CANADIAN HR REPORTER
JANUARY 2020
INSIGHT 23
HR standards: What's the point?
A key challenge is that human capital metrics are still in their infancy
Is there any value in developing standards for human resources
management? Strong opinions have been ex-
pressed on both sides of the discussion.
The concepts of developing "leading-
practice" reference documents must
surely have some merit, but true value
can only be obtained if the ideas within
these documents help develop better,
high-performance HR functions.
"Studies show that a high-per-
forming human resources (HR)
department, with effective people
management and recruitment, is
linked to greater economic per-
formance of the organization
and plays a key role in instilling
company values throughout the
workforce," according to the Inter-
national Standards Organization
(ISO) in a 2016 release. "ISO's new
range of international standards
for human resources aims to help
HR departments improve their
performance and, ultimately, im-
prove the performance of the or-
ganization in which they work."
Enlightened management real-
izes that, to be successful, almost
all other performance improve-
ment initiatives must be built on
a strong foundation of human
capital engagement. Lean man-
agement techniques, six sigma,
dashboards and scorecards, quali-
ty management, process improve-
ment and control, benchmarking,
Hoshin Kanri/Hoshin Planning,
structured problem-solving — all
of these cost organizations billions
of dollars to implement, yet they
often fail due to a poor culture
founded on lack of effective HR
approaches and poor leadership.
"Many team and organization
change and improvement efforts
are lost or badly bewildered. De-
cades of studies have shown that 50
to 70 per cent are failing," says Jim
Clemmer, president of the Clem-
mer Group in Kitchener, Ont.
While most larger organiza-
tions tend to have professional
HR managers, small to medium-
sized enterprises tend to rely on
the owners or an administrative
manager — even another func-
tional head, such as the accoun-
tant, for HR strategy and plan-
ning. Where do these people go
for guidance? Certainly, consul-
tants can be hired, but this can
become expensive.
e availability of a portfolio
of standards can provide an ex-
cellent source of information for
both HR professionals and those
without a strong HR background.
Such standards have been under
development by ISO since 2011
when TC (Technical Committee)
260 was formed. Since that date,
ISO has released the following
standards:
• ISO 30414:2018 Guidelines for
internal and external human
capital reporting
• ISO 30409:2016 Workforce
planning
• ISO 30408:2016 Guidelines on
human governance
• ISO 30405:2016 Guidelines on
recruitment (currently under
revision)
• I S O 30401:2018 Knowl-
edge management systems
– requirements
• ISO 30400:2016 Vocabulary
(currently under revision)
• ISO 10667 (Parts 1 and 2) 2011:
Assessment service delivery:
Procedures and methods to as-
sess people in work and orga-
nizational settings (currently
under revision).
In addition, several technical
specifications have either been
issued or are under development
that expand specific topics un-
der the human capital reporting
area. ISO 30414 and the various
supporting specifications are an
exciting development given the
growth in supplemental corporate
reporting and accountability out-
lined in the guidelines issued
by the International Integrated
Reporting Committee (IIRC).
Human capital metrics
In September 2019, the IIRC dis-
closed that a growing number of
public corporations is now using
this framework that specifically
calls for metrics on human capital
performance. In addition to this
growth, the Securities Exchange
Commission in the United States
has recently carried out a call for
suggestions about how human
capital reporting might be added
as required information from U.S.
public companies.
A key challenge is that hu-
man capital metrics are in their
infancy, especially as they relate
to organizational performance.
Metrics such as hours of train-
ing and development, turnover
and retention levels, employee
satisfaction and other traditional
measures are currently used, but
HR professionals need to be ac-
tively engaged in how to develop
much more meaningful numbers
that tell the real story about how
high-performance organizations
focus on building human-centric
approaches to strategy. Focusing
on the link between issues such as
customer satisfaction, innovation,
creativity, commitment and con-
tinual improvement help to drive
and sustain competitive advantage.
Canada reinstated as member
ere are currently 31 countries
actively involved in developing
these ISO standards and another
24 countries "observing" develop-
ment activity. is is almost half
of all the ISO member countries.
e U.S. is currently leading the
work of TC 260 HR Management,
and countries such as the United
Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Ja-
pan, Israel, France and others are
actively involved.
In 2019, Canada was re-instat-
ed as a participating member.
Based on this, Canadians can now
contribute to, comment on and
vote on the development of these
standards. Why should we both-
er? As a country of immigrants,
we represent people with differ-
ent backgrounds and opinions;
we are believed to be a friendly,
peace-loving and secure place to
live; and we are seen as believing
in equality, diversity and respect
for individuals. Aren't these values
and qualities that should put us in
a place where we can make a posi-
tive contribution to the develop-
ment of leading HR practices?
Your help is needed
e good news is that, since Can-
ada returned to active or partici-
pating status, three of the profes-
sional HR bodies across Canada
are represented on our committee.
rough this, we should have ac-
cess to opinions from a broad base
of participants. We are gradually
adding to the committee, but we
continue to seek out individuals
who have the time and passion to
contribute to the standards devel-
opment process. Most of the work
is carried out through working
groups tasked with one or more
projects, which currently include:
• WG 1 Terminology (looks after
vocabulary)
• WG 2 Metrics – who have sev-
eral projects, principally devel-
oping technical specifications
to support human capital re-
porting in clusters such as qual-
ity and impact of hiring, cost of
hire, occupational health and
safety, organizational culture,
workforce skills and capabilities,
cost, compliance and ethics and
turnover and retention
• WG 4 Workforce management
— who have recently had a new
mandate, and which is now led
by one of our Canadian members
• WG 5 Recruitment
• WG 6 Knowledge management
• WG 8 Diversity and inclu-
sionWG 9 Employee engage-
mentWG 11 Learning and
development.
If anyone is interested in this
work, we can always do with more
participants. Applications should
be made on the SCC (Standards
Council of Canada) website to join
TC 260. is will then be forward-
ed to the chairperson for review
and, hopefully, acceptance.
Nick A. Shepherd is CEO of Edu
Vision and chairman of the Canadian
TC 260 Mirror Committee on Human
Resource Management.
Banning certain topics of discussion
Under threat of discipline, can an employer stop employees from discussing
certain topics at work that have caused arguments between employees?
Answer: Freedom of expression is a funda-
mental freedom protected by section 2(b)
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms (Charter). e protection of
freedom of expression is premised upon
fundamental principles and values that
promote the search for and attainment of
truth, participation in social and political
decision-making and the opportunity for
individual self-fulfillment through
expression.
However, while free speech is a
protected right, individuals often
mistakenly assert that freedom as
an absolute right.
Employees do not have a consti-
tutional right to freedom of expres-
sion at work in most circumstanc-
es. e first issue always is whether
the employee is protected by the
charter, and such a determination
requires a finding that a particular
employer is subject to the charter
(meaning is the employer a gov-
ernment or quasi-government
employer versus private sector).
The charter's right to free
speech is confined to government
action, and most public sector
employers have free reign (subject
to its obligation to not discrimi-
nate on a protected ground such
as political affiliation) to control
expression in the workplace.
In most circumstances, regard-
less of whether the charter ap-
plies, employers are generally free
to restrict employee speech to a
certain degree, at least while they
are at work. e context in which
employers most often place lim-
its on expression is an employer's
legal and statutory obligation to
provide a safe work environment
free from discrimination, harass-
ment, violence and bullying.
As such, limits to expression by
employees may take many differ-
ent forms. ey can include disci-
plinary action taken against certain
employees, corporate policies and
rules or even common law rules
such as the duty of loyalty owed by
an employee to an employer.
Employers commonly imple-
ment policies that provide for a
respectful workplace and par-
ticularize appropriate workplace
conduct.
Such policies implicitly have the
effect of restricting certain topics
of discussion or expression such as
discriminatory or hurtful remarks,
threatening statements and even
political discourse if it escalates
into argument influencing the
broader workplace and culture.
For example, hate speech or
topics of discussion that could
create a poisoned work environ-
ment for employees are generally
prohibited. One of the leading Ca-
nadian cases in this area (Canada
Post Corp. v C.U.P.W., 26 L.A.C.
(3d) 58 (Can. Arb.) notes that em-
ployees are not entitled, while at
work, to express themselves either
in verbal or written form in a man-
ner that is calculated to disrupt
production or bring the employer
into disrepute with its customers.
Overall, freedom of expression
cannot be equated to freedom
from workplace consequences.
Certain comments or discussion
can create a negative or hostile
work environment that can inter-
fere with an employee's job per-
formance or work environment.
As much as freedom of speech
are important values to advocate,
employers must also ensure that
all speech is carried out respect-
fully and free of discrimination.
Tim Mitchell practises management-
side labour and employment law
at McLennan Ross in Calgary. He
can be reached at (403) 303-1791 or
tmitchell@mross.com.
Nick Shepherd
Guest Commentary
We need individuals who have
the time and passion to contribute
to the standards development.
Tim Mitchell
Toughest HR Question
Topics of discussion shouldn't
create a poisoned work environment.
