Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, ISSN 1548-6583 March 2014, Vol. 10, No. 3, 356-383
Integration of Individualized Management Systems (MSs) as an Aggregating Factor of Sustainable Value for Organizations:
An Overview Through a Review of the Literature ∗
Manuel Ferreira Rebelo
Lusíada University, Vila Nova de Famalicão, Portugal Gilberto Santos
Polytechnic Institute of Cavado and Ave, Barcelos, Portugal Rui Silva
Lusíada University, Vila Nova de Famalicão, Portugal
Nowadays, there exist various standards for individual management systems (MSs), at least, one for each stakeholder. New ones will be published. An integrated management system (IMS) aims to integrate some or all components of the business into one coherent and efficient MS. Maximizing integration is more and more a strategic priority in that it constitutes an opportunity to eliminate and/or reduce potential factors of destruction of value for the organizations and also to be more competitive and consequently promote its sustainable success. A preliminary investigation was conducted on a Portuguese industrial company which, over the years, has been adopting gradually, in whole or in part, individualized management system standards (MSSs). A research, through a questionnaire, was performed with the objective to develop, in a real business environment, an adequate and efficient IMS-QES (quality, environment, and safety) model and to potentiate for the future a generic IMS model to integrate other MSSs. The strategy and research methods have taken into consideration the case study. It was obtained a set of relevant conclusions resulting from the statistical analyses of the responses to the survey. Globally, the investigation results, by themselves, justified and prioritized the conception of a model of development of the IMS-QES and consequent definition and validation of a structure of an IMS-QES model, to be implemented at the small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) where the investigation was conducted.
Keywords: integrated management system (IMS), quality management system (QMS), environmental management system (EMS), occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS), sustainable business, added value
Introduction
Presently, in the context of business and industry globalization as well as the worldwide competitive economy, organizations are under immense pressure in order to meet all the requirements of their stakeholders,
∗Acknowledgements: This work had the financial support of the Portuguese National Science Foundation (FCT) through the
Research Unit, UI 4005, Project Reference PEst-OE/EME/UI4005/2011.
Manuel Ferreira Rebelo, researcher, CLEGI, Lusíada University. Email: manuel.f.rebelo@gmail.com.
Gilberto Santos, professor, Department of Design, Campus do IPCA, Polytechnic Institute of Cavado and Ave.
Rui Silva, associate professor and head of Engineering and Technology Faculty, CLEGI, Lusíada University.
DAVID PUBLISHING
D
and the actual global business environment has a strong impact on the theory and practice of organizations as well as on the work behavior of its collaborators (Hernaus, 2011). It is widely accepted that, in the 21st century, globalization will be highlighted by a rapid proliferation and diffusion of innovative technologies, products, and services and the increasingly important role of innovation in catalyzing, shaping, and driving competitiveness (Soliman, 2012). The rise of the innovation has led organizations to embracing innovation as a key competitive advantage (Soliman, 2013).
According to Elizabeth (2013), it is estimated that more than 90% of the world’s businesses are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs are, on average, the businesses that are generating growth, creating jobs, growing faster, and innovating more. International standards provide as many benefits for small businesses as they do for global enterprises. The strategic use of international standards can make a significant difference to the annual turnover of an SME, sometimes the difference between success and failure.
Customer satisfaction is no longer the fundamental issue regarding business sustainability, as referred by International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9004 (ISO, 2009b), there are other relevant stakeholders to be satisfied (Rebelo, 2011). Due to the demand of the market itself or by other internal reasons, there are many organizations that implement different standardized management systems (MSs) (Karapetrovic &
Casadesus, 2009).
In addition, the proliferation of individual management system standards (MSSs) in organizations is a reality. MSSs have developed in an unprecedented manner in the last few years. According to the ISO (2008b), The Integrated Use of Management System Standards, a common objective of MSSs is to assist organizations to manage the risks associated with providing products and services to customers and other stakeholders.
Traditionally, the management of the requirements of that diversity of MSSs like for quality, environment, occupational health and safety, and other organizational aspects is seen to be fragmented and spread across different personnel and managers. The impact generated by quality, environment, and other MSSs is demonstrated by the importance of such standards worldwide, ISO 9001 (ISO, 2008a), ISO 14001 (ISO, 2004), among several others.
The development and use of MSSs have increased in an abrupt manner and therefore, their integration becomes a necessity (ISO, 2008b; Karapetrovic, 2007; Bernardo, Casadesus, Karapetrovic, & Heras, 2009).
MSSs, such as ISO 9001 for quality management system (QMS), ISO 14001 for environmental management system (EMS), Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) 18001 (British Standards Institution [BSI], 2007) for occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS), Social Accountability (SA) 8000 (Social Accountability International, 2008)/ISO 26000 (ISO, 2010) for corporate social responsibility management system (CSRMS), ISO/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 27001 (ISO/IEC, 2005) for information security management system (ISMS), ISO 31000 (ISO, 2009a) for risk management (RM), ISO/Technical Specification (TS) 16949 (ISO, 2009c) for QMS—particular requirements for the application of ISO 9001 for automotive production and relevant service part organizations, and ISO 50001 (ISO, 2011b) for energy management system (EnMS), cover a wide array of different management disciplines, aims, and activities of organizations.
According to The ISO Survey of Management System Standard Certifications for 2011 (ISO, 2012), the
results show significant increases in certification to a number of ISO MSSs, including ISO/IEC 27001 for
information security (up 12% in 2010) and ISO 22000 (ISO, 2005) for food safety management (up 8% in
2010). Certificates of environmental management and energy management standards also increased as did the quality management standard for the automotive sector. Globally, the ISO survey (ISO, 2012) revealed that the number of new MSSs certifications, the number of certified organizations, and the related number of involved countries are growing. Figures 1 and 2 show an overview of the evolution of the ISO 9001 (1993-2012) and ISO 14001 (1999-2012) certifications and Figure 3 shows the number of related countries.
In 2011, new MSSs, in a total of seven, were included in the ISO survey (ISO, 2012). Table 1 shows a summary of the worldwide statistics of MSSs certifications in 2010 and at the end of 2012 for 184 countries.
Figure 1. Annual growth of the worldwide ISO 9001 certifications.
Source: Rebelo, Santos, and Silva (2013); ISO (2012).
Figure 2. Annual growth of the worldwide ISO 14001 certifications.
Source: Rebelo et al. (2013); ISO (2012).
46,571
223,298
561,766
896,905
1,101,272
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 19931994
19951996 19971998 19992000 20012002 20032004 20052006 20072008 20092010 20112012
Number of ISO 9001 certificates Y
e a r s
13,994
111,163
261,957 285,844
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of ISO 14001 certificates Y
e a r s
Figure 3. Evolution of the number of countries with MSSs certifications.
Source: Rebelo et al. (2013); ISO (2012).
Table 1
Summary of the Worldwide Statistics of Certifications for 2010, 2011, and 2012
Name of standard Number of worldwide certificates in Evolution (2010/2012)
2010 % 2011 % 2012 % Number %
ISO 9001 1,118,510 76.24 1,079,647 74.66 1,101,272 73.21 -17,238 -1.54
ISO 14001 251,548 17.15 261,957 18.11 285,844 19.00 34,296 13.63
ISO 50001 0 --- 459 0.030 1,981 0.13 1,981 ---
ISO/IEC 27001 15,627 1.07 17,355 1.20 19,577 1.30 3,950 25.28
ISO 22000 18,580 1.26 19,351 1.34 23,231 1.54 4,651 25.03
ISO/TS 16949 43,946 2.99 47,512 3.29 50,071 3.33 6,125 13.94
ISO 13485 (ISO, 2003) 18,834 1.29 19,849 1.37 22,237 1.48 3,403 18.07
Total 1,467,045 --- 1,446,130 --- 1,504,213 --- 37,168 2.53
Note. Source: Rebelo et al. (2013); ISO (2012).
In relation to Portugal, we can observe too an increase of proliferation of MSSs in organizations as well as an increase of associated certifications of MSs. Table 2 shows those increases for the period of 2007-2012 (59.07%) and Figure 4 illustrates the corresponding evolution of total certificates.
In this context of real and new paradigms of management, the Global Quality Management, it imposes that business excellence is sought permanently (Rebelo, 2011) as well as sustained success (ISO, 2009b; Asif, Bruijn, & Fisscher, 2008; Bernardo et al., 2009; Rebelo, 2011; Simon, Karapetrovic, & Casadesus, 2012;
Rebelo & Silva, 2012). More than ever, in organizations, quality and its management are global, involving a whole range of stakeholders, intervening in all phases of the life cycle of a product or service and leading to a discipline of process carried to extremes: Intervention is the responsibility of every collaborator and every function of the organization, without exception, in a continuous manner, as stated by Suditu (2007). Quality does not have an isolated existence in the modern world (Al-Darrab, Gulzar, & Ali, 2012). The modern organizational culture is founded on the coordinated merging of safety, quality, occupational health, and
60
125
159 170
184
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of countries
Y
e
a
r
s
environment. According to C. C. Yang and K. J. Yang (2011), more than ever, it is taken into account but regarded as insufficient to satisfy their customers; to be really successful, an organization has to create value for customers. This new perception provides new dimensions to quality. According to Garengo and Biazzo (2012), the relevance of the evolutionary path suggests the need to move from a total quality management (TQM) approach to the implementation of an integrated management system (IMS).
Table 2
Summary of Statistics of Certifications in Portugal for the Period of 2007-2012
Name of standard Number of Portuguese certificates in
2007 % 2008 % 2009 % 2010 % 2011 % 2012 %
ISO 9001 6,576 85.04 6,411 83.08 7,110 81.92 7,168 63.39 8,406 62.09 7,184 58.41 ISO 14001 776 10.04 691 8.95 710 8.19 993 8.78 1,467 10.83 1,247 10.14 OHSAS 18001/NP 4397
(Instituto Português da Qualidade, 2008a)
380 4.92 384 4.98 472 5.44 627 5.54 589 4.35 773 6.28
SA 8000/NP 4469 (Instituto Português da Qualidade, 2008b)
--- --- 16 0.21 34 0.39 46 0.41 53 0.39 65 0.53
NP 4457
(Instituto Português da Qualidade, 2007)
--- --- 18 0.23 26 0.3 51 0.45 125 0.92 118 0.96
ISO 22000 --- --- 85 1.10 171 1.98 252 2.23 326 2.40 317 2.58
Hazard analysis and critical
control points (HACCP) --- --- 31 0.40 78 0.89 68 0.60 60 0.44 76 0.62
ISO/TS 16949 --- --- 81 1.05 78 0.89 89 0.79 100 0.73 120 0.98
Other MSs --- --- --- --- --- --- 2,014 17.81 2,412 17.81 2,400 19.51
Total 7,732 --- 7,717 --- 8,679 --- 11,308 --- 13,538 --- 12,300 ---
Note. Source: Rebelo et al. (2013); Data from Portuguese Certified Companies Guide (Cempalavras, Comunicação Empresarial, 2010, 2012, 2013).
Figure 4. Evolution of the total certificates in Portugal for the period of 2007-2012.
Source: Rebelo et al. (2013); Data from Portuguese Certified Companies Guide (Cempalavras, Comunicação Empresarial, 2010, 2012, 2013).
7,732 8,679
11,308
13,538 12,300
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 2007
2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of MSS certifications Y
e
a
r
s
Potential Difficulties With Multiple MSSs
Quality is no longer, as formerly, a reluctant and restricted concept and must be managed in a global perspective and of sustainability not only focused on satisfying customers, but also on a whole range of relevant stakeholders (Rebelo, 2011).
Since the domain of standardized MSs has expanded greatly over the last years, nowadays, there exist many international and Portuguese MSSs for individual MSs, which apply to any type of organization. In fact, there exists a “puzzle” of MSSs inside organizations as well as the related individual MSs, as shown in Figure 5, at least one for each stakeholder. New ones will appear.
Figure 5. Many MSSs and related individual MSs inside the organizations that shall be integrated in an efficient IMS.
Several of these international and Portuguese MSSs have been published recently. This requires supplementary effort to be placed first in the learning process, considering the route that must be taken by organizations towards full implementation, which should be carried out in a balanced manner with added value (Rebelo, 2011).
These individual MSs, as parts of a global organization’s MS, reflect the different needs and expectations of the stakeholders, and as concluded by Karapetrovic and Jonker (2003):
Integration of function-specific management systems is rapidly becoming a necessity for many businesses, regardless of their size, position in the market, location, or even the industry sector to which they belong. This is partly caused by the almost uncontrollable proliferation of management system standards. (p. 457)
As a result, organizations are addressing the issues of complexity of MSSs implementation and their related costs (Rebelo, 2011). In recent time, the inclusion of innovation strategies in the formulation of firms’ competitive priorities has led to some strategic choices. These choices could include prioritizing and developing the right technological innovations that match firms’ resources, capabilities, and processes (Soliman, 2013).
The growing level of standardization versus proliferation of MSS and its individual implementation
according to each stakeholder requirements might constitute a factor of destruction of value for organizations,
and consequently to the relevant stakeholders, depriving them from competitiveness (Rebelo, 2011). To prevent this situation, it is imperative to think lean by eliminating all types of organizational wastes that in the organizations can destroy value (Rebelo, 2011). For these purposes, an efficient management of the organizational structure, operational resources, and all the applicable requirements has to be the rule, in line with the ISO 9004 (ISO, 2009b) principles to promote the sustained success of the organization’s business (Rebelo & Santos, 2012).
While some organizations prioritize external aspects such as customers, markets, and competition, others are more related to internal aspects like efficiency, costs, or processes (Chiavenato, 2004). According to ISO 9004 (2009b), the sustained success of an organization is considered as the result of its ability to achieve and maintain its long-term objectives that pass unfulfilled, in a consistent way, the needs and expectations of its stakeholders, in a balanced and in the long term.
According to Ates and Bititci (2011), the business environment is constantly changing, and managing changes to adapt to an uncertain future is a challenge that requires resilience—the capacity of an organization to survive, adapt, and sustain the business in the face of turbulent changes. More than ever, an organization’s sustainability should be the focus rather than financial results (Rebelo, 2011). These results will not verify if that focus does not prioritize also, the permanent satisfaction of the customers and other relevant stakeholders by an efficient management of the organizational structure, operational resources, and all the applicable requirements (Rebelo & Santos, 2012). On the other hand, according to Del Baldo (2012) from an entrepreneurial and managerial point of view, corporate sustainability is based upon the holistic understanding of business success, as the simultaneous performance of economical, ecological, and societal criteria over the long run implies the connection of economic efficiency with ecologic production and social responsibility (SR).
According to the ISO (2008b), the stakeholders’ requirements increased. The individual implementation is an option that leads to a sub-optimization of the MS, and a more effective and efficient option for an organization is to integrate the implementation of requirements of multiple MSSs.
Moreover, the ISO 19011 (ISO, 2011a), Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems, has been expanded to reflect current thinking and the complexity of auditing multiple MSSs and encourages organizations to integrate several individualized MSs.
Results from published works in this area (see, for example, Karapetrovic & Willborn, 1998; Wilkinson &
Dale, 1999, 2001; Seghezzi, 2001; Karapetrovic, 2002; Matias & Coelho, 2002; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005;
Jørgensen, Remmen, & Mellado, 2006; Zeng, Shi, & Lou, 2007; Bernardo, Casadesus, Karapetrovic, & Heras,
2008, among others) refer that one of the difficulties of organizations in integrating their individualized MSs
results from a lack of understanding of the relevant MSSs as well as from a non-harmonized and coherent use
between them. Moreover, despite the fact that many of these MSSs have been published recently, an additional
effort is needed, namely, at the level of the learning process considering the way to go by the organizations until
to its full implementation, which is intended to be optimized, with added and sustainable value for all the
stakeholders (Rebelo, 2011). On the other hand, according to Castillo-Rojas, Casadesus, Karapetrovic,
Coromina, Heras, and Martín (2012), from the perspective of the MSSs integration process, when the difficulty
related to the lack of specialized support decreases within the company, the perception of MSSs as a hindrance
decreases. Indeed, when the lack of specialized auditors, technical support, and/or specialized consultants is a
fact on the MSSs integration processes, companies have to explore and create their own particular mechanisms to handle the integration process.
Benefits From Integration
In order to have quality and excellence in products (or services) as well as in the management of companies that provide them, it has become imperative for the companies to improve continually and optimize these existing individual standardized MSs. It allows them to attain true added value for all their stakeholders and makes it possible to adopt, inside of the organizational structure, new MSSs in a coherent and consistent fashion (Rebelo, 2011).
As can be expected, there are several difficulties involved in implementing IMSs. However, according to Beckmerhagen, Berg, Karapetrovic, and Willborn (2003), the MSs implemented separately in an incompatible way results in costs, an increased probability of faults and errors, duplicated efforts, the creation of unnecessary bureaucracy, and a negative impact near the stakeholders, particularly employees and costumers.
According to Asociación Espanhola de Normalización y Certificación [AENOR] (2005), there are many organizations that have opted for the use of standardized MSs, to ensure the profitability and reliability of results. These organizations need to manage effectively and efficiently their MSs making them compatible with each other, so that it can be possible to establish aligned organizational objectives, as well as having an integrated overview of the MSs which facilitates decision-making.
As stated by Suditu (2007), the integration of MSs is associated with internal motivations and corresponding benefits, by dividing them into: (1) organizational—improvement of the quality of the management by downsizing of three departments into one and reducing barriers among individual systems; (2) financial—reduction in auditing costs; (3) employees—increased motivation, awareness, and competences; and (4) external motivations and corresponding benefits, by dividing them into: (a) commercial—competitive advantage, improved market position, and gain of new clients and satisfying current ones; and (b) communication—improved image of the organization, improved relationships with stakeholders, and evidence of legal compliance.
Matias and Coelho (2011) argued that the integration of individual standardized MSs has to promote greater benefits than perils in order to make sense for any organization and highlights benefits such as cost cutting, increased company competitiveness, improved resource management, added performance, and improved communication, among others.
Organizations, therefore, need a framework to integrate these individual standardized MSs and facilitate their contributions to the operation of the overall business MS (Asif, Bruijn, Fisscher, & Searcy, 2010) and consequently to promoting its sustainable success by an efficient management while continuing to provide products and services according to all stakeholders’ requirements (Rebelo, 2011).
From an entrepreneurial and managerial point of view, corporate sustainability is based upon the holistic understanding of business success, as the simultaneous performance of economical, ecological, and societal criteria over the long run implies the connection of economic efficiency with ecologic production and SR (Del Baldo, 2012).
Hence, in a not distant past, some organizations in Portugal and other countries, although in a small
percentage, began to integrate their individual standardized MSs, like QMS, EMS, OHSMS, and CSRMS. For
this purpose, organizations began to conceive integrated procedures in order to make the integration of two
systems (QMS and EMS or EMS and OHSMS) and whenever possible, the three standardized MSs: QMS, EMS, and OHSMS (Santos, Mendes, & Barbosa, 2011).
According to Salomone (2008), a cultural shift is underway and the number of companies with more than one certification is constantly on the increase. Many of them are advancing towards integration. In a recent past, in Portugal and other countries, some companies have begun to integrate their individual MSs (Santos, Ramos, Almeida, Rebelo, Pereira, Barros, & Vale, 2013). In Table 3 and in Figure 6, we present the evolution of the number of certifications of IMS-QES (quality, environment, and safety) for 2007, 2010, and 2011.
Table 3
Summary of Statistics of Certified Companies in Portugal Related to IMS-QES for 2007, 2010, and 2011
IMS-QES Number of certified companies in Evolution (2007/2011)
2007 % 2010 % 2011 % Number %
ISO 9001 + ISO 14001 + OHSAS 18001 281 34.65 429 44.64 468 45.40 187 66.54
ISO 9001 + ISO 14001 436 53.76 366 38.08 402 39 -34 -7.8
ISO 9001 + OHSAS 18001 88 10.85 127 13.21 120 11.63 32 36.36
ISO 14001 + OHSAS 18001 6 0.74 39 4.05 41 3.97 35 583
Total 811 --- 961 --- 1,031 --- 220 27.12
Note. Source: Data from Portuguese Certified Companies Guide (Cempalavras, Comunicação Empresarial, 2012, 2013).
Figure 6. Evolution of the number of certified companies in Portugal related to IMS-QES for 2007, 2010, and 2011.
Source: Data from Portuguese Certified Companies Guide (Cempalavras, Comunicação Empresarial, 2012, 2013).
The synergy that an IMS can offer has driven organizations into higher levels of performance at a lower cost than that associated to independent certification of the several individual MSs (Santos, Mendes, & Barbosa, 2011). According to the results of the study conducted by Castillo-Rojas et al. (2012), the hindrance to innovation, considering the implementation of multiple MSSs, decreased as more MSSs were considered for implementation in the future.
811
961 1031
281
429 468
436 366 402
88 127 120
6 39 41
0 200 400 600 800 1000
2007 2010 2011
TOTAL ISO 9001+ ISO 14001 + OHSAS 18001
ISO 9001+ ISO 14001 ISO 9001 + OHSAS 18001
ISO 14001 + OHSAS 18001
The Integration of Individualized MSs
According to Rasmussen (2007), the integration of standardized management sub-systems must be based on the characteristics of organizations that intend to establish an IMS-QES as well as organizational reasons for its implementation.
At the same time, the continuous improvement of global performance of organizations must be always a present goal from the perspective of sustainability. For that, organizations must also improve continually and optimize these existing standardized MSs to allow them to attain true added value, for their stakeholders as well as to be possible to adopt more efficiently, inside of the organizational structure, other new MSSs coherently and consistently according to the international guidelines. A route that should be taken is to maximize the integration of the standardized MSs (Rebelo & Santos, 2012; Rebelo & Silva, 2012).
Literature is clear about the importance of MSs integration, but literature on how to organize this integration is generally lacking (Asif, Fisscher, Bruijn, & Pagell, 2010). Traditionally, the management of QES aspects is seen to be fragmented and spread across separate personnel and managers. An IMS tends to integrate some or all components of the business into one coherent and efficient MS. Maximizing integration is more and more a strategic priority in that it constitutes an opportunity to eliminate and/or reduce potential factors of destruction of value for the organizations to be more competitive and consequently promote its sustainable success (Rebelo, 2011).
Concerning the level of standardized MSs integration in an organization, several scholars have proposed various theoretical approaches, leading to the conclusion that there is no common practice for all organizations as they encompass different characteristics (Karapetrovic, 2003; Beckmerhagen et al., 2003; Jørgensen et al., 2006; Pojasek, 2006; Karapetrovic & Casadesus, 2009). On the other hand, there is no ISO standard with a specific structural model for IMS for quality, environment, and occupational health and safety, or for other management areas. The integration of these standardized MSs is a path that can be followed, and the ISO 19011 (ISO, 2011a) is a good example of the future.
According to Hortensius (2013), yearly surveys on the application of ISO MSSs show a steady worldwide increase in certifications based on ISO 9001 (Quality Management) and ISO 14001 (Environmental Management). However, while these surveys do not indicate the size of the organizations that have implemented the MSSs, experiences in the Netherlands and other countries show that a growing number of SMEs implement multiple MSSs, though some face difficulties in doing so and need help. According to Hortensius (2013), the main reason for implementing IMSs in many SMEs is due to the fact that many of these are suppliers to large companies that impose quality and environmental requirements on their supply chains. In many cases, these requirements can only be met by implementing an MS and being certified. Also, governments apply quality, environmental, and even sustainability criteria in their purchasing and procurement activities. SMEs are, therefore, forced to implement QMS and EMS to stay in business.
According to Santos, Mendes, and Barbosa (2011), the compatibility among different MSSs for an effective
integration of the individual standardized MSs should be done in moderation. On the other hand, according to
Campos and Medeiros (2009), there is no consensus on what will really be the integration of MSs and how to
perform the integration, and as a general rule, the literature focuses more on the integration of QMS, EMS, and
OHSMS, nevertheless, other MSs can be integrated as is the case of SR and RM.
Therefore, in the literature, the integration of MSs has been discussed as a fusion of QMS, EMS, OHSMS, social accountability management system (SAMS), and others, with a special focus on the first three MSs (see, for example, Karapetrovic, 2002, 2003; Mackau, 2003; Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003; Fresner & Engelhardt, 2004; Labodova, 2004; Jonker & Karapetrovic, 2004; Jørgensen et al., 2006; Rocha, Searcy, & Karapetrovic, 2007; Zeng et al., 2007; Asif, Searcy, Zutshi, & Ahmad, 2011; Rebelo, 2011; Santos, Mendes, & Barbosa, 2011;
Santos, Barros, & Rebelo, 2012; Santos, Rebelo, Barros, & Pereira, 2012; Sampaio, Saraiva, & Domingues, 2012, among others). Table 4 summarizes the scope of these approaches from the perspective of the MSSs identified and other standards.
Table 4
Examples of Composition of IMS Referenced in Literature Author
MSSs QMS
ISO 9001 EMS
ISO 14001 OHSMS
OHSAS 18001 SAMS
SA 8000 Others Karapetrovic and Willborn (1998);
Wilkinson and Dale (1999); and Block
and Marash (2002)
√ √--- --- ---
Wright (2000); Fresner and Engelhardt (2004); Labodova (2004); Mackau (2003); Zeng et al. (2007); Arifin, Aiyub, Awang, Jahi, and Iten (2009); Santos, Barbosa, and Pedro (2004); Santos, Mendes, and Barbosa (2011); Mendes (2007); Mendes and Santos (2009);
Rebelo (2011); Rebelo and Santos (2012); Neves, Linhares, Sampaio, and Saraiva (2012); Almeida, Sampaio, and Santos (2012); Domingues, Sampaio, and Arezes (2012); Santos, Barros, and Rebelo (2012); Santos, Rebelo, Barros, and Pereira (2012); Santos, Barros, Mendes, and Lopes (2013); Oliveira (2013); Simon, Bernardo, Karapetrovic, and Casadesus (2013)
√ √ √
--- ---
Tarí and Molina-Azorín (2010)
√ √--- --- European Foundation for
Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model Santos, Ramos, Almeida, Rebelo, Pereira,
Barros, and Vale (2013)
√ √ √--- Eco-management and audit
scheme (EMAS)
Karapetrovic (2002; 2003)
√ √ √ √Series IEC 60300:
reliability management
Campos (2006)
√ √ √ √ISO/TS 16949
Karapetrovic and Jonker (2003); Jonker and Karapetrovic (2004); Jørgensen et al.
(2006); Rocha et al. (2007); Asif, Searcy, Zutshi, and Ahmad (2011); Asif, Searcy, Zutshi, and Fisscher (2013); Mežinska, Lapiņa, and Mazais (2013)
√ √ √ √
---
Rebelo (2011); Santos, Barros, and Rebelo (2012); Santos, Rebelo, Barros, and Pereira (2012); Rebelo and Silva (2012); Santos, Ramos, Almeida, Rebelo, Pereira, Barros, and Vale (2013); Rebelo et al. (2013)
√ √ √ √
NP 4457
ISO/IEC 27001
ISO/IEC 17025
ISO 31000
Note. Adapted and updated from Asif, Bruijn, and Fisscher (2008) and Rebelo et al. (2013).
Research on IMS development and implementation is scarce (Asif, Bruijn, Fisscher, & Searcy, 2010) and each organization is a case (Rebelo, 2011). So, the evaluation of the real situation, motivations, advantages, disadvantages, limitations, and models of implementing individual MSS versus IMS, in real organizational and business contexts, is an area where research is needed with a particular focus on some industrial sectors of the Portuguese economic activity (Rebelo & Santos, 2012; Rebelo & Silva, 2012).
According to Jørgensen (2008), there are different levels of integration, but according to Santos, Mendes, and Barbosa (2011), the main integration method used by the Portuguese SMEs, for the structure of the system, is the alignment of the individual systems using the similarities among the standards. This alignment is aimed at reducing administration and audit costs. According to Jørgensen (2008), different procedures may be maintained for each area, but placed in one manual. In the case of QES-MS, there is a convergence in terms of the management model of the standards: ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001/NP 4397, specifically in terms of the objectives associated with process efficiency, and to the fact that the three standards are supported on the continuous improvement principle of the Deming’s Cycle—Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA).
According to Rasmussen (2007), it is important to note that a high level of integration is not an end in itself. The integration of MSs must be based on the characteristics of organizations that intent to establish an IMS, as well as organizational reasons for its implementation. In addition, there is no “best model” to provide organizations with the needed elements for their specific IMSs. The model depends too on the characteristics and culture of the organization.
In turn, Jørgensen (2008) made reference to two levels of integration: (1) alignment—consists in the parallelization of the systems, using similarities among standards to structure the system; the objective is to reduce costs of the administrative process and audits. Separate procedures continue to exist, but they are included in a single manual; and (2) integration—consists of the complete integration of all relevant instructions and procedures based on a TQM approach, focused on employees, clients, and continual improvement. Also according to Jørgensen (2008), the first obvious steps towards the definition of an IMS are:
increasing the compatibility among the standards, identifying cross-references, and ensuring proper internal coordination of the elements in the MS. The IMS will take into account the similarities among generic processes that are common to any MS.
Considering the growing number of publications on MSSs, the problem of convergence of individualized MSs to the integration is of particular relevance and opportunity from the perspective of competitiveness, development, and sustainable success of organizations, and this is a challenge that they are facing (see Figure 7) (Rebelo, 2011; Rebelo & Santos, 2012; Santos, Rebelo, Barros, & Pereira, 2012; Rebelo & Silva, 2012).
There are some countries with standardized models for IMS. Examples are AS/NZS 4581 (Social
Accountability International Global, 1999), PAS 99 (BSI, 2012), DS 8001 (Danish Standards Association,
2005), and UNE 66177 (AENOR, 2005). Other IMS models are referenced or presented by other authors, such
as Jørgensen et al. (2006), Rasmussen (2007), Arifin et al. (2009), Santos, Mendes, and Barbosa (2011),
Sampaio et al. (2012), and Rebelo and Santos (2012). Asif, Fisscher, Bruijn, and Pagell (2010) stated that
among the organizational changes accompanied by integration, the development of lean processes is the most
important. According to Santos, Mendes, and Barbosa (2011), the future lies in the integration of the individual
MSs, managed by only one multidisciplinary team with training and skills in several areas, thereby
economizing both financial and human resources. Therefore, companies, and in particular, Portuguese
companies have to find the best way to achieve these goals, effectively and efficiently through the optimization
of resources by reducing the proliferation of individual standardized MSs (Rebelo, 2011).
Figure 7. Convergence of individualized MSs to an IMS.
Case Study: Materials and Method
A preliminary investigation was conducted inside a Portuguese SME, placed in the Municipality of Vila Nova de Famalicão, Portugal, which, over the years, has been adopting, in whole or in part, gradually, individualized standards or specifications of different management sub-systems. Among other MSSs, relevance to ISO 9001 (QMS), ISO/IEC 17025, ISO 14001 (EMS), and OHSAS 18001 (OHSMS) is used by the SMEs.
While it is imperative to assess the perceptions of collaborators of the company on the structuring, implementation, and evaluation of the integration model and its validation in a real work environment, it was developed an internal investigation by questionnaire, previously tested and validated, to a representative sample, of collaborators, with the objective to conceive, in a real work environment, an adequate IMS-QES model, and to potentiate, for the future, the conception of a generic IMS model to be able to integrate other MSSs. It was considered a Likert scale on the questionnaire with five levels: (1) irrelevant; (2) not so relevant; (3) relevant; (4) very relevant; and (5) determinant.
The population was the total of the collaborators of the company from whom the objective was to draw conclusions about the project objectives and the issues that are being researched. After the questionnaire had been tested and improved in some of its questions, it was sent by e-mail to each one of the company collaborators, carefully selected according to their positions in the hierarchy. The sample considered 49 collaborators, representing 30.62% of the total collaborators. The response rate was 86%. In the data collection, analyses, and presentation, the guidelines of the Portuguese standard, NP 4463 (Instituto Português da Qualidade, 2009), were considered (ISO/TR 10017 (2003)).
The objective of this investigation was to justify an IMS-QES model in a real work environment and to
potentiate, for the future, the optimization of resources in the company by reducing the proliferation of
individualized MSs considering the similarities among the MSSs, the needs and expectations of several
stakeholders, the specific internal work environment of the organization, and the strategy for the future of the
business.
There Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 implement implement Results From itself revea the implem IMS-QES m of resourc competitiv the potentia
From organizatio conflicts am satisfaction motivation consequent
In Im E
Range of Potential Benefits
e were con 1—importanc 2—influences 3—main dif ation of the ation of the I
the statistica aling the imp mentation of th
model in the ces, reduction
eness, to sati al benefits re that, we high onal wastes;
mong indepe n and increas n of employee
t empowerme
Imp Improvement at the Eimination Better and great Reduction of the n nvolvement and cons culture, mprovement of the in Elimination of confli
op Common managem
Integrat
sidered four ce of the 12 f s of nine ide fficulties, in
IMS-QES;
MS-QES.
al analyses, re ortance, in th he IMS-QES Portuguese S n of costs sfy the growi sulting from hlight: (1) the (2) the integ endent MSs;
sed contribut es as a result ent.
Figure 8. Main Sour
provement of the part Greater em e level of coordinated risk of several organizatio
burea ter visibility of opera
conce number of internal and solidation, by all emp
attitudes, and values nternal and external i the QES iss cts between individu ptimization, namely, h
ment policy, objectiv perform ted management of se
r main que factors identi entified stake a group of and Questio
esulting from he present an
that evaluate SMEs, either and bureauc ing demands the implemen e creation of a grated manag (4) dialogue tion to the c of the expans
n benefits result rce: Rebelo (20
tnership relationships mployee valorization a d and integrated mana onal waste including aucracy
ation of the organizati erned
d/or external audits a ployees, of a continua s of global QES scope mage of the company sues
al systems and conse human resources ves, goals, and KPIs r mance
everal components of
estions in a ified as moti eholders on t f seven poten on 4—main
responses to d for the futu ed, and alone
in the interna cracy or als
of customers ntation of an added value f gement of su
with the mai company’s co
sion of their s
ting from the im 011) and Rebelo
1 s with suppliers
and motivation agement of the at the level of ion in the areas and to suppliers al improvement
e
y in the aim of equent resource related to QES f sustainability
Irrelevant
a total of vations for th the performan ntials, in the benefits, in
the survey, i ure, of all the e, justified and
al aspects suc o in the ex s and other st
IMS-QES in for the busine ustainability in stakeholde ompetitivene skill bases, ac
mplementation o o and Santos (2
1.5 2
Lev
39 sub-que he implemen nce and evol e context of a group of
it is presented e factors iden
d validated th ch as rational xternal aspec takeholders. I
the Portugue ess through th
components;
ers and comm ss; and (5) g ctions, and re
of an IMS-QES 012).
2.5 3
vel of Importantce (
estions subd ntation of the lution of the f the develo
11 potential
d a set of con ntified as mot he implement lization and o cts, such as In Figure 8 ar ese SMEs.
he eliminatio
; (3) the elim mitment to th
greater valor esponsibilities
S.
3.93 3.93 4.00
4.07 4.07 4.08 4.11 4.17 4.17 4.23
4.38
3.5 4 4.
(average)
divided on:
e IMS-QES;
IMS-QES;
opment and ls with the
nclusions by tivations for tation of the optimization increasing re presented
n of several mination of heir ongoing rization and s, with their
5 5
