How do external auditors and certification bodies
affect firms’ benefits from ISO 9001 certification?
Daniel Prajogo
Department of Management, Monash University, Australia;
daniel.prajogo@monash.edu
Pavel Castka
Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury,
New Zealand
pavel.castka@canterbury.ac.nz
1
TITLE:
How do external auditors and certification bodies
affect firms’ benefits from ISO 9001 certification?
Short abstract (100 words max)
Many studies have shown that the quality of implementation of ISO 9001 requirements
has a significant effect on the benefits from the certification; however, none of them has
examined the effect of external auditors and certification bodies (CBs) on the quality of
implementation and the firms’ benefits from certification. This study aims to fill this
research gap scrutinizes in particular operational and market benefits. We found
significant interactions between quality of external auditors, implementation and
reputation of CBs.
Keywords: ISO 9000, certification, performance
Topics: Quality and Performance
Methodology: Empirical work
Introduction
Over the past two decades, the importance of ISO 9001 certification has been well
established: the standard is used across the globe and in a vast number of industry
sectors (Castka and Corbett, 2013b; Heras-Saizarbitoria and Boiral, 2012). ISO 9001 is
used for multiple reasons such as for suppliers’ selection, for tendering purposes or as a
tool to establish a management system in organizations (Prajogo, 2011). Regardless of
any particular motivation that a firm may have, the ISO 9001 certification requires an
external audit by an accredited certification body (Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2009) to
verify the conformance to ISO 9001 requirements and compliant firms gain ISO 9001
certification. Sandholtz (2012) argues that on surface, the act of certification might
appear rather unremarkable story of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983), where firms comply with acceptable institutional practice to gain legitimacy.
Indeed firms often adopt the requirements of ISO certification symbolically rather than
substantively (Boiral, 2003) – a phenomenon widely referred to as decoupling (Meyer
and Rowan, 1977). Yet at the same time, some certified firms diverge from the neoinstitutional perspective and actually align their symbolic and actual practices (Naveh
and Marcus, 2005) – a theme more dominant in the old institutional theory (Santos and
Eisenhardt, 2009; Selznick, 1949).
Coupling of symbolic and actual practices remains under-theorised aspect of
institutional theory as well as under-investigated aspect of ISO 9001 literature
2
(Sandholtz, 2012). In a broad sense, institutional theory sees certification as a
homogenization tendency which is naturally resisted by firms and managers (Brunsson
and Jacobsson, 2000; Djelic and Quack, 2003). Even though symbolic adoption is very
often reported as a problem (Boiral, 2003), tight coupling (e.g. close proximity of stated
and actual organization practices) is similarly often associated with better performance
(Naveh and Marcus, 2005). It has been reported that tight coupling emerges as a result
of collaborative culture in firms (Balzarova et al., 2006), carefully executed
implementation of the ISO 9001 requirements (Ivanova et al., 2014) and as a result of
embedding of the certification in daily practice (Naveh and Marcus, 2005). Whilst the
studies have addresses various aspects of decoupling (and coupling), the studies so far
ignored the role of certification bodies and external auditors in such institutional
processes (Heras-Saizarbitoria and Boiral, 2012). This study seeks to fill these gaps in
the literature by addressing the following two research questions. First, we investigate
what is the relationship between external auditors, certification bodies and the
operational and market benefits from ISO 9001 certification. Second, we study more
closely the quality of implementation 1 and how external auditors and certification
bodies affect the quality of implementation.
These questions are important for many reasons. First, at the practical level, ISO
9001 is still the most widely adopted management standard in the world. Firms and their
managers need further guidance on the impact of the external auditors and certification
bodies to make more informed decisions whilst choosing certification intermediaries –
for themselves or their suppliers. Second, the literature on ISO 9001 became
disconnected from practice by ignoring the impact of external auditors certification
bodies on the implementation of ISO 9001 (Castka and Corbett, 2013b). Though there
has been some literature on this topic (Ammeberg et al., 2001; Dogui et al., 2013; Dogui
et al., 2014), the work tends to be conceptual or is based on a limited empirical evidence.
More empirical work (which we present in this paper) is needed (Heras-Saizarbitoria
and Boiral, 2012). Thirdly, other voluntary standard have been emerging over the last
decade (for instance FSC for forestry industry, Fairtrade standards, etc.). Most of these
standards rely on third party certification and face similar problems to ISO 9001. Hence
our study, though anchored in the context of ISO 9001 certification, has got broader
implications. Fourthly, this paper deals with voluntary standardization, we inevitably
build on that literature. Yet despite being quite substantial, the voluntary standards
literature lacks an overarching theory (Heras-Saizarbitoria and Boiral, 2012) and
scholars often link their work in various theoretical frameworks; such as institutional
theory (Delmas, 2007; Guler et al., 2002), transaction cost theory and information
theory(Delmas and Montiel, 2009) or diffusion theory (Hashem and Tann, 2007). We
anchor our work in the institutional theory and in particular study the “decoupling”
effect (Sandholtz, 2012). The literature has shown that decoupling (defined as the
In this paper, we use the term “quality of implementation” to indicate the depth with which a firm embraces the
requirements of ISO 9001. The literature refers to quality of implementation in various ways; for instance as
“substantive” implementation (as opposed to symbolic implementation; Boiral, 2003), depth of installation (Nair and
Prajogo, 2009) or as a measure of setting up a system and its centrality for organizational decision making (Naveh
and Marcus, 2005).
1
3
creation and maintenance of gaps between formal policies and actual organizational
practices; (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) is a common phenomenon in voluntary
standardization. Yet as Sandholtz (2012) points out, we need more understanding as
how organizations may “recouple” their practices. To that end, we contribute to the
institutional theory by describing the impact of certification intermediaries on
recoupling.
Theoretical and contextual background
Firms implement ISO 9000 standard by adopting the management system requirements
and adopting them into their organisational settings. This is primarily demonstrated by
putting the standard in daily practices through a set of written policies and standard
operating procedures (SOP) - according to the requirements of the standard (Peach,
2003). The SOP describes how operational activities and processes in the firm are
conducted in a consistent manner. All these aim to produce high quality outputs
(products or services) which conform to the specifications set by customers. In
complying with the ISO 9000 standard, firms might need to add new practices or
change the old ones. As such, ISO 9000 implementation often require various resources
and works to be done, including hiring consultants to help managing changes, training
of employees, as well as internal audits to ensure that firm’s procedures are maintained
consistently to comply with ISO 9000 requirements (Balzarova and Castka, 2008;
Karapetrovic and Willborn, 2001).
ISO 9000 relies on auditing in order to determine if the requirements of the
standard have been met. In this regard, two types of audits are required: (i) auditing by
an external certification body (external audit) and (ii) audits by internal staff trained for
this process (internal audits) (Karapetrovic and Willborn, 2001). The primary aim of the
audit is to provide to verify that a firm adheres to the requirements of ISO 9001
standard (in the case of external audits) and to find out if the quality system is working
as it is supposed to; to find out where it can improve; and to correct or prevent problems
identified (in the case of internal audits). The literature maps various facets of auditing
for ISO 9001. The large chunk of literature focuses on audit skills – seen is quite
complex and demanding (Power and Terziovski, 2007). There also seems to be a
tension at how firms choose their auditors and what constraints they face; especially in
terms of cost and organisational commitment (Darnall and Edwards, 2006). Probably
the greatest tension is about the purpose of the audit. On one hand, the primary purpose
of the audit is to check compliance against the standard. Yet at the same time,
organisations are increasingly demanding more than just compliance check (Castka,
2013). Power and Terziovski (2007) have indeed showed that firms and external
auditors often disagree on the right balance.
Selecting certification bodies (CBs) – or certification intermediary - is an important
part of the overall process of ISO 9001 adoption and certification. Not only because
4
different CBs would charge different prices for conducting audit, but, more importantly,
they are different in terms of the quality of their services, including the quality of
external audits (Castka, 2013). With increased demand for the certification, an increased
number of certification bodies have entered the market (Dogui et al., 2013; Dogui et al.,
2014; Fryxell et al., 2004). The result is a less consistent certification practice. Lal
(2004) commented on this matter in ISO Management Systems - the flagship journal of
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). He argues that certification
bodies became too entrepreneurial and increasingly more lenient (Lal, 2004). Dogui et
al (2014) also suggest that the level of acceptance has been lowering over the years
whilst the variation of the certification increased (Dogui et al., 2014). Such
inconsistencies have been reported especially in developing countries (Ammeberg et al.,
2001; Gyani, 2008) yet such findings are not consistent (UNIDO, 2012). It is also
reported that firms make choices of their certification bodies based on their motivations
(Cashore et al., 2005; Poksinska et al., 2003).
External audits by certification bodies (CBs) are key control mechanisms in the ISO
9001 certification. The literature suggest that there is a variation in their processes and
outcomes and also that the credibility is undermined by less reputable CBs. However, it
is unclear how both external auditors and CBs affect the quality of implementation and
the benefits of participating firms. Understanding this area more precisely might
provide further illumination for the ISO literature as well as the further informing
institutional scholarship.
HYPOTHESES
This section of the paper develops a set of hypotheses on the role of certification bodies
and external audits in affecting the quality of implementation and benefits that certified
firms gain from ISO 9001 certification. Following on from the existing literature on
voluntary standards, we distinguish between operational benefits (Naveh and Marcus,
2005) and market benefits (Corbett et al., 2005). While the true intent of ISO 9000 is to
build an effective quality system which will produce quality outputs, the certification is
often required by customers (markets) as an indication of assurance of the quality of the
firms. Therefore, it is important to distinguish the “technical” and the “symbolic” values
of ISO 9000 certification (Zbaracki, 1998).The first set of hypotheses establishes the
linkages between quality of implementation and quality of external auditors on one
hand and operational benefits on the other hand. The second set of hypotheses focuses
on market benefits and links the quality of implementation and the reputation of
certification bodies on one hand and to market benefits on the other hand.
Operational Benefits
The primary intent of ISO 9001 certification is to establish a quality system
management in firms. A quality management system ensures consistency of output that
a certified firm delivers. Several studies have indeed established that ISO 9001
5
certification (on average) positively affects the quality and operations of certified firms
(Naveh and Marcus, 2005). However, later studies have acknowledged that the
certification should not be viewed in binary terms and that we need a more fine-tuned
understanding of the impact of certification on participating firms (Castka and Corbett,
2013b; Ivanova et al., 2014). Such studies have shown that the operational benefits are
moderated by the quality of the implementation in firms; that is firms that implement in
substance reap higher operational benefits in comparison to firm that implement in a
ceremonial fashion (Boiral, 2003; Briscoe et al., 2005). The institutional literature have
labelled this phenomenon as “decoupling” and accordingly demonstrated that
decoupling between actual practices and stated practices leads to reduced operational
benefits (Sandholtz, 2012). In line with these findings, we suggest that:
Hypothesis 1: The quality of implementation of ISO 9001 has a positive relationship
with operational benefits
The external auditors have an important role in the certification process. The role
primarily includes checking the compliance against the requirements of the ISO 9001
standard and consequently, a recommendation to a certification body whether a
certificate should be awarded or not. Furthermore, the auditors must also monitor
continuous improvement in any given certified firm. The literature has shown that there
exist variations in how individual auditors “translate” the requirements of ISO 9001. It
is understood that such variations are caused by the nature of the standard itself
(Uzumeri, 1997): ISO 9001 is designed as a system standard that is applicable to all
types of organisations, which inevitably means a very generic formulations of its
requirements. The studies have shown that individual auditors (Ammeberg et al., 2001)
as well as individual certification bodies (Burdick, 2001) do indeed vary in the ways
they do translate the requirements of the standard. At the external auditor level, such
translation is mainly affected by the competence of an auditor (Castka, 2013): more
experienced auditors with the knowledge of a standard as well as with a substantial
industry experience are more likely to provide a quality service to their clients and
assess the compliance against the standard consistently and at appropriate conformity
level. In contrast, auditors lacking experience are more likely to conduct a poor audit, be
less demanding and thorough hence allowing an inferior operational performance in
certified firms (Ammeberg et al., 2001). We therefore suggest that:
Hypothesis 2: The quality of external auditors has a positive relationship with
operational benefits
As we have established previously, the literature demonstrates that the quality of
implementation positively affect operational benefits from ISO 9001 certification. The
studies have also shown that firms that have such approach to certification tend to get
the maximum benefits from the certification. In terms of external audits, this means that
such firms aim to learn from the auditors during the certification and auditing process.
In fact, the studies have shown that firms expect an auditor to be an “advisor”, even
though the certification (technically) does not allow for such role. Castka (2013) reports
6
that firms do recognise that an external auditor cannot act as advisor, yet at the same
time report that clients expect such services nevertheless. In other words, learning is an
important value added component for firms that implement the standard in substance
(Boiral, 2003). Based on our discussions with the certification industry representatives,
we have understood that experienced auditors are able to combine the compliance part
of the audit with the learning part of the audit (Power and Terziovski, 2007). For that
reason, we suggest that the quality of auditors will amplify the effect of the quality of
the implementation of ISO 9001 on the operational benefits. We therefore propose that:
Hypothesis 3: The quality of external auditors positively moderates the relationship
between the quality of implementation of ISO 9001 and operational
benefits
Market benefits
ISO certified firms enjoy multiple market benefits – such as preferred supplier status,
access to networks that require ISO certification or improved sales (Heras et al., 2002).
In the early days of ISO certification, it was often viewed as an “order winner” and gave
certified firms a competitive edge over their competitors (Beattie and Sohal, 1999).
Studies have shown that firms with ISO 9000 certification receive fewer customer
complaints (or product warranty costs) and win a higher confidence of customers (both
new and existing) as well as increased their satisfaction (McAdam and McKeown,
1999; Mo and Chan, 1997). Yet over the time, the certification markets become
saturated and at present, ISO certification is more viewed as “order qualifier”. Such
change in status also means that the screening practices (i.e. for a firm to become a
preferred supplier) rely more on a broader spectrum of credentials – apart from the ISO
certificate (Castka and Corbett, 2013a).
As mentioned earlier, firms, which implement ISO 9000 in substance are more
likely to put the requirements of the standard in daily practice and maintain these
practices (Naveh and Marcus, 2005). As a result, these firms will be able to produce
high quality products or services over time. Given that ISO 9001 certification has been
in place for over two decades, there is a history and reputation associated with certified
firms. Firms with higher quality of implementation are known to outperform their peers
– a fact that will be known in the supply chain networks. Consequently, these firms will
also enjoy stronger market benefits. Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 4: The quality of implementation of ISO 9001 has a positive relationship
with market benefits
The ISO 9001 certification relies on certification bodies (CBs) to ensure consistency of
the certifications across the globe. Since its early days in the late eighties, ISO 9001
eco-system has grown substantially – a growth that also brought an increasing number
of certification entities (Dogui et al., 2014; Uzumeri, 1997). This growth also means
increased competition amongst CBs, and, consequently, decreasing level of acceptable
conformance level (Dogui et al., 2014). Other studies have identified that the decrease
7
in the minimum conformity level is also caused by the increase in the variations
amongst CBs. For instance, (Fryxell et al., 2004) provide empirical evidence that
tougher registrars require higher conformance levels. (Castka et al., 2015) provide
further evidence that firms seeking substantive rather than symbolic benefits tend to
choose reputable CBs, rather than selecting a lenient certification body that might offer
the most competitive price. Their research also indicates that more reputable CBs
provide higher quality audits and their clients tend to be more satisfied with the value of
the certification. It has been also shown that reputable firms often commit to working
with a limited number of certifiers, who are selected based on their reputation and
consistency2. Hence reputable CBs tend to have larger and reputable clientele, which is
turn provides more market benefits for their certified firms. Based on these arguments,
we propose that:
Hypothesis 5: Reputation of a certification body has a positive relationship with market
benefits
In conjunction with the above point, reputable certification bodies (CBs) tend to work
with firms which are on average more seriously committed to implementing ISO 9001
requirements. More reputable CBs are also more demanding and often require their
clients implement more profound compliance mechanisms (Fryxell et al., 2004). It is
more likely that reputable CBs will be able to cooperate more easily with firms, which
are focused on building effective quality systems in the spirit of continuous
improvement. Such aligned purpose between CBs and firms will produce synergy,
which will strengthens the impact of both high quality CBs and high quality
implementation of ISO 9000 on the assurance (confidence) gained from markets
(customers). Therefore, we propose that:
Hypothesis 6: There is a positive interaction between reputable certification bodies and
the quality of implementation of ISO 9001 in affecting market benefits
METHOD
Sampling and procedures
The participants were selected for participation in this study from a JAS-ANZ database
which lists all Australian and New Zealand companies that are certified to ISO 9001.
From a total of over 10,000 companies listed in this database, 1,500 Australian and
1,050 New Zealand companies were randomly selected and received our survey.
Targeted respondents to the questionnaire were managers within each organisation who
had knowledge and responsibility for the implementation and maintenance of the
company’s quality management system. In total, 300 questionnaires were returned from
2
This has been also confirmed to us by a representative from a major accreditation body [details omitted for the
review process]
8
Australian firms (20% responses rate) and 239 questionnaires were returned from New
Zealand firms (23% response rate), making a total of 539 usable responses.
Measures
The measures used in this study are derived from past studies on the related topic. The
scale for the quality of implementation and operational benefits were derived from the
study by Nair and Prajogo (2007). The scale quality of auditors was adapted from the
study by Power and Terziovski (2007). The scale for market benefits was derived from
several studies, including (Jones et al., 1997).
RESULTS
Scale validity and reliability
All five scales were subjected to validity and reliability test. The results are presented in
Table 1. All scales pass these tests as all items are strongly loaded (>0.5) to their
respective constructs; hence, supporting their validity. The values of Cronbach’s alpha
also well exceed the cut-off point of 0.7 (except for quality of certification bodies);
hence, supporting the reliability of the constructs. Since the scale of quality of
certification bodies only comprises of two items, we used Pearson bivariate correlations
instead of Cronbach’s alpha to measure the reliability. The value of Pearson r
coefficient is 0.35, which exceeds a minimum value of 0.2; hence, supporting the
validity of the scale.
Table 1 Construct validity and reliability
Scales
Quality of
implementation
Quality of auditors
Reputation of
certification bodies
Operational benefits
Market benefits
a
Items
We clearly documented the quality policy and procedures for
quality management and continuously update them
We use the quality system as a basis for managing every process in
our operations
We maintain our daily operational practices to comply with the
documented procedures based on the ISO 9001 requirements
All employees were trained in quality management concepts and
ISO 9001 requirements during the implementation process
We conduct regular internal audits and the results are used for
improving our processes
The external auditor(s) are very knowledgeable about auditing
The external auditor(s) are responsive to needs of your organisation
The external auditor(s) have a strong commitment to quality
management
The external auditor(s) conduct the audit field work in an
appropriate manner
The external auditor(s) have high ethical standards
Their reputation in the industry
Reputation of their auditors
Improved effectiveness and consistency of the operating
procedures
Improved conformance to specification
Reduced customers’ complaints and warranty costs
Improved reputation as a preferred supplier (or manufacturer)
Broader capture of customer bases and markets
Improved sales
Pearson r correlation (significant at p<0.01)
9
Factor
Loadings
Cronbach’s
alpha
0.83
0.81
0.81
0.83
0.60
0.77
0.77
0.82
0.87
0.86
0.84
0.78
0.81
0.81
0.82
0.84
0.78
0.79
0.86
0.91
0.35 a
0.74
0.81
Composite scores and bivariate correlations
Once the scale validity and reliability were established, items were averaged to generate
the composite scores for each of the five constructs which were used in the next stage of
the analysis. The normality of the four composite scores was checked and the result
indicated no violation, with skewness and kurtosis values well within the accepted range
(± 3 and <7, respectively). Means, standard deviations and correlations among the four
composite variables are presented in Table 2. The results indicate a relatively low to
medium correlations among the variables, suggesting no concerns regarding
multicolinearity among them.
Table 2 Pearson bivariate correlations
Firm’s size a
Years of ISO 9001 certification b
Quality of Implementation
Reputation of certification bodies
Quality of auditors
Operational benefits
Market benefits
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
a
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
Mean
2.99
9.90
3.99
3.53
4.29
3.78
3.36
S.D
1.46
5.20
0.71
0.79
0.62
0.69
0.80
V1
.23**
-.05
.07
.01
-.05
.01
V2
-.02
.15**
-.03
.09
.08
V3
V4
V5
V6
.30**
.31**
.50**
.23**
.31**
.20**
.26**
.25**
.15**
.38**
categorical measure; b continuous variable
Hierarchical linear regression
Two sets of models of hierarchical linear regression were run to test the hypotheses. The
first set of models (models 1 and 2) took operational benefits as the dependent variable
while the second set (models 3 and 3) took market benefits as the dependent variable.
The results are presented in Table 3. Two control variables were applied for both sets
regression, namely organizational size and the years of certification (i.e. how long the
firm has been certified to ISO 9001). For models 3 and 4, we also took operational
benefits as a control variable for market benefits.
Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis
Organizational size
Years of certification
Operational benefits
Implementation of ISO 9001
Reputation of certification bodies
Quality of auditors
Implementation × auditors
Implementation × certification bodies
R2
†
Operational benefits
Model 1
Model 2
-.03
-.03
-.05
-.04
.46**
.48**
.03
.02
.09†
.12*
.14**
.27
.29
p<0.1, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01
10
Market benefits
Model 3
Model 4
.01
.01
.18**
.18**
.35**
.35**
.03
.04
.17**
.19**
.02
.01
.11*
.21
.22
The results in model 1 show that operational benefits are mainly enhanced by both
quality of implementation of ISO 9001 (0.46 at p<0.01) and quality auditors; however,
quality auditors only show a marginal effect (0.09 at p<0.1). Therefore, both H1 and H2
are supported. This finding confirms that the operational benefits result from the way
firms internalise the standard into their processes. At the same time, however, the
interaction between implementation and quality of auditors is significant (0.14 at p<0.01)
as shown in model 2, supporting H3. Therefore, while not directly affecting operational
benefits, good auditors strengthen the effect of implementation on operational benefits.
This finding confirms that the role of external auditors is still very important in gaining
the operational benefits from ISO 9001. The result is also confirmed further by the nonsignificant effect of certification bodies (CBs) on operational benefits (0.03 at p>0.05).
For many firms, however, this finding could raise a practical problem; that is, to find
good auditors because, unlike good CBs, good auditors may not be “visible” enough to
be identified by firms. This problem is not helped by the fact that firms cannot simply
take a resort on reputable CBs in order to find good auditors. The positive correlations
between quality of auditors and reputable CBs (presented in Table 2) only show a
medium strength; hence, quality auditors are not strongly associated with reputable CBs.
The result of model 3 shows that market benefits are not affected by implementation
process (0.04 at p>0.05); therefore, H4 is not supported. This result is somewhat
surprising although it can be seen from the notion that certification itself is simply a
“Pass / Fail” without further grading. Therefore, the certification itself does not indicate
the quality of implementation performed by the certified firms. However, it is also
important to note that operational benefits show a strong and positive effect on market
benefits (0.35 at p<0.01) while operational benefits are strongly affected by the quality
of implementation (as per H1). Therefore, we can conclude that while implementation
of ISO 9001 does not a direct effect on marketing benefits, it still has an indirect effect
mediated by operational benefits, as also shown in the study by Jang and Lin (2008). On
the other hand, the reputation of certification bodies (CBs) has a positive effect on
market benefits (0.19 at p<0.01), supporting H5. This finding suggests that the
certification bodies, to certain extent, influence customer’s perception about the value of
the certified firm. This suggests that customers may have “brand image” perception on
the quality certification bodies which further enhanced the value of certified firms hence
their market benefits from the certification. Furthermore, the interaction effect of
implementation and quality of CBs in model 4 show a positive effect on market benefits
(0.11 at p<0.05); supporting H6. This result suggests that the effect of reputation of CBs
on market benefits will be realised among firms that implement ISO 9001 seriously.
From a theoretical perspective, this finding shows that “technical benefits” have a
significant and positive effect on “symbolic benefits” (Zbaracki, 1998). This finding is
also important concerning the role of quality of implementation in achieving market
benefits. More specifically, combining the results of Model 1 and Model 3, we can
suggest that while implementation appears to have no direct effect on market benefits, it
has a strong indirect effect via operational benefits. This finding provides a strong
11
message to firms which are expected to see market benefits solely from compliance to
the standard’s requirements without implementing them substantially. More importantly,
the results show that market benefits are strongly affected by operational benefits. What
can be implied here is that customers also seek (indeed, emphasize on) tangible
evidence of the certification (in terms of operational benefits) apart from the
certification itself.
CONCLUSION
All these findings bring us back to the basic: ISO 9001 is about implementation which
is the responsibility of the firms to manage. At the same time, this study also shows the
importance of quality of auditors and certification bodies as each of them has specific
effect on the benefits derived from ISO 9001 certification; that is operational benefits
and marketing benefits respectively.
The study provided an insight in the effect of external audits and certification
bodies on the quality of implementation and benefits from the certification (measured
here in terms of operational and market benefits) and we have described practical
implications from our study. At the same time, our study also contributes and advances
institutional theory. We have shown that the decoupling effect (Sandholtz, 2012) is
affected by the quality of auditing. More precisely, we have revealed an interactive
effect of the quality of implementation, external auditors and operational benefits –
suggesting that all these aspects contribute to recoupling of symbolic and actual
practices. At the same time, it seems that market benefits are linked to the legitimacy of
certification bodies – not necessarily to the quality of implementation of individual
firms hence supporting the basic propositions of the neo-institutional theory (DiMaggio
and Powell, 1983)
Similar to other cross-sectional studies, this study suffers from several limitations.
First, we acknowledge that certain scales used in this study could be improved to
capture broader aspect of the construct, for example, the reputation of certification
bodies (CBs). This is particularly important given our findings show that the reputation
is not strongly associated with the quality of auditors. Therefore, we may ask other
factors which determine CBs’ reputation. Secondly, while we imply the effect of
implementation and other factors on performance, such effect can only be truly tested
using longitudinal data which is not reflected in our dataset.
REFERENCES
Ammeberg, J., Wik, G., & Hjelm, O. (2001). Auditing External Environmental Auditors
- Investigating how ISO 14001 is Interpreted and Applied in Reality. EcoManagement & Auditing, 8(4), 183-192.
12
Balzarova, M. A., & Castka, P. (2008). Underlying mechanisms in the maintenance of
ISO 14001 environmental management system. Journal of Cleaner Production,
16(18), 1949-1957.
Balzarova, M. A., Castka, P., Bamber, C. J., & Sharp, J. M. (2006). How organisational
culture impacts on the implementation of ISO 14001:1996 - a UK multiple-case
view. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(1), 89-103.
Beattie, K., & Sohal, A. (1999). Implementing ISO 9000: a study of its benefits among
Australian organizations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
10(1), 95-106.
Boiral, O. (2003). ISO 9000: Outside the iron cage. Organization Science, 14(6), 720737.
Briscoe, J. A., Fawcett, S. E., & Todd, R. H. (2005). The implementation and impact of
ISO 9000 among small manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Small Business
Management, 43(3), 309-330.
Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2000). The Contemporary Expansion of
Standardization”, in: A World of Standards. In B. e. al. (Ed.), A World of
Standards (pp. 1-17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burdick, D. (2001). American and European ISO 14001 accreditation requirements and
their influences on registrar practice and environmental performance. Corporate
Environmental Strategy, 8(1), 65-74.
Cashore, B., van Kooten, G. C., Vertinsky, I., Auld, G., & Affolderbach, J. (2005).
Private or self-regulation? A comparative study of forest certification choices in
Canada, the United States and Germany. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(1), 5369.
Castka, P. (2013). Audit and Certification: what do users expect? : Joint Accreditation
System of Australia and New Zealand.
Castka, P., & Corbett, C. J. (2013a). Is ISO the way to go? Inside Supply Management
24(5), 34-37.
Castka, P., & Corbett, C. J. (2013b). Management Systems Standards: Diffusion, Impact
and Governance of ISO 9000, ISO 14000, and Other Standards. , Foundations
and Trends in Technology and Operations Management (Vol. 7, pp. 161-378):
NOW Publishers.
Castka, P., Prajogo, D., Sohal, A., & Young, A. C. L. (2015). Understanding firms’
selection of their ISO 9000 third-party certifiers. International Journal of
Production Economics, 162, 125-133.
Corbett, C., J., Montes-Sancho, M. J., & Kirsch, D., A. (2005). The Financial Impact of
ISO 9000 Certification in the United States: An Empirical Analysis.
Management Science, 51(7), 1046-1059.
Darnall, N., & Edwards, D. (2006). Predicting the cost of environmental management
system adoption: the role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure.
Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 301-320.
Delmas, M. (2007). An institutional perspective on the diffusion of international
management standards: the case of the environmental management standard ISO
14001.
Delmas, M., & Montiel, I. (2009). Greening the Supply Chain: When Is Customer
Pressure Effective? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 171201.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48(2), 147-160.
13
Djelic, M. L., & Quack, S. (2003). Globalization and Institutions. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Dogui, K., Boiral, O., & Gendron, Y. (2013). ISO auditing and the construction of trust
in auditor independence. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
26(8), 1279-1305.
Dogui, K., Boiral, O., & Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2014). Audit Fees and Auditor
Independence: The Case of ISO 14001 Certification. International Journal of
Auditing, 18(1), 14-26.
Fotopoulos, C. V., & Psomas, E. (2009). The impact of soft and hard TQM elements on
quality management results. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 26(2), 150-163.
Fryxell, G. E., Chung, S. S., & Lo, C. W. H. (2004). Does the selection of ISO 14001
registrars matter? Registrar reputation and environmental policy statements in
China. Journal of Environmental Management, 71(1), 45-57.
Guler, I., Guillen, M. F., & MacPherson, J. M. (2002). Global competition, institutions,
and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO
9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 207-232.
Gyani, G. J. (2008). Effectiveness of QMS certification process. Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, 19(3), 263-279.
Hashem, G., & Tann, J. (2007). The adoption of ISO 9000 standards within the
Egyptian context: A diffusion of innovation approach. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 18(6), 631-652.
Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., & Boiral, O. (2012). ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a
Research Agenda on Management System Standards. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 15(1), 47-65.
Heras, I., Dick, G., & Casades˙s, M. (2002). ISO 9000 registrationís impact on sales and
profitability: A longitudinal analysis of performance before and after
accreditation. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(6),
774-791.
Ivanova, A., Gray, J., & Sinha, K. (2014). Towards unifying theory of management
standard implementation: the case of ISO 9001/ISO 14001. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(10).
Jones, R., Arndt, G., & Kustin, R. (1997). ISO 9000 among Australian companies:
impact of time and reasons for seeking certification on perceptions of benefits
received. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 14(7),
650-660.
Karapetrovic, S., & Willborn, W. (2001). Audit and self-assessment in quality
management: comparison and compatibility. Managerial Auditing Journal,
16(6), 366-377.
Lal, H. (2004). Re-engineering the ISO 9001:2000 certification process. ISO
Management Systems, 4(4), 15.
McAdam, R., & McKeown, M. (1999). Life after ISO 9000: An analysis of the impact
of ISO 9000 and total quality management on small businesses in Northern
Ireland. Total Quality Management, 10(2), 229-241.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as
Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
Mo, J., & Chan, A. (1997). Strategy for the successful implementation of ISO 9000 in
small and medium manufacturers. the TQM Magazine, 9(2), 135-145.
14
Naveh, E., & Marcus, A. (2005). Achieving competitive advantage through
implementing a replicable management standard: Installing and using ISO 9000.
Journal of Operations Management, 24(1), 1-26.
Peach, R. (2003). The ISO 9000 Handbook. Fairfax: QSU Publishing Company.
Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J. J., & Eklund, J. A. E. (2003). Implementing ISO 14000 in
Sweden: motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International
Journal of Quality Reliability Management, 20(5), 585-606.
Power, D., & Terziovski, M. (2007). Quality audit roles and skills: Perceptions of nonfinancial auditors and their clients. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1),
126-147.
Prajogo, D. I. (2011). The roles of firms' motives in affecting the outcomes of ISO 9000
adoption. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(12), 78-100.
Sandholtz, K. W. (2012). Making Standards Stick: A Theory of Coupled vs. Decoupled
Compliance. Organization Studies, 33(5-6), 655-679.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing Markets and Shaping
Boundaries: Entrepreneurial Power in Nascent Fields. Academy of Management
Journal, 52(4), 643-671.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots.
. Berkeley: University of California Press.
UNIDO. (2012). ISO 9001 - Its relevance and impact in Asian Developing Economies.
Based on Project TE/RAS/09/003 A survey covering quality management system
development, certification, accreditation and economic benefits: International
Organization for Standardization, International Accreditation Forum, Norwegian
Agency for Development Cooperation.
Uzumeri, M. V. (1997). ISO 9000 and Other Metastandards: Principles for Management
Practice? The Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 21-36.
Zbaracki, M. J. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of Total Quality Management.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(3), 602-636.
.
15