Integrated Management Systems and Sustainable Development

2.1. Integrated management systems (IMS)

Before dwelling on the content of IMS, it is necessary to explain the concept of integration. Integration refers to “completion” and “aggregation” [16]. However, the term integration should not be confused with “combination” and “compliance” in terms of MSSs.

Compliance refers to parallel management system standards prepared for the same discipline despite showing great differences in terms of structure and content [17]. With regards to the term combination, it is the creation of a new system by adding different management systems to each other. According to the British Standards Institute (BSI), there is a four-step process in MSSs-integrated practice that goes from combination to integration [18].

1. Different management systems are implemented independently of each other in the same organization and in the same time frame (combination)

2. The organization prepares for integration by identifying common elements of different management systems after implementation

3. The organization eliminates the differences and removes the contradictions among different management systems. It adds new elements to the initial common elements. This step is about the combination of the systems

4. The organization creates a new meta-system that integrates all identified common elements

Integration, in terms of management systems, refers to owning each MSS content per se, which is prepared for certain disciplines. Being so, integrated management systems can be defined as a set of systems that are planned, applied and continuously revised, and improved in order to meet jointly multiple MSSs and other systems to which they have to comply [19, 20, 21]. In order for a company to conduct its operations systematically, it must comply with laws, MSSs, and customer conditions. It is therefore better to use the concept of integration of systems instead of integration of standards.

There are different views of integration in organizations [22, 23, 24].

• No integration: Each system exists with its own identity in the institution

• Partial integration: It refers to the harmonization of certain elements of each integrated system. It is projected at the middle management level that systems should be constructed according to business functions and be independent. It is assumed that systems should generally be compatible with each other, but this compatibility will not be 100%

• Full integration: Each integrated system loses its identity and a single multi-purpose meta-system emerges. It is assumed that systems will form a complete integration at executive and operational level

As IMSs can be shaped according to the needs of an organization, they are capable of including different management system standards. Therefore, there are still debates about IMS. However, literature review on IMSs show that ISO 9001 (QMS), ISO 14001(EMS), and OHSAS 18001(OHS) standards are the most researched standards [25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. It is possible to make different integrations by adding ISO 9001-ISO 14001, ISO 9001-OHSAS 18001, ISO 14001-OHSAS 18001, ISO 9001-ISO 14001-OHSAS 18001, or other standards that are specific to the sector. In other words, there is no limit to MSSs integration. An exemplary model of IMS is shown in Figure 1.

ISO 9001 quality management system: ISO 9001 defines the requirements for enhancing customer satisfaction by meeting the requirements of an organization’s customers and legal liabilities. The general provisions of the standard are organizational chart, duties, authority and liabilities, efficient use of resources, interrelationship of the processes, product or service design and development works, customer satisfaction, internal audit, continuous improvement, and documentation. The main purpose of the system is to prevent errors or defects that may occur either in the final product or service, or reduce them to the acceptable levels via interim controls. Its final revision was made in 2015 [31, 32].

There are many studies highlighting the benefits of ISO 9001 for organizations. From an overall perspective to these studies, the advantages can be divided into two categories. Internal benefits include cultural change in employees, organized action, management efficiency, better documentation, increase in production efficiency, and reduction of costs.

External benefits include customer satisfaction and loyalty, increase in market share of the business, readiness for official audits, strengthening the organizational image, and increase in competitive power [33, 34, 35].

ISO 14001 environmental management system:At present, with resources being gradually depleted in an irreversible process, it is the author’s view that all elements making-up the environment are under threat. It is now accepted by the whole world that the threat is not local or regional, but global. In both written and visual media, there are a lot of environment-oriented news and information. Today’s consumers not only demand maximum benefits from the product or service they purchase but also seek applications that do not harm the environment or at least cause damage at minimum level. Therefore, a number of states prepared various regulations to reduce the harm to the environment. Many organizations review their activities regarding the environment. In order for these revisions to yield success, they need to be handled systematically. ISO 14001 is an international standard that methodically exposes the conditions that must be fulfilled by performing risk analyses for every hazard at every stage from the design to the consumption processes of the products or services. Its final revision was made in 2015 [36, 37, 38].

OHSAS 18001 occupational health and safety management system:Each year nearly 2.3 million workers have occupational diseases and more than 6000 workers lose their lives [39]. Organizations are more and more interested in occupational health and safety practices due to legal regulations, economic policies, and most importantly the safety of the employees. ISO 18001 is an international standard that assesses potential hazards that may arise during the conduct of business for an employee via risk analyses; its main purpose is to create a better working environment and protect the health of employees. Based on OHSAS 18001, ISO published the ISO 45001 [40, 41].

The main reason for placing an emphasis on these three standards in studies conducted on IMSs is that human health, environmental dimension, and quality have become an integral part of today’s life. All three standards can be implemented in all the sectors regardless of activity type, size, and the number of employees of organizations. In addition, these standards cover different geographical, cultural, and social conditions [42].

ISO publishes the documentation statistics on ISO management systems on a regular basis (Table 1) [43].

The most common standards with the highest number of documentation globally are ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. They are followed by ISO 22000. The number of documentation increases in line with the increase in importance attached to management system standards. By observing Table 1, it can be stated that the reason why most studies are devoted to ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 among other integrated management systems is again evident in the number of certification.

2.2. IMS models

ISO did not publish an integrated management standard. However, based on performed research, 37 out of 57 that are currently in use can be applied in an integrated manner in terms of structure, content, terms, and definitions. There are common elements that facilitate MSS integration.

IMS can change according to the fields of activity, needs, mission, and visions of organizations. It is the author’s view that this change is continuous in par with changing conditions. There are still various views regarding IMSs implementation. Hence, there is no common model defined. The most accepted models for IMSs in literature are listed below:

2.2.2. Management systems evolution model

This model makes an overall assessment of changes experienced by management systems in time, and creates a new model by assessing different integration models together. Management systems evolution model involves three phases namely standardization, rationalization, and integration. Renfrew and Muir [45] consider ISO 9001 as an initial point in terms of IMSs. Other sector-based cases were implemented later on. The next phase is the IMS matrix. The latter refers to the identification of similar elements among different MSSs. The fourth phase is the integration of procedures and processes. While it is possible to create integrated procedure for standards, it is rather difficult to attain this for processes. The next phase is QUENSH, which is the abbreviation of QU for quality, EN for environment, and SH for safety and health. Finally, a single management standard is formed (Figure 2).

2.2.4. European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model

The EFQM excellence model was prepared by the European Foundation for Quality Management in 1988 to enhance competitive aspects of European organizations. EFQM excellence model was developed in such a way that it can be employed as a quality system by all kinds of organizations regardless of differences in sector and capacity. The philosophy of this model is based on self-assessment by organizations themselves. This method enables organizations to identify their current situation and to develop new strategies to enhance processes. EFQM includes nine criteria, five of which are enablers, and the remaining four are results. These criteria are leadership, strategy, people, partnerships and resources, processes, products and services, people results, customer results, society results, and key performance results. There are 32 sub-headings under these criteria [51, 52] (Figure 3).

It is worth mentioning at this point that the EFQM excellence model was not developed for management systems integration. However, the criteria suggested by EFQM overlap to a great extent with MSSs. Therefore, integration is possible with reference to EFQM criteria.

2.3. Comparison of IMS models

It is worth noting at this point that all standards are of equal importance. This is because each model has its own gains and drawbacks. The approaches of models toward the scope and integration are different from one another.

Moreover, some researchers [62] argue that the culture specific to any given society should be taken into account for integrated management systems or each system to be implemented. Hence, the need for developing new integration models still exists. Table 4 shows comparison of IMS models.

3.1. The advantages of integrated management systems and their contribution to sustainable development

The rapid increase in production, and consequently, consumption has made the concept of sustainability even more important today. Sustainability is a three-dimensional concept involving environmental, economic, and social issues.

Sustainable development for organizations can be defined as the ability to efficiently manage risks associated with economic, environmental, and social factors in order to create long-term value in organizations. By resolving the aforementioned risks from a holistic point of view, namely dealing with these risks via IMSs, it is possible to create positive contributions to performances and sustainable developments of organizations. In addition to benefits to organizations, it is revealed in many studies that IMSs have many gains that are closely relevant to sustainable development. Advantages influential on sustainable development can be summed up in six themes [63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72].

Management results:

• The image of the company was positively affected and it gained international prestige

• It improved management of relationships with suppliers and subcontractors

• A holistic perspective was offered to the events

• A transparent management approach emerged

• It saved time and costs by joint internal/external audits

• It facilitated the interrelationship of activities and co-ordination

• It attributed efficiency to internal and external communication

• It made risks easier to control

• It was beneficial for a clearer and explicit definition of liabilities and authorities

• It ensured efficient use of resources

• It facilitated strategic planning and decision making for executives

• Bureaucracy and procedures decreased while documentation got simplified

• The time and cost of implementing the systems decreased

• Incompatibility among ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and 18001 reduced

• Internal innovation increased

• An easier and more efficient management system was achieved

• Supplying capital became easier

• A continuous improvement process started

• The organization gains flexibility and speed for change

People results:

• Employee motivation and awareness increased

• Employees participated in system works at the highest level

• Employees adopted the system more

• Employees have more loyalty toward the organization

• Newly-employed staff adapted to the system more rapidly and easily

Production results:

• Productivity increased

• Scraps and wastes are reduced

• There is a considerable drop in error rate during process

• There is a cutback of production time

• Delivery process of productions is improved

• Costs decreased and profit increased

• Minimization in customer audits

Market results:

• There is an increase in customer demand

• There is a decrease in customer complaints

• There is an raise in customer satisfaction

• There is an amplification in quality perception of customers toward the organization

• Competitive power improved

• Market share and profitability grew

Environmental results:

• Complying with legal liabilities toward environment became easier

• The number of environmental damages decreased

Occupational health and safety results

• Adherence to legal requirements in terms of occupational health and safety became easier

• There is a decrease in the number of work-related accidents

3.2. IMSs drawbacks and difficulties of implementation

Though IMSs offer many advantages, it may also have disadvantages for organizations. These are as follows: [73, 74, 75].

• Focusing less on one or more than one of the standards constituting IMS

• Documentation and the management thereof become more complicated compared to previous actions

• Paper work and management associated costs increase

• Human resources were not used effectively

There are also certain difficulties in implementing IMS. These include, but are not limited to:

• Inadequacy of resources

• Lack of information

• Corporate culture

• Difficulties in focusing on different fields

• Constantly changing regulations and standards

• Lack of qualified staff

• Conflicts among employees and

• Difficulties in making changes.

In addition, some studies revealed that some administrators who work in organizations are opposed to IMS applications because they think that their expertise areas will lose their importance and that in integrated management systems, their positions will no longer be needed [76, 77].