A synergetic model for implementing an integrated management system: an empirical study in China

Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1760e1767 www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A synergetic model for implementing an integrated management system: an empirical study in China S.X. Zeng a,*, Jonathan J. Shi b, G.X. Lou a b

a Antai School of Management, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200052, PR China Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA

Received 27 January 2005; accepted 27 March 2006 Available online 19 May 2006

Abstract The implementation and certification of quality, environmental and occupational health and safety management systems have become a priority for many organizations. They are viewed as symbol for success and prerequisite for survival. However, it has been proved to be difficult to operate multiple parallel management systems covering quality, environment, and occupational health and safety and to ensure their alignment with the organization’s strategy. To investigate the current status of integrated management system (IMS), a structured questionnaire survey was administrated. It is concluded that the major problems for enterprises to operate multiple parallel management systems include: it causes complexity of internal management, it lowers management efficiency, it incurs cultural incompatibility, it causes employee hostility, and increases management costs. The survey also examined the internal and external factors that affect the implementation of IMS. The internal factors include: (1) human resources, (2) organizational structure, (3) company culture, and (4) understanding and perception. The external factors consist of: (1) technical guidance, (2) certification bodies, (3) stakeholders and customers, and (4) the institutional environment. The article proposes a multi-level synergy model (strategic synergy, organizational structural-resource-cultural synergy, and documentation synergy) for an effective implementation of IMS. Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: ISO 9001; ISO 14001; OHSAS 18001; Quality; Environment; Health and safety; Integrated management system; Synergy

1. Introduction The implementation and certification of quality (ISO 9001), environmental (14001) and occupational health and safety (OHSAS 18001) systems have been an important activity for many organizations and have become a widespread phenomenon around the world [1]. According to a survey conducted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), global ISO 9001:2000 registrations surpassed the 670,399 mark, and the number of ISO 14001:1996-registered organizations approached 90,569 by the end of 2004 [2]. The ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 standards share similar management techniques and principles. They

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.X. Zeng). 0959-6526/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.03.007

require organizations to formulate policies, to define roles and responsibilities, to assign management representatives and to train personnel [3]. Implementing these standards in parallel demands many duplicate management tasks. For example, both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 require all working procedures to be traceable and auditable. In order to meet the requirements, each management system demands a lot of documentation, written procedures, checking, control forms and other paper work [4]. In practice, it has been proven to be difficult to deal with separate management systems covering quality, environment, and occupational health and safety and to ensure their alignment with the organization’s strategy [5]. Hence, integrated management systems (IMS) have drawn the attention of both academics and practitioners. Many researchers studied IMS from various viewpoints, including examining the possibility of integrating quality, environmental and health and safety management systems,

S.X. Zeng et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1760e1767

analyzing the potential benefits of an IMS for organizations, and exploring different integration approaches [6,7]. A few empirical studies have documented the experiences of the integrated systems from organizations in developing countries [8]. This paper presents the experiences that Chinese companies accumulated from implementing the standards by undertaking an integrated approach. The aim is to understand the challenges and the critical issues involved in the process. 2. A brief on the international standards 2.1. ISO 9001 The ISO 9001 standard describes a set of fundamental elements that enable the design and implementation of quality management systems. The latest ISO 9001:2000 revision is based on the following eight quality management principles: (1) customer-focused organizations, (2) leadership, (3) involvement of people, (4) process approach, (5) system approach to management, (6) continual improvement, (7) factual approach to decision-making, and (8) mutually beneficial, supplier relationships. Based on these eight guiding principles, ISO 9001 defines the following five main management requirements: (1) quality management system, (2) management responsibility, (3) resource management, (4) product realization, and (5) measurement, analysis, and improvement [9,10]. 2.2. ISO 14001 ISO 14000 is a series of standards and guidelines formulated in 1996 by the ISO with the aim of standardizing the environmental management programs across industries worldwide [11]. The ISO 14000 series are comprised of five aspects: environmental management system (EMS), environmental auditing (EA), environmental labeling (EL), environmental performance evaluation (EPE), and life cycle assessment (LCA). The standards are classified into two types: guidance notes and specifications. All standards except ISO 14001 belong to the former. They are descriptive documents and not prescriptive requirements. Only ISO 14001-based EMS is a standard. It is the core of the series. Its adoption is voluntary [12]. As a subset of ISO 14000, the EMS takes a systematic approach and provides a tool to enable organizations to control

1761

the impact of their activities, products, or services on the natural environment [13]. 2.3. OHSAS 18001 The Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) management aims to create and maintain a safe working environment, while protecting and maintaining good health of the workers. OHSAS 18001 was first published in 1999 as compatible with ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 management system standards in order to facilitate an integration of the three systems [14]. Although OHSAS 18001 does not set out specific OHS performance criteria, nor does it give detailed specifications for the design of a management system, it is applicable for any organization: (a) to establish an OHS management system to minimize risks to its employees and other interested parties; (b) to implement, maintain, and continually improve an OHS management system; (c) to assure itself of its conformance with its stated OHS policy; (d) to demonstrate such conformance to others; (e) to seek certification/registration of its OHS management system by an external organization; and (f) to make a self-determination and declaration of conformance with the standard’s specifications [15]. 3. Literature review Integration is defined differently by researchers. Garvin [16] refers to integration as the degree of alignment or harmony in an organization. MacGregor Associates [17] see integration as a single top level management ‘‘core’’ standard with optional modular supporting standards covering specific requirements. Because of similarity and compatibility among the ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 standards, some researchers have advocated an integration of quality, environmental and health and safety management systems in order to improve an organization’s performance. On the other hand, some researchers emphasized the differences among the various management systems. For instance, quality programs underline the needs of the customers, environmental programs focus on the concerns of regulators and the public. The relevant literature is summarized in two categories in Table 1.

Table 1 Relevant research on relationship among the management systems Category

Characteristics

Relevant researchers

Similarities

Similarities

Beechner and Koch [18]; Crabb and Fouhy [19]; Culley [20]; Karapetrovic and Willoborn [7]; Puri [21]; Renzi and Cappelli [22]; Wilkinson and Dale [3]

Compatibilities

Del Brio and Fernandez [23]; Douglas and Glen [24]; Jackson [25]; Jørgensen et al. [26]; Poksinska et al. [27]; Suarez-Garcia [14]; Wilkinson and Dale [28]

Differences in perceived customers and stakeholders Differences in operational management methods

Karapetrovic and Jonker [29]; Picard [30]; Stenzen [31]; Wilson [32]

Differences

Karapetrovic and Willoborn [7]; Tranmer [33]; Uzumeri [34]

S.X. Zeng et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1760e1767

1762

In addition, advocate researchers on IMS have developed approaches for integrating management systems. Table 2 lists relevant results. 4. Methodology In order to understand the IMS implementation of the ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 standards in enterprises in China, a questionnaire survey was conducted during the period from October 2004 to January 2005. The questions in the questionnaire were developed based upon reviews of relevant literature. The questionnaire was sent to senior managers who were responsible for quality, environmental and safety issues in the 400 large and medium-sized enterprises listed in

Table 2 Researches on IMS Author(s)

Main findings

Fresner and In small companies, immediate and visible improvement Engelhardt [35] in occupational health, and safety, product and service quality and environmental performance improvements, can be achieved at the same time by an apparently common sense, integrated approach. Jørgensen Three ambition levels of integration: from increased et al. [26] compatibility of system elements over coordination of generic processes to an embeddedness of an integrated management systems (IMS) in a culture of learning and continuous improvements. Karapetrovic and ‘‘A system of systems’’. The integration of two systems Willoborn [7] means to link them in a way that results in a loss of independence of one or both. An integration normally leads to a stronger and more comprehensive management system. Karapetrovic [36] A two-pronged approach. The first prong involves the creation of a generic management system standard to support integration. The second prong relates to auditing. It would generate a generic audit system standard. Labodova [37] Two ways of integration are as follows:  introduction of individual systems followed by the integration of the originally separate systems,  development and implementation of an integrated management system, integrated from the very beginning. Puri [21] A set of guideline for an integrated EMS/TQM system with three broad components and a framework based on ISO 9001. The three components are:  management responsibility;  process management; and  support systems. Tranmer [33] A multi-level integration. Aligning of the two systems with the business objectives and overall strategy of an organization is clearly related to other levels. Wilkinson and Two approaches to achieve integration including: Dale [28]  to merge the documentation through the aligned approach through the similarities in the standards;  to implement the integrated system through a total quality management approach. Zwetsloot [38] Three types of synergies in integrating the management of quality, environment and working conditions including:  common aspect synergy  management system synergy  organizational synergy

the Dictionary of Quality System Certified Enterprises in China. A total of 104 companies responded to the survey. All the respondents were senior managers in their organizations. Among the 104 firms, 41 (39%) were electronic and electrical equipment companies, 32 (31%) were manufacturers, 24 (23%) were construction companies, and 7 (7%) were others. All of the firms are ISO 9001- and ISO 14001-certified. Eighty-nine companies (86%) attained their ISO 9001 certificates more than five years earlier with the remainder (14%) being certified threeefive years earlier. Sixty-one (61) companies had implemented IMS. With respect to the time for obtaining ISO 14001 certificates, 37 companies (36%) responded with over three years; 53 companies (51%) responded with between one and three years; and the remaining companies claimed to be within one year. In addition, 31 companies (30%) were certified for OHS with less than three years. These respondents showed more experience in implementing multiple standards. To determine the relative rankings of the identified factors that may affect the IMS implementation, the relative importance index (RII) was employed [39]. The respondents were asked to rank the listed factors based on their relative importance using scores ranging from 1 to 5, where ‘1’ represents the least important and ‘5’ stands for the most important. The scores were then transformed to relative importance index (RII) using Eq. (1). Calculated RII values are in the range between 0 and 1. P w Relative importance index ¼ ð1Þ AN where w is the score given to a factor by a respondent, ranging from 1 to 5; A is the highest score (i.e. 5 in the study) and N is the total number of respondents. 5. Survey results 5.1. Major problems for parallel management systems This question was designed to gain an understanding of the major problems when multiple, parallel systems are used. The results calculated using Eq. (1) are listed in Table 3. Among the problems identified are: ‘‘It causes complexity of internal management’’ was ranked first with an RII value of 0.917. When parallel systems are implemented, companies Table 3 Problems with multiple parallel systems Ranking

Problems

RII

1

Cause complexity of internal management Low management efficiency Incur cultural incompatibility Cause employees’ hostility Increase management costs Waste human resources Slow information exchanges Increase paper work

0.917

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.895 0.874 0.831 0.809 0.776 0.649 0.615

S.X. Zeng et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1760e1767

must appoint management representatives, formulate procedures, and train employees separately. Moreover, multiple third-party certifications are needed after the implementation [40]. ‘‘Low management efficiency’’ was ranked second with an RII value of 0.895. Efficient systems must be designed in a way to comply with the requirements of international standards. With similar management principles, both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 provide a complete series of standards for establishing an effective documentation system. Each management system consists of the same elements including: (1) policy, (2) aims and objectives, (3) organization, (4) documentation, (5) plans (programs), (6) procedures, (7) records, (8) audit, and (9) review. Documentation is intended for communication, operation, traceability, and evaluation [41,42]. Although quality and environmental management systems are characterized by the same key elements, they operate independently. It is not easy for companies to manage the activities and processes that affect quality and the environment. Under some circumstances, the management systems can be easily trapped in a controlled bureaucracy with limited effectiveness. ‘‘Incur cultural incompatibility’’ was ranked third with an RII value of 0.874. Organizational culture refers to the pattern of belief, value and the way of learning for coping with experience that has developed during the course of an organization’s history [43]. There is a relationship between management scope and culture, and the differences in scope are likely to lead to different sub-cultures in the organization. The differences are more significant in IS0 900l:2000 than in ISO l400l and OHSAS l800l. While implementing ISO 9001, the mission statement frequently includes a statement about the quality of process to ensure quality for fulfilling customers’ needs. The statement is likely to be less important to those who are not involved in ‘‘quality management’’ than to those who are. Those who are not involved may develop a ‘‘different culturally based understanding’’ from those who are involved. Moreover, those who are involved in ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 may develop their corresponding priority on environmental management and safety management, respectively. These different sub-cultures may hinder the development of a strong common culture which emphasizes the values of co-operation and involvement. ‘‘Cause employees hostility’’ was ranked fourth with an RII value of 0.831. The behavior and attitude of the employees is very important for the organization to successfully implement ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 systems. It is common that people do not like to change their familiar ways of doing things, and are reluctant to adapt to procedures that may involve substantial changes. Executing a system involves a lot of extra work, especially on the preparation of documents outlining all activities at the operational level. It may lead to employees’ resistance, especially site workers on the front-line. If quality management and environmental management systems are two parallel systems in a company, the separation may even cause double workload and additional resistance from the employees. ‘‘Increase management costs’’ and ‘‘Waste human resources’’ are ranked fifth and sixth, respectively. Many researchers pointed out the problem with increased costs

1763

resulted from implementing ISO 14001. To comply with EMS, it is necessary to replace the old equipment that pollutes the environment [44]. Accordingly, it may cause significant financial burden to the organization [45]. A study by Cichowicz [46] indicated that compliance with ISO 14000 could add 30% additional cost when compared to that of ISO 9000. ‘‘Slow information exchange’’ was ranked seventh with an RII of 0.649. Information flow is a key concern in communication. It involves acquisition, generation, preparation, organization, dissemination, evaluation and management of information resources. Information flow is typically characterized by the exchange of the number of messages inside the company and the number of information processing activities needed for exchanging each message. The uncertainty and equivocality of information result in problems in information flow [47]. When quality management system and environmental management system are parallel, process management from internal audit to third-party certification for the two systems are also parallel so as to hinder information exchange between the different management. ‘‘Increased paper work’’ was ranked eighth with an RII of 0.615. ‘‘Paper work’’ was considered as one of the most difficult components of the system [48,49]. For example, the ISO 9000:1994 series, emphasizing ‘‘doing what you have written’’ and ‘‘writing what you have done’’, is characterized as a documented quality system, and is structured around the 20 clauses. Each element is supported by a great volume of procedure documents, work instructions, and quality records. It should be noted that the paper work is significantly decreased after ISO 9001 was changed from the 1994 to the 2000 version.

5.2. Results from the companies which have implemented IMS In the survey, 61 companies had implemented IMS. They were asked about the approaches that they employed for integrating their management systems and the critical factors that affected their implementation.

5.2.1. Approaches used for implementing integrating management systems All respondents attained ISO 9001 certification before ISO 14001. With regard to how the different management systems were integrated, they established a quality management system (QMS) first and subsequently an environmental management system (EMS). This is somewhat related to the way that the international standards were introduced to China. Karapetrovic and Willoborn [7] proposed three different approaches as follows:  Establish a quality management system (QMS) first and subsequently an environmental management system (EMS);  Establish EMS first and subsequently QMS;  Establish EMS and QMS simultaneously.

S.X. Zeng et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1760e1767

1764

Karapetrovic and Willoborn indicated that it is easier to implement an IMS with the first approach [7]. Both quality management (ISO 9001) and environmental management (ISO 14001) systems emphasize common terms, such as leadership and top management or continuous improvement. Moreover, both approaches focus on process improvement and optimization, which in turn lead to the reduction of waste. Occupational health and safety and environmental protection are also mentioned in both standards with more detailed descriptions in ISO 14001.

 There are gaps between existing documented programs and regulatory and corporate requirements;  Administrative controls are used for process safety management, risk management program, safety and health and environmental activities;  Documents are related to the same subject matter;  Documents are outdated;  Documents are no longer in use but are still maintained in the management system;  Accessibility to existing documentation needs to be improved.

5.2.2. Factors affecting the implementation of IMS The respondents were required to identify the factors affecting the implementation of IMS. The factors are classified into internal and external types and in five detailed categories, respectively [8,12,50]. The result is shown in Table 4.

After identifying the problems in the existing systems, new models can be developed to improve the efficiency of management functions, such as:

5.2.2.1. Internal factors affecting the implementation of IMS. Table 4 shows that human resources rather than financial resources are the major factor which may affect an IMS implementation. The knowledge required for human resources has become ever-increasingly important not only for implementation but also for operation and maintenance of IMS. Traditionally, organizations have separate, competing staff groups to handle the different management systems. Integration may cause conflicts among the groups in the organization. Negative corporate attitudes towards IMS and unfavorable company culture are often cited as the worst factors that can create a climate to deprive an IMS implementation process from getting support. It is also essential to properly analyze the status of the existing systems, such as:  An integrated system is needed to optimize its performance;  Standardization of documentation is needed to facilitate management system flow and navigation;  Policy documentation must be properly classified to ensure alignment with regulatory and corporate requirements; Table 4 Factors affecting implementation of IMS Scopes

Items

No of Response

Percentage

Internal factors

Human resources Organizational structure Company culture Understanding and perception Others

27 14 8 7 5

44 23 14 11 8

Total

61

100

External factors

Technical guidance Certification bodies Stakeholder and customers Institutional environment Others

20 18 8 8 7

33 30 14 14 11

Total

61

100

   

Optimizing management system performance; Standardizing document numbering and indexing; Eliminating redundancy and duplication; Fully integrating all processes by including administrative controls.

5.2.2.2. External factors affecting the implementation of IMS. Of the respondents, 33% recognized that technical guidance is the most important external factor. The quality, environmental and occupational health and safety management systems are different in some aspects. The differences create difficulties for firms to develop systematic documentations. A lack of sector-specific guidance and material tailored to suit different sizes of firms, especially for small firms, is frequently referred as a major external factor. Additionally, 29% respondents expect supports from certification bodies. Currently quality management system (QMS) based on ISO 9001, environmental management system (EMS) based on ISO 14001 and occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS) based on OHSAS 18001 are run by three independent certification bodies. In practice, this separation causes difficulties for firms. Certification bodies may have to face the demand for joint certifications. This situation is expected to change in the near future when multinational certification bodies are available for offering combined auditing to their customers. Although the standards of quality, environmental and safety system audits are different, the procedure is almost identical. After identifying audit objectives, roles, and responsibilities of the parties involved, an audit is initiated with the scope to be defined and an audit plan to be prepared. Subsequently, the auditor(s) executes the audit plan; reports and records are submitted to the client, and takes appropriate follow-up actions as necessary. Without an integrated system, it would certainly cause unnecessary waste of resources and time. Apart from the focus on overall system improvement, joint audit systems will result in cost savings, better allocation and deployment of human, material and information resources, as well as a unified problem solving approach that will increase

S.X. Zeng et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1760e1767

the efficiency and effectiveness of other interlinked systems. Such efforts in Denmark and Spain are worth noting [26]. 6. An effective implementation approach: a multi-level synergetic model Zwetsloot [38] underlined the importance of synergies in the implementation of the quality, environment and OHS management systems. We propose a multi-level synergetic model for implementing an integrated management system as shown in Fig. 1. At level 1, strategic synergy is given the top priority. The strategy for quality, environmental and health and safety management refers to strategic objectives, plans, and actions. The strategy stimulates an organization’s value, mission, and vision. Value here is defined as ‘‘understandings and expectations that describe how the organization’s people behave and upon which all business relationship are based’’ [51]. It permeates organizational structure, resources and cultural synergy and reflects on continuous improvement on the performance of quality, environmental and health and safety. If an organization lacks strategic synergy, it can easily focus on its shortterm goal for ‘‘getting certified’’, so as being unable to sustain the standards [52]. The three standards of ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 have a common underlying principle: continuous improvement based on Deming’s cycle (PlaneDoeChecke Act). They share the same structure as shown in Fig. 2. System documentation, records, policies, planning, responsibility, implementation, operational control, communication, verification, audits, conformity, continuous improvements and prevention are common requirements for all three standards. At level 2, there are three pillars including organizational structural, resource and cultural synergy. Traditionally, an organization has separate, competing staff groups to handle different management systems. This may cause discordance in the organization. For example, each management system (quality, environment, health and safety) may have its own management representative, management team

and internal audit team. A synergy of the organizational structure requires a coordination from the top manager to the bottom front-line staff. The consciousness of the top management is very important for an organization to integrate the standards [38]. The top manager must be personally involved in communicating the organization’s goal and plan and in motivating and rewarding the employees. The top management must be seen by the rest of the employees to be fully committed and involved. Support and commitment from the top management is essential for the integration process as well as for subsequent maintenance within the organization. For an integrated system to be implemented successfully and to work properly, the managers must recognize that they must continuously push it forward [1]. An organizational structural synergy could contribute to the organization’s continuity for success [38]. An organization’s cultural synergy is also important for the integration of management systems. Wilkinson and Dale [53] suggest that it should be helpful to view scope in a wider sense than the boundary of a system by including the philosophy, aims and objectives of the organization. They emphasize the need for a strong culture for integration. The most visible manifestation of culture is its artifacts, which include the organization’s rules, procedures, programs and systems. Growing the common culture is essential for the three systems and the IMS to achieve continuous improvement. Cultural incompatibility in the organization may hinder an integrating effort. A cultural shift is necessary to ensure a successful progress from the individual management systems to an integrated system. A synergy of resources includes human and financial resources. The synergic utilization of resources requires considering the similarities and compatibilities of the three systems in implementation. The current ISO 14001 standard states: ‘‘This standard shares common management principles with the ISO 9000 series of quality system standards. Organizations may elect to use an existing management system consistent with the ISO 9000 series as a basis for its environmental management system’’. The structure of OHSAS 18001 was also developed to foster compatibility with the quality management (ISO 9000) and environmental management (ISO 14000)

Objectives Direction Planning

Strategic synergy

Level 1

Beliefs, values and learned ways

Level 2

Resources synergy

Structural synergy

Cultural synergy

Top leader, management representative, work groups Huaman resources & financial resources

Level 3

1765

Documentation synergy (quality, environment, health & safety)

Fig. 1. A synergetic model.

Procedures Work instructions Records

S.X. Zeng et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1760e1767

1766

Organizational structure & responsibility

PLAN Objective & target and Policy of quality, environmental and health & safety management

Records

DO Organizational structure, responsibility Training Communication Document control Operational control

ACT/Improve Management review

Training

Communication

Check/Correct Monitoring/measurement Nonconformance/corrective/preventive action Records Audits

Document control

Fig. 2. Structure of the PeDeCeA cycle.

standards. The compatibility makes it possible to integrate the three systems in the organization. However, it should be noted that the three systems have their own foci. ISO 9000 is geared towards customer satisfaction; ISO 14000 aims at supporting environmental protection and preventing pollution while promoting a social and economic harmony [54]; and OHSAS 18001 underlines the pro-active control of occupational risks and enables the organization to improve its safety and health related performance. The organizational structure, resource and cultural synergy should be supported by the documentation synergy at level 3. The work groups should begin developing documentation following the document hierarchy, starting with the organization’s policies, established values and principles related to process safety, health and safety, environment, quality and other concerns. The procedures to be developed by the work teams should document the approaches in order to meet the organization’s policy requirements. They usually contain the following information: input requirements, desired outputs, resources required, steps needed to plan, organize, implement and control the processes and documenting the responsibilities of personnel who manage, perform and verify the work for each process [55]. The work instructions, which describe how specific activities are performed, should also be developed where existing instructions are not adequate or do not exist as captured. 7. Conclusions The implementation and certification of quality, environmental and occupational health and safety systems have been a major activity for many organizations and have become a widespread phenomenon in many countries around the world. Implementing parallel systems requires duplicate efforts for documentation, executing procedure, checking, controlling forms and other paper work. It has been proven to be difficult to operate separate management systems covering quality, environment, and occupational health and safety, and to ensure their alignment with the organization’s strategy.

Through a structured questionnaire survey, this paper concluded that the major problems for an enterprise to operate parallel systems include: causing complexity of internal management, lowing management efficiency, incurring cultural incompatibility, causing employee hostility, and increasing management costs. The factors affecting the implementation of IMS are classified into internal and external categories. The internal factors include: human resources, organizational structure, company culture, and understanding and perception. The external factors consist of: technical guidance, certification bodies, stakeholder and customers, and institutional environment. In order that an IMS can be efficiently implemented and be effectively operated and maintained after its implementation, it is necessary for companies to achieve a multi-level synergy in the implementation of an IMS. In the multi-level synergic model, the strategic synergy should be given the top priority at level 1. At level 2, the organizational structural, resource and cultural synergy play important roles. It is supported by the documentation synergy at level 3. The synergy is beneficial to help ensure continuous improvement of the organization and management systems. Acknowledgements Special appreciation is given to the responded companies involving this research. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant number 70540001). References [1] Zutshi A, Sohal AS. Integrated management systems: the experiences of three Australian organizations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 2005;16(2):211e32. [2] ; 2005. [3] Wilkinson G, Dale BG. Integrated management systems: an examination of the concept and theory. The TQM Magazine 1999;11(2):95e104. [4] Matias JCO, Coelho DA. The integration of the standards systems of quality management, environmental management and occupational

S.X. Zeng et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1760e1767

[5] [6]

[7] [8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13] [14] [15]

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

[23]

[24] [25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

health and safety management. International Journal of Production Research 2002;40(15):3857e66. Wilkinson G, Dale BG. System integration: the views and activities of certification bodies. The TQM Magazine 1998;10(4):288e92. Low SP, Pong CY. Integrating ISO 9001 and OHSAS 18001 for construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE 2003;129(3):338e47. Karapetrovic S, Willoborn W. Integration of quality and environmental management systems. The TQM Magazine 1998;10(3):204e13. Zeng SX, Tian P, Shi Jonathan J. Implementing integration of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 for construction. Managerial Auditing Journal 2005; 20(4):394e407. Boulter L, Bendell T. How can ISO 9000:2000 help companies achieve excellence? What the company think. Measuring Business Excellence 2002;6(2):37e41. Tsim YC, Yeung VWS, Leung ETC. An adaptation to ISO 9001:2000 for certified organizations. Managerial Auditing Journal 2002;17(5): 245e50. Ghisellini A, Thurston D. Decision traps in ISO 14001 implementation processes: case study results from Illinois certified companies. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13(8):763e77. Zeng SX, Tam CM, Deng ZM, Tam Vivian WY. ISO 14000 and the construction industry: survey in China. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE 2003;19(3):107e13. Orecchini F. The ISO 14001 certification of a machine-process. Journal of Cleaner Production 2000;8(1):61e8. Suarez-Garcia H. Quality, safety and environmental system integration. Occupational Health & Safety 2001;70(11):56. Pun KF, Hui IK. Integrating the safety dimension into quality management systems: a process model. Total Quality Management 2002;13(3): 373e91. Garvin D. How the Baldridge Award really works. Harvard Business Review 1991;November/December:80e93. MacGregor Associates. Study on management system standards. London: British Institute; 1996. Beechner AB, Koch JE. Integrating ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. Quality Process 1997;30(2):33e6. Crabb C, Fouhy K. ISO reconcilable difference. Chemical Engineering 1998;105(2):47. Culley WC. Integrating ISO 14001 into your quality systems. Professional Safety 1996;41(8):20e4. Puri SC. Integrating environmental quality with ISO 9000 and TQM. Portland, OR: Productivity Press; 1996. Renzi MF, Cappelli L. Integration between ISO 9000 and ISO 14000: opportunities and limits. Total Quality Management 2000;11(4/5/6): 849e56. Del Brio JA, Fernandez E. Joint adoption of ISO 14000-ISO 9000 occupational risk prevention practices in Spanish industrial companies: a descriptive study. Total Quality Management 2001;12(6):669e86. Douglas A, Glen D. Integrated management systems in small and medium enterprises. Total Quality Management 2000;11(4/5/6):686e90. Jackson SL. New field report shows ISO 14001 gaining momentum: acceptance of environmental management system standards parallels ISO 9000. Environmental Quality Management 1998;8(1):65e8. Jørgensen TH, Remmen A, Mellado MD. Integrated management systems e three different levels of integration. Journal of Cleaner Production 2006;14(8):713e22. Poksinska B, Dahlgaard JJ, Eklund JA. Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 2003;20(5):585e606. Wilkinson G, Dale BG. An examination of the ISO 9001:2000 standard and its influence on the integration of management systems. Production Planning & Control 2002;13(3):284e97. Karapetrovic S, Jonker J. Integration of standardized management systems: search for a recipe and ingredients. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 2003;14(4):451e9.

1767

[30] Picard RR. Environmental management: what’s auditing got to do with it? Internal Auditor 1998;55(3):32e6. [31] Stenzen PL. Can the ISO 14000 series environmental management standards provide a viable alternative to government regulation? American Business Law Journal 2000;37(2):237e98. [32] Wilson RC. An integrated ISO effort may boost efficiency? Pollution Engineering 2000;32(4):41. [33] Tranmer J. Overcoming the problems of integrated management systems. Quality World 1996;22(10):714e8. [34] Uzumeri MV. ISO and other metastandards: principle for management practice? Academy of Management Executive 1997;11:21e36. [35] Fresner J, Engelhardt G. Experiences with integrated management systems for two small companies in Austria. Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12(6):623e31. [36] Karapetrovic S. Strategies for the integration of management systems and standards. The TQM Magazine 2002;14(1):61e7. [37] Labodova A. Implementing integrated management systems using a risk analysis based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12(6): 571e80. [38] Zwetsloot GIJM. Improving cleaner production by integration into the management of quality, environment and working conditions. Journal of Cleaner Production 1995;3(1/2):61e6. [39] Zeng SX, Tam CM, Tam Vivian WY, Deng ZM. Towards implementation of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in selected industries in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13(7):645e56. [40] Jonker J, Karapetrovic S. Systems thinking for the integration of management systems. Business Process Management Journal 2004;10(6): 608e15. [41] Zobel T, Burman JO. Factors of importance in identification and assessment of environmental aspects in an EMS context: experiences in Swedish organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12(1):13e27. [42] Mackau D. SME integrated management systems: a proposed experiences model. The TQM Magazine 2003;15(1):43e51. [43] Brown AD. Organizational culture: the key to effective leadership and organizational development. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 1992;13:3e6. [44] Babakri KA, Bennett RA, Franchetti M. Critical factors for implementing ISO 14001 standard in United States Industrial companies. Journal of Cleaner Production 2003;11(7):749e52. [45] Hillary R. Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production 2004;12(6):561e9. [46] Cichowicz JA. Should ISO 14000 be linked with ISO 9000? Environmental Quality Management 1996;6(1):77e80. [47] Checkland PB, Holwell S. Information, systems and information systems. Chichester: John Wiley & Son; 1998. [48] Bamber C, Sharp J, Hides M. The role of the maintenance organization in an integrated management system. Managerial Auditing Journal 2002; 17(1/2):20e5. [49] Griffith A. Integrated management systems: a single management system solution for project control? Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 2000;7(3):232e40. [50] Holdsworth R. Practical applications approach to design, development and implementation of an integrated management system. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2003;104:193e205. [51] MacDonald JP. Strategic sustainable development using the ISO 14001 standard. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13(6):631e43. [52] Zeng SX, Tian P, Tam CM, Tam Vivian WY. Evaluation of implementing ISO 9001: 2000 standard in the construction industry of China. Architectural Science Review 2005;48(1):11e6. [53] Wilkinson K, Dale BG. Models of management systems standards: a review of integration issues. International Journal of Management Reviews 1999;1(3):279e98. [54] Fresner J. Cleaner production as a means for effective environmental management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 1998;6(3/4):171e9. [55] Karapetrovic S. Musing on integrated management systems. Measuring Business Excellence 2003;7(1):4e13.