lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 533–540

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Implementing environmental with other standardized management systems:Scope, sequence, time and integrationq

Stanislav Karapetrovic a,1, Martı Casadesus b,*

a University of Alberta, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 5-8b Mechanical Engineering Building, T6G 2G8 Edmonton, Canadab Universitat de Girona, Departament d’Organitzacio, GestioEmpresarial i Desenvolupament de Producte, Av. Lluis Santalo, s/n, 17071 Girona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 June 2008Received in revised form16 September 2008Accepted 17 September 2008Available online 22 November 2008

Keywords:Environmental management systemsIntegrated management systemsISO 14001ISO 9001

q This article was written as part of a research promanagement system (IMS) in Spanish companies’’ (SEby the Ministry of Science and Technology within tprojects.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 972 22 49 53.E-mail addresses: stanislav@ualberta.ca (S. Kara

udg.edu (M. Casadesus).1 Tel.: þ1 780 492 97 34.

0959-6526/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.09.006

a b s t r a c t

The aim of this article is to analyze how the implementation of the environmental management system(EMS) in accordance with the ISO 14001: 2004 standard has been carried out in organizations havingmore than one standardized Management System (MSs). In particular, four implementation aspects willbe discussed, namely the different management system standards (MSSs) used for registration, forexample ISO 14001, ISO 9001, OHSAS 18001, ISO 27001 and SA 8000, the order in which they wereimplemented, the time required for each implementation, as well as the scope of integration of theseMSSs into a single Integrated Management System (IMS).In order to do so, some of the results of a survey carried out in 176 organizations registered to, ata minimum, both ISO 14001: 2004 and ISO 9001: 2000 standards for environmental and qualitymanagement, respectively, are presented. As one of the few existing empirical studies regarding theintegration of multiple MSs, this research reveals the importance of the different possibilities whichorganizations can opt for when considering EMS implementation. For example, while most respondentsimplemented ISO 9001 before ISO 14001, others did so simultaneously or even applied ISO 14001 first.Furthermore, although a large majority of organizations integrated their EMS with additional stan-dardized MSs, a small percentage did not. Apart from illustrating the survey outcomes, the articlecontains a detailed case analysis of four specific organizations with high environmental awareness thathave implemented quality and other standardized MSs.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As is now commonly known, in 1996, the International Orga-nization for Standardization (ISO) introduced the ISO 14001 Envi-ronmental Management System (EMS) requirement standard,which then led to the ISO 14000 family of generic environmentalmanagement standards. In its current version, published in 2004,ISO 14001 already had more than 129,000 registered organizationsin 145 different countries at the end of 2006 [1].

However, ISO 14001-based EMS has not been the only stan-dardized Management System (MS) that organizations with envi-ronmental responsibilities have implemented. For example, qualitymanagement systems (QMSs), also mainly based on ISO standards,

ject entitled ‘‘The integratedJ2006-00682/ECON) financedhe aid programme for RþD

petrovic), marti.casadesus@

All rights reserved.

such as ISO 9001 or ISO/TS 16949, have also been successful interms of their world-wide diffusion (see Ref. [2]). At the end of2006, there were already more than a million organizations regis-tered to QMS standards [1], and that number is still growing. Otherstandardized MSs, focused on various functions and stakeholders ofthe organization, for instance the Health and Safety MS (HSMS), theCorporate Social Responsibility MS (CSRMS), the InformationSecurity MS (ISMS), and the Supply Chain Security MS (SCSMS), orapplied in specific industry sectors, for example the Food Safety MS(FSMS), are being added to QMSs and EMSs.

Therefore, there are many organizations which, either becauseof the demands of the market itself or because of other internalmotivations, have implemented different MSs alongside their EMS.In fact, although no reliable references on this matter have beenfound, it is quite plausible to think that the great majority of ISO14001 – registered companies are also certified in accordance withthe ISO 9001 standard. Consequently, a new need has emerged inorganizations, namely to integrate these systems in a single, andtherefore ‘‘integrated management system’’ (IMS).

The specialized literature contains many contributions to theanalysis of the impact of EMSs [3–6]. However, for the time being,although the existence of synergies and the related effects among

S. Karapetrovic, M. Casadesus / Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 533–540534

standardized MSs appear to be obvious, their integration has beenanalyzed very little. On the theoretical level, different models andtheories for the integration of standardized MSs have been devel-oped (e.g., Refs. [7–13]) and some countries have even created theirown models of management systems integration, such as, forexample, the case of Australia [14], Denmark [15] or Spain [16]. InJuly 2008, ISO published ‘‘The Integrated Use of ManagementSystem Standards’’ handbook [17]. However, on the empirical level,only three studies of specific cases have been found [18–20], inaddition to three surveys carried out by Zeng et al. [13] in 104Chinese organizations, Salomone [21] in 103 Italian companies, andDouglas and Glen [22] in 28 small to medium enterprises in theUnited Kingdom. To sum up, Zeng et al. [13] focused their researchon major problems for companies to operate multiple parallel MSs,and the internal and external factors that affect the implementationof IMS, in order to propose what they called a ‘‘synergetic model forimplementing an IMS’’. For his part, Salomone [21] studied, inparticular, the motivations, driving forces and external pressuresthat companies meet when implementing different MSs. Douglasand Glen [22] concentrated on, among other IMS topics presentedin their work, the sequence of MSSs implementation and the extentof MSs integration in organizations with both the ISO 9001 and ISO14001 certificates.

Through a joint quantitative and qualitative analysis, this articleintends to study which additional MSSs the ISO 14001 – registeredcompanies comply with, and based on that study, further examinetheir implementation or integration processes. To do so, the specificaims of the research are considered in Section 2 of the article. Theresearch is based on two fundamental pillars, namely a surveycarried out in 176 organizations and a study of four case organi-zations considered especially interesting for their differentapproaches to MSSs implementation and MSs integration. There-fore, while the survey is described in Section 3 and the relatedresults are presented in section 4 of the article, section 5 illustratesthe case studies. In the last chapter, conclusions and limitations ofthe work are discussed, based on the results of the survey and theanalyzed cases.

2. Objectives and methodology

The aim of this exploratory article is to analyze how organiza-tions with several standardized MSs, one of them being an EMS inaccordance with the ISO 14001: 2004 standard, have actuallycarried out such multiple MSS implementations. In order toaccomplish this objective, we tried to analyze four importantimplementation questions, which have not been discussed toa great depth in previous empirical studies. Namely, we studied:

� The scope of standardization – MSSs today cover a broad spec-trum of areas within an organization, and are aimed atproviding confidence to different internal and external stake-holders. Therefore, organizations looking to address a partic-ular organizational function or satisfy a specific group ofstakeholders by way of a MSS have a good choice that is onlygoing to widen in the future. For example, ISO has recentlyannounced the initiation of the development of MSSs for roadsafety and energy MSs (see Refs. [23,24], respectively). Kar-apetrovic and Willborn [25,26] and Karapetrovic [8] addressa number of factors that influence decisions on the imple-mentation of specific MSSs, ranging from the availability ofinternationally-accepted MSSs to stakeholder pressures. Forexample, while an energy company may not need ISO 9001registration due to the general lack of pressures to standardizea QMS, it may require a formalized ISO 14001 EMS [26]. On theother hand, a company in the automotive sector is likely tohave both a standardized QMS and a standardized EMS,

together with an ISO/TS 16949 extension for quality manage-ment. Overall, the three most popular standardized functionsand the respective MSSs are quality with ISO 9001: 2000,environment with ISO 14001: 2004 and safety with OHSAS18001: 2008 (see, for example Refs. [7,8,27]), although it maybe expected that newly published or planned standardsregarding information technology (e.g., ISO 20000: 2005 forservices and ISO 27001: 2005 for security), corporate socialresponsibility (the upcoming ISO 26000) and other areas willnot lag too far behind.� The sequence of implementation – Due to the differing needs of

organizations in terms of the scope of application, as well as thesequential development of MSSs themselves, it can be expectedthat the order in which standardized MSs are implemented alsovaries among industry sectors and individual organizationsthemselves [10,26]. In most cases, the sequence of imple-mentation will trail the publication of standards, namely ISO9001-based QMS would be introduced first, followed by an ISO14001-compliant EMS (see, for instance, Refs. [22,26–28]).Subsequently, other functions would be standardized, forinstance HSMS in accordance with OHSAS 18001 [10,27]. Otherorganizations, albeit in a minority would use ISO 14001 beforeISO 9001 [26]. In addition, the diversity of available MSSs makesit possible to simultaneously apply several standards coveringdifferent organizational functions or stakeholders, for exampleISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 [8]. This manner of implementa-tion, especially if supported by good integration models andmethodologies [11], could be used often in the future [26].� The time required for implementation – The question of how

much time organizations require to implement multiple MSSsacross functions is particularly interesting as it relates to boththe efficiency in the use of resources and the effectiveness ofthe application of standards. Since MSSs contain a number ofcommon characteristics, in addition to their identical natureand sharing of the underlying concepts, a company with onestandardized MS in place would already follow most, if not all,of the fundamental principles, models and requirements of anynew standard it is implementing (see, for example, Refs.[10,25,28]). Therefore, additional standards should take lesstime to implement compared to their predecessors (see Refs.[25,29,30], for instance). Furthermore, due to synergy effects, ifa company is applying two or more MSSs at the same time [26],the lead time for such an implementation should be shorterthan the sum of the times required for the sequentialimplementation.� The scope of integration – One of the most interesting questions

in the field of IMSs based on standards is how pervasive theactual integration is among the organizations that haveimplemented multiple MSs. Since integration makes muchmore sense than disintegration, in other words leaving theinternal standardized management systems as separate, it canbe hypothesized that a larger portion of organizations wouldchoose integration over separation (see, for example, Refs.[7,10,22,25,26]). What is also important to note is that inte-gration in this sense refers to the amalgamation of MSs thatcover different functions or stakeholders, rather than thesystems that were designed to meet different standards in thesame organizational area. For example, cross-functional inte-gration would imply the melding of environmental and qualityMSs, but not the integration of an EMS to meet both therequirements of ISO 14001 and the Eco-Management and AuditScheme (EMAS), or a QMS for ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949 andadditional such standards.

To tackle these four questions, an empirical study had beendesigned that, by means of a mail survey, revealed a wide range of

S. Karapetrovic, M. Casadesus / Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 533–540 535

options that organizations came up with to address each question.Based on the results obtained and presented in the next section,four organizations were then selected to carry out in-depth casestudies. By doing so, we are trying to explain why organizations ofsimilar characteristics opted for one option or another, for example,implement ISO 9001 or ISO 14001 first, and integrate their MSs ornot. Thus, through both the survey and the analyzed cases, we arehoping to give as comprehensive an answer as possible to thesedifferent questions.

3. Survey description

Before analyzing the specific features of the survey, it should behighlighted that, at the end of 2005, there were 1237 organizationsregistered to ISO 14001: 2004 and a total of 8746 which held ISO9001: 2000 certificates in Catalonia, the Spanish region where theempirical study was carried out, according to data gathered byForum Calidad [31].

Requesting data from the registrars which operate in Spain ledto a positive answer from four of them. Taking into account all thedifferent MSs certified by these registrars, the addresses of 561 ISO14001: 2004 and 3513 ISO 9001: 2000 registered companies wereobtained, which represents a proportional percentage of theexisting population. Subsequently, it was found that 535 of the 561organizations registered to the ISO 14001: 2004 standard were alsoregistered to ISO 9001: 2000. Therefore, it can be estimated, takinginto account the fact there should not be, a priori, any significantdifferences among the registrars, in terms of, for example, thesectors of operation or geographical representation, that the samepercentage of detected organizations, namely around 96%, shouldbe repeated in those whose addresses had not been obtained. Thus,it was estimated that, of the 1237 ISO 14001: 2004 registeredorganizations, approximately 1191 would hold an ISO 9001: 2000certificate at the same time. Only 4% of those organizations wouldconsequently have the EMS as their only standardized MS. Hence,the empirical study designed and described next should be repre-sentative of the population of approximately 1191 companies withboth certificates at the end of 2005 in Catalonia (Spain).

Based on this data and in order to tackle the proposed objec-tives, an intensive and extensive field study was carried out duringthe month of February 2006, using a questionnaire addressed toa sample of organizations which were registered to both ISO 14001:2004 and ISO 9001: 2000 in Catalonia. The empirical survey wascarried out by means of a mail survey, which was previously pilot-tested on a reduced group of companies. The survey was addressedto the person responsible for the QMS/EMS of the organization, andwas subsequently followed up with a telephone call. This allowedvalid answers from 176 organizations to be obtained, as shown inTable 1.

The main characteristics of the sample, described in greaterdetail in [32], are indicated by the following points:

� Number of employees – Although the majority of the organi-zations in the sample are small, with less than 100 employees(57%), this percentage is lower that the one obtained in a survey

Table 1Survey profile.

Date February 2006

Study population Approximately 1.191 ISO 14001:2004 and ISO9001:2000 certified only companies in Cataloniain December 2005

Sample 535 companiesObtained responses 176 companiesPercentage of response 33%Confidence level (p¼ q¼ 0, 5) 93%

launched simultaneously in the same geographical region, butdirected to organizations holding the ISO 9001: 2000 certificateonly (78%, see Ref. [32]). The number of companies that employbetween 101 and 500 workers was 32% (19% in the group fromthe parallel survey), and 11% of the ISO 9001 and ISO 14001registered organizations had more than 500 employees(compared to the 3% of the ‘‘ISO 9001 only’’ group).� Economic sector – No significant differences between the

industry sectors of the organizations with two certificates andthe ones that were registered to ISO 9001: 2000 only (seeRef. [32]) have been detected. Around 50% of the respondingorganizations belonged to the production sector, 17% wereconstruction companies, and the rest were in the serviceindustries. In terms of these percentages, the impact of QMSand EMS seems to be much greater in production than in theservice sector, even more so if we take into account theimportance of the service industries in Spain. In turn, theimpact of these MSSs on the public administration is still notvery relevant, with only 1% of the responding organizationsbelonging to this sector.� External customers – For 57% of the organizations in the sample,

the main external customer is another company, while for 27%,it is the final user of their product. Again, the obtained data arevery similar to the companies with only the ISO 9001: 2000certificate (see Ref. [32], with the identical 57% obtained in thefirst case, and 20% in the second).

These findings could be interpreted as there being no differ-ences, as could be expected a priori, except the number ofemployees, between the two groups of organizations, namely theone with a single standardized MS (ISO 9001: 2000 QMS) versusthe one with multiple such MSs (ISO 14001: 2004 and ISO 9001:2000 at a minimum in this survey). In the following section, theresults obtained from the survey are described.

4. Survey results

4.1. Scope of standardization

As can be expected (see, for example, Refs. [7,8,27]), in theorganizations that participated in the survey, the three most-commonly implemented standardized MSs are, in this order, QMS,EMS and HSMS. Therefore, in addition to having the ISO 14001:2004 and ISO 9001: 2000 certificates, a total of 38 companies (22%)reported that they had implemented OHSAS 18001: 1999. Theproportions for other function- or stakeholder-specific MSSs aremuch lower. For instance, a total of four organizations (2%)responded with an implementation of a corporate social respon-sibility scheme in accordance with the international guide SA 8000or the Spanish national standard SGA 21, and five (3%) reported theuse of another Spanish national standard, namely the one forinnovation, research and development UNE 166002: 2002. Theimplementation of sector-specific or enhanced-requirement stan-dards focused on a single organizational area, such as ISO/TS 16949:2002 for quality or EMAS for environment was also reported at thelevel of 11 (6%) and 24 (13%), respectively.

4.2. Sequence of implementation

Fig. 1 illustrates the responses regarding the sequence ofimplementation in the analyzed organizations. In terms of thedifferent MSs, in other words not taking into account the sector-specific or enhanced-requirement derivatives covering the samesystem (like ISO/TS 16949 or EMAS), most companies implementedISO 9001: 2000 first, followed by ISO 14001: 2004, and then OHSAS18001:1999. This finding is therefore in line with the previous

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ISO 9001 ISO 14001 OSHAS 18000 SA 8000 Others

First SecondThird Fourth

Fig. 1. Order of implementation of management system standards, adapted fromRef. [32].

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

First Second Third Fourth

>30 months

<=30 months

<=24 months

<=18 months

<=12 months

<=6 months

Fig. 2. Time to implement management system standards by order of implementa-tion., adapted from Ref. [32].

S. Karapetrovic, M. Casadesus / Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 533–540536

theoretical expectations (for example, Refs. [26–28]). It is alsointeresting to observe the distribution of sequences with respect tothe two standards characterizing this population, namely ISO14001: 2004 and ISO 9001: 2000. A total of 19 respondents (11%)implemented an EMS and QMS simultaneously, while 6 companies(3%) implemented an EMS before a QMS. All the other respondents(86%) followed the path of a QMS preceding an EMS.

These results differ from those found by Zeng et al. [13] in Chinaand by Douglas and Glen [22] in the United Kingdom, in both ofwhich the organizations that had initially implemented a differentMSs from the QMS were not detected. All the 61 companies studiedby these Zeng et al. [13], in which an IMS was being implemented,had begun with the QMS, subsequently going on to integrate theEMS. The same result, namely the QMS preceding the EMS, wasreported earlier by Douglas and Glen [22] for the whole sample of28 organizations in their study. This, albeit small, disparity in thefindings is possibly due to the smaller size of the sample in the Zeng[13] and Douglas and Glen [22] studies, as well as the industrialsector and EMS awareness differences between the organizationsthat participated in the three studies.

15%

12%

1%6%1%

1% 1% None

EMS+QMS

EMS+QMS+HSMS

EMS+QMS+HSMS+Sector Spec.MS

EMS+QMS+Sector Spec.MS

4.3. Time required for implementation

The average lead time for the implementation of the first MSSobtained from the survey respondents was 19 months, with themedian of 18 months. The second standard took an average of 15months, while the median was 12. Averages for the third and fourthimplementation were identical at 11 months. Hence, empiricalresults exhibit an overall decrease of the required times for theimplementation of additional MSSs, as theoretically illustrated indetail by Rocha [29], and also generally discussed in, for example,Refs. [26,30]. Another interesting finding, following the synergynotions when standardized MSs are implemented together (seeRef. [26]), is that the average time for the companies that imple-mented ISO 14001: 2004 and ISO 9001: 2000 simultaneously was13.8 months, compared to the average sum of 33.5 months for thesequential implementation of these two standards in the otherorganizations. Fig. 2 further illustrates the results of the survey bythe order of implementation of each standard. Evidently, for moststandards and most organizations, the implementation lead time isbetween 6 months to a year, which is very similar to the results forISO 9001-registered companies only (see Ref. [32]).

63%

EMS+QMS+CSRMS

EMS+QMS+HSMS+SCRMS

EMS+HSMS

Fig. 3. Integration of standardized management systems., adapted from Ref. [32].

4.4. Scope of integration

Fig. 3 indicates that 85% of the respondents claim cross-func-tional integration, while only the remaining 15% have not inte-grated their standardized MSs. Most of the organizations surveyed,

63% to be exact, have integrated environmental and qualitysubsystems, while a further 12% have put together environmental,quality and health and safety subsystems. Corporate socialresponsibility features in about 3% of the respondents. While manysignificant conclusions can be drawn from this finding, it is clearthat a vast majority of organizations that comply with multipleMSSs have integrated the subsystems these standards represent,and, as expected (for instance, see Ref. [8]), that the scope of inte-gration includes the most popular standardized managementsubsystems, i.e., environment, quality and health and safety.

In the paper of Zeng et al. [13], only 61 of the 104 companies inthe survey have an IMS, that is, 59%. Nevertheless, given that theauthors did not specify exactly which MSs had been integrated inthe companies that participated in their study [13], it is difficult tocarry out further comparisons with the results obtained here. Onthe other hand, Douglas and Glen state that 71% of their respon-dents ‘‘integrated some aspects of both their QMS and EMS’’ [22]. Thispercentage is comparable to our findings, although we obtaineda slightly higher proportion of organizations that actually inte-grated the QMS and EMS (84%), due to the fact that other subsys-tems were integrated in the additional 21% of the respondents, andonly 1% integrated EMS and HSMS without the QMS (see Fig. 3).Overall, however, these three studies seem to all confirm the notionthat most organizations indeed integrate their standardized MSs(see, for example, Refs. [7,10,22,25,26]).

5. Case studies

Based on the results obtained in the survey, it seemed appro-priate to study in greater depth the four questions covered in this

S. Karapetrovic, M. Casadesus / Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 533–540 537

research. In order to do so, four different organizations, all withmultiple registered MSs, but with diverse scopes of standardizationand integration, as well as the sequences of implementation, havebeen selected.

Thus, for example, the first case is an organization which hasimplemented an IMS in which the EMS and QMS are included, buthas decided not to integrate the HSMS, as opposed to the secondcase where it was decided to integrate this MS. An even greaterscope is found in the third case where the integration of the CSRMSis being worked on. Finally, in the last case, integration was carriedout not based on the QMS, as in the majority of cases (see section4.2), but based on the EMS.

These cases considerably enrich the contribution made in thisstudy, as only three scientific articles have been found in theliterature, all of them recent, which use the analysis of cases in thefield of management system integration. In particular, Fresner andEngelhardt [18] analyze the environmental effect and economicperformance of the integration of management systems in twoAustrian companies, Labodova [19] uses two Czech companies totest her own model, and Zutshi and Sohal [20] analyze problemsand benefits of integration in three Australian companies. None ofthem analyze in detail the aspects studied in this paper.

5.1. Case 1: Filtros Anoia, S.A.

5.1.1. The organizationFiltros Anoia, S.A. is the only Spanish manufacturer of paper

filters for industrial, analytical, laboratory and special uses. Itsbeginnings date back to 1748 when a paper manufacturingcompany was founded. Its continued growth, with various ups anddowns, such as the Spanish Civil War, was interrupted suddenly in1994 after a very serious financial crisis. In that same year, newowners created the present firm, Filtros Anoia, S.A., re-establishingthe company from practically zero. During the last decade, thecompany has experienced continuous growth, leading to thecreation and recognition of a new prestigious brand name, Filter-Lab, for the development of laboratory filters, and extending theirbusiness activity into more than 40 countries around the world. Toexport in the sector, Filtros Anoia, S.A. is currently a part of theSpanish consortium Export Labsupplies, S.L.

5.1.2. Standardized management systems: scope, sequence, timeand integration

In 1994, during the creation of the company ‘‘Filtros Anoia, S.A.’’and at a time when sales were minimal, the management wasworking in two very important directions to re-establish thecompany: major investments in technology and improvements inquality management.

Without being specifically required by customers, the companycommitted itself to implementing an MS in accordance with ISO9001: 1994, and with the help of a consultant, it received thiscertificate in 1998. Just after that project was completed, thecompany began to work towards the objective of implementing anEMS according ISO 14001: 1996, with the certificate obtained in1999. The QMS and EMS certificates have since been renewed everythree years with no major issues identified in the process. Thecompany maintains a firm commitment to these MSs, reflected notonly in their sustained operation but also in the implementation ofvarious environmental and quality initiatives, such as the closedwater circuits, total waste recovery, and personalized customertreatment. One of the next such initiatives in the company is theEMAS recognition.

Since the initial implementation of the second MSS, the corre-sponding MS, namely the EMS, has been integrated into the first(QMS). The integration was strengthened in 2001 when the QMSstandard was updated to its new version, ISO 9001: 2000, and

specific software for integrated document management wasintroduced. From the company’s point of view, integrating thosesystems was the most logical thing to do, since it seemed absurd tothem to decide not to do it, as the standards share quite a fewcommon requirements.

According to the company, although the originally implementedMSs were relatively extensive, during their updates to the mostrecent MSS versions (ISO 9001: 2000 and ISO 14001: 2004), thiswas drastically reduced and their integration was further improved.For example, the new product creation procedure was reduced inlength from five to only one page, thanks to the use of graphics andthe transfer of information from the management manual to thework instructions.

The company also has an HSMS that is not integrated with theother systems and is managed by an external company. Its inte-gration with the rest of the IMS is not planned in order to avoida heavier work load for the person in charge of the IMS.

The company has confirmed that, although none of itscustomers requested ISO 9001 certification in the beginning, thissituation has changed over time. At the moment, the majority of thecompany’s customers demand it, especially the European compa-nies. Even though the same demands have occurred in very fewcases for ISO 14001, its implementation brings satisfaction to thecompany itself, as expressed in the words of the Head of theEnvironmental & Quality Management System:

‘‘. we have helped ourselves improve, and that is then passed on tocustomers.’’

5.2. Case 2: Roberlo, S.A.

5.2.1. The organizationFounded in 1968, Roberlo, S.A. has specialized for more than 30

years in the manufacture and development of chemical productsfor automobile repairs, such as abrasives, aerosols and paints, aswell as for gluing and maintenance in construction, for exampleanti-slip products and putties. The company’s facilities, located inthe province of Girona (Spain), contain advanced manufacturingsystems, totally automated warehouses, Research and Develop-ment laboratories and a training centre. With the integratedlogistics system, Roberlo is currently capable of distributing itsproducts to more than 70 countries through a network of distrib-utors and companies of its group.

5.2.2. Standardized management systems: scope, sequence, timeand integration

Until the 1990s, Roberlo, S.A. was a family-run business.Managed by the founder and his son, it employed 22 persons andthere were no clearly defined work functions or procedures. In1993, the incorporation of young managers into the companystructure compelled it to open up to new markets and to commititself to exporting. Within a few years, the company had close to100 employees, and there was a serious need for appropriaterestructuring. With that aim, the company management wasconvinced of the need to promote the implementation of a QMSbased on ISO 9001: 1994. To do that, advisors were contracted toprovide the company with working procedures in accordance withthe standard, even though, according to the organization, theprocedures were not overly practical at first. After a two-yearprocess of intense work, during which an important simplificationof the system documentation was completed, in 1997 Roberloobtained the ISO 9001: 1994 certificate.

In 2001, the company completed the transition to the morerecent version of the standard, namely ISO 9001: 2000, whichsubsequently led to the certification of their EMS to ISO 14001:1996 in 2002. During the early months of 2006, the company’s

S. Karapetrovic, M. Casadesus / Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 533–540538

registrar performed the most recent review process and thecertificates were renewed until 2009.

According to the company management, the implementation ofthose MSs together with the development of a large sales depart-ment have been two of the fundamental pillars of Roberlo’s growthin recent years. The company has a very positive view of theincorporation of management indicators used in decision making,for example, the inventory turnover rate into the most recentversion of their QMS. Specifically, every three months, the QualityCommittee meets to analyze the indicators and any other inputsresulting from audits or customer complaints. Those indicatorshave not yet been incorporated into the EMS because the data, suchas the total consumption of water, are not easily obtained, but it isexpected that they will be incorporated gradually.

From early on, the implementation of the second MS, namelythe EMS, was integrated with the first (QMS). As a result, thecompany has always worked with a single management manual,currently 35 pages long, although it ‘‘develops’’ in different waysdepending on the requirements to be fulfilled. There is, forexample, one process to evaluate suppliers and another one forsub-contractors, since the requirements to be met are different. Onthe other hand, there is only one ‘‘system review’’ procedure. In anycase, the requirements related to each procedure are included inthe manual according to the requirements of both standards.

Although the IMS was initially supported by some commonoffice computer tools, since April 2006 the company has been usinga specialized software package for standardized MSs to manage theIMS. According to the company, this software, which is not inte-grated with the enterprise resource planning, is outstanding for itssystem management possibilities (such as the management ofcorrective and preventive actions and complaints) rather than forits capacity to store information (for example, work procedures andmanuals).

Roberlo believes that integrating MSs is necessary because itsimplifies them, avoids duplications of efforts and at the same timefacilitates communication between the workers and the depart-ments of the company. In addition, there is great synergy betweenthe two MSs. In this sense, for example, analyzing the cost of eachcomplaint (quality cost) together with the cost of dealing with thesolid waste produced (environmental cost) converts the entiresystem into an authentic and very efficient management tool,which does much more than simply satisfy independent require-ments. According to the company itself, if the systems had not beenintegrated, their efficient use would have been more difficult,although it might have been easier to familiarize people with themand carry out the training activities for employees. Finally, theHSMS is only partially integrated with the existing IMS, but theremaining integration is being carried out gradually.

5.3. Case 3: Tratesa

5.3.1. The organizationTratesa was founded in 1985 to treat solid waste from the Valles

Occidental and Valles Oriental districts of Catalonia. Currentlya part of the Coll Cardus CITA (Centro Industrial de TratamientoAmbiental), it manages the municipal and industrial solid wastelandfill in Barcelona, Catalonia (Spain). This landfill receives morethan one million tons of solid waste a year. It is the only facility inthe country able to complete the environmental cycle on its ownpremises. Tratesa belongs to the HERA (Habitat, Ecologıa y Restau-racion Ambiental) Holding, which operates in different countries,but mainly in Spain and South America, and works in the areas ofsolid waste management, land recovery, laboratory services, envi-ronmental consulting and other related services for public admin-istration and consumers.

5.3.2. Standardized management systems: scope, sequence, timeand integration

The various companies making up the HERA Holding areinvolved in different activities in different settings at the same time,and for that reason, together with other internal and externalfactors, each company has had its own ‘‘itinerary’’ with respect toenvironmental and quality management. That situation hasbecome more noticeable as the holding company acquired newcompanies with MSs that were completely different from theothers. Among them, according to the company, Tratesa isundoubtedly the one with the most advanced, broadest and effi-cient MS. The company is currently registered to ISO 14001: 2004,ISO 9001: 2000, and OHSAS 18001: 1999 by one registrar, and to SA8000 by another. It also complies with EMAS requirements.

Tratesa’s management implemented the various MSs over timeand without excessive haste. In fact, the aim has always been toconstantly establish new milestones for its employees, so that themotivation to introduce new tools was continuous and the positiverepercussions were greater. That is why, according to the company,the first ISO 9001 certification was carried out in April of 2002 usingthe 1994 version of the standard, and only two months later thesystem was certified again according to the then current version ofthe standard from the year 2000. This process was linked to thedevelopment of the EMS, so there have always been different MSsin different stages of development in the company. But since theywere implemented in an integrated way, at no point were there twodifferent and independent certified systems for quality and envi-ronmental management. However, the QMS was not the first MSthe company worked with. This was actually the HSMS that wouldbe registered only years later, at the time when already its thirdversion had been in use.

The company management has always opted for continuousmotivation of the company’s workers, which is why the policyconcerning the implementation of new systems has always been toopt for the ‘‘simplest one’’ in order to minimize risks. That might beone of the reasons why the QMS was introduced first, even thoughthe company clearly has a high environmental impact. As might beexpected, the companies of the HERA group have admitted havinggreater difficulties implementing the environmental MSScompared to the quality one.

It must be emphasized that, because the registrations of thevarious MSs were not an expressed desire of its customers, thecompany was not forced to obtain these certificates. In the man-agement’s own words:

‘‘We are not in a hurry, so we’re going to take the time to learn.’’

However, at present, in many of the companies in the holdingand the one located in South America (Colombia, Brazil, Mexico,Argentina and Chile), the certificate is considered an ‘‘added value’’.For strategic reasons, therefore, a number of these companies arecurrently pursuing the certificates or have already obtained them.

Three of Tratesa’s MSs, namely the QMS, EMS and HSMS, are, toa large extent, integrated. They have a single policy, but differentprocedures and records. The CSRMS, however, has functionedindependently until now, although its integration with the rest ofthe IMS is being carried out. Thus, currently, it is the only systembased on a policy that is independent of the other MSs. The inte-gration of the MSs has taken place in parallel to their developmentin the company. Therefore, for example, the QMS was implementedfirst, followed by the EMS which was then directly integrated intothe first system.

Tratesa considers it necessary to carry out the integration of MSsone by one:

‘‘People wouldn’t understand integrating it all at once, since itwould lead to errors and organizational weariness.’’

S. Karapetrovic, M. Casadesus / Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 533–540 539

According to the company, to integrate different MSs, a clearview of the entire system is necessary. In addition, the integrationitself entails continuous work. For example, although Tratesa’scurrent management manual contains 15 pages, the aim is for themanual of the new IMS to have a maximum of only four pages.Tratesa also intends to continue implementing different MSSs inthe future.

5.4. Case 4: CETIB1

5.4.1. The organizationCETIB (College of Industrial Engineering Technologists of Bar-

celona) is a professional, non-profit association that has as its mainobjectives the representation of the general interests of theindustrial engineering technology profession, as well as theprovision of professional and other services of interest to itsmembers. The territorial coverage of CETIB includes six adminis-trative regions in and around Barcelona (Spain). The associationoffers a number of services to its members, such as discounts andbenefits with collaborating entities, job referral services, library anddocumentation, professional assessment, project accreditation,a member directory, services related to professional adjudication,rental of measuring equipment and insurance.

5.4.2. Standardized management systems: scope, sequence, timeand integration

The first MSS implemented by CETIB was ISO 14001: 1996.Although the initial objective also included the implementation ofISO 9001: 2000, it was considered more appropriate for the asso-ciation to start the process of establishing a standardized MS withISO 14001. This was due to the opinion that an EMS was lessdemanding and more familiar to the engineering business culture,and therefore it would have been easier to involve the wholeorganization in this particular system first. At the same time, theEMS could help CETIB in learning how to manage standardized MSsin general. It was also considered favourable to start the process ofEMS implementation in this manner since CETIB is very muchinvolved in environmental topics. For example, CETIB has won theCity of Barcelona Agenda 21 sustainability award, and the associa-tion itself gives awards to its student members for the bestsustainable development project. Furthermore, with its registrationto ISO 14001: 1996, CETIB would become (and eventually became)the first professional association in Spain to obtain this certificate.

Similarly to the EMS, CETIB decided to implement a QMS basedon ISO 9001: 2000 on its own accord, namely without the explicitpressures or demands from its customers or external stakeholders.The QMS was therefore established due to a decision of the exec-utive management of CETIB to address the overall societalrequirements for improved quality.

CETIB obtained the ISO 14001: 1996 certificate in 2001. At thatvery moment, the association started working on the system formanaging the quality of the most important processes in theassociation. In 2004, CETIB received its ISO 9001: 2000 registration,together with a renewal of the ISO 14001: 1996 certificate. Aftera number of individual audits and annual reviews, the ISO 14001:2004 standard was implemented in the whole organization, whileISO 9001: 2000 was applied to the most important services, such asthe admission of new members, membership services, and theaccreditation of projects and documents. However, CETIB has theobjective to include the rest of the services it provides into the QMSshortly.

The implementation of both the ISO 14001 and ISO 9001 stan-dards, and the subsequent application of an IMS at CETIB were all

1 This case was also featured in Ref. [17].

driven by the association’s executive management. From the verybeginning and throughout this process, integration has beenfostered since the association did not believe that an effective andefficient implementation of the standards could have been done inany other way. This belief in a single MS is underscored, forexample, by the decision to implement ISO 14001 first in order tomore easily integrate ISO 9001 after, and supported, for instance, bythe executive management wishes to have simplified and shorterannual reports, as well as not to draft and communicate separatequality and environmental policies.

Another factor contributing to the decision to establish an IMSwas the high level of importance given to actually using the systemestablished according to a standard, rather than just leaving itdocumented, but not used. Furthermore, the objectives not toduplicate work and to minimize work interruptions by doingeverything possible together (for example, the audits), resulting inhigher efficiency (for instance in shorter meetings), also facilitatedthe integration. In May 2006, CETIB’s registrar has, for the first time,carried out an integrated audit with a single audit plan for both ISO14001 and ISO 9001 standards. A future challenge set out in CETIB’splans is the introduction of the EMAS into the IMS.

Different from the environmental and quality aspects, for whichspecific MSSs have been used, CETIB does not plan on establishingan HSMS based on OHSAS 18001. This is because the associationconsiders that, in this area, the related law is more rigorous thanthe specification and inspection for conformity to the law is carriedout differently compared to certification. However, CETIB’s IMSManual covers not only quality and environmental management,but also the prevention of occupational risks, and includes, forexample, an integrated policy for these three aspects.

CETIB encountered a number of benefits as a result of theimplementation of MSSs and the establishment of an IMS. Amongthose, particularly emphasized are the improvement of the overallorganization of CETIB, better employee awareness of the impor-tance of their work as a contributor to the whole association, and,although to a much lesser extent, a certain prestige for the publicrecognition of the registration to both ISO 14001 and ISO 9001standards. Internally, as a consequence of integration, a more agilesystem was created and with less redundancy, without bringingmuch more work each time a new standard is added. The perceivedsuccess factors necessary to undertake the integration were to startthe implementation of the standard with less comprehensiverequirements in order to involve the whole organization in theimplementation, and to reach appropriate process ownership in thesense that each employee considers the procedure he or she isusing as his or her own, for which he or she bears the responsibilityand authority. Regarding the IMS, the main advantage is thatintegration

‘‘helps to integrate more’’and creates a solid framework in whichit will be much easier to add new standardized MSs, for exampleenergy audits and complaint management.

6. Conclusions

Several relevant conclusions can be drawn from the researchcarried out, especially if we take into account that the integration ofEMS with other standardized MSs is a field with very little empir-ical evidence.

In the first place, this research confirms the notion that a highpercentage of organizations with an EMS in accordance with theISO 14001: 2004 standard also have at their disposal a QMS certi-fied in accordance with ISO 9001: 2000. In fact, in the region understudy (Catalonia, Spain), this percentage has been estimated at 96%.Moreover, these two MSs are the most-widely applied, followed ata great distance by the OHSAS 18001: 1999-based HSMS.

S. Karapetrovic, M. Casadesus / Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 533–540540

However, what is most interesting is to verify that, despite theenvironmental impact of many of the companies taking part in thestudy, almost all of them began the standardization of their MSs byimplementing only the QMS (86%), or the QMS and the EMSsimultaneously (11%). Only a very low percentage of organizationshave initiated their ‘‘itinerary’’ by implementing the EMS (3%).While there are many logical factors that could have contributed tosuch a breakdown of the survey participants, the case studiesprovide an insight into at least some of the underlying motivationsfor particular implementation sequences. For example, in two ofthe four cases, namely Tratesa and CETIB, the decision was made toimplement first the MS which the organization itself considered tobe simpler to comply with, although this initial MS was different ineach case. The QMS was implemented first in Tratesa, because thisorganization has a high environmental impact, while at CETIB, itwas the EMS, due to, in part, the fact that CETIB is a service orga-nization with a relatively low environmental impact.

With respect to the time required for the implementation, itseems that, possibly due to synergy effects, if a company appliestwo or more MSSs at the same time, the lead time for such animplementation might be shorter than the sum of the timesrequired for the sequential implementation. However, since onlya small proportion of the survey participants (11%) actuallyundertook such a simultaneous implementation, this result shouldbe taken with caution. In the great majority of cases, nevertheless,the implementation of an MSS, independently of whether or notthis MSS is the first one applied in an organization, requiresbetween 6 and 12 months.

One of the more interesting contributions of this article isrelated to the scope of integration of standardized MSs. Forinstance, the survey findings indicate that a large majority (85%) oforganizations with different function-specific or stakeholder-focused MSSs have decided to implement some or all of them in anintegrated way. Conversely, only 15% of the surveyed organizationsdeemed such integration inappropriate. This contribution was alsoanalyzed in greater detail based on the case studies included in theresearch. Thus, some organizations opted to integrate all of theimplemented standardized MSs, while others, with exactly thesame MSs, do not. Therefore, for example, Filtros Anoia chose not tointegrate the HSMS, while Roberlo, another company from a verysimilar sector of a comparable size, and with a fairly similar envi-ronmental impact has decided the opposite, namely to integratethe HSMS with the QMS and EMS.

Finally, it must be highlighted that, as is obvious in the majorityof empirical studies, one of the main limitations of this paper isspatial. This research has focused on a single region within Spainand its results cannot, therefore, be simply extrapolated to theother regions or countries. However, it should be taken into accountthat Spain is one of the leading countries in terms of ISO 14001 andISO 9001 certifications (see Ref. [1]) in the world, and that Cataloniais one of the leading regions of this country [33]. This leads us tobelieve that the results obtained from the research illustrated herecan be an indicator of what can occur in other areas in the nearfuture.

References

[1] ISO. The ISO survey of certifications. Geneva, Switzerland: InternationalOrganization for Standardization; 2007.

[2] Casadesus M, Marimon F, Heras I. ISO 14001 diffusion after the success of theISO 9001 model. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008;16(16):1741–54.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.11.002.

[3] Poksinska B, Dahlgaard JJ, Eklund JAE. Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden:motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal ofQuality and Reliability Management 2003;20(5):585–606.

[4] Ghisellini A, Thurston D. Decisions traps in ISO 14000 implementationprocesses: case study results from Illinois certified companies. Journal ofCleaner Production 2005;13(8):763–77.

[5] Tan LP. Implementing ISO 14001: it is beneficial for firms in newly industri-alized Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13(4):397–404.

[6] Zeng SX, Tam CM, Tam VWY, Deng ZM. Towards implementation of ISO 14001environmental management systems in selected industries in China. Journal ofCleaner Production 2005;13(7):645–56.

[7] Wilkinson G, Dale BG. Integrated management systems: an examination of theconcept and theory. The TQM Magazine 1999;11(2):95–104.

[8] Karapetrovic S. Strategies for the integration of management systems andstandards. TQM Magazine 2002;14(1):61–7.

[9] Matias JCO, Coelho DA. The integration of the standards systems of qualitymanagement, environmental management and occupational health and safetymanagement. International Journal of Production Research2002;40(15):3857–66.

[10] Karapetrovic S. Musings on integrated management systems. MeasuringBusiness Excellence 2003;7(1):4–13.

[11] Karapetrovic S, Jonker J. Integration of management systems: searching fora recipe and ingredients. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence2003;14(4):451–9.

[12] Jorgensen TH, Remmem A, Mellado MD. Integrated management systems.Three different levels of integration. Journal of Cleaner Production2006;14(8):713–22.

[13] Zeng SX, Shi J, Lou G. A synergetic model for implementing an integratedmanagement system: an empirical study in China. Journal of CleanerProduction 2006;15(18):1760–7.

[14] Global SAI. AS/NZS 4581:1999. Management system integration – guidance tobusiness, government and community organizations. Australia: SAI Global;1999.

[15] Dansk Standard. DS 8001:2005. Ledelsessystemer – Vejledning i opbygning afet integreret ledelsessystem. Denmark: Dansk Standard; 2005.

[16] AENOR. UNE 66177:2005. Sistemas de gestion. Guıa para la integracion de lossistemas de gestion. Madrid, Spain: AENOR; 2005.

[17] ISO. The integrated use of management system standards. Geneva, Switzer-land: International Organization for Standardization; 2008.

[18] Fresner J, Engelhardt G. Experiences with integrated management systems fortwo small companies in Austria. Journal of Cleaner Production2004;12(6):623–31.

[19] Labodova A. Implementing integrating management systems using a riskanalysis based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12(6):571–80.

[20] Zutshi A, Sohal AS. Integrated management system. The experience of threeAustralian organisations. International Journal of Quality and ReliabilityManagement 2005;16(2):211–32.

[21] Salomone R. Integrated management systems: experiences in Italian organi-zations. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008;16(16):1786–806. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.003.

[22] Douglas A, Glen D. Integrated management systems in small and mediumenterprises. Total Quality Management 2000;11(4/5/6):S686–90.

[23] ISO. ISO to develop new management system standard for improving roadsafety on global level. Press release #1113. Geneva, Switzerland: InternationalOrganization for Standardization; 2008.

[24] ISO. ISO launches project committee to develop international standard forenergy management. Press release #1122. Geneva, Switzerland: InternationalOrganization for Standardization; 2008.

[25] Karapetrovic S, Willborn W. The systems view for clarification of qualityvocabulary. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management1998;15(1):99–120.

[26] Karapetrovic S, Willborn W. Integration of quality and environmentalmanagement systems. TQM Magazine 1998;10(3):204–13.

[27] Seghezzi HD. Business concept redesign. Total Quality Management1997;8(2):36–43.

[28] Beechner AB, Koch JE. Integrating ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. Quality Progress1997;30(2):33–6.

[29] Rocha M. Integrating standardized management systems – a generic modeland supporting methodologies for implementation and auditing. PhD thesis,Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton,Canada; 2006.

[30] Casadesus M, Karapetrovic S. The erosion of ISO 9000 benefits: a temporalstudy. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management2005;22(2):120–36.

[31] Forum Calidad. Certificacion en Espana segun normas UNE-EN-ISO 9001 y14001. Madrid, Spain: Forum Calidad; 2006.

[32] Karapetrovic S, Casadesus M, Heras I. Dynamics and integration of standard-ized management systems. Girona, Spain: Documenta Universitaria; 2006.

[33] Heras I, Casadesus M. Los estandares internacionales de sistemas de gestion:pasado, presente y futuro. Boletın ICE no 2876. Revista del Ministerio deIndustria, Turismo y Comercio 2006;2876:45–61.