Affiliations: [a] University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected] | [b] Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Dr. Pavel Castka, Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand. Tel.: +64 3 364 2638; Fax: +64 3 364 2925; E-mail: [email protected]; URL: http://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/people/castka.shtml.
Abstract: Increased debates and scrutiny over Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Sustainable Development (SD) has resulted in a greater number of organizations subscribing to CSR and SD principles. To assist with the operationalization of CSR and SD, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed a set of standards – most recently a standard for social responsibility (ISO 26000). Some of these standards are intended for use as specification standards for certification, others establish guiding principles. The latter are not intended for certification purpose hence they rely on self-motivated implementation. Should ISO 26000 be a guidance standard or a certifiable standard? To answer this question, we firstly outline and discuss ISO standards for CSR and SD. Central to our discussion is whether and how certification impacts on the uptake of CSR and SD standards. We argue that for ISO 26000 a guidance standard not a certifiable standard is preferable.
Keywords: Corporate social responsibility, sustainable development, self-regulation, value stream, operations management, ISO standards
