ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a Research Agenda on Management System Standards*i jmr_334 47..65

ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards aResearch Agenda on Management

System Standards*ijmr_334 47..65

Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria and Olivier Boiral1

Department of Management, E.U.E. Empresariales, University of the Basque Country UPV-EHU, Plaza Oñati 1,20018, San Sebastian, Spain, and 1Département de management, Faculté des sciences de l’administration, Université

Laval, Pavillon Palasis-Prince, 2325, rue de la Terrasse, Local 1638, Québec, Québec G1V 0A6, CanadaCorresponding author email: [email protected]

Management system standards, also called meta-standards, have been adopted by anincreasing number of organizations across the world. Although these managementsystem standards are based on the same type of management principles and institutionalarrangements, the literature remains scattered, with diverse studies focused on specificstandards and published in various journals. The main objective of this paper is toanalyse the academic research on meta-standards through an integrative reviewintended to shed light on the main conclusions and substantial advances made in thisarea. This integrative review focuses more specifically on the two main meta-standardswhich have been adopted by more than 1.3 million organizations worldwide: ISO 14001and ISO 9001.The paper contributes insights into the main streams of the literature andcurrent knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research on the various issues relatedto meta-standards: global governance, diffusion processes, motivations, benefits ofadoption and impacts on performance, internalization, integration, consultancy andauditing.

Introduction

The development of management standards nowencompasses a very wide range of aspects of busi-ness activity, such as quality management (e.g. ISO9001), environmental management (e.g. ISO 14001),the prevention of occupational hazards and the pro-vision of health and safety regulations in the work-place (e.g. OHSAS 18000), and corporate social

responsibility (e.g. SA 8000). These standards tendto use quite similar methodology with regard totheir creation, structure, implementation process andmonitoring by a third party, a trend that was estab-lished by the successful ISO 9001 and ISO 14001standards. Indeed, it should be taken into accountthat, by late 2010, over 1,100,000 ISO 9001 certifi-cates and 250,000 ISO 14001 certificates had beenauthorized in a total of 178 countries all over theworld (ISO 2011; see Figure 1).

Similarly, standards-based management is aresearch field that has received a lot of attention inrecent years, owing to the great success enjoyed bymanagement standards all over the world. In ouropinion, therefore, it is important to review the differ-ent approaches to the study of standardization in amanagement context, so as to attempt to synthesize

*This article is a result of a Research Project funded by theBasque Autonomous Government (GIC 10/89) and theSpanish Ministry for Education and Science (ECO2009-12754). The authors wish to express their sincere thanks tothe Co-Editor-in-Chief of IJMR Oswald Jones and to thethree reviewers for their assistance; their constructive criti-cism and suggestions helped us to improve and develop thepaper substantively.

bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15, 47–65 (2013)DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00334.x

© 2012 The AuthorsInternational Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA02148, USA

and thus improve academic knowledge, which isin the interests of the various different stakeholdersinvolved (i.e. managers, consultants, policy-makersand researchers).

This work represents an attempt to analyse in depththe class of standards known as management systemstandards (MSS), also referred to as meta-standards(Uzumeri 1997), and which have been so successfulin recent years. In this paper, a review of the substan-tial advances made in the field of this subject of studyis carried out; the review comes within the categoryof integrative reviews, works ‘that seek to mergefindings from related areas’ (Macpherson and Jones2010, p. 109). Moreover, a research agenda for thefield is proposed. The paper focuses on the two mainglobal management standards at the internationallevel: ISO 14001 and ISO 9001.

A systematic literature review was carried outin order to identify the most prominent theoreticaland empirical academic works on the topic. In short,the ABI/Inform, Emerald and Science Direct data-bases were used to perform literature searches withthe following keywords: (1) ISO 9000, ISO 9001,ISO 14001, ISO 14000; (2) ISO standards; (3) meta-standard; and (4) management system standard/s.

The main contribution of this paper is to providean integrative review of the multifaceted literature onmeta-standards, to analyse the main conclusions ofstudies carried out from different perspectives and to

propose various avenues for future research basedon the knowledge gaps identified. The remainder ofthe paper is organized as follows. Following thisintroduction, the paper presents a short overviewof standardization and MSS or meta-standards. Inthe third section, ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 are brieflyanalysed, followed by a fourth section in which anattempt is made to synthesize the main theoreticalperspectives or approaches applied to the analysis ofthose meta-standards in academic studies. The fifthsection constitutes an outline map of the main areasof research undertaken to date and the areas in which,in the authors’ opinion, research should be under-taken in the future. The paper ends with a summaryof the main conclusions.

Standardization and meta-standards

Standardization constitutes a mechanism of coordi-nation and an instrument of regulation comparablewith other instruments, such as public regulations,markets and hierarchies or formal organizations(Antonelli 1998; Brunsson and Jacobsson 2000). Ina global economy, without standardization and itsresults – technical standards or specifications – inter-changes would become exceedingly difficult. Stand-ardization can, then, stimulate international trade byeliminating obstacles arising from different national

Figure 1. Worldwide ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certification. Source: ISO Survey (ISO 2011)

48 I. Heras-Saizarbitoria and O. Boiral

© 2012 The AuthorsInternational Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

practices. Thus, standards are important for thepromotion of economic efficiency, as they provide abasis for reducing information-related transactioncosts (Nadvi and Wältring 2004).

Focusing on the specific case of managementstandards, in their monograph on standardizationBrunsson and Jacobsson (2000) refer repeatedlyto ‘standards for administrative processes’, andFurusten (2000, p. 71), in the same monograph,defines management standards as ‘standards onhow to design and manage organizations’. We canexplicitly identify these administrative standardswith what we would define here as MSS, a termthat already has a certain tradition of academicacceptance behind it in studies relating to qualitymanagement and environmental management (e.g.Corbett and Kirsch 2001; Delmas 2002; Karapetro-vic 2002; Neumayer and Perkins 2004; Wilkinsonand Dale 2001).

In the literature on the subject, MSS are oftencalled meta-standards (e.g. Boiral 2001; Braun 2005;Christmann and Taylor 2006; Corbett and Yeung2008; Karapetrovic and Willborn 1998; Wilkinsonand Dale 1999). Uzumeri (1997) refers to them as‘lists of design rules to guide the creation of entireclasses of management systems. Since systems theo-rists use the term metasystem for lists of this type, itfollows that this type of management standard shouldbe referred to as a meta-standard’ (Uzumeri 1997,p. 22). Corbett and Yeung (2008) use the term meta-standard ‘loosely to refer to standards that apply tobroad processes (rather than individual products) andto entire families of such process standards’ (Corbettand Yeung 2008, p. 1).

These management standards are, of course, to bedistinguished from the technical norms and specifi-cations relating to those requirements with whichparticular products or processes need to comply.Even so, such a broad definition of standardizationin the field of management could encompass, forexample, international norms and guidelines deal-ing with accountancy and audits (the InternationalStandards on Auditing, for instance) or such generalmanagement models as that of the EFQM (Euro-pean Foundation for Quality Management). Theseguidelines and models are based on a set of guide-lines and benchmarks developed by specific organ-izations and referring to a particular field ofmanagement. Although the focus and content ofMSS may be quite different, their principles, struc-ture, terminology and certification processes sharecommon characteristics.

ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: the firstglobal meta-standards

The ISO 9001 standard does not refer to compliancewith an objective or with a particular result. Thatis, it is not a performance standard measuring thequality of companies’ products or services. Rather,ISO 9001 proposes guidelines to systematize andformalize a series of company processes into a seriesof procedures, and to document this implementation.ISO 9001 standardizes procedures, duties and roles,rather than goals or outcomes (Braun 2005; Guleret al. 2002).

Compliance with ISO 9001, which can be certifiedby an institution accredited for this purpose, requiresdocumentation to show the implementation of aquality management system, including standardizedand documented procedures on the basic processesused to produce the product or service whichthe customer acquires. ISO 9001 standard is thus amanagement tool based on the systematization andformalization of tasks in order to achieve producthomogeneity and to conform to the specificationsestablished by the customer (Anderson et al. 1999).

Similarly, ISO 14001 does not fix environmen-tal goals or environmental targets to be achieved(requirements for the prevention and reduction ofthe impact of pollution, for instance), as a result ofthe possible attainment of which a certificate wouldbe obtained. Rather, this standard establishes require-ments defining the operational systems to be com-plied with within companies in relation to activitieswhich have an environmental impact (Delmas 2001;King and Lenox 2001). It is a model which providesa systematic framework within which to incorporateenvironmental concerns into a company’s day-to-dayoperations.

From a global perspective, the successful diffusionof these MSS or meta-standards would appear to beclosely linked to the basic impetus of the processof globalization of the Western economies, to theextending global supply chains and the still growingimportance of transnational corporations (Braun2005). In the current economic environment, inwhich outsourcing and relocation of companies’activities have become key strategic elements ofglobal supply chains, it is necessary to foster acertain homogeneity of management systems inorder to favour the development of such processes,and MSS may help to achieve this aim. As Boiral(2001, p. 80) states: ‘the development of manage-ment standards is part of the growing globalization

Research Agenda on Management System Standards 49


of the world economy, which requires the adoption ofinternational standards that facilitate exchanges andcommunication between countries’.

Approaches to the academic studyof meta-standards

Introduction

Standardization of management systems and its end-product, meta-standards, constitute a clear exampleof a multidimensional phenomenon which has impli-cations of an extremely varied nature. It is for thisreason that they have been studied from the perspec-tive of a variety of disparate but related disciplines,such as international economics, management stu-dies (and, more specifically, the study of operationsmanagement) and organizational sociology.

In this section of the paper, an attempt will be madeto produce a synthesis of these approaches.1 First, thedifferent theoretical approaches will be structured inthree main groups: (1) technical approaches, in whichwe would place the standpoint of Operation Manage-ment and other technical standpoints involving astudy of the meta-standards that refer to more or lessgeneral, mature fields such as Quality Management,Environmental Management and System Thinking,among others; (2) non-technical approaches, withthe following four sub-approaches: self-regulation,decentralized institutions and signalling models,cartels and clubs and New Institutionalism; and (3)other approaches, in which we have grouped variouspieces of research based on eclectic works and whichare, consequently, difficult to classify.

The following two subsections focus on thepresentation of the first two general approaches.The main works published in the literature couldbe included in them. In the research perspective thatwe have generically named ‘other approaches’, weinclude other works from various different stand-points, such as works of a pragmatic nature carriedout from the standpoint of international economicsand international business, those that focus on thesame standpoint but which are clearly critical (e.g.Clapp 2001), highlight new challenges regarding

governance and regulation2 (e.g. Haufler 1999), thosecarried out from the standpoint of economic geogra-phy (e.g. Neumayer and Perkins 2004, 2005) andmore eclectic works which are difficult to classify(e.g. Naveh and Marcus 2004; Rondinelli and Vastag2000).

Technical approaches

These approaches focus on the practical implicationsof meta-standards for organizations (e.g. Andersonet al. 1999; Benner and Veloso 2008; Casadesús andKarapetrovic 2005; Corbett and Kirsch 2001; Corbettand Yeung 2008; Martínez-Costa et al. 2008, 2009;Terziovski et al. 2003). Thus, a great deal of researchhas focused on the measurement of meta-standards’impacts in the field of operations management,quality management, environmental management andsupply chain management (for a recent review of theworks published on ISO 9001 from this perspective,see Sampaio et al. 2009).This measurement generallyuses quantitative surveys, which have played a domi-nant role in the literature. Studies on the impactsof meta-standards have been conducted in variouscountries, often using a very similar methodology(e.g. questionnaire). Certain surveys have also beenconducted from a transnational perspective (e.g.Corbett and Kirsch 2001). Various studies have ana-lysed the motivations behind adopting meta-standards(e.g. Bansal and Roth 2000; Martínez-Costa et al.2008; Sampaio et al. 2009; Yin and Schmeidler2009). The effect on the performance of organiza-tions has also been widely debated (e.g. Carlsson andCarlsson 1996; Corbett et al. 2005; Dick et al. 2008;Huarng et al. 1999; Martínez-Costa et al. 2008;Terziovski et al. 2003). For example, the benefits ofISO 9001 implementation have been widely studied.Thus, the ISO 9001 adoption has been associatedwith productivity and effectiveness (Douglas andGlen 2000; Jang and Lin 2008), quality improve-ment (Escanciano et al. 2001; Sun 2000), customersatisfaction (González-Torre et al. 2001; Moatazed-Keivani et al. 1999) and employee motivation(Kunnanatt 2007; Santos and Escanciano 2002). Thesame type of study has been undertaken with regard tothe benefits of ISO 14001 (Bansal and Hunter 2003;Delmas 2001; González-Benito and González-Benito2005; Yin and Schmeidler 2009).

1At this point we would like to express our gratitude for theguidance provided by one of the three reviewers of thispaper, as this helped us in the complex structuring work ofthe different standpoints referred to in the study that haveanalysed meta-standards.

2This is a sub-approach with a clear link to that of self-regulation, but which is put together in a different way as ithas far less theoretical basis.



In short, this first standpoint also includes – inquantitative terms – an extremely far-ranging litera-ture, and is also the approach that was developedfirst, at a very early stage (in the early 1990s inthe case of ISO 9001). Generally speaking, technicalapproaches tend to encourage organizations to adoptmeta-standards by shedding light on their positiveimpacts, measured through quantitative studiescarried out in various regions and sectors of activity.Nevertheless, these studies tend to overlook certainpitfalls and pervasive effects that can result from theadoption of meta-standards: paperwork, superficialimplementation and lack of internal motivation(Boiral 2003, 2007; Christmann and Taylor 2006;Jiang and Bansal 2003; Walgenbach 2001). More-over, technical approaches tend to focus on thestandard implications for the organization and toneglect more global issues that can explain theirinternational development and institutionalizationthroughout various sectors of activity, such as theuse of meta-standards as self-regulation mecha-nisms, their role as signalling models and their sociallegitimacy in the eyes of certain stakeholders.

Non-technical approaches

These approaches are essentially focused on theanalysis of the development, rationality and sociallegitimacy of meta-standards, from a more globaland theoretical perspective. Through the adoption ofmeta-standards and their certification, legitimacy isawarded to the organizations adopting them, and thisgrants benefits beyond pure technical or efficiencyadvantages (Beck and Walgenbach 2005). This stand-point is most salient in New Institutionalism, althoughit can be argued that it is also present in otherapproaches and, on occasions, even in works which, interms of both the views they express and the journalsin which they are published, could be included amongtechnical approaches (e.g. Nair and Prajogo 2009).This does not really come as a shock, above all if onetakes into account that, according to some authors,third-party certification, like other forms of auditingcertification, is primarily aimed at creating trust andsocial legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders (Boiraland Gendron 2011; Power 2003).

Self-regulation refers to the adoption of voluntarystandards (e.g. environmental standards such as ISO14001) beyond the requirements of government regu-lation (Christmann and Taylor 2006; King and Lenox2000; Prakash and Potoski 2007). As is underlined byO’Rourke (2006) and Christmann and Taylor (2001),

the inability of some countries to establish a systemof public regulation in relation to particular fields ofactivity such as the environment or employees’ rights,has intensified companies’ interest in self-regulation,a subject which is also of great relevance in the fieldof management standards. Despite liberalization, theglobal economy continues to be governed by rules,but the rules are changing, and international stand-ards point to one such set of changes (Nadvi andWältring 2004). If it is true, in fact, that in modernnation-states the main burden of regulatory activity isassumed by the public administration, which for thispurpose has at its disposal various powers to sanctionor to encourage, the new supranational organizationswhich have arisen out of the decline of the nation-state, such as the European Union, the United Nationsor the OECD, do not benefit from the same hierarchi-cal authority and power to sanction, which has ledto the emergence of new regulatory institutionsthat do not belong to the traditional sphere of publicregulation. For Mendel (2001), standardization thusrepresents a form of coordination and hybrid govern-ance that is on the increase. All in all, from thisperspective, standardization is thus perceived as anew form of alternative to traditional public regula-tion. The absence of a regulatory power of a globalpublic nature – the task of designing, implementingand enforcing standards – tends to be assumed bydifferent regional or global institutions of a non-governmental nature in areas that have traditionallybelonged to the area of regulation by the authorities(Abbott and Snidal 2001; Brunsson and Jacobsson2000; Neumayer and Perkins 2005). Among thesenew regulatory institutions, special mention shouldbe made of the International Organization forStandardization. This body, known by its acronymISO (International Standardization Organization),3

together with the IEC (International ElectrotechnicalCommission) and the ITU (International Telecommu-nication Union), form the main international organ-izations for standardization. The three bodies have, inconjunction with the WTO (World Trade Organiza-tion), formed a strategic alliance with the commonaim of promoting the creation of a free and equitableglobal trading system. This agreement, known as theAgreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, providesfor the establishment of a code of conduct for the

3The International Organization for Standardization wasreconstituted as the successor organization to the short-livedInternational Standards Association, which had already beenestablished in the 1920s (Braun 2005).



preparation, adoption and application of standardsbased on both the principles of non-discriminationand harmonization and the stated objective of pre-venting international standards becoming unneces-sary technical barriers to free trade.

In short, what stands out in this standpoint isthe notion of meta-standards as moving towards aglobal regulation tool. Within this standpoint, it wouldalso be interesting to explain, among other things, thedifferences from the sub-standpoint associated withworks that analyse the link between meta-standardsand private international business regulation andsoft law (e.g. Abbott and Snidal 2006; Vogel 2008).This sub-standpoint of soft laws differs from others inthat it focuses on an analysis of the legitimacy andenforcement mechanism of initiatives such as ISO14001, compared with hard law (Roht-Arriaza 2000;Vogel 2008).

Another perspective featuring in managementstudies, closely related to that referred to above, isthe analysis of meta-standards from the perspectiveof decentralized institutions and signalling models,based on Michael Spence’s theory of market signal-ling (King and Toffel 2009; Terlaak and King 2006).This perspective concentrates on analysing the roleof meta-standards and their certification and theelimination of asymmetries in information. For thisperspective, meta-standards can be seen as signals ofsupplier characteristics that lower search and moni-toring costs in supply chains (Christmann and Taylor2001; King et al. 2005). More specifically, Terlaakand King (2006) argue that many studies carriedout from the perspective of the technical approachthat have tried to analyse companies’ motivation foradopting meta-standards have failed to explain fullythe nature of certified management standards. Theseauthors affirm that, from a theoretical perspective,the aforementioned studies do not explain whyorganizations implement and certify such meta-standards, given that, since the requirements of thestandards are public and consultancy firms are avail-able to aid the adoption of practices, companies donot need to certify the systems that they implement inorder to gain an operational benefit (Terlaak andKing 2006). In other words, they underline the ideathat an organization does not need a certificate inorder to make the standard work and that there mustbe non-technical reasons that explain the existence ofmeta-standards. Therefore, Terlaak and King (2006)argue that certified management standards constitutea form of private decentralized institution, becauseparticipation is voluntary and because a wide variety

of stakeholders, rather than a single central authority,provide rewards for participating or sanctions for notparticipating. They emphasize the process of certifi-cation itself, which is, in their opinion, the distin-guishing element of these decentralized institutions:‘certification as a critical determinant of the functionof management standards’ (Terlaak and King 2006,p. 1092). The importance given to the notion ofinformation asymmetry could be identified as adistinguishing feature of the standpoint, whichstresses that the raison d’être of meta-standards is toreduce information asymmetries between potentialexchange partners.

Following an approach clearly related to that above,the phenomenon of meta-standards has also beenstudied (especially in relation to ISO 14001) fromthe viewpoint of the theory of cartels and clubs whichcan be applied to voluntary programmes in whichcertifiable meta-standards may also be included(particularly noteworthy for these purposes are thecontributions from Diaye et al. (2007), Kerret (2008)and Potoski and Prakash (2004, 2005)). Basing theirobservations on the theoretical model proposed byBuchanan, Potoski and Prakash (2005) point outthat, for companies, the benefits of membership (theso-called ‘club goods’) are the excludable brandingcertification that allows members to publicize theirclub membership and thus claim credit for theirpro-environment activities. The key conceptual dis-tinction made by the authors is that

clubs’ excludable benefits are not the rewardsmembers receive from external audiences for takingspecific environmental action. Rather, excludablebenefits stem from membership in ISO 9001 orISO 14001, which provides a credible signal ofa company’s overall approach to environmentalgovernance. (Potoski and Prakash 2005)

The notion of information asymmetries is alsopresent in this standpoint, although one of the mostobvious distinguishing features that can be estab-lished in this case is the importance given to the studyof costs and benefits associated with meta-standardcertification – the ‘additional costs’ and the ‘exclud-able branding benefits’ (Prakash and Potoski 2006).It is also highlighted that international trade buyersface higher transaction costs in identifying qualityexporters because of spatial, cultural, and linguisticdistances and that, as a result, meta-standards such asISO 9001 or ISO 14001 were explicitly designed tosolve the information asymmetry problem in inter-national trade (Potoski and Prakash 2009).



Meta-standards have also been analysed from theperspective of New Institutionalism. This approachto the study of the adoption of meta-standardstakes as its reference point institutional and neo-institutional theories of the study of organizationsand suggests that firms obtain legitimacy by con-forming to the dominant practices within their organ-izational field. In their seminal work, DiMaggio andPowell (1991) maintain that there are three typesof external pressure that lead organizations towardsisomorphism or homogeneity: coercive, mimeticand normative.4 First, coercive isomorphism mayresult from the pressure of external stakeholders toadopt meta-standards. For example, pressure fromcustomers is one of the main drivers of ISO 9001certification (Boiral 2003; Buttle 1997; Carlsson andCarlsson 1996). Second, mimetic isomorphism tendsto occur when meta-standards are viewed by compa-nies as exemplary forms of management practices.The imitation of organizations adopting these exem-plary management practices tends to propagatecertain standards such as ISO 9001 and ISO 14001across national borders (e.g. Beck and Walgenbach2005; Boiral 2007; Boiral and Amara 2009; Guleret al. 2002; Vasconcelos and Vasconcelos 2003).Third, for several authors, normative isomorphismoccurs when an accreditation institution has the rightto evaluate and inspect other organizations, grantingthe use of a seal or label certifying that the authorizedorganization follows the processes prescribed bythe authorizer, and certificates such as ISO 9001 andISO 14001 fall into this category (Guler et al. 2002;Mendel 2002; Vasconcelos and Vasconcelos 2003).

Generally speaking, organizations seek supportand legitimacy in their institutional fields by adopt-ing structural models that are perceived to be thebest available. In that way, entities such as ISO arekey players in defining the isomorphic properties ofmany institutional fields. One of the most prominentaspects of this sub-approach is that it focuses onanalysing the cross-national dissemination of meta-standards and the institutional pressures that explainwhy companies certify. This standpoint emphasizesthe importance of coercive, normative and mimeticforces and the mechanisms of international dissemi-nation of the ISO 9001 standard (Casper and Hancke1999; Guler et al. 2002; Mendel 2001). In short, the

distinguishing feature of this sub-approach is thatNew Institutionalism explains what meta-standardsare by focusing on the institutional pressures thatencourage their adoption. Nevertheless, according tocritical approaches based on New Institutionalism,meta-standards can be superficially implementedwhen organizations are mostly driven by the quest forsocial legitimacy rather than the search for improve-ments of internal practices (Boiral 2007; Christmannand Taylor 2006; Walgenbach 2001).

A research agenda on meta-standards

As already pointed out by Uzumeri (1997) more thana decade ago, meta-standards could lead to funda-mental changes in management practice, since theyrepresent a new management technology that mayhave a profound impact on the short-term evolutionof management practice. This author also declaredthat scholars, practitioners and policy-makers shouldbegin the serious task of mapping and analysing theirbroader implications (Uzumeri 1997).

It seems clear that the American scholar’s wishhas only partly come true. Although academic litera-ture on the subject of meta-standards has grown inrecent years, it is surprising that its volume has notincreased even more, especially in view of the obser-vation made by Corbett and Yeung (2008) to theeffect that, ‘Once one considers that literally millionsof organizations worldwide are directly impacted bysuch meta-standards, it is surprising that not morescholarly research exists on most of these standards’(Corbett and Yeung 2008, p. 1). In our opinion,however, the principal shortfall lies in the badlystructured and insufficiently incremental manner inwhich academic research into the phenomenon hasdeveloped.

Table 1 summarizes the principal research areasthat are currently being produced through themedium of specialized academic literature, in anattempt to carry out a mapping exercise that may beof interest to researchers working in this researchfield.

Regarding research area 1, the complex processby which standards are created, along the lines ofthe complete work undertaken by Haufler (1999),carried out from a critical perspective, in relation toISO 14001, should be studied further. As Nadvi andWältring (2004) point out, global meta-standards for-mulated by private and public/private initiatives suchas ISO imply new forms of global governance in the

4Other followers of this line of theory maintain that theseprocesses can be divided into coercive, normative and cog-nitive mechanisms leading to organizational isomorphism(Braun 2005; Guler et al. 2002; Mendel 2002).



Table 1. Academic study of meta-standards: an integrative review

Research areas Representative works(theoretical approach/es)a

Main research results(representative works)

1. Creation ofmeta-standardsand implicationsfor globalgovernance

Haufler (1999) [O]Clapp (2001) [O]Summers (2003) [NI]Nadvi and Wältring (2004) [O]Giovannucci and Ponte (2005) [NI]Nadvi (2008) [O]Ruwet (2011) [O]

• Creation of meta-standards is a complex political process (Clapp2001; Haufler 1999)

• Meta-standards imply new forms of global governance in theworld economy (Summers 2003)

• Meta-standards are frequently launched without the realparticipation of the developing countries (Giovannucci and Ponte2005; Nadvi and Wältring 2004)

2. Internationaldiffusion processof meta-standards

Terlaak and King 2006 [SR]Corbett and Kirsch (2001) [TA]Guler et al. (2002) [NI]Delmas (2002) [NI]Saraiva and Duarte (2003) [TA]Poksinska et al. (2003) [C&C]Franceschini et al. (2004) [TA]Vastag (2004) [SR]Neumayer and Perkins (2004 2005) [O]Corbett (2006) [TA]Marimón et al. (2006) [TA]Alburquerque et al. (2007) [TA]Potoski and Prakash (2009) [DIS]Delmas and Montes (2008) [NI]

• Positive correlation between certificates and macro-economicvariables (Neumayer and Perkins 2004; Potoski and Prakash2004)

• ISO 14001 and ISO 9001 meta-standards had followed similardiffusion patterns (Corbett 2006; Corbett and Kirsch 2001)

• ISO 14001 certification levels by country depend on ISO 9001certification levels, export propensity, and environmental attitudes(Corbett and Kirsch 2001)

• Bilateral trade and geographical proximity are drivers of ISO9001, while cultural similarity drives for ISO 14001(Alburquerque et al. 2007)

• The diffusion models for innovations fit well (Alburquerque et al.2007; Franceschini et al. 2004; Marimón et al. 2006)

3. Motivations toadoptmeta-standards

Bansal and Roth (2000) [NI,TA]González-Benito and González-Benito(2005) [TA]Beck and Walgenbach (2005) [NI]King et al. (2005) [DIS]Darnall and Edwards (2006) [NI]Yin and Schmeidler (2009) [TA]Martínez-Costa et al. (2008) [TA]Sampaio et al. (2009) [TA]Nair and Prajogo (2009) [NI,TA]Prajogo (2011) [NI,TA]

• Different typology of motivation: internal vs external(González-Benito and González-Benito 2005); functionalist vsinstitutional (Nair and Prajogo 2009).

• Isomorphic pressures are important drivers (Bansal and Roth2000; Beck and Walgenbach 2005)

• Firms seek certification when their partners lack credibleinformation (King et al. 2005)

• Customer pressure and the external image are the main drivers(Darnall and Edwards 2006)

4. Benefits ofadoption(A) andimpact onperformance(B)

(A) Carlsson and Carlsson (1996) [TA]Buttle (1997) [TA]Brown and Van der Wiele (1995, 1996) [TA]Huarng et al. (1999) [TA]Bansal and Bogner (2002) [TA]Melnyk et al. (2002) [TA]Terziovski et al. (2003) [NI,TA]Casadesús and Karapetrovic (2005) [TA]Prajogo (2011) [NI,TA]Boiral and Amara (2009) [NI,TA]Boiral (2011) [NI,TA]Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. (2011a) [NI,TA](B)Rondinelli and Vastag (2000)[O]Terziovski et al. (2003) [NI,TA]King and Lenox (2001) [SR]Russo and Harrison (2001) [NI]Bansal and Bogner (2002) [O]Terziovski et al. (2003) [NI,TA]Corbett et al. (2005) [NI,TA]Potoski and Prakash (2005) [C&C]King et al. (2005) [DIS]Dick et al. (2008) [TA]Benner and Veloso (2008) [NI,TA]Martínez-Costa et al. (2008) [TA]Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. (2011b) [NI,TA]

• Main benefits of ISO 9001: improvement of operationalperformance; greater customer satisfaction; improvedrelationships within the organization; improvement in the internalefficiency of the company; improved image for competitors andstakeholders (Brown and Van der Wiele 1996; Casadesús andKarapetrovic 2005; Terziovski et al. 2003)

• Main benefits of ISO 14001: reduction in the consumption ofresources and improved image for competitors and stakeholders(Bansal and Bogner 2002; Melnyk et al. 2002)

• Positive impact of meta-standards in business performance(Bansal and Bogner 2002; Corbett et al. 2005; Dick et al. 2008;King et al. 2005; Martínez-Costa et al. 2008; Potoski and Prakash2005; Russo and Harrison 2001; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. 2011b)

• Significantly positive relationship between the drivers foradopting the meta-standards and the benefits and/or the businessperformance (Boiral 2007, 2011; Prajogo 2011; Terziovski et al.2003; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. 2011a)

• Paradoxical impacts of ISO 9001 certification and differentperformance configurations based on criteria related toeffectiveness and internal problems Boiral and Amara (2009)



world economy, subject to potential conflicts that mayarise as a consequence of the competing interests ofprivate businesses and civil society stakeholders, anaspect which could constitute an extremely interest-ing subject for study and which has been littleexploited to date in relation to meta-standards. Simi-larly, the problem of developing countries’ limitedcapacity to exert an influence on the process of crea-tion of meta-standards is also a subject of great inter-est on which outstanding work has already beencarried out (e.g. Clapp 2001; Giovannucci and Ponte2005; Nadvi 2008; Nadvi and Wältring 2004;Summers 2003), despite the fact that there is stillmuch evidence to gather. In this research area, there isno clear dominating theoretical approach.

In the second research area, there are severalstudies carried out from the perspective of operations

management (Casadesús et al. 2008; Corbett 2006;Franceschini et al. 2004; Marimón et al. 2006;Poksinska et al. 2003; Saraiva and Duarte 2003)which have tried to model the diffusion of meta-standards and have confirmed the existence ofsimilar diffusion patterns for different types of meta-standard (e.g. ISO 9001, ISO 14001). In contrast,other studies carried out from other non-technicalapproaches have tried to analyse which factorsexplain geographical differences in the diffusion ofmeta-standards (Alburquerque et al. 2007; Corbett2006; Corbett and Kirsch 2001; Delmas 2002; Grol-leau et al. 2008; Guler et al. 2002; Neumayer andPerkins 2005; Potoski and Prakash 2004; Terlaak andKing 2006; Vastag 2004). These studies stress thata positive correlation exists between the number ofcertificates and macro-economic variables such as

Table 1. Continued

Research areas Representative works(theoretical approach/es)a

Main research results(representative works)

5. Differences inadoption levels(internalization)

Boiral (2003, 2007) [NI]Naveh and Marcus (2004) [O]Boiral and Roy (2007) [NI,TA]Boiral (2007) [NI]Nair and Prajogo (2009) [NI,TA]Christmann and Taylor (2006) [SR]Jang and Lin (2008) [NI,TA]Yin and Schmeidler (2009) [NI,TA]Boiral and Amara (2009) [NI,TA]Heras-Saizarbitoria 2011 [NI, TA]

• Different internalization levels of both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001(Boiral and Roy 2007; Jang and Lin 2008; Naveh and Marcus2004)

• Discrepancy between written document and daily practices andritualistic/Symbolic adoption (Boiral 2003 2007; Christmann andTaylor 2006)

• Internalization rationale depending on institutional pressures andinternal involvement (Boiral 2007)

• Internal drivers positively correlated to the depth of adoption(Boiral and Amara 2009; Jang and Lin 2008; Yin and Schmeidler2009) and Internalization with operational performance (Nair andPrajogo 2009)

• Heterogeneous internalization of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001standards (Boiral 2007; Christmann and Taylor 2006;Heras-Saizarbitoria 2011; Yin and Schmeidler 2009)

6. Integration ofstandards

Karapetrovic and Willborn (1998) [TA]Wilkinson and Dale (1999) [O]Beckmerhagen et al. (2003) [TA]Zutshi and Sohal (2005) [TA]Zeng et al. (2006) [TA]Salomone (2008) [TA]Bernardo et al. (2009) [TA]

• Academic controversy about integration models (Karapetrovicand Willborn 1998; Wilkinson and Dale 1999)• Integration is often confused with the mere fusion of bothsystems’ documentation procedures (Bernardo et al. 2009)• Different perspectives towards integrating ISO 9001 and ISO14001 (Zeng et al. 2006; Zutshi and Sohal 2005)

7. Consultancy(A) andauditing(B) formeta-standards

(A) Sakofsky (1993) [TA]Vloeberghs and Bellens (1996) [O]Marimón et al. (2002) [TA](B) Chan et al. (1993) [TA]Williamson et al. (1996) [TA]Terziovski and Power (2007) [O]Boiral and Gendron (2011) [NI,O]

• Gap between clients’ expectations and their perception of thequality of the consulting service (Marimón et al. 2002)

• The role of the auditor is critical for the adoption ofmeta-standards (Williamson et al. 1996)

• Quality auditors are frequently unfamiliar with the client’sindustry and process or products/services (Terziovski and Power2007)

• Misconceptions of the certification and auditing practices in thearea of accountability for sustainable development (Boiral andGendron 2011)

aTA, Technical Approaches; SR, self-regulation; DIS, decentralized institutions and signalling models; C&C, theory of cartels and clubs;NI, New Institutionalism; O, Others (see the classification used in the paper).



the volume of direct overseas investment and thetendency to export to the EU. Alburquerque et al.(2007) conclude that ISO 9001 is driven primarily bygeography and bilateral trade relations, whereas ISO14001 is driven by geography and cultural similarity.In short, although many interesting results have beenobtained, clear answers are still waiting to be foundto such elementary questions. In this research area,the contributions made from a technical perspectiveare the dominant ones, with a noteworthy influencealso from the approach of New Institutionalism.

The third research area is also very closely linkedto that of the previous section, i.e. with the study ofthe pattern of diffusion of meta-standards. While themajority of existing studies on this subject are ofan empirical character, with little development ofa theoretical framework, there are nonetheless acertain number of noteworthy studies undertaken inthe context of a clear and consistent conceptual andtheoretical framework. In short, it can be said thatthere are two main theoretical approaches to thisissue. From one perspective, based on the theoreticalmodel established by New Institutionalism, it is sug-gested that meta-standards are adopted due to pres-sures of an external nature (Braun 2005; Christmannand Taylor 2001; Corbett and Kirsch 2001; Delmas2002; Guler et al. 2002). This analytical perspectiveis criticized by academics, who argue that organiza-tions are dynamic and active and are able to respondin different ways, according to their resources andcapacities (Balzarova and Castka 2008; Beck andWalgenbach 2005; Christmann and Taylor 2003;Darnall and Edwards 2006; King and Lenox 2001;Nair and Prajogo 2009; Yin and Schmeidler 2009).Other more pragmatic and technical contributionshave tried to establish a classification of the motivat-ing forces that lead companies to implement andcertify meta-standards (e.g. Bansal and Roth 2000;González-Benito and González-Benito 2005). In thistype of empirical literature, there is no clear consen-sus among specialists as to the main driving forcesbehind meta-standards (on this issue, Martínez-Costa et al. 2008; Prajogo 2011; Sampaio et al. 2009are to be recommended for the extensive review thatis included of the literature on this subject).

In research area 4, the most quoted empiricalstudies carried out from the technical perspectivehave corroborated the positive effects or benefits ofboth ISO 9001 (e.g. Arauz and Suzuki 2004; Briscoeet al. 2005; Brown and Van der Wiele 1995, 1996;Buttle 1997; Carlsson and Carlsson 1996; Casadesúsand Karapetrovic 2005; Huarng et al. 1999; Jones

et al. 1997; Tsiotras and Gotzamani 1996) and ISO14001 (e.g. Bansal and Bogner 2002; Corbett andRusso 2001; Florida and Davidson 2001; King andLenox 2001; Melnyk et al. 2002; Montabon et al.2000; Rondinelli and Vastag 2000; Russo and Harri-son 2001;). Regarding the impact on performance,several studies on ISO 9001 (e.g. Benner and Veloso2008; Corbett et al. 2005; Dick et al. 2008; Häversjö2000; Martínez-Costa et al. 2008; Wayhan andBalderson 2007) and ISO 14001 (e.g. Andrewset al. 2003; Jiang and Bansal 2003; King et al. 2005;Melnyk et al. 2003; Potoski and Prakash 2005;Russo 2002) have used objective or factual measures(i.e. accounting data, data on emissions), while themajority of studies have used perceptual measuresobtained by surveys (i.e. based on questionnaires) toanalyse the impact of meta-standards on perform-ance.5 Overall the results are mixed, but in a majorityof studies a significant positive relationship isfound between the adoption of meta-standards and acompany’s performance. In this research area, thecontributions made from a technical perspective arealso the dominant ones.

Regarding research area 5, although the majorityof studies into the adoption of meta-standards assumehomogeneous adoption – they concentrate on thequestion of whether or not a company has third-partycertification as the sole criterion to demonstrate thatimplementation has been completed – more and morestudies are now beginning to emphasize the hetero-geneity of their adoption both in the case of ISO 9001(Boiral 2003; Vasconcelos and Vasconcelos 2003;Arauz and Suzuki 2004; Naveh and Marcus 2004;Biazzo 2005; Beck and Walgenbach, 2005; Briscoeet al. 2005; Christmann and Taylor 2006; Boiral andRoy 2007; Jang and Lin 2008; Nair and Prajogo 2009;Heras-Saizarbitoria 2011) and for ISO 14001 (Boiral2001; Boiral, 2007;Yin and Schmeidler 2009; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. 2011a). In the case of this researcharea, it is clear that the theoretical approach of NewInstitutionalism is the prevalent one.

The sixth research area is a more pragmatic/operational one. The success of the diffusion ofmanagement standards in various different fields ofcompany management has led organizations to con-sider their implementation in a single integrated

5For a review of this type of study, Benner and Veloso(2008), Martínez-Costa et al. (2009), Molina-Azorín et al.(2009) and Sampaio et al. (2009) are interesting in the caseof ISO 9001, and Molina-Azorín et al. (2009) and Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. (2011b) in the case of ISO 14001.



management system (Beckmerhagen et al. 2003;Karapetrovic 2003; Karapetrovic and Willborn 1998;Wilkinson and Dale 2001). At the same time, thefirst studies analysing these aspects have begun to bepublished in the academic world (Bernardo et al.2009; Fresner and Engelhardt 2004; Salomone 2008;Zeng et al. 2006; Zutshi and Sohal 2005). Giventhe technical specialist nature of the theme, in thisresearch area it is also clear that the technical per-spective is the dominant theoretical approach.

Finally, research area 7 deals with specialist con-sultancy and the third-party auditing and registrationindustry related to meta-standards. Various studies ofthe field have confirmed the importance of externalconsultancy services in the process of adoption ofmeta-standards (e.g. Marimón et al. 2002; Sakofsky1993; Vloeberghs and Bellens 1996). Similarly,although it is stressed that the role of the auditor iscritical for the adoption of meta-standards (Sakofsky1993; Terziovski and Power 2007; Williamson et al.1996) and requires careful interpretation and train-ing, several studies point out that quality auditorsare frequently unfamiliar with the client’s industry,quality system and process or products/services, andthat this results in a poor-quality audit (Chan et al.1993; Hutchins 1993; Williamson et al. 1996). In arecent paper, Boiral and Gendron (2011) point outthat, although audit failure crises have not been asprominent in the context of the audits of meta-standards as they have been in the context of finan-cial audits, ‘There is a significant gap between theimagery of rationality and infallibility surroundingISO audits and what these audits can actually deliver’(Boiral and Gendron 2011, p. 14). However, it shouldbe taken into account that the conclusions drawnby the authors are not based on sufficient empiricalevidence, as they themselves acknowledge, whichis why empirical work will need to be carried out onthis interesting and controversial research area. Inthis area, special mention should also be made of thecontributions made from a technical theoretical per-spective, although attention should also be drawn tothe fact that interesting contributions are starting tobe published from the New Institutionalism perspec-tive (e.g. Boiral and Gendron 2011), based on a moredeveloped and complex framework.

Discussion and conclusion

The objective of this paper was to analyse, throughan integrative study, the main findings of the litera-

ture on meta-standards and the avenues for futureresearch, based on the most significant knowledgegap identified. The concept of management standardor meta-standard is complex, multi-faceted andhas been extensively analysed in the literaturefrom various perspectives, including operationsmanagement, strategic management, internationaleconomics, economic geography and organizationalsociology. The level of analysis has ranged from apragmatic approach to the more theoretical level, butwithout much inter-relation between the various dif-ferent research areas.

It can be stated that the conclusions drawn fromthe extensive body of academic literature availableon the subject have helped us to understand betterwhy and how these standards have been developedand disseminated. In this sense, the non-technicalcontributions have proved to be of special interestowing to the solid nature of the basic theoreticalprinciples they put forward. Nevertheless, there stillremain many issues to be explored and a set of keyknowledge gaps on which research should focus inthe future, using both quantitative and qualitativeresearch methods (see Table 2).

Regarding the diffusion of meta-standards,since the temporal aspects of the adoption of meta-standards might also be important, there could be alink between these studies and others of a theoreticaland empirical nature which have already becomeestablished features in the field of management, anddeal in particular with the influence of fashionablepractices in business management (Abrahamson1991, 1996). It may also interesting to analyse theimpact of the global financial and economic crisison the decertification process, which has recentlystarted to be analysed in the relevant literature(Casadesús et al. 2008; Marimón et al. 2009) –something that concerns, above all, the ISO itself(ISO 2005).

However, although many interesting results havebeen obtained, clear answers are still waiting to befound to such elementary questions as the relation-ship between the economic competitiveness of coun-tries and the number of ISO certificates awarded.Thus, very competitive economies such as Germanyand Finland have a relatively low level of certificates,whereas less competitive countries (e.g. Italy, Spain,Israel) have a very high level of certificates. In ouropinion, in order to make progress in this researcharea, importance should be given to approacheswith a more pragmatic vision, which might be ableto throw light on this phenomenon, such as, for



Tabl

e2.

Kno

wle

dge

gaps

onm

eta-

stan

dard

s:a

rese

arch

agen

da

Res

earc

har

eas

Kno

wle

dge

gaps

Poss

ible

rese

arch

met

hods

1.C

reat

ion

ofm

eta-

stan

dard

san

dim

plic

atio

nsfo

rgl

obal

gove

rnan

ce

•C

ompl

expr

oces

sof

crea

tion

ofm

any

met

a-st

anda

rds

(e.g

.S

A80

00,

ISO

2600

0)•

Stu

dyth

eco

mpl

exne

twor

ksof

publ

ican

dpr

ivat

est

akeh

olde

rsre

late

dto

met

a-st

anda

rds

and

thei

rpo

tent

ial

confl

icts

•M

echa

nism

sto

over

com

eth

ede

velo

ping

coun

trie

s’in

abil

ity

toin

flue

nce

the

proc

ess

•S

emi-

dire

ctiv

ein

terv

iew

sam

ong

mem

bers

ofIS

Ote

chni

cal

com

mit

tees

inch

arge

ofth

ede

velo

pmen

tof

new

met

a-st

anda

rds

•Pa

rtic

ipan

tob

serv

atio

nat

mee

ting

sor

gani

zed

byIS

Ote

chni

cal

com

mit

tees

•C

onte

ntan

alys

isof

docu

men

tsfr

omor

gani

zati

ons

for

stan

dard

izat

ion

2.In

tern

atio

nal

diff

usio

npr

oces

sof

met

a-st

anda

rds

•T

hegl

obal

cris

isan

dit

sim

pact

onth

ede

cert

ifica

tion

proc

ess

•D

iffu

sion

ofm

eta-

stan

dard

san

dm

anag

emen

tfa

dsan

dfa

shio

ns•

Why

are

som

eco

untr

ies

orre

gion

sm

ore

rece

ptiv

eto

met

a-st

anda

rds

than

othe

rs?

•T

heim

port

ance

ofna

tion

algo

als

and

cam

paig

ns(p

ubli

cad

min

istr

atio

n’s

pres

crip

tive

role

)•

The

adap

tati

onof

met

a-st

anda

rds

tosp

ecifi

ccu

ltur

esan

dso

cial

cont

exts

(res

ista

nce

tom

odel

sde

velo

ped

inw

ealt

hyco

untr

ies,

issu

esre

late

dto

lite

racy

degr

ee)

•T

hero

leof

nati

onal

orga

niza

tion

sfo

rst

anda

rdiz

atio

nin

the

deve

lopm

ent

ofsp

ecifi

cst

anda

rds

•C

ross

-cou

ntry

com

para

tive

stud

ies

onth

ere

ason

sex

plai

ning

the

dece

rtifi

cati

onpr

oces

s•

Qua

ntit

ativ

est

udie

sba

sed

onth

ein

tern

atio

nal

dist

ribu

tion

and

tend

enci

esco

ncer

ning

the

num

ber

ofce

rtifi

edor

gani

zati

ons

•Q

uali

tativ

est

udie

sof

nati

onal

orga

niza

tion

sfo

rst

anda

rdiz

atio

non

chal

leng

esra

ised

byth

ecu

ltur

alad

apta

tion

ofva

riou

sm

eta-

stan

dard

s•

Cas

est

udie

san

dco

mpa

rativ

ean

alys

isof

cert

ified

orga

niza

tion

sfr

omva

riou

sco

untr

ies

3.M

otiv

atio

nsto

adop

tm

eta-

stan

dard

s•

No

clea

rco

nsen

sus

toid

enti

fyth

em

ain

driv

ers

•M

ost

ofth

epr

evio

ussu

rvey

sar

eba

sed

onth

eop

inio

nof

man

ager

s(p

oten

tial

bias

)•

Reg

iona

ldi

ffer

ence

sin

the

mot

ivat

ion

for

adop

ting

spec

ific

stan

dard

s•

The

mot

ivat

ions

for

choo

sing

not

tore

new

cert

ifica

tion

•C

ross

-cou

ntry

com

para

tive

stud

ies

onth

em

otiv

atio

nsfo

rth

ead

opti

onof

met

a-st

anda

rds

•Pe

rcep

tion

sof

vari

ous

stak

ehol

ders

(em

ploy

ees,

cust

omer

s)of

the

mai

ndr

iver

sfo

rce

rtifi

cati

on•

Cas

est

udie

son

the

reas

ons

for

cert

ifica

tion

rene

wal

4.B

enefi

tsof

adop

tion

and

impa

cton

perf

orm

ance

•C

onfu

sion

inth

eat

trib

utio

nof

caus

atio

n•

Em

ploy

ees

perc

epti

ons

ofm

eta-

stan

dard

sim

pact

s•

Cos

tsan

dbe

nefi

tsof

the

cert

ifica

tion

proc

ess

•R

ole

ofau

dito

rsan

dco

nsul

tant

sin

impr

ovin

gth

eef

fect

iven

ess

ofm

eta-

stan

dard

s•

The

impa

ctof

glob

alcr

isis

•Im

pact

sof

new

met

a-st

anda

rds

such

asIS

O26

000

•Im

pact

sof

inte

grat

ing

mul

tipl

em

eta-

stan

dard

ssu

chas

ISO

9001

and

ISO

1400

1ce

rtifi

cati

on•

Cri

tica

lsu

cces

sfa

ctor

sin

met

a-st

anda

rds

impl

emen

tati

on

•C

ase

stud

ies

onth

eco

sts

and

bene

fits

ofth

ece

rtifi

cati

onpr

oces

s•

Lon

gitu

dina

lst

udie

son

long

-ran

geim

pact

sof

cert

ifica

tion

•Q

uant

itat

ive

stud

ies

onth

eim

pact

san

dsu

cces

sfa

ctor

sof

inte

grat

ing

both

ISO

9001

and

ISO

1400

1st

anda

rds

•Q

uant

itat

ive

stud

ies

onth

eim

pact

ofgl

obal

cris

ison

ISO

9001

and

ISO

1400

1in

tegr

atio

n•

Cro

ss-c

ount

ryco

mpa

rativ

est

udie

son

the

impa

cts

ofm

eta-

stan

dard

s•

Met

a-an

alys

isan

dsy

stem

atic

revi

ews

onth

eef

fect

iven

ess

ofce

rtifi

able

stan

dard

s

5.D

iffe

renc

esin

adop

tion

leve

ls(i

nter

nali

zati

on)

•S

ymbo

lic

adop

tion

ofC

SR

met

a-st

anda

rds

•R

ole

ofce

rtifi

cati

onpr

oces

sin

the

inte

rnal

izat

ion

ofm

eta-

stan

dard

s•

Dif

fere

ntle

vels

ofin

tern

aliz

atio

nin

side

the

sam

eor

gani

zati

on•

Con

ting

ency

fact

ors

expl

aini

ngth

em

eta-

stan

dard

sin

tegr

atio

nle

vels

•D

iffe

rent

confi

gura

tion

sof

inte

rnal

izat

ion

•C

hang

esov

erti

me

inth

edo

min

ant

adop

tion

mod

els

•C

ase

stud

ies

onth

edi

ffer

ent

leve

lsof

ISO

9001

and

ISO

1400

1ad

opti

onin

side

the

sam

eor

gani

zati

on•

Lon

gitu

dina

lca

sest

udie

son

the

evol

utio

nof

the

met

a-st

anda

rds

dom

inan

tad

opti

onm

odel

s•

Inte

rvie

ws

perf

orm

edou

tsid

eth

ew

orkp

lace

inor

der

tore

duce

bias

rela

ted

toor

gani

zati

onal

rhet

oric

ofsu

cces

s•

Cro

ss-c

ount

ryco

mpa

rativ

est

udie

son

the

diff

eren

ces

inad

opti

onle

vels

6.In

tegr

atio

nof

stan

dard

s•

Dif

ficu

ltie

sco

mpa

nies

face

duri

ngth

ein

tegr

atio

npr

oces

s•

Whe

ther

the

impl

emen

tati

onm

odel

purs

ued

cond

itio

nsth

epr

oces

s•

Met

a-an

alys

isan

dsy

stem

atic

revi

ews

onth

em

ain

pitf

alls

ofm

eta-

stan

dard

sin

tegr

atio

n•

Cas

est

udie

son

the

diffi

cult

ies

face

dby

cert

ified

orga

niza

tion

sde

pend

ing

onth

eim

plem

enta

tion

mod

el•

Lon

gitu

dina

lst

udie

son

the

evol

utio

nof

stan

dard

sin

tegr

atio

nan

dit

sm

ain

diffi

cult

ies

7.C

onsu

ltan

cyan

dau

diti

ngfo

rm

eta-

stan

dard

s

•A

naly

seth

eco

nsis

tenc

yof

exte

rnal

cons

ulta

ncy

and

audi

ting

serv

ices

•Is

ther

ea

mor

ehe

lpfu

lau

diti

ngst

yle,

oris

ther

ea

race

toth

ebo

ttom

?•

For

ISO

1400

1,do

the

thir

d-pa

rty

audi

tsle

adto

the

outs

ourc

ing

ofpu

blic

envi

ronm

enta

lin

spec

tion

?•

Eth

ical

issu

esof

cert

ifica

tion

proc

ess:

confl

icts

ofin

tere

sts,

lack

ofau

dito

rsin

depe

nden

ce•

Rel

atio

nshi

psan

ddi

ffer

ence

sbe

twee

nm

eta-

stan

dard

cert

ifica

tion

and

fina

ncia

lau

dits

•Pe

rcep

tion

ofth

ere

liab

ilit

yan

dtr

ustf

ulne

ssof

cert

ifica

tion

inth

eey

esof

diff

eren

tst

akeh

olde

rs•

The

impa

ctof

trai

ning

,qu

alifi

cati

ons

and

prof

essi

onal

ism

ofau

dito

rsan

dco

nsul

tant

son

the

cert

ifica

tion

proc

ess

•Pa

rtic

ipan

tob

serv

atio

nof

cert

ifica

tion

audi

ts•

Inte

rvie

ws

amon

gce

rtifi

cati

onau

dito

rson

the

audi

tspr

epar

atio

n,re

aliz

atio

nan

dfo

llow

ing-

up•

Qua

lita

tive

stud

ies

onth

ece

rtifi

cati

onet

hica

lis

sues

base

don

the

view

ofva

riou

sst

akeh

olde

rs(a

udit

ors,

cons

ulta

nts,

cert

ified

orga

niza

tion

s,ce

rtifi

cati

onbo

dies

.)•

Cro

ss-c

ount

ryco

mpa

rativ

est

udie

son

the

mai

nch

arac

teri

stic

sof

audi

tors

:tr

aini

ng,

expe

rien

ce,

qual

ifica

tion

s•

Sem

i-di

rect

ive

inte

rvie

ws

amon

gva

riou

sst

akeh

olde

rs(e

mpl

oyee

s,m

anag

ers,

cust

omer

s)on

the

reli

abil

ity

and

trus

tful

ness

ofce

rtifi

cati

onau

dits

•Fo

cus

grou

psw

ith

fina

ncia

lan

dIS

Oau

dito

rsto

shed

ligh

ton

the

sim

ilar

itie

san

ddi

ffer

ence

sbe

twee

nfi

nanc

ial

and

ISO

audi

ts(p

repa

rati

on,

ethi

cal

issu

es,

com

mer

cial

aspe

cts)



example, those approaches which gather specificevidence linked to the various different public andprivate programmes to promote meta-standards thathave been established in an international context.

As far as studies that attempt to analyse themotivation behind adopting meta-standards are con-cerned, the perceptions of not only general managers,but also of internal stakeholders (such as middlemanagers or workers themselves who do not performmanagement tasks) and those outside the company(customers, suppliers, consultants and auditors)should be taken into account. In this way, a richerand more complete view of a process as complex asthe one we are faced with could be obtained. In thecase of studies that attempt to analyse the impact onperformance based on perceptual or self-reportingmeasurements, problems of bias should be takeninto account. Thus, Corbett et al. (2005), Heras et al.(2002), Wayhan and Balderson (2007), Wayhan et al.(2002) and Yin and Schmeidler (2009) have pointedout possible bias related to performance variablesbased on managers’ ratings or on data supplied bythe companies themselves, since the person provid-ing the information has a personal interest in over-valuing it. Thus, when it is possible, it seems better toensure the use of more objective data or indicatorsfrom existing records (e.g. commercial databasescontaining economic and financial information,or publicly available databases with informationon environmental performance). Furthermore, asstressed by Christmann and Taylor (2006), futureresearch on the drivers for the adoption of meta-standards should go beyond treating customers asa homogeneous group by including the types ofrequirements and preferences that different custom-ers impose on suppliers.

However, there is no doubt that one of the mostthought-provoking research areas – owing to itsdiverse implications – is that related to the internali-zation of meta-standards (research area 5). There is aclear knowledge gap in this field, and empiricalstudies (especially those based on quantitativemethodology) are necessary in order to analyse theperceptions of the various stakeholders with regardto the process of adoption and internalization ofmeta-standards. Furthermore, as both Christmannand Taylor (2006) and Nair and Prajogo (2009) havepointed out, owing to the increasing importance ofcontext dependence, future research should explorethe sources of variation in the quality of implemen-tation of meta-standards in cross-country studieswith different cultures and political environments. As

Christmann and Taylor (2006) underlined, research-ers need to acknowledge the limitation of certifi-cation as a measure, and need to evaluate howvariations in the quality of standard implementationmay affect their results.

Finally, for future work, research should also focuson studying audits by third parties – one of the proc-esses that characterize the phenomenon of meta-standards and one which has not received muchattention from researchers in recent years. It would beinteresting to analyse the consistency of externalauditing services rigorously, limited as they are by thefact that they are contracted and paid for by thecompany that wishes to become certified. This issuehas already been analysed in other areas of businessas a result of the accounting scandals that occurred inthe US a few years ago and, more recently, with theproblems facing credit-rating institutions in the finan-cial crisis that arose in 2008. Indeed, as has beendemonstrated by recent scandals in the accountancysector and the financial market, third-party auditof meta-standards – an activity that shares certainfeatures with that of account auditing and credit-rating – is no guarantee of honesty (Boiral andGendron 2011; King et al. 2005).This question mightbe related to a possible erosion of the prestige andcredibility of management standards, a danger whichhas been pointed out ever since the phenomenonbegan (Askey and Dale 1994).Thus, with a view to thefuture it would also be interesting to analyse whether,as a result of the rapid expansion in the diffusion ofmeta-standards, the quality of audits has improved,with better-trained and better-qualified auditors beingable to provide a more helpful auditing style, as someauthors maintain (e.g. Terziovski and Power 2007),or whether it is rather the case that a rapid decline inquality has taken place. As pointed out by Brumm(1997), the existence of many entities capable ofperforming the required audits and issuing the rel-evant certificates was pointed out as a weakness thatfavoured instrumental implementation practices, con-tributing to the erosion of the prestige and credibilityof meta-standards, as recently stressed by severalauthors (e.g. Boiral and Gendron 2011; Christmannand Taylor 2006; Yeung and Mok 2005).

In short, further critical and rigorous empiricalstudies are necessary in order to analyse the realperceptions of the various stakeholders (consumers,managers, suppliers, intermediary clients, workersand public administration) regarding the adoption ofmeta-standards and their effects. However, in orderfor the results of such research to constitute a clear



contribution to an improvement in knowledge aboutthis phenomenon, the multidisciplinary orientationof these studies is an essential requirement.

Meta-standards regulate management practicesin a broad range of companies around the globe. Thestudy of the complex role of the adoption of thesemeta-standards by researchers of very different back-grounds and different cultural and political environ-ments could provide valuable contributions to abetter understanding of their real role, for both aca-demic and practitioner purposes.

Lastly and as far as the limitations of the reviewof literature conducted are concerned, we wonderwhether the concept of meta-standard has sufficientmaturity or, in other words, has a sufficiently solidconceptual foundation, given the continued fragmen-tation of the management field (Hodgkinson 2001).Nevertheless, as we have attempted to argue in thispaper, we understand that, despite its complexityand clearly multi-faceted nature, the concept ofmeta-standard meets these requirements and is asufficiently mature, clear and well-defined manage-ment concept. Furthermore, we must also considerwhether the possible subjective bias in the work is alimitation. Indeed, as is the case with all integrativereviews about a multi-faceted and complex subjectmatter such as the one studied here, in which reviewsare not of an obviously systematic nature, it is clearthat other ways of mapping the academic knowledgein the field might well exist. For example, otherauthors might define approaches that have tendedto study meta-standards in the academic literaturedifferently. Despite the limitations referred to, weunderstand that reviews such as the one contained inthis work are necessary to the field, to give, amongother reasons, other researchers who are interested inreviewing this complex line of work cause to makefurther contributions that may start to clarify andprovide evidence of the maturity of this field.

ReferencesAbbott, K.W. and Snidal, D. (2001). International standards

and international governance. Journal of European PublicPolicy, 8, pp. 345–370.

Abbott, K.W. and Snidal, D. (2006). The governancetriangle: regulatory standards institutions and the shadowof the state. Working Paper, Global Governance Project,Oxford University.

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fad and fashion:the diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy ofManagement Review, 16, pp. 586–612.

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy ofManagement Review, 21, pp. 254–285.

Alburquerque, P., Bronnenberg, B.J. and Corbettt, C.J.(2007). A spatiotemporal analysis of the global diffusionof ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certification. ManagementScience, 53, pp. 451–468.

Anderson, S.W., Daly, J.D. and Johnson, M.F. (1999). Whyfirms seek ISO 9000 certification: regulatory complianceor competitive advantage? Production & OperationsManagement, 8, pp. 28–43.

Andrews, R.N., Amaral, D., Darnall, N., Gallagher, D.R.,Edwards, D. Jr, Huston, A., Amore, C.D., Sun, L. andZhang, Y. (2003). Environmental management systems:do they improve performance? Available at http://www.c2e2.org/documents/emsivolumei.pdf (accessed 5 March2012).

Antonelli, C. (1998). Localized technological change andthe evolution of standards as economic institutions. InChandler, A.D., Hagström, P. and Sölvell, Ö. (eds), TheDynamic Firm The Role of Technology, Strategy, Organ-ization, and Regions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arauz, R. and Suzuki, H. (2004). ISO 9000 performancein Japanese industries. Total Quality Management &Business Excellence, 15, pp. 3–33.

Askey, J.M. and Dale, B.G. (1994). From ISO seriesregistration to total quality management: an examination.Quality Management Journal, 1, pp. 67–76.

Balzarova, M.A. and Castka, P. (2008). Underlying mecha-nisms in the maintenance of ISO 14001 environmentalmanagement system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16,pp. 1949–1957.

Bansal, P. and Bogner, W. (2002). Deciding on ISO 14001:economics, institutions, and context. Long Range Plan-ning, 35, pp. 269–290.

Bansal, P. and Hunter, T. (2003). Strategic explanationsfor the early adoption of ISO 14001. Journal of BusinessEthics, 46, pp. 289–299.

Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: amodel of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 43, pp. 717–736.

Beck, N. and Walgenbach, P. (2005). Technical efficiency ofadaptation to institutional expectations? – The adoption ofISO 9000 standards in the German mechanical engineer-ing industry, Organization Studies, 26, pp. 841–866.

Beckmerhagen, I., Berg, H., Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn,W. (2003). Integration, of management systems: focus onsafety in the nuclear industry, International Journal ofQuality and Reliability Management. 20, pp. 209–227.

Benner, M.J. and Veloso, F.M. (2008). ISO 9000 practicesand financial performance: a technology coherenceperspective. Journal of Operations Management, 26,pp. 611–629.

Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S. and Heras, I.(2009). How integrated are environmental, quality andother standardized management systems? An empiricalstudy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, pp. 742–750.



Biazzo, S. (2005). The new ISO 9001 and the problem ofceremonial conformity: how have audit methods evolved?Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16,pp. 381–400.

Boiral, B. and Gendron, Y. (2011). Sustainable developmentand certification practices: lessons learned and prospects.Business Strategy and the Environment, 20, pp. 331–347.

Boiral, O. (2001). ISO 14001 certification in multinationalfirms: the paradoxes of integration. Global Focus, 13,pp. 79–94.

Boiral, O. (2003). ISO 9000, outside the iron cage. Organ-ization Science, 14, pp. 720–737.

Boiral, O. (2007). Corporate greening through ISO 14001: arational myth? Organization Science, 18, pp. 127–146.

Boiral, O. (2011). Managing with ISO systems: lessons frompractice. Long Range Planning, 3, pp. 197–220.

Boiral, O. and Amara, N. (2009). Paradoxes of ISO 9000performance: a configurational approach.Quality Manage-ment Journal, 16, pp. 36–60.

Boiral, O. and Roy, M.J. (2007). ISO 9000: integration ration-ales and organizational impacts. International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, 27, pp. 226–247.

Braun, B. (2005). Building global institutions: the diffusionof management standards in the world economy – aninstitutional perspective. In Alvstam, C.G. and Schamp,E.W. (eds), Linking Industries across the World. London:Ashgate, pp. 3–27.

Briscoe, J.A., Fawcett, S.E. and Todd, R.H. (2005). Theimplementation and impact of ISO 9000 among smallmanufacturing enterprises. Journal of Small BusinessManagement, 43, pp. 309–330.

Brown, A. and Van der Wiele, T. (1995). Industry experiencewith ISO 9000. Asia Pacific Management, 4, pp. 8–18.

Brown, A. and Van der Wiele, T. (1996). A typology ofapproaches to ISO certification and TQM. AustralianJournal of Management, 21, pp. 57–72.

Brumm, E. (1997). Managing records for ISO9000 compli-ance. Quality Progress, 28, pp. 73–77.

Brunsson, N. and Jacobsson, B. (2000). The contemporaryexpansion of standardization. In Brunsson, N. andB. Jacobsson (eds), A World of Standards. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, pp. 1–17.

Buttle, F. (1997). ISO 9000: marketing motivations andbenefits, International Journal of Quality & ReliabilityManagement, 14, pp. 936–947.

Carlsson, M. and Carlsson, D. (1996). Experiences ofimplementing ISO 9000 in Swedish industry. Inter-national Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,13, pp. 36–47.

Casadesús, M. and Karapetrovic, S. (2005). Has ISO 9000lost some of its lustre: a longitudinal impact study. Inter-national Journal of Operations & Production Manage-ment, 25, pp. 580–596.

Casadesús, M., Marimón, F. and Heras, I. (2008). ISO 14001diffusion after the success of the ISO 9001 model. Journalof Cleaner Production, 16, pp. 1711–1822.

Casper, S. and Hancke, B. (1999). Global quality normswithin national production regimes: ISO 9000 standardsin the French and German car industries. OrganizationalStudies, 20, pp. 961–985.

Chan, F.Y., Willborn, W., Xiao, H. and Li, H. (1993).Research report: an expert system for quality manage-ment auditing. Asia Pacific Journal of Quality Manage-ment, 2, pp. 65–72.

Christmann, P. and Taylor, G. (2001). Globalization ofthe environment: determinants of firm self-regulationin China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32,pp. 439–458.

Christmann, P. and Taylor, G. (2003). Environmentalself-regulation in the global economy: the role of firmcapabilities. Multinationals, Environment and GlobalCompetition, 9, pp. 119–145.

Christmann, P. and Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulationthrough international certifiable standards: determinantsof symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journalof International Business Studies, 37, pp. 863–883.

Clapp, J. (2001). ISO environmental standards: industry’sgift to a polluted globe or the developed world’scompetition-killing strategy? In Bergesen, H.O., Parmann,G. and Thommessen, Ø.B. (eds), Yearbook of InternationalCooperation on Environment and Development 2001.London: Earthscan Publications, pp. 27–33.

Corbett, C.J. (2006). Global diffusion of ISO 9000 certifi-cation through supply chains. Manufacturing and ServiceOperations Management, 8, pp. 330–350.

Corbett, C.J. and Kirsch, D.A. (2001). Internationaldiffusion of ISO 14000 certification. Production andOperations Management, 10, pp. 327–342.

Corbett, C.J. and Russo, M. (2001). ISO 14001: irrelevantor invaluable. ISO Management Systems, December,pp. 23–29.

Corbett, C.J. and Yeung, A.C.L. (2008). Special issueon meta-standards in operations management: cross-disciplinary perspectives. International Journal ofProduction Economics, 113, pp. 1–2.

Corbett, C.J., Montes-Sancho, M.J. and Kirsch, D. (2005).The financial impact of ISO 9000 certification in theUnited States: an empirical analysis. ManagementScience, 51, pp. 1046–1059.

Darnall, N. and Edwards, J.D. (2006). Predicting the costof environmental management system adoption: the roleof capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strate-gic Management Journal, 27, pp. 301–320.

Delmas, M. (2001). Stakeholders and competitive advan-tage: the case of ISO 14001. Production and OperationsManagement, 10, pp. 343–358.

Delmas, M. (2002). The diffusion of environmentalmanagement standards in Europe and in the UnitedStates: an institutional perspective. Policy Sciences, 35,pp. 91–119.

Delmas, M.A. and Montiel, I. (2008). The diffusion of vol-untary international management standards: responsible



care, ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 in the chemical industry.Policy Studies Journal, 1, pp. 65–93.

Diaye, M.-A., Ghabri, S., Greenan, N. and Pekovic, S.(2007). ISO 9000 norm as a club good: network effectevidence from French employer survey, public economicsand the provision of global public goods. INFER Work-shop, Galway City, September.

Dick, G.P.M., Heras, I. and Casadesús, M. (2008). Sheddinglight on causation between ISO 9001 and improved busi-ness performance. International Journal of Operations &Production Management, 28, pp. 687–708.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991). The Iron CageRevisited: Institutional Isomorphism and CollectiveRationality in Organizational Fields. Chicago, IL: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Douglas, A. and Glen, D. (2000). Integrated managementsystems in small and medium enterprises. Total QualityManagement, 11, pp. 686–690.

Escanciano, C., Fernandez, E. and Vazquez, C. (2001).ISO 9000 certification and quality management in Spain:results of a national survey. TQM Magazine, 13, pp. 192–200.

Florida, R. and Davidson, D. (2001). Gaining from greenmanagement: environmental management systems insideand outside the factory. California Management Review,43, pp. 64–84.

Franceschini, F., Galetto, M. and Gianni, G. (2004). A newforecasting model for the diffusion of ISO 9000 standardcertifications in European countries. International Journalof Quality & Reliability Management, 21, pp. 32–50.

Fresner, J. and Engelhardt, G. (2004). Experiences with inte-grated management systems for two small companies inAustria. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, pp. 623–631.

Furusten, S. (2000). The knowledge base of standards. InBrunsson, N. and Jacobsson, B. (eds), A World of Stand-ards. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 71–84.

Giovannucci, D. and Ponte, S. (2005). Standards as a newform of social contract? Sustainability initiatives in thecoffee industry. Food Policy, 30, pp. 284–301.

González-Benito, J. and González-Benito, O. (2005). Ananalysis of the relationship between environmental moti-vations and ISO 14001 certification. British Journal ofManagement, 16, pp. 133–148.

González-Torre, P., Adenso-Díaz, B. and González, B.(2001). Empirical evidence about managerial issues ofISO certification. TQM Magazine, 13, pp. 355–360.

Grolleau, G., Lamri, J. and Mzoughi, N. (2008). Détermi-nants de la diffusion internationale de la norme ISO14001, Economie Prévision, 185, pp. 123–138.

Guler, I., Guillen, M.F. and MacPherson, J.M. (2002). Globalcompetition, institutions, and the diffusion of organiza-tional practices: the international spread of ISO 9000quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47,pp. 207–232.

Haufler, V. (1999). Negotiating International Standardsfor Environmental Management Systems: the ISO 14000

Standards. NewYork: UN Vision Project on Global PublicPolicy Networks, UN.

Häversjö, T. (2000). The financial effects of ISO 9000registration for Danish companies. Managerial AuditingJournal, 15, pp. 47–52.

Heras, I., Dick, G.P.M. and Casadesús, M. (2002). ISO 9000registration’s impact on sales and profitability: a longitu-dinal analysis of performance before and after accredita-tion. International Journal of Quality & ReliabilityManagement, 19, pp. 774–791.

Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2011). Internalization of ISO 9000:an exploratory study. Industrial Management & DataSystems, 111, pp. 1214–1237.

Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Arana, G. and Molina-Azorín, J.F.(2011a). Do drivers matter for the benefits of ISO 14001?International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, 31, pp. 192–216.

Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Molina-Azorín, F.J. and Dick, G.P.(2011b). ISO 14001 certification and financial perform-ance: Selection effect versus treatment effect. Journal ofCleaner Production, 19, pp. 1–12.

Hodgkinson, G.P. (ed.) (2001). Facing the future: the natureand purpose of management research re-assessed. BritishJournal of Management, 12, pp. 1–80.

Huarng, F., Horng, C. and Chen, C. (1999). A study of ISO9000 process, motivation and performance. Total QualityManagement, 10, pp. 1009–1025.

Hutchins, G. (1993). ISO 9000: a Comprehensive Guide toRegistration, Audit Guidelines and Successful Certifica-tion. Williston, VT: Oliver Wight.

ISO (2005). The ISO Survey of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000Certifications: 14th cycle. Geneva: ISO.

ISO (2011). The ISO Survey of Certifications 2010. Geneva:ISO.

Jang, W. and Lin, C. (2008). An integrated frameworkfor ISO 9000 motivation, depth of ISO implementationand firm performance. The case of Taiwan. Journal ofManufacturing Technology Management, 19, pp. 194–216.

Jiang, R.J. and Bansal, P. (2003). Seeing the need for ISO14001. Journal of Management Studies, 40, pp. 1047–1067.

Jones, R., Arndt, G. and Kustin, R. (1997). ISO 9000amongst Australian companies: impact of time andreasons for seeking certification on perceptions ofbenefits received. International Journal of Quality &Reliability Management, 14, pp. 650–660.

Karapetrovic, S. (2002). Strategies for the integration ofmanagement systems and standards. TQM Magazine, 14,pp. 61–67.

Karapetrovic, S. (2003). Musings on integrated manage-ment systems. Measuring Business Excellence, 7,pp. 4–13.

Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (1998). Connectinginternal management systems in service organizations.Managing Service Quality, 8, pp. 256–271.



Kerret, D. (2008). ISO 14001 as an environmental capacitybuilding tool – variations among nations environmentalscience. Technology, 42, pp. 2773–2779.

King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2000). Industry self-regulationwithout sanctions: the chemical industry’s responsiblecare program. Academy of Management Journal, 43,pp. 698–716.

King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001). Who adopts manage-ment standards early? An examination of ISO 14001certifications. Academy of Management Proceedings.Washington DC: Academy of Management, pp. A1–A6.

King, A.A. and Toffel, M.W. (2009). Self-regulatory insti-tutions for solving environmental problems: perspectivesand contributions from the management literature. InDelmas, M. and Young, O. (eds), Governance for theEnvironment: New Perspectives. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 193–215.

King, A.A., Lenox, M.J. and Terlaak, A.K. (2005). Thestrategic use of decentralized institutions: exploringcertification with the ISO 14001 management standard.Academy of Management Journal, 48, pp. 1091–1106.

Kunnanatt, J.T. (2007). Impact of ISO 9000 on organiza-tional climate: strategic change management experienceof an Indian organization. International Journal ofManpower, 28, pp. 175–192.

Macpherson, A. and Jones, O. (2010). Editorial: strategiesfor the development of international journal of manage-ment reviews. International Journal of ManagementReviews., 12, pp. 107–113.

Marimón, F., Casadesús, M. and Heras, I. (2002). Do qualityconsultants offer a quality service? Total Quality Manage-ment, 13, pp. 797–811.

Marimón, F., Casadesús, M. and Heras, I. (2006). ISO 9000and ISO 14000 standards: an international diffusionmodel. International Journal of Operations and Produc-tion Management, 26, pp. 141–165.

Marimón, F., Heras, I. and Casadesús, M. (2009). ISO 9000and ISO 14000 standards: a projection model for thedecline phase. Total Quality Management & BusinessExcellence, 1, pp. 1–21.

Martínez-Costa, M., Choi, T.Y., Martínez, J.A. andMartínez-Lorente, A.R. (2009). ISO 9000/1994, ISO9001/2000 and TQM: the performance debate revisited.Journal of Operations Management, 27, pp. 495–511.

Martínez-Costa, M., Martínez-Lorente, A.R. and Choi, T.Y.(2008). Simultaneous consideration of TQM and ISO9000 on performance and motivation: an empirical studyof Spanish companies. International Journal of Produc-tion Economics, 113, pp. 23–39.

Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R.L. and Montabon,F.L. (2002). Assessing the effectiveness of US voluntaryenvironmental programs: an empirical study. Inter-national Journal of Production Research, 40, pp. 1853–1878.

Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R.L. and Montabon,F.L. (2003). A model of site-specific antecedents of ISO

14001 certification. Production and Operations Manage-ment, 12, pp. 4–17.

Mendel, P.J. (2001). Global Models of Organization:International Management Standards, Reforms, andMovements. Dissertation, Department of Sociology.Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Mendel, P.J. (2002). International standardization andglobal governance: the spread of quality and environ-mental management standards. In Hoffman, A. andVentresca, M. (eds), Organizations, Policy, and theNatural Environment. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress, pp. 407–434.

Moatazed-Keivani, R., Ghanbari-Parsa, A.R. and Kagaya, S.(1999). ISO 9000 standards: perceptions and experiencesin the UK construction industry. Construction Manage-ment & Economics, 17, pp. 107–119.

Molina-Azorín, J.F., Tarí, J.J., Claver-Cortés, E. andLópez-Gamero, M.D. (2009). Quality management.Environmental Management, 11, pp. 197–222.

Montabon, F., Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R. and Calantone, R.J.(2000). ISO 14000: assessing its perceived impact oncorporate performance. Journal of Supply Chain Manage-ment, 36(2), pp. 4–16.

Nadvi, K. (2008). Global standards, global governanceand the organization of global value chains. Journal ofEconomic Geography, 8, pp. 323–343.

Nadvi, K. and Wältring, F. (2004). Making sense of globalstandards. In Schmitz, H. (ed.), Local Enterprises in theGlobal Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 53–94.

Nair, A. and Prajogo, D. (2009). Internalisation of ISO9000 standards: the antecedent role of functionalistand institutionalist drivers and performance implica-tions. International Journal of Production Research, 47,pp. 4545–4568.

Naveh, E. and Marcus, A.A. (2004). When does the ISO 9000quality assurance standard lead to performance improve-ment? Assimilation and going beyond. IEEE Transactionson Engineering management, 3, pp. 352–363.

Neumayer, E. and Perkins, R. (2004). What explains theuneven takeup of ISO14001 at the global level? A paneldata analysis. Environment, 36, pp. 823–839.

Neumayer, E. and Perkins, R. (2005). Uneven geographiesof organizational practice: explaining the cross-nationaltransfer and adoption of ISO 9000. Economic Geography,81, pp. 237–259.

O’Rourke, D. (2006). Multi-stakeholder regulation: privatiz-ing or socializing global labor standards? World Develop-ment, 34, pp. 899–918.

Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J.J. and Eklund, J.A.E. (2003).Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: motives, benefitsand comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal ofQuality & Reliability Management, 20, pp. 585–606.

Potoski, M. and Prakash, A. (2004). Regulatory convergencein nongovernmental regimes: cross-national adoption ofISO 14001 certification. Journal of Politics, 66, pp. 885–905.



Potoski, M. and Prakash, A. (2005). Covenants withweak swords: ISO 14001 and facilities environmentalperformance. Journal of Policy Analysis Management, 24,pp. 745–769.

Potoski, M. and Prakash, A. (2009). Information asym-metries as trade barriers: ISO 9000 increases internationalcommerce. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,28, pp. 221–238.

Power, M. (2003). Auditing and the production oflegitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28,pp. 379–394.

Prajogo, D.I. (2011). The roles of firms’ motives in affectingthe outcomes of ISO 9000 adoption. International Journalof Operations & Production Management, 31, pp. 78–100.

Prakash, A. and Potoski, M. (2006). The Voluntary Environ-mentalists: Green Clubs, ISO 14001, and VoluntaryEnvironmental Regulations. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Prakash, A. and Potoski, M. (2007). Collective actionthrough voluntary environmental programs: a club theoryperspective. Policy Studies Journal, 35, pp. 773–792.

Roht-Arriaza, N. (2000). Soft law in a hybrid organization:the international organization for standardization. InShelton, D. (ed.), Commitment and Compliance: the Roleof Non-Binding Norms in the International System.Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 263–281.

Rondinelli, D. and Vastag, G. (2000). Panacea, commonsense or just a label? The value of ISO 14001 environ-mental management systems. European ManagementJournal, 18, pp. 499–510.

Russo, M. and Harrison, A. (2001). An empirical studyof the impact of ISO 14001 registration on emissionsperformance. Paper presented at the Ninth Greening ofIndustry Network Annual Conference, 21–24 Janaury,Bangkok, Thailand.

Russo, M.V. (2002). Institutional change & organizationalstrategy: ISO 14001 and emissions in the electronicsindustry. Paper presented at the 62nd Meeting of theAcademy of Management, Denver, CO, August.

Ruwet, C. (2011). Towards a democratization of standardsdevelopment? Internal dynamics of ISO in the context ofglobalization, New Global Studies, 5, pp. 1–26.

Sakofsky, S. (1993). Twelve ways to make a quality auditwork for you. Journal of Quality and Participation, 16,pp. 30–32.

Salomone, R. (2008). Integrated management systems:experiences in Italian organizations. Journal of CleanerProduction, 16, pp. 1786–1806.

Sampaio, P., Saraiva, P. and Rodrigues, A.G. (2009). ISO9001 certification research: questions, answers andapproaches. International Journal of Quality & Reliabil-ity Management, 26, pp. 38–58.

Santos, L. and Escanciano, C. (2002). Benefits of the ISO9000: 1994 system: some considerations to reinforcecompetitive advantage. International Journal of Quality& Reliability Management, 19, pp. 321–344.

Saraiva, P.M. and Duarte, B. (2003). ISO 9000: somestatistical results for a worldwide phenomenon. TQM &Business Excellence, 14, pp. 1169–1178.

Summers, S.S. (2003). Perceptions of legitimacy and efficacyin international environmental management standards:the impact of the participation gap, Global EnvironmentalPolitics, 3, pp. 47–73.

Sun, H. (2000). Total quality management, ISO 9000 certi-fication and performance improvement, InternationalJournal of Quality Reliability Management, 17, pp. 168–179.

Terlaak, A. and King, A.A. (2006). The effect of certifica-tion with the ISO 9000 quality management standard: asignalling approach. Journal of Economics Behavior &Organization, 60, pp. 579–602.

Terziovski, M. and Power, D. (2007). Quality audit rolesand skills: perceptions of non-financial auditors andtheir clients. Journal of Operations Management, 28,pp. 73–77.

Terziovski, M., Power, D. and Sohal, A. (2003). The longi-tudinal effects of the ISO 9000 certification process onbusiness performance. European Journal of OperationalResearch, 143, pp. 580–595.

Tsiotras, G. and Gotzamani, K. (1996). ISO 9000 as an entrykey to TQM: the case of Greek industry. InternationalJournal of Quality and Reliability Management, 13,pp. 64–76.

Uzumeri, M. (1997). ISO 9000 and other meta-standards:principles for management practice? Academy of Manage-ment Executive, 11, pp. 21–36.

Vasconcelos, I.F.G. and Vasconcelos, F.C. (2003). ISO9000,consultants and paradoxes: a sociological analysis ofquality assurance and human resource techniques. RAC,Revista De Administraçion Contemporanea, 7, pp. 173–194.

Vastag, G. (2004). Revisiting ISO 14001 diffusion: a new‘look’ at the drivers of certification. Production andOperations Management, 13, pp. 260–267.

Vloeberghs, D. and Bellens, J. (1996). Implementing theISO 9000 standards in Belgium. Quality Progress, 29,pp. 43–48.

Vogel, D.J. (2008). Private global business regulation.Annual Review of Political Science., 11, pp. 261–282.

Walgenbach, P. (2001). The production of distrust by meansof producing trust. Organization Studies, 22, pp. 693–714.

Wayhan, V.B. and Balderson, E.L. (2007). TQM and finan-cial performance: what has empirical research discov-ered? Total Quality Managemen & Business Excellence,18, pp. 403–412.

Wayhan, V.B., Kirche, E.T. and Khumawala, B.M. (2002).ISO 9000 certification: the financial performance impli-cations. Total Quality Management, 7, pp. 217–231.

Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B.G. (1999). Models of manage-ment system standards: a review of the integrationissues. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3,pp. 279–298.



Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B.G. (2001). Integrated manage-ment systems: a model based on a total quality approach.Managing Service Quality, 11, pp. 318–330.

Williamson, A., Rogerson, J.H. and Vella, A.D. (1996).Quality system auditors’ attitudes and methods: a survey.International Journal of Quality Reliability and Manage-ment, 13, pp. 39–52.

Yeung, G. and Mok, V. (2005). What are the impacts ofimplementing ISOs on the competitiveness of manufac-turing industry in China? Journal of World Business, 40,pp. 139–157.

Yin, H. and Schmeidler, P.J. (2009). Why do standardizedISO 14001 environmental management systems lead to

heterogeneous environmental outcomes? Business Strat-egy and the Environment, 18, pp. 469–486.

Zeng, S., Shi, J. and Lou, G. (2006). A synergetic modelfor implementing an integrated management system: anempirical study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production,15, pp. 1760–1767.

Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A. (2005). Integrated managementsystem. The experience of three Australian organizations.Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16,pp. 211–232.



ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a Research Agenda on Management System Standards*i jmr_334 47..65

Documents

Transcript of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a Research Agenda on Management System Standards*i jmr_334 47..65