standards for weights and measures. Throughout the centuries more and more agreements were reached on measurements, symbols, signals, means of payment, trials and conduct. By the turn of the twentieth century standard- ization was flourishing, and it has now developed to the point where it is intrinsic to the workings of society. It has extended far beyond its original industrial focus and now includes areas such as consumer safety, occupational health and a myriad of others, all of which serve to improve the quality and comfort of everyday life.
According to Standards Australia (2002), standardization and standards have, in part due to globalization and the related need for additional arrangements, become an integral part of economic, social and legal systems.
Brunsson and Jacobsson (2000, p. 21) note that ‘without standardisation the world would look quite different, and co-ordination would be much more difficult. Standards facilitate contact, co-operation, and trade over large areas and even throughout the world’. As de Vries (1999, p. 3) puts it, standardiza- tion functions ‘a lubricant for modern industrial society’. Its role is so taken for granted and deeply rooted in our daily life that we tend to forget its signif- icance for the development of, for example, telecommunications and the internet. According to Brunsson and Jacobsson (2000) standards flourish for common activities such as playing football, withdrawing money from an ATM machine, using a personal computer and a variety of other activities that need rules to facilitate convenience in one way or another. Nowadays not only technical and tangible objects are standardized but also organizations and the way they are expected to behave. Examples include the standards laid down by the International Standards Organization (ISO) for quality and environmental management systems (ISO 9001/14001). CSR can be regarded as the latest area in which an attempt is being made to set general standards.
see also Appendix 11.1). Many of these examples are often presented or interpreted as CSR standards, which implies that it is clear what a CSR stan- dard is. However, it is questionable whether this is correct since there are also, in addition to the term ‘standard’, references to norms, rules, agreements, guidelines and codes. Intuitively, many of the abovementioned lists include not only CSR standards but also instruments, tools, techniques and frame- works related to CSR.
Despite the assertion that the definitional aspect has been neglected in the debate on CSR standards, many of the classical definitions of a standard seem to provide evidence of some commonality. In his study of standard- ization processes de Vries (1999, pp. 143–63) reviews many of these defin- itions and refers to a standard as a ‘limited set of solutions to actual or potential matching problems, directed at benefits for the party or parties involved, balancing their needs and intending and expecting that these solutions will be repeatedly or continuously used, over a certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant’. A little dif- ferently, Standards Australia (2000, p. 2) defines a standard as a ‘published document, which sets out specifications and procedures designed to ensure that a material, product, method or service is fit for its purpose and consistently performs the way it was intended to’. A standard is often regarded as something laid down in a document, produced by one or more parties with the objective of regulating something that is thought to need regulating. The problem is that the term standard is often used inter- changeably with terms such as guideline, code, code of conduct, principle, statement and approach. For example Urminsky’s (2000) definition of a code of conduct actually refers to a business code of conduct, while his list of codes should intuitively be seen as CSR standards. Leipziger (2003, p. 35) uses the collective term ‘voluntary corporate responsibility instru- ments’, which include ‘principles, codes of conduct, standards, norms, guidelines and framework agreements’. She notes that there are still more types of instrument but her concern is only with ‘documents that guide behaviour’. The term standard is also confused with the term ‘standardiza- tion’, which refer to the process that results in a standard, and with the verb to standardize or to make objects or activities of the same type have the same features or qualities.
Despite some degree of commonality in respect of what a standard is the application of classical definitions to the notion of CSR remains a problem.
While most of the definitions refer to rather technical objects that can be standardized in a uniform way, the question is whether the same can be applied to rather diffuse and evolving notion such as CSR. For the purpose of this chapter, instead of talking in terms of a CSR standard it would be better to use the term CSR standardization initiative to refer to the variety of initiatives that are usually presented as a CSR standard. However, both terms will be used interchangeably.
Assumption 2: CSR can be standardized
In the CSR debate few people seem to question the combining of CSR with standardization; as the two notions seem to be reconcilable with each other.
However, can a phenomenon such as CSR, which by definition varies in different situations due to the diversity of organizations and their stake- holders, be standardized at all? According to Leipziger (2003, p. 37) ‘the term
“standard” implies that companies can and should achieve a uniform output.… Given the significant differences between companies, arising from sectoral, regional, cultural and historical differences, it is unlikely that stan- dardisation is possible or even desirable.’ Theoretically it is rather doubtful that CSR can be standardized in the traditional sense of establishing unifor- mity. Given the contingent nature of CSR, which is always dependent on its context it does not seem to lend itself to standardization. Perhaps the standardization of CSR should be seen in terms of providing organizations with appropriate guidance on practically and instrumentally dealing with CSR or aspects of it. No one standard, with the exception of technical stan- dards, is able to cover the broad range of social and stakeholder issues and how to deal with them. Therefore the attempt by the ISO to develop a world standard for corporate social responsibility is doomed to failure because it will generate a document that is so generic that individual organizations, while agreeing with it, will not be able to use it for practical purposes.
Assumption 3: CSR standards are actually used
According to Brunsson and Jacobsson (2000, p. 6) standardization ‘is based on the hope that some organisations … will adhere to the standards concerned, or will at least consider doing so’. In addition the proliferation of standardiza- tion initiatives in the field of CSR gives the impression that these initiatives anticipate the needs and expectations of various stakeholders. Although the available figures show that CSR standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative and the Global Compact have been adopted and adhered to by many companies, they fail to provide clear evidence of which standards are actually used by organizations. Therefore further research is necessary to obtain empirical evidence of the actual use of CSR standards by organizations.
Assumption 4: CSR standards are desirable and useful for organizations
This chapter focuses on the final assumption in the debate on CSR standards, namely that CSR standards are desirable and useful. As far as desirability is concerned, it is notable that most CSR standards are produced by organiza- tions that appear to be convinced that the corporate world is standing in line for their standardization initiatives. According to Leipziger (2003, p. 2) ‘there are millions of pages and web pages written on codes and standards, but most of it is “spin” put out by organisations punting to sell their code or standard’.
Just because proposed CSR standards are quickly distributed throughout the business world, this does not necessarily mean that they meet the require- ments of the corporations at which they are primarily targeted. It is still not clear whether standardization institutions produce their standards with the demands and expectations of future users in mind.
Most works on standardization portray it as providing various advantages for companies. According to Leipziger, however, ‘many of the best code of conduct and standards … are not well known and … some corporate respon- sibility instruments that are well disseminated are not terribly effective’
(ibid., p. 20). Although some studies have been conducted in this field (for example Williams, 2000), there is little information on the extent to which CSR standardization initiatives are useful in terms of providing practical solutions. The findings so far are not encouraging. The experience of organi- zations that use ISO 9001:2000 as the basis of their quality management system shows that such standards are often counterproductive. Leipziger refers to this as the code paradox: ‘that it is possible to have comprehensive codes of conduct that achieve nothing and quite vague codes of conduct that are well embedded in the organisation and that foster innovation and change’ (ibid.)