Skip to main content

Stakeholders’ Influence and Contribution to Social Standards Development: The Case of Multiple Stakeholder Approach to ISO 26000 Development

Journal of Business Ethics volume 111, pages 265–279 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

We present an empirical investigation on how multiple stakeholders can influence and contribute to a standard development process. Based on the analysis of comments submitted by stakeholders developing ISO 26000 standard for social responsibility, we found no significant differences between the ratio of accepted and non-accepted comments among various stakeholder groups; however, we conclude that industry is the most influential stakeholder due to the volume of the comments. We also present a set of processes that stakeholders follow to influence and contribute to standards development, namely to (1) eliminate issues that are controversial and undesirable; (2) link and integrate the standard into a network of other documents and ISO standards; (3) seek consensus by highlighting areas for further dialogue or by addressing their exclusion from the standards development, (4) reinforce issues that are important; and (5) improve the content of the new standard. In conclusion, we provide a set of propositions about multi-stakeholder standards development and compare multi-stakeholder involvement in standards developed through a new committee established in existing standards setting organization [i.e., Committees within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)] and through new standards setting organizations established for one specific task (i.e., Forest Stewardship Council). We envisage that our study will be a useful platform to monitor and evaluate future developments of ISO 26000 and other multi-stakeholder standards.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. ISO 9000 standard for quality management systems is a good example of an established standard. It was introduced in 1987 and over 1 million organizations in 142 economies are certified (ISO/Survey 2009). Accordingly, numerous studies have mapped the development, adoption and impact of ISO 9000.

  2. Fransen and Kolk (2007) define multi-stakeholder standards as standards that insure membership of those concerned; with governance open for all stakeholders and with various parties taking on a ‘watchdog’ function.

  3. Certification is a mechanism by which an independent third party certifies that an organization complies with a standard. For a detailed description of the certification process see Corbett and Kirsch (2001) or visit a website of accreditation bodies, such as International Accreditation Forum (IAF).

  4. However, it should be noted that many of the tools were accepted at the end in the final version of the standard. It took several rounds of commenting to crystallize this section of the standard.

  5. See the discussion in “Development of International Standards—Toward Multi-Stakeholder Standardization section.”

  6. Developmental documents also contains the record of the contest that led to the formulation of the criteria for inclusion of initiatives and tools. This evidence further strengthens our proposition.

References

  • Balzarova, M. A., & Castka, P. (2008). Underlying mechanism in the maintenance of ISO 14001 environmental management system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(18), 1949–1957.

    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 

  • Boström, M. (2006). Regulatory credibility and authority through inclusiveness: Standardization in cases of eco-labelling. Organization, 13(3), 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botzem, S., & Quack, S. (2006). Contested rules and shifting boundaries: international standard-setting in accounting. In M. L. Djelic & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.) Transnational governance. Institutional Dynamics of Regulation (pp. 266–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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. In N. Brunsson & B. Jacobsson (Eds.) A World of Standards (pp. 1–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bryant, A. (2007). ISO 14001 and ISO’s complete offering for sustainable development. ISO Management Systems, 7(5), 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmin, J., Darnall, N., & Mil-Homens, J. (2003). Stakeholder involvement in the design of U.S. voluntary environmental programs: Does sponsorship matter? Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashore, B., Gale, F., Meidinger, E., & Newsom, D. (2006). Forest certification in developing and transitioning countries. Environment, 48, 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castka, P., & Balzarova, M. A. (2008c). Social responsibility standardization: guidance or reinforcement through certification? Human systems management, 27, 231–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S., Courpesson, D., & Phillipes, N. (2006). Power and organizations. London: Sage.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, C. J., Montes-Sancho, M. J., & Kirsch, D. A. (2005). The financial impact of ISO 9000 certification in the United States: An Empirical analysis. Management Science, 51(7), 1046–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 1091–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dejean, F., Gond, J. P., & Leca, B. (2004). Measuring the unmeasured: An institutional entrepreneur strategy in an emerging industry. Human Relations, 57(6), 740–764.

    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(1), 91–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djelic, M. L., & Quack, S. (2003). Globalization and institutions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecologia (2007). An ISO greenhouse gas standard. Vol. 2007.

  • Finnemore, M. (1996). Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights from sociology’s institutionalism. International Organization, 50, 325–347.

    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 

  • Garrett, G. (1998). Global markets and national politics: Collision course or virtuous cycle? International Organization, 52(4), 787–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISEAL (2010). Setting social and environmental standards v5.0. London: ISEAL Alliance.

  • ISO/AG/SR (2004a). Working report on social responsibility. ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

  • ISO/AG/SR (2004b). Recommendations to the ISO Technical Management Board, document: ISO/TMB AG CSR N32. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

  • ISO/COPOLCO (2002). The desirability and feasibility of ISO corporate social responsibility standards, final report by the consumer protection in the global market Working Group of the ISO Consumer Policy Committee (COPOLCO). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

  • ISO/Survey (2009). The ISO survey of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certificates. Nineteenth cycle: up to and including 31 December 2009. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

  • ISO/TMB/WG/SR (2006). Participating in the future International Standard ISO 26000 on social responsibility. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

  • Janis, I. L., & Fadner, R. (1965). The coefficient of imbalance. In H. Lasswell, N. Leites & Associates (Eds.) Language of politics (pp. 153–169). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry Self-regulation without sanctions: The Chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mattli, W., & Buthe, T. (2003). Setting international standards: Technological rationality or primacy of power? World Politics, 56(1), 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mörth, U. (2004). Soft law in governance and regulation: An interdisciplinary analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer, E., & Perkins, R. (2005). Uneven geographies of organizational practice: Explaining the cross-national transfer and diffusion of ISO 9000. Economic Geography, 81(3), 237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J., & Noelke, A. (2005). International accounting standard setting: A network approach. Business and Politics, 7, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 631–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, T. G., Rindova, V. P., & Maggitti, P. G. (2008). Market watch: Information and availability cascades among the media and investors in the U.S. IPO market. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 335–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, D., & Terziovski, M. (2007). Quality audit roles and skills: Perceptions of non-financial auditors and their clients. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 126–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, A. J. (2009). Regulatory networks for accounting and auditing standards: A social network analysis of Canadian and international standard-setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(5), 571–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. M., & Fischlein, M. (2010). Rival private governance networks: Competing to define the rules of sustainability performance. Global Environmental Change, 20, 511–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamm Hallström, K. (2000). Organizing the process of standardization. In N. Brunsson (Ed.), A world of standards (pp. 85–99). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamm Halström, K., & Boström, M. (2010). Transnational multi-stakeholder standardization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1994). Case study research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business Management, Marketing and Law, Lincoln University, PO Box 84, 7647, Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand

    Michaela A. Balzarova

  2. Department of Management, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Pavel Castka

Authors
  1. Michaela A. Balzarova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pavel Castka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pavel Castka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Balzarova, M.A., Castka, P. Stakeholders’ Influence and Contribution to Social Standards Development: The Case of Multiple Stakeholder Approach to ISO 26000 Development. J Bus Ethics 111, 265–279 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1206-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1206-9

Keywords

  • Production and evolution of standards
  • Social responsibility
  • Environmental responsibility
  • ISO 26000
  • Stakeholders