Appeal against the decision of the Co-Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR to

disallow India’s request for discussions for deletion/ modifications of Annex A of

ISO/DIS 26000 at the 8th Meeting of WG SR at Copenhagen, Denmark (17.05.10 -
21.05.10)

Injustice done to India by the Co-Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR

1. Denial of right to India to raise for discussion the issue of deletion/ modification of
Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 at the 8th meeting of the ISO Working Group on Social
Responsibility (ISO/TMB/WG SR) held at Copenhagen,  Denmark during 17-21 May
2010.
2. Violation of ISO/TMB/WG SR procedures (Resolution 22, Salvador N 15), by the WG
SR Co-Chairman/Chairman through his inaction to resolve by consensus the issue of
deletion /modification of Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 raised by India, despite India
having communicated its ‘sustained opposition’ to the same.

Grounds for Appeal

1. Denial of right to India to raise for discussion the issue of deletion/modification of

Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 at the 8th ISO/TMB/WG SR meeting at Copenhagen, 
Denmark during 17-21 May 2010.

Relevant Facts:

1.1 During the 8th ISO/TMB/WG SR meeting at Copenhagen, Denmark from 17 to 21

May 2010, the Indian delegation wanted to raise the issue of the need to delete
Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 and accordingly informed ISO/TMB/WG SR. But, the
Co-Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR did not allow the issue to be raised,
citing the following unconvincing reasons for disallowing the discussions:

1.1.1 The reason that Co-Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR, gave to

justify disallowing discussions on Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 was if
the discussions resulted in deletion of this Annex it would be a
 substantial amendment to the draft standard, which, he claimed has
already emerged as a consensus document.

Discussion that may lead to any change, whether perceived as minor

or major, cannot be a reason for disallowing the discussion. In that
case what was the purpose of getting together for discussions once
the draft is approved? Obviously the purpose is to discuss and bring
about possible improvements. Unless discussions are allowed the
very purpose of holding the meeting is defeated. It is thus seen that
the Honourable Co-Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR, committed
a gross error in disallowing India’s request for discussions in respect
of Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 by pre-empting its deletion and then
claiming that it would amount to substantial amendment.

1.1.2 The second reason given by the Co-Chairman/Chairman,

ISO/TMB/WG SR, was that Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 was so
important that in case the discussions resulted in its deletion, the
countries that had voted positive earlier would reject the standard in
the next stage of voting.

This reasoning cannot be accepted as an Annex cannot become more

important than the original document. Apart from pre-empting that
discussions would have lead to deletion of Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000,
the Co-Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR, also pre-empted the
outcome of the next voting for justifying disallowing discussions
requested by India. The main objective of getting together at
Copenhagen was to ensure that the infirmities apparent in the
Standard got addressed. The Honourable Co-Chairman/Chairman,
ISO/TMB/WG SR not only erred in pre-empting the outcome of the
next voting to disallow India’s request for discussions on Annex A of
ISO/DIS 26000 but also failed to appreciate the basic purpose of
organizing the ISO/TMB/WG SR meeting at Copenhagen, Denmark.

1.1.3 The third reason given by the Co-Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG

SR, to justify disallowing discussions on Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000
was that no change was permissible at that stage because the DIS
 was already a consensus document and that now it could not be
changed save for correction of errors.

However, in the same Copenhagen meeting, on the request of

countries like, Bahrain, Indonesia, Oman, Qatar, etc. to consider
incorporation of alternate words in place of “Sexual Orientation” under
the aspect “discrimination” in ISO/DIS 26000, the Co-
Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR, promptly agreed and set up a
sub-group to discuss and resolve the issue raised by the aforesaid
countries. The modification suggested by the said sub-group to
replace “Sexual Orientation” by “Personal Relationships”, even though
substantive change, was accepted by the ISO/TMB/WG SR Co-
Chairman/Chairman. This fact establishes that the Honourable Co-
Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR was unfair and injudicious.
They have discriminated against India in not allowing its request to
discuss Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 for its deletion/ modification.

2 Violation of ISO/TMB/WG SR procedures (Resolution 22, Salvador N 15), by the WG SR

Co-Chairman/Chairman through his inaction to resolve by consensus the issue of
deletion/modification of Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 raised by India, despite India having
communicated its ‘sustained opposition’ to the same.

Relevant Facts:

2.1 In conducting its meetings, the Co-Chairman/Chairman and the Secretariat of

ISO/TMB/WG SR are duty-bound and responsible to follow the provisions
prescribed in the procedure laid down in Resolution 22 (Salvador N 15) of
ISO/TMB/WG SR for resolving the issues on which ‘sustained opposition’ has
been conveyed by a member body. After being frustrated in making the
ISO/TMB/WG SR Secretariat, including its Co-Chairman/Chairman,
understand the importance of discussing Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 for its
deletion or modification in the interest of the developing countries, India was
constrained to register its protest by resorting to the provision of conveying
its ‘sustained opposition’ to further development of ISO 26000 if its Annex A
continued to be its part, in view of having been wrongly denied the opportunity
by ISO/TMB/WG SR Co-Chairman/Chairman to discuss the same. In blatant
contravention of the ISO/TMB/WG SR procedures in this regard as mentioned
 above, the Honourable Co-Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR, has
grossly erred by not taking any action to address the aforementioned
‘sustained opposition’. He was duty-bound as well as responsible for
resolving it by consensus according to the said procedure mentioned above in
this para.

2.2 From the above mentioned facts it is established that the Honourable Co-
Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR, has grossly erred in disallowing the
request of India for discussions on Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 with a view to
deleting/ modifying it. In doing so he has also disregarded the provisions of
ISO/TMB/WG SR procedure (Resolution 22, Salvador N 15) which he was
duty-bound to follow. In doing so he has also acted unjustly and has shown
gross discrimination against India.

2.3 The Honourable Co-Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG SR, has acted in the

aforesaid manner mainly with a view to ensuring that Annex A of ISO/DIS
26000 in its current form remains a part of the ISO 26000. This action would
unnecessarily provide ISO endorsement to certain private/  commercial
organizations’ standards which could, inter alia, be used in future as basis for
technical regulations to act as technical barriers to trade. Such an
endorsement is neither necessary nor called for.

3 Request to ISO/TMB

3.1 In view of gross injustice done to India by not allowing its request for discussions for
deletion/ modification of Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 by the Co-Chairman/Chairman,
ISO/TMB/WG SR in its 8th meeting held at Copenhagen, Denmark during 17 to 21 May
2010, TMB is requested to grant the following reliefs and take following actions, with a view
to doing justice in the matter:

a) Consider the issues raised by India for deletion/ modification of Annex A of

ISO/DIS 26000 and give its decision in the matter. The issues which India wished
to raise in respect of Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 are given as Appendix I to this
appeal. In this reference, the following actions are requested from ISO/TMB:
i) To take necessary action for deletion of Annex A from ISO/DIS 26000.
 ii) If (i) above is not possible, to take necessary action to modify Annex A of
ISO/DIS 26000 so as to ensure that all the fears mentioned under the
sub-heading “Concerns and Contentions” are dispelled.
iii) If (i) and (ii) above are not possible, to provide an assurance that ISO
26000 (if published incorporating Annex A) will not be used in any matter
related to trade.
iv) To take any other action deemed necessary to safeguard the brand image
and reputation of ISO as well as the interests of India and other
developing countries.
b) The outcome of the circulation of ISO/FDIS 26000 should be dealt with
appropriately in the light of this appeal.
c) Institute an inquiry into the conduct of the Co-Chairman/Chairman, ISO/TMB/WG
SR, in respect of points mentioned above and take appropriate actions as
permissible.
d) Any other action deemed necessary by ISO/TMB in view of the facts stated in this
appeal, for improving the image and functioning of ISO in strict compliance of its
laid down procedures.
 APPENDIX I

Concerns and contentions for deletion/ modification of Annex

A of ISO/DIS 26000

Background: Facts & Elucidation

1. ISO 26000 is being developed as a guidance standard and as such the scope of
ISO/DIS 26000 unmistakably mentions that it is not intended or appropriate for
certification purposes or regulatory or contractual use. This means that this
international standard must not contain any indication that can result in contrary
understanding.

2. ISO/DIS 26000, however, includes Annex A which, inter alia, refers to certifiable
standards of private/ commercial organizations. This is in contradiction with the
declaration made in the Scope of ISO/DIS 26000.

3. Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 is claimed to provide examples and additional guidance

to the users of ISO 26000. Thus, reference of the certifiable standards of private/
commercial organizations amounts to endorsing them as well as promoting them and
thus conflicts with the Scope.

4. What is more pertinent to note is that at the outset, lines 3464 to 3466 of ISO/DIS
26000 state as follows:

“These criteria do not constitute a judgement by ISO on the value or

effectiveness of any of the initiatives or tools for social responsibility listed in
the annex.”

If the value or effectiveness of any reference has not been judged, it may not be
logical to take it as example or to provide any guidance.

5. Further, ISO/DIS 26000 cautions that the mention of these certifiable private/
organizations’ standards in Annex A should not be misunderstood as being endorsed
by ISO. This indicates that doubt exists about such references getting misunderstood
as being endorsed by ISO. If the real intention is to prevent such misunderstanding,
the only fool-proof way is not to cite them.

6. The initiatives given in Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 are specified to provide guidance
about some core elements of ISO/DIS 26000. However, the initiatives by “Common
Code for the Coffee Community Association (4C)” or the “Programme for the
Endorsement for Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC)” provide no guidance for any
element, but still find a place in Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000. The only purpose that is
 apparent is that they are being provided endorsement of ISO by their inclusion, but
without any understandable purpose.

7. ISO cannot exercise any control in preventing future changes to these initiatives,
including the certifiable ones, listed in Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000. Such change, if it
takes place, can make reference to the initiatives redundant or even incompatible
with ISO 26000.

Concerns and contentions

8. Non-deletion of Annex A from ISO/DIS 26000 is a matter of serious concern to India,

a developing country, for the following reasons:

i) It is feared that the standards of the private/ commercial organizations listed

in Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 will be used as a basis for technical regulations
to create technical barriers to trade adversely affecting the developing
countries, particularly India. This is possible because ISO/DIS 26000 declares
that these standards listed in Annex A provide examples and further guidance
to ISO/DIS 26000 and will thus be interpreted as a part of the International
Standard. There could also be other such references in ISO 26000 which may
not be apparent now. Thus, deletion of Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 from ISO
26000 is essential for fairness to developing countries, like India, by
preventing misuse of this international standard in trade related issues.

ii) Nothwithstanding any disclaimers, ISO will not be able to prevent usage of
the standards listed in Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 for certification and thereby
cause disadvantage in international trade to India and other developing
countries vis-à-vis those entities for which these standards are advantageous.
Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 thus needs to be deleted.

iii) It is certain that the users of this international standard, particularly from
developing countries and belonging to SMEs, will be forced to rely on the
initiatives of the private and commercial multi-stakeholder organizations
whose standards are referred to in Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000. Thus they will
be easily mislead to accept such initiatives as authentic and reliable, an
outcome which ISO must prevent rather than promote. On this count too,
Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 needs to be deleted.

9. On the basis of inherent infirmities also, Annex A needs to be deleted from ISO/DIS
26000. Some apparent ones are listed out below:

i) The contents of Annex A are not consistent with the Scope given in ISO/DIS
26000. Any part of an international standard, which is not consistent with the
Scope of the international standard, cannot be made a part of that Standard.

ii) ISO/DIS 26000 declares that Annex A is meant to provide examples and
additional guidance to the users of ISO/DIS 26000 by listing out initiatives for
that purpose. These initiatives include certifiable standards of private/
commercial organizations. However, Annex A also unambiguously declares
 that the value or effectiveness of these initiatives, including the certifiable
ones listed in it, has not been judged. This leads to the following conclusions:

• If the value or effectiveness of any reference has not been judged it

may not be logical to take it as example or to provide any guidance.
For this reason alone Annex A needs to be deleted from ISO/DIS
26000.

• It is clearly evident that the only outcome of attaching Annex A would

be to promote and provide ISO endorsement to the standards of
private/ commercial organizations. Thus Annex A cannot be permitted
to be a part of ISO/DIS 26000 and needs to be deleted.

• Access to most of the tools/initiatives of the private/ commercial

organizations referred to in Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 is membership/
fee-based. Promoting them and according them indirect ISO
endorsement, irrespective of all the disclaimers, would result in
providing commercial advantage to such organizations because ISO
cannot exercise any control over them. ISO cannot patronize such
tools/ initiatives of the private/ commercial organizations and thus
Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 needs to be deleted.

• For whatever reason, the national standards are conspicuous by their

absence in Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000. Such standards exist and
unlike the initiatives quoted in Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000, some idea
about their value and effectiveness is usually known to the National
Standardization Bodies. This only shows that even the procedure
followed to construct Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 was defective and
thus Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 needs to be deleted on this account
too.

iii) Annex A will link ISO 26000 to initiatives outside ISO domain. Thus ISO will
be unable to regulate their revisions that take place overtime. The revisions
may or may not be useful for the ISO 26000 guidance purposes. The
revisions could even be such that the initiatives/tools become incompatible
with ISO 26000. To avert any such eventuality there is no choice but to delete
Annex A from ISO/DIS 26000.

10. Inclusion of Annex A in ISO 26000 might tarnish the image of ISO as a transparent
and neutral body and on this account too, it needs to be deleted. Some of the
aspects that might affect ISO’s image of being neutral are listed out below:

i) Any shortcoming existing in initiatives/tools in the Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000

will be seen as ISO’s responsibility irrespective of the disclaimers and hence
tarnish ISO’s reputation.

ii) ISO will render itself open to accusation of favoritism to private/ commercial
organizations for giving them undue advantage by endorsing their initiatives
through Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000.

iii) Inclusion of tools/ initiatives of private/ commercial organizations in the

aforesaid manner will damage the transparent and neutral image of ISO.
 iv) On account of “sustained opposition” by India and others to the inclusion of
Annex A in ISO/DIS 26000, ISO’s image of developing standards by
consensus will take a severe beating.

v) Inclusion of Annex A in ISO 26000 amounts to giving undue favour and

preferential treatment by ISO to the standards of a few private/ commercial
organizations; more so because ISO has not verified these initiatives and is
thus doubtful about their credibility and usefulness.

vi) Emphasis on the sectoral initiatives in Annex A of ISO/DIS 26000 clearly

implies that Social Responsibility is more relevant to some sectors than
others. Besides, the sector specific initiatives can provide guidance only on
very limited aspects of Social Responsibility. This will create the impression
that ISO 26000 is neither generic nor uniform.