Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

In today’s world, globalization has created an interdependence between organizations from varied spheres. In this context, international standards and norms can be helpful during exchanges between countries, guaranteeing the quality, compatibility, and technical feasibility of the products, and this has been formalized into the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a non-governmental organization created in 1947 (Ward 2011).

Initially, in the 1980s, ISO 9000 was developed, referring to quality management standards, which was widely accepted. In 1996, ISO 14000 was created, which is related to environmental management (Castka and Balzarova 2008). In 2010, ISO launched ISO 26000, an ambitious standard providing guidance on integrating social responsibility into organizations (Ward 2011).

Because of the pressures arising from the globalization of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), corporate social responsibility (CSR) became part of the sustainability debate within organizations (Schwartz and Tilling 2009). CSR aims to generate economic, social, and environmental benefits (i.e., to contribute to the three pillars of sustainable development defined by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992) (Elkington 1994; Hart and Milstein 2003).

While NGOs seek to denounce organizations that exploit people for greater profit (Schwartz and Tilling 2009), Banerjee (2012) warns that companies cannot assume the role of governments to ensure social welfare. ISO 26000 promotes the universality of social responsibility, proposing that both the State and organizations are responsible for social development (International Organization for Standardization 2010), as well as the reduction of poverty and promotion of sustainable livelihoods (Siegele and Ward 2007).

ISO 26000 is a non-certifiable standard, which aims to assist organizations and to contribute to sustainable development, as well as to employ international standards of behavior (International Organization for Standardization 2010). The standard is governed by the principles presented below and has seven core subjects (Table 1).

  1. 1.

    Accountability: the organization must take responsibility for its impacts on society, economy, and the environment;

  2. 2.

    Transparency: acting with transparency in the decisions and organizational activities that impact society and the environment;

  3. 3.

    Ethical Behavior: behave with honesty, fairness, and integrity. Adopt and apply ethical standards of behavior according to the organizational activities developed;

  4. 4.

    Respect for the stakeholder’s interests: identify all stakeholders and respect their legitimate rights, and consider other interests of all individuals, not just owners and shareholders;

  5. 5.

    Respect for the rule of law: comply with the laws of all jurisdictions, keeping up-to-date to always comply with the law;

  6. 6.

    Respect for international norms of behavior: in situations where the legislation does not present norms of adequate social and environmental protection, it should at least respect international norms of behavior and avoid being complicit in activities that do not respect international norms of behavior;

  7. 7.

    Respect for human rights: respect and, if possible, promote the rights provided for in the International Declaration of Human Rights. In situations where human rights are not protected, never take advantage of such situations and respect international standards of behavior.

Table 1 The responsibility of the organizations according to the core subject of ISO 26000
Full size table

Knowing what social responsibility means is not the same as being aware of practicing social responsibility. Valmohammadi (2011) points out the lack of knowledge and awareness about CSR as a challenge.

Hasan and Almubarak (2016) indicated that while the owners and managers of small- and medium-sized enterprises in Bangladesh have a high level of understanding of the concept of social responsibility, their entrepreneurial actions are for profit. According to the interviewees, this is because they are part of a culture of corruption in which social responsibility faces many challenges.

Salazar et al. (2017) found that people working in a Mexican fumigation company understand social responsibility in accordance with respect for the environment, the quality of working conditions, ethics employed in relationships with stakeholders, the respect for the consumer, and the degree of participation in the community dedicated by the company. Despite the difficulty of generalizing a case study, the variables cited by the respondents are similar to those of the rankings of the best companies to work for (Great Place to Work 2017).

In this context, by improving its corporate identity might also improve financial performance by fostering principles of sustainable development (Wolak-Tuzimek et al. 2017).

Thus, it becomes clear how essential it is for organizations are to direct their efforts towards sustainable development when planning strategies of social interest, as advocated by the School of Environmental Management (Holt 1999).

2 Drivers Towards the CSR

The drivers for standard adoptions, such as ISO 26000 and OHSAS 18001, as well as CSR initiatives adoption, are diverse and depend on organizational characteristics and interactions in the organizational environment. According to Agudo-Valiente et al. (2017), many drivers for CSR engagement are related to ethical theories. These authors propose that CSR is morally correct, which is why organizations must be socially responsible.

Organizations that have formal strategic planning are more proactive when dealing with commercial and non-commercial issues (e.g., CSR). This is because these organizations monitor their environment and directing-actions for diverse perceived questions, including CSR (Kalyar et al. 2013). Strategic planning permits an organization to have a more in-depth view and comprehension of social responsibilities, which enables the implementation of CSR policies and practices (Kalyar et al. 2013).

Within the organizational environment, stakeholders are important for motivating organizations to adopt or follow social standards and to apply CSR initiatives. Considering the strategic planning of an organization, stakeholders are a critical strategic organizational development (Kalyar et al. 2013). Qi et al. (2013) noted that each stakeholder can influence the adoption of specific standards. For example, foreign clients and the community are essential for the adoption of ISO 9001, and foreign investors are essential for ISO 14001 adoption.

In addition to stakeholders, many other factors influence the adoption of social standards and CSR initiatives (Kalyar et al. 2013). Below, we present the primary drivers for adoption of social standards, such as ISO 26000, and CSR initiatives.

Because of globalization, competition in the international market can be a driver for adoption of ISO 26000 (Castka and Balzarova 2008; Høivik 2011; Valmohammadi 2011, 2014). Multinational organizations adopt ISO 26000 to achieve legitimacy for their intern policies of social responsibility because it facilitates access to different international markets (Castka and Balzarova 2008; Høivik 2011). In this context, the organizations can also find opportunities to be part of international joint-ventures, which can be considered as a driver for adopting ISO 26000 (Valmohammadi 2011, 2014).

Reputation is a significant driver for the adoption of ISO 26000 because the clients and others stakeholders pay attention to proactive actions of social responsibility (Pojasek 2011). Therefore, these proactive actions can improve the relationship between organizations and clients (Høivik 2011) and, consequently, improve the organization reputation (Valmohammadi 2011). To illustrate, Hasan and Almubarak (2016) studied small-medium enterprises (SMEs) engaged in socially responsible business practices in Bangladesh and discovered that 18% of their research sample considered “to improve their overall business reputation” as a driver for the engagement in social responsibility.

As explained earlier, the stakeholders are essential for motivating an organization to adopt or follow social standards and to apply CSR initiatives. Some studies have proposed that adoption of ISO 26000 could improve the relationship with external stakeholders. In specific cases, the stakeholders might notice that some organizations need to adopt social standards or CSR initiatives (Castka and Balzarova 2008); consequently, the stakeholders might pressure organizations to adopt more socially-friendly practices and actions. It is stakeholder’s role to exert pressure on organizations and managers to adopt more socially-friendly actions, as well as to disclose extra social information (Habbash 2016). Moreover, ISO 26000 presents solutions to solve conflicts between organizations and stakeholders, as well as opportunities to reinforce their relationship (Høivik 2011; Høivik and Shankar 2011). The standards also improve the organization’s capacity to maintain clients and to develop a responsible behavior with them (Merlin et al. 2012; Valmohammadi 2011).

Competitive advantage is perhaps a more important motivator for the adoption of social standards. Some studies present a variety of competitive advantages from social certification adoption. For example: advantage when confronted with competitors, increased innovation (the development of new business), increased social innovation [as pointed out by Harazin and Kósi (2013)], new business opportunities, and an increased ability to achieve desired financial results (goals) (Castka and Balzarova 2008; Hahn 2012; Harazin and Kósi 2013; Høivik 2011; Høivik and Shankar 2011; Merlin et al. 2012; Ortová and Stanková 2011; Valmohammadi 2011).

Another significant driver is the decrease in risks around the business. Directly related to competitive advantage, this driver is essential because the adoption of CSR initiatives helps to manage risks in business by preventing and mitigating them (Høivik 2011; Valmohammadi 2011).

Adherence to government laws can be a motivator for engaging in social responsibility (Hasan and Almubarak 2016; Valmohammadi 2014). For example, in a study carried out by Hasan and Almubarak (2016), SMEs in Bangladesh considered that “to comply with domestic and international laws” as a driver to engage CSR initiatives.

The drivers presented above were related to external aspects of an organization, such as the interactions in the organizational environment and competitiveness. Below, we present some drivers related to the internal aspects of an organization.

The social standards adoption and CSR initiatives improve the work environment and make it more sustainable (Ortová and Stanková 2011) by improving the relationship between employees and the organization, as well as between co-workers. Moreover, social standards adoption and CSR initiatives increase the organization’s chances of attracting talented and desired professionals (Høivik 2011; Valmohammadi 2011).

Organizations that have adopted other international management systems standards could be motivated to adopt ISO 26000 (Castka and Balzarova 2008; Høivik 2011) because social standards are often harmonious with other standards, such as ISO 14001 (Høivik 2011). The integration of management systems can reduce costs, such as deployment costs, and can improve “operational efficiency, employee motivation, efficient management and utilization of organizational resources, gaining competitive advantage and for sustainable development” (Muthu et al. 2015).

Company size can be a driver to adopt or follow the content of ISO 26000. Barnes and Croker (2013) identified that social responsibility issues in ISO 26000, especially the health and safety in the workplace and to the environment, are very relevant to Hong Kong construction companies with more than 200 employees.

Finally, ISO 26000 is a guide to the implementation of CSR aspects in diverse types of organizations. This standard offers a guide to improve organization CSR credibility (Pojasek 2011) and could be necessary for some organizations to identify consensus definitions of central themes related to CSR (Hahn 2012).

3 Implementation Barriers

Barriers block and prevent the satisfaction of a need or the locomotion for a specific vector (Chiavenato 2004). Barriers are also encountered when implementing more sustainable organizational practices that move an organization towards a more significant social responsibility. Such blockages might prevent the implementation of organizational practices that would lead to success, growth and development, and improved organizational competition.

It is essential that companies know both what motivates them in a particular direction and what they can prevent. For example, in the face of increasing public environmental awareness, the power generation sector will have to deal with barriers to seeking technological alternatives, even if they are highly risky and with an uncertain future. Other sectors that face barriers to sustainability can also overcome them by developing the capacity for absorption and communicative skills (Pinkse and Dommisse 2009).

It is worth mentioning that specific factors can be barriers for some organizations, while for others they are challenges and a starting point for development (Pinkse and Dommisse 2009).

As the standards (voluntary guidance standard) or guidelines for social responsibility are new and are part of a sustainability dimension, there is an implicit need to understand the main barriers that prevent the integration of sustainability strategies, since generic assessments of why environmental policies end up failing are neither sufficient nor relevant statements (Adams and Ghaly 2007). Thus, it is important to determine and identify the barriers that block the implementation of ISO 26000, thereby preventing locomotion for a particular vector (in this case, a company with more social responsibility).

It is worth noting that other standards also have implementation barriers. Zeng et al. (2007) highlight the following implementation barriers in a study addressing the ISO 9000 family of quality management system standards: (1) short-sighted objectives; (2) excess expectations of the standard; (3) mandatory requirements without compromise; and (4) follow the certification trend.

Abdullah et al. (2013) list five categories of implementation barriers (organizational, resource, cultural, environmental, and technical) for ISO 9000 in a government enterprise in Malaysia.

The lack of culture management and people with difficulties understanding are barriers to social responsibility and achieving a more innovative environment. Matinaro and Yang (2017) emphasize that managers, in the case of the construction industry, cannot manage or create a culture of innovation. Thus, there are significant sector-level gaps in innovation that have a negative impact on social change for sustainability. The same can be applied to a culture of social responsibility; the top-down relationship is typically important for this development. However, Asif et al. (2013) emphasize that to achieve an integrated socio-technical system, the social aspects of companies must be aligned with their technical structures. The development of employees and the continuous improvement for learning and innovation gradually develop the institutional knowledge of corporate social responsibility through both top-down and bottom-up approaches.

The ISO 14000 series of standards related to the environmental management system also present barriers to its implementation. In a study, Biondi et al. (2000) report that, for small and medium-sized enterprises, the primary barrier is economic, followed by knowledge management and lack of specialized human resources. Because of an organization’s strategic position, it is essential to identify implementation barriers, regardless of practices, whether of quality with ISO 9000, environmental with ISO 14000 or social with ISO 26000. It is essential to make clear that there are several implementations of a corporate social responsibility system, either by SA8000 or ISO 26000 standards (Chiarini and Vagnoni 2017). In this way, many barriers will be familiar since they are related to social responsibility practices, whereas others are more specific since these standards differ from each other.

To clarify the difference between the standards of social responsibility, Chiarini and Vagnoni (2017) carried out a quantitative study to highlight the differences between the two social responsibility standards. They conclude that ISO 26000 can have a more significant effect on the effectiveness of a CSR system from a strategic point-of-view and SA8000 is based on strategies to comply with laws and resolutions. When the issue involved economic and financial aspects of the organization, neither the SA8000 nor ISO 26000 had a significant effect, probably because the standards focus more on the principles of effectiveness than on efficiency. Nevertheless, according to the results of Chiarini and Vagnoni (2017), SA8000 focuses more on specific stakeholders, such as workers, unions, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), while ISO 26000 involves all possible stakeholders. Another point is that SA8000 is deficient in taking into account the market issues and the category of customers, while ISO 26000 adequately addresses customer needs management.

Valmohammadi (2011) surveyed 130 manufacturing organizations in Iran and ranked the main barriers to implementing CSR practices and initiatives: (1) lack of knowledge or awareness of CSR; (2) focus on removing obstacles and achieving short-term goals rather than developing long-term strategies; (3) lack of knowledge about how to implement CSR with the organization’s strategy; (4) lack of adequate communication and promotion of stakeholders; (5) private companies believe that the government should be responsible for sustainable development and leadership in this field; (6) acts of charity are always understood to remain private; and (7) xenophobic mentality and in the form of conspiracy.

For the author, 85% of these organizations expect to have a more successful position in the market by improving the corporate identity resulting from the implementation of CSR activities and programs.

Lack of knowledge and awareness is a prominent barrier, which can be overcome through public policies involving government and higher education institutions. It is worth mentioning that most of the seven main areas of ISO 26000 deal with essential aspects to organizations: the environment, human rights, labor practices, organizational governance, fair operating practices, consumer problems, and contribution to the community and society (Park and Kim 2011). Using the ISO 26000 core can enable success by reducing costs and increasing revenue (Valmohammadi 2011).

The impact of ISO 26000 on trade and its relationship with the World Trade Organization can be considered a barrier if this standard has the same effect as the 9000 and 14000 ISO series. Thus, there would be an adverse effect on trade in countries that do not comply with the human rights aspects, as is the case in many exporting countries.

There are fears that ISO 26000 could cause more global pressure on small producers if they do not meet the guidelines of the standard by limiting market access for products from developing countries (Ward 2011).

Høivik (2011) emphasizes two implementation barriers, both related to knowledge management: the ISO 26000 as a process standard is well-suited to the characteristics of the company and therefore becomes company specific; and obstacles related to how to share this knowledge.

In a systematic review, Deus et al. (2014) highlight ten important implementation barriers for ISO 26000: (1) A lack of alignment of the CSR with the organizational strategy: CRS is essential to the company’s success, and there is research linking RSC to competitive success. However, efforts are needed in understanding conceptual and theoretical advances and empirical tests between CSR and company performance (Galbreath 2009); (2) Commercial (national and international): because it can limit a companies’ access to the market, especially those that do not value human rights; (3) A lack of understanding of ISO 26000: organizations may not understand it as a whole, thinking that it is irrelevant and inapplicable; (4) A lack of communication: related to the lack of ability to effectively communicate and promote ideas with stakeholders (internal and external); (5) A lack of tools: most of the social responsibility implementation tools are designed for multinationals and not for small and medium-sized enterprises, or start-up companies; (6) A lack of sensitivity to the theme: probably because of a lack of understanding of the theme; (7) A focus on the short term: this means short-sighted objectives, because companies want immediate results, while sustainability-related issues take time; (8) Knowledge management: social responsibility is not an easy question to interpret and apply. Moreover, there is a requirement for specific knowledge and management of this knowledge to be transmitted to the organization, making it shareable; (9) Fear of not complying with the standard: because it involves issues such as organizational governance, human rights, labor practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues and local community involvement/development. This can generate some discomfort, especially for companies that are not aligned with these topics; (10) Financial resources: not being sure of the financial return due to the resources and time spent in the process.

To overcome these barriers is a challenge for organizational management, which must use the necessary tools presented by the standard, as well as fostering support via the drivers. Thus, the organization must plan (through a clear objective), do (through training and knowledge management, executing and collecting the necessary data), check if the goals have been reached and if the barriers have been transposed, and act, while always seeking the continuous improvement, correcting errors, and preventing and detecting new barriers.

4 Conclusion

ISO 26000 is primarily a guide to CSR, providing tools to improve organizational credibility about CSR. This standard allows the identification of consensus definitions of central subjects, issues of social responsibility, and corporate sustainability, which are exciting and relevant aspects of organizations.

We identified much opportunity to study the capacity of organizations to implement ISO 26000. Because of the specific characteristics of each organization, the implementation of ISO 26000 by one organization cannot be copied by another. Each company must tread its own path while learning from the shared experiences of others.

Further research is now needed to investigate how partnerships between universities and industries can contribute to promoting the adoption of social responsibility by organizations. Also, the role of the States and the World Trade Organization in the diffusion of ISO 26000 should be further investigated. We propose that the creation of an ISO 26000 implementation model for companies, emphasizing small and medium-sized enterprises, is also fundamental for new research.