McKenna, R., & Brown, A. (2001). A corporate social responsibility audit within a quality management framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. (2012). A global SR standard: Good, or too good to be true? The Journal for Quality and Participation, 34(4), 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moratis, L. (2015). The credibility of corporate CSR claims: A taxonomy based on ISO 26000 and a research agenda. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 281(2), 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueckenberger, U., & Jastram, S. (2010). Transnational norm-building networks and the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 223–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Baltres, L., Doh, J., Miller, V., & Pisani, M. (2012). Stakeholder pressures as determinants of CSR strategic choice: Why do firms choose symbolic versus substantive self-regulatory codes of conduct? Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangan, S., Samii, R., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006). Constructive partnerships: When alliances between private firms and public actors can enable creative strategies. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 738–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., & Kell, G. (2010). The United Nations global compact: Achievements, trends and challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B., & Tilling, K. (2009). ‘ISO-lating’ corporate social responsibility in the organizational context: A dissenting interpretation of ISO 26000. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(5), 289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toppinen, A., Virtanen, A., Mayer, A., & Tuppura, A. (2015). Standardizing social responsibility via ISO 26000: Empirical insights from the Forest industry. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N., House, R. J., Adetoun, B., Barrasa, A., & Dorfman, P. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 823–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, K. (2012). ISO 26000: Bridging the public/private divide in transnational business governance interactions. Osgoode CLPE Research Paper, 21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Malta, Msida, Malta

    Mark Anthony Camilleri

Authors
  1. Mark Anthony Camilleri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Anthony Camilleri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Guildhall Faculty of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, London, UK

    Samuel O. Idowu

  2. Economics & Business Administration, University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania

    Catalina Sitnikov

  3. Antwerp Management School, NHTV Breda University of Applied Science, Antwerp, Belgium

    Lars Moratis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Camilleri, M.A. (2019). A Cost-Benefit Analysis of ISO’s Standard on Social Responsibility: A Review and Appraisal. In: Idowu, S.O., Sitnikov, C., Moratis, L. (eds) ISO 26000 - A Standardized View on Corporate Social Responsibility. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92651-3_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation