EVOLUTION OF EHSQ MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS TOWARDS
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Osmo Kauppila, University of Oulu, Finland
osmo.kauppila@oulu.fi
D.Sc. Pekka Tervonen, Rautaruukki Inc., Finland
pekka.tervonen@ruukki.com
Prof. Harri Haapasalo, University of Oulu, Finland
harri.haapasalo@oulu.fi
ABSTRACT
Organisations, especially in the business sector, are in constant demand to improve their
operations, competitiveness and efficiency. Systems thinking is one of the ways to meet this
demand at least in larger organisations. Standard-based management systems related to
areas such as environmental management, health & safety and quality have become
important organisational building blocks. It can be argued that in order to avoid harm
caused by overlapping structures and operations these systems should be integrated.
In this article, the evolution and effective integration of EHSQ (Environment, Health, Safety
and Quality) management in a business organisation are studied. The evolutional
development paths of environmental management, health and safety management and quality
management are studied. A comparison between the development paths is made to find
similarities and differences in the development of these management systems.
To understand how EHSQ integration should take place in an organisation, elements of an
integrated management system are presented. The benefits and challenges arising from the
implementation of an IMS are also studied. Together the study on EHSQ development paths
and integrated management systems present a view on effective EHSQ integration.
Keywords: integrated management systems, IMS, environmental management, health and
safety management, quality management
INTRODUCTION
The constant need of organisations to continuously develop their operations, competitiveness
and efficiency has resulted in the need for system thinking. Fulfilling the diverse
requirements of various stakeholders requires different approaches. The constant increase of
these requirements has highlighted the need for a systematic approach to handle them. This
has led to a dramatic increase in the development of management systems (MS). MSs help
control systems and provide systematic ways to standardize functions. (Asif et al., 2010a)
Different management systems offer an operating framework and procedure and
simultaneously support continuous improvement. (Voutilainen et al., 2001)
These systems often share resources, processes and stakeholders, suggesting that integrating
them could be beneficial. Zutshi and Sohal (2005) even state that “the integration of
systems/standards is one of the major strategies for ensuring survival and savings (time, cost,
resources) for the organizations in the twenty-first century”. Integrated management systems
(IMS) are being implemented at an exceeding pace, the most important motivations
according Zeng et al. (2010) are satisfying customer requirements, responding to government
appeal and remaining competitive. The most commonly integrated management systems are
quality, environmental and occupational health and safety standards. They are often based on
widely used standards such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 that include
common characteristics and starting points, which make them relatively easy to integrate.
(Zeng et al., 2007; Jørgensen et al., 2006; Wilkinson and Dale 1999)
Along with business interest in management systems and their integration, research interest in
them has increased dramatically during the last decade. This study aims to contribute in the
field by summarizing the historical development of the aforementioned areas of
environmental, health & safety and quality management (EHSQ) and looking at them in the
context of integrated management systems. The research has been broken down into three
research questions:
RQ1: What have been the development paths of different areas of EHSQ management?
RQ2: What elements does an integrated management system include and how can the
efficiency of an IMS be assessed?
RQ3: What are the main benefits and challenges of IMS implementation on organizational
success?
This study summarizes and continues the dissertation work of one of the authors (Tervonen,
2010). The research questions are answered through a literature review. The research results
aim to present the historical development leading to the rise of integrated management
systems, the current view on how IMS integration should take place and what benefits and
challenges lie in the integration The structure of the research is demonstrated below in Figure
1.
How to
effectively
integrate
EHSQ
management
in a business
organisation
Environmental
mgmt: historical
development path
Health and safety
mgmt: historical
development path
Quality
mgmt: historical
development path
Comparison
of historical
development
paths of
management
systems
RQ1
Elements and
assessment
of a modern
IMS
Benefits and
challenges of
an IMS on
organisational
success
RQ2
RQ3
Conclusions
Figure 1: The outline of the study.
DEVELOPMENT PATHS OF EHSQ MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The current situation in different areas of EHSQ management becomes clearer through an
understanding of historical development. The logic behind existing policies and the direction
of development stems from the past. By recognizing the path leading to the current situation,
it is easier to analyse the present and also future trends of development. The analysis results
can be compared to the development and situation of an organization’s EHSQ management to
aid development.
Environmental management
Environmental issues raised public interest in the 1960’s in a rather sudden and dramatic
way. Rachel Carlson’s book Silent Spring (1962) can be considered an important opening
statement of the environmental discussion (Kallio, 2001). This started the process leading to
the birth of environmental management (EM) in the 1970s. Before this, emission restrictions
and environmental regulations were rather rudimentary in many fields, and pollution was
practically considered a free commodity by companies.
A heated debate on the pros and cons of economic growth began in the beginning of the
1970’s. An important initiator of the debate was the UN’s first Conference on the Human
Nature in Stockholm in 1972 and the Limits to Growth report of the Club of Rome published
the same year. The oil crises in 1973 and 1979 resulted in an increasing concern for the
sufficiency of natural resources. The environmental policy sector was created in the 1970’s.
Traditional environmental management, the first stage of environmental management, was a
period of reluctant adaptation. Environmental factors were seen as restrictions on operations
to which one had to adapt to when faced with external enforcement. The companies had to
start adapting their operations to new regulations. A majority of multinational companies
created their own environmental policies. Only a few companies included the goal of
voluntarily exceeding the minimum levels required by legislation in their policies (Kallio,
2001).
The second stage of environmental management – passive appraisal – commenced in the
mid-1980’s when it was realised that no organisation could succeed in the long run if their
operations were in major conflict with the requirements and values of the surrounding
society. This stage was characterised by companies re-evaluating their approach to
environmental issues and the recognition of their strategic potential. This stage can be
considered the starting point of modern environmental management. (Kallio, 2001; Petulla,
1987)
Ministries of the Environment were established in the 1980’s. Environmental activism found
new forms as a result of internationalisation and professionalization and
several
environmental organisations were created. As a result of massive environmental accidents
and an increasing concern for the environment in the 1980’s new, increasingly strict
environmental legislation and regulations were created. Growing demands of consumers,
corporate clients, and investors also emerged as new factors. Previously passive companies
had to readjust their attitude towards environmental issues. As a result environmental
departments and monitoring systems were created and major companies even employed
environmental managers. The concept of sustainable development was created during the
1980s. (Kallio, 2001).
Only a few companies had reached the level of innovative EM by the beginning of the
1990’s. The 1992 UN Rio de Janeiro conference can be considered as the highlight of the
decade from an environmental viewpoint. The conference led to the creation of the
international Climate Change Convention (Kallio, 2001). However, the green transformation
of companies was only in a very early stage and no significant actions were made to reduce
emissions or other environmental impacts. Procedures and practices only started to change
towards the end of the 1990’s as environmental management tools became more common
through the introduction of ISO 14001.
In the 2000’s, modern environmental management is still the most dominant trend. The field
of environmental management has evolved from a mere reliance on linear stage models to
more elaborate considerations of the determinants and components of management and
performance. An increasing number of companies are adopting the practices of
environmental management. In addition, the strategic opportunities of environmental
management are becoming prominent (Kolk and Mauser, 2002). Eco-efficiency has become
an important issue for companies. Pressure from legislation and markets, as well as
globalisation, increasingly impact the environmental aspects of business. Climate change
emerged as the most important environmental issue in the 2000’s, resulting in emission
trading becoming a significant EM factor. (Heiskanen, 2004).
Table 1 synthesizes the development path from the viewpoints of the (Finnish) state,
companies, the civic society and nature. The focus of EM has been changing from traditional
EM guided by laws and regulations to the more proactive modern EM. Environmental
management has become a potential source of competitive advantage.
Table 1: Illustration of state, civic society and companies’ relationship to environment
(Kallio, 2001).
1960
1970
1980
State
Companies
Civic society
Nature
Supporting industry
Investing in basic
Grass roots civic
Water spoilage
Industry thinking
industries
movements
Territory thinking
Global thinking
Concern for natural
Environmental movement
resources
organisations,
Sanction thinking
Expansion thinking
Life style thinking
Nationalization of
Green transformation of
Institutionalization of
Tshernobyl
environmental
enterprises
nature protection
Acid rain
Water and toxic laws
protection
1990
Air pollution
Exxon Valdes
Control thinking
Expansion thinking
Consumer thinking
Sustainable
Commercialization of
Emphasizing consumer
Climate change
Development
environment
choices
Ozone layer
Program thinking
Specialized thinking
Eco-thinking
Logging of
forests
2000
Implementation of
Increasing competition
Pattern of differentiation
programs
Survival strategies
Differentiation of
Policy of natural
Climate change
consumption
resource
Integration has developed EM closer to risk management and integrated process based
management. Johnson and Walck (2004) suggest that the optimal way to achieve
sustainability is to integrate sustainability values into the business values and strategies of a
company. In recent years, business level organisations have been able to gain a competitive
edge through the proactive utilisation of EM issues. Lanoie, Laplante and Roy (1998) found
that capital markets react to the release of negative information and that large polluters are
affected more significantly by such releases than smaller polluters. Niskala (1997) suggests
that in order to support eco-competitiveness, the management of environmental issues must
be holistic and consider all the operations of an organisation.
Health and safety management
The extent of health and safety (HS) management can be classified into three categories:
person, machine or equipment and organisation levels (Figure 2). The classification also
describes the increase of complexity when moving from a person level to machine and
organizational levels. (Reason, 1997)
Organisation
Machine or
equipment
Person
Figure 2: Classification of the scope and development level of health and safety management.
On the “person” level, the focus on observation is on whether the worker works in a safe
manner or not. Failures are attributed to human actions, such as lack of motivation, lapses of
memory or carelessness. Performance is often measured by means of accident frequency, and
the safety organisation of work plays a key role. On the “machine or equipment” level
failures are attributed to the interaction between humans and machines. Safety actions are
characterised by risk analyses and the assessment of environmental impacts on human beings.
According to the third category, a human error is a result of an identifiable cause in the
system. This mode of thinking has common points with quality management, emphasising
proactivity and continuous improvement. (Reason, 1997) The improvement of both quality
and safety will result in a higher level of risk prevention, which creates the basis for an
integrated management model. Herrero et al. (2002) suggest that the concepts of TQM can be
applied to the practices of health and safety management.
The operating cultures in different sectors of health and safety management differ
considerably, and legislation usually only governs the regulations of a single sector. This sets
challenges for successful implementation. A view on the development path of legislationmaking concerning different fields of HS management in Finland is presented in Table 2. It
also reflects the general development of the content of HS management.
Table 2: The development path of legislation concerning different areas of HS management
in Finland (Tervonen et al., 2009b).
Sectors
Personnel security*
Rescue operations
Safety against crime**
Information security
Safety of buildings and premises
Safety of production and operations
Occupational health and safety
Safety of non-domestic operations***
Readiness planning
Environmental safety
1930
1940
x
1950
1960
1970
x
x
x
1980
1990
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
xxx
xxxxx
x
x
x
xxxxx
x
xx
xx
2000
x
xx
x
xxxx
xx
xx
xx
x
x
xx
x = commencement and reform level of legislation
* is connected to occupational health and safety and information security
** is connected to general crime legislation
*** is connected to personnel security, safety against crime, rescue operations and safety of
production and operations
Following regulations has meant passive organisational development- defined outside the
organisation by the regulators and government. Only in recent years the development has
took on a more active approach. Individual methods beyond authority regulations can lead to
sustainable competitive advantages. These methods may overlap and support each others, and
strict running after the regulations might result in unnecessary double work.
Several different parties participate in the HS operations of large companies, and the different
sectors of health and safety, as well as risk assessment, is often treated in a number of places
around the organisation. In addition, risk assessment often addresses risks from the viewpoint
of only one sector of, and the results of a single assessment do not reach the different
representatives of the safety organisation. Evaluation of the different sectors of may lead to a
situation in which improvements are only made in the sector evaluated at a given time. The
impacts of the measure on the overall level of health and safety of the organisation are not
taken into consideration. In terms of overall performance, the best solutions can be found by
assessing the impacts of an improvement on all sectors. The goal is to avoid overlapping
work in risk assessment in different sectors of and waste of resources. More holistic
management of health and safety issues can be achieved by increasing co-operation between
people responsible for different sectors of safety. (Hill & Smith, 1995; Lanne & Tytykoski,
2004)
The first health and safety management system applications were based on the Occupational
Health and Safety Management System (BS 8800) and the Dutch Safety Checklist for
Contractors (SCC) standard. BS 8800 was replaced with the international OHSAS
specifications in 2000. The Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series specifications
OHSAS 18001 supports the assessment and certification of the management systems of
organisations. In addition, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has published
instructions on occupational health and safety systems (ILO-OHS 2001). The International
Safety Rating System (ISRS 1996) is a method for auditing safety management procedures
and the functionality of the systems. The safety practices self-assessment model complements
the European Quality Award model by taking the occupational health and safety issues into
consideration in a more comprehensive manner. (Levä, 2003) Integration of e.g. occupational
health and safety matters into environmental management systems can bring many benefits to
industrial companies. They can avoid duplicated measures and find optimal solutions,
because the principles of prevention are similar in environmental protection and health and
safety management (Honkasalo, 2000).
Quality management
Total quality management is a philosophical entity of the concept of management and a
compilation of quality management methods and techniques. Some studies refer to the hard
and soft sides of TQM. Total quality management is an approach to the management of an
organisation in which quality plays a central role and which is based on the participation of
all of its members. The goal is long-term success, which can be achieved through customer
satisfaction, and which benefits all members of the organisation as well as society. (Silen,
1998; Dale, 1999)
The development of quality management is often described in the literature as a four-stage
process (Figure 3): the first stage inspection (I) can be considered to have started during the
industrialisation and mass production. The second stage quality control (QC) began during
the Second World War and especially in Japan after the war. The emphasis of the second
stage lies in the manufacturing process, which is systematically developed.
The third stage, quality assurance (QA), incorporates the entire development and
manufacturing process of a product as a factor affecting quality. In the fourth stage, total
quality management (TQM), quality is seen in a holistic and strategic manner. At this point,
the responsibility for quality was extended to include everyone in the organisation and the
role of the corporate management becomes central. (Bounds et al, 1994; Dale, 1999;
Hannukainen et al., 2006)
Figure 3: Development of quality management ideologies (Dale, 1999).
According to Hannukainen et al. (2006), the “Quality 2020” survey carried out by the
American Society for Quality showed the following outlines: the application of quality
thinking must become more innovative, more flexible and quicker to implement. The number
of professionals working in the field of quality may decrease, but the need for quality-related
skills will not. The trend seems to be towards the decrease of the importance of a quality
department’s role as a separate unit and making quality increasingly into everyone’s concern.
The challenge for specialists in the field of quality will be to develop to meet the needs of
business and technology.
Comparison of the development paths
The development paths of EHSQ management areas are combined in Table 3. The
comparison shows that each management area has, in slightly different pace, expanded during
the last fifty years from a detail level to a holistic level. More viewpoints have been brought
on every area, making them more complex to manage and affecting more functions and
people in organisations. This inevitably leads to overlapping structures, which suggests that
looking at these systems as a whole might result in improved efficiency and competitiveness.
Table 3: Overview of EHSQ development paths.
Development of EM
Development of H&SM
-1950
1930s: Labor contract
1960 1962:Silent Spring published
1970 Traditional EM -
1980
Development of QM
I, 1931: Shewhart
negotiations
1950s: Japan era in QM.
Rescue operations
QC; Deming et al.
1960-1970s: Many
QA, Japan era continues
socio- and psychological
1962: Quality circles
theories of work developed
Ishikawa et al.
Research disciplines born
TQM in Japan
reluctant adaptation
Nordic model of
1972: UN Stockholm
occupational H&S
conference and
1975: Eurofound
Limits to Growth
Modern EM - passive
appraisal
TQM in America and Europe
Sustainable development
1985: MBNQA
1986: Six Sigma
1987: ISO 9001
1990 1992: Rio de Janeiro UN conf.
1996: EU-OSHA
1990s: "decade of quality"
1996: ISO 14001
1996: BS8800, ISRS
1994: EFQM criteria
Program thinking
1999: OHSAS 18001
2000- 2004: Emission trading
2001: ILO-OHS
Program implementation
Global safety and security
Eco-competitiveness
Information safety
The development of environmental and health & safety management has followed norms and
regulations, while the development of QM has been driven by business needs of companies.
Despite this, all three have developed towards similar holistic directions.
The historical development of EM and H&SM seem to be less researched than the
development of QM in timeline format. This might be explained by the time span the areas
have been developed intensively, the quality management begun roughly twenty years before
the other two. EM and H&SM are also conceptually more diverse than QM, so describing
them in a simple chronological way is more challenging.
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
At the moment, there is no widely accepted standard equivalent to ISO standards for
integrated management systems. The different integration levels in organisations pose a
challenge for the making of a universal standard. (Jørgensen et al., 2006) The most
commonly integrated management systems are quality, environmental and occupational
health and safety standards. They are often based on widely used standards such as ISO 9001,
ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 that include common characteristics and starting points, which
make them relatively easy to integrate. (Zeng et al., 2007; Jørgensen et al., 2006; Wilkinson
and Dale, 2001)
The organisation’s culture and atmosphere must support the goals of integration and the
willingness to combine different management systems. If not, integration will remain at the
level of mere integration of documentation (Wilkinson and Dale, 2000). Jørgensen et al.
(2006) also note the case-by-case nature of integration: there is no specific way to integrate
management systems. The starting point is the organisation’s culture and willingness to
integrate. Successful integration depends on several factors, such as the content of the
existing systems, field of operation, organisational culture and a number of other factors.
(Wilkinson and Dale, 2001; Karapetrovic and Jonker, 2003)
The IMS model of Karapetrovic and Jonker (2003) is shown in Figure 4. It demonstrates how
different management systems and the main interest group of the systems are linked. Like
most model depictions of IMSs, the model has a continuous improvement circle built in it. It
illustrates the idea that separate MSs should be first joined together at their interfaces
enabling further integration into a holistic management system.
Figure 4: An IMS model of different management systems and their main interest groups
(Karapetrovic and Jonker, 2003).
The IMS model by Wilkinson and Dale (2001) in Figure 5 highlights taking organisational
culture into account in IMS implementation. In the model, the integrated quality,
environmental and safety management systems are no longer independent and their role is to
serve the entity in an integrated way, benefiting the entire organisation. Resources, personnel
and processes have been divided between all previous systems. Goals are set and results
measured jointly, which will create a circle of continuous improvement. The model joins all
management systems tightly in order to create a common integrated system and cultural
structure that are based on the key aspects of holistic quality management, such as teams,
active participation and co-operation. In this way, it is possible to achieve a strong culture,
which is divided between quality, environmental and safety issues, where core values and
procedures of the entire organisation are based on holistic quality management. (Wilkinson
and Dale, 2001)
Figure 5: An IMS model highlighting the importance of culture (Wilkinson and Dale, 2001).
Where the previous models look at systems and organisational culture, the model by Zeng et
al. (2007) in Figure 6 looks at IMSs from a synergy viewpoint. The levels included in the
model are strategic synergy; organisational/resources, structural and cultural synergy; and
documentation synergy. It demonstrates the flow in IMS implementation: from strategic
synergy towards resources, structural and cultural synergy which lead to documentation
synergy.
Figure 6: An IMS model from the synergy viewpoint (Zeng et al., 2007).
Asif et al. (2010b) recognise two strategies for implementing an IMS: a techno-centric
approach and a systems approach. Their work suggests that maximum benefits are achieved
through the systems approach, while the techno-centric approach mainly affects the
organizational level. This finding supports the viability of the model proposed by Zeng et al.
(2007).
Assessment of an IMS
How can the organization gain information on how its integrated management system is
working? Setting and monitoring key performance indicators, both financial and IMS area
specific metrics, can give information on this. This will give an idea if the system is working
through whether the goals have been reached. It can also identify problem areas if goals are
not met somewhere. However, metrics alone do not recognize improvement potential and
synergies between different IMS areas. Metrics must be linked to the strategic processes in
order to lead to results in an integrated way. (i.e. Zutshi & Sohal, 2005; Conti, 2006;
Tervonen et al., 2009a)
There are several tools that can be used in order to reach the goals indicated in the
organisational development model, such as models of business management excellence or
holistic quality management such as the EFQM or the Malcolm Baldrige models. Regardless
of the tool, the most critical point is the clear and accurate description of goals: what are the
organisation’s goals and what are the impacts of the organisation and its management system
on the surrounding society (Conti, 2006). For the maintenance and progress of the system it is
also necessary that a management review is held regularly with key personnel representing
management from across the organization. (Zutshi & Sohal, 2005)
Figure 7 demonstrates a synthesis of EHSQ integration and their assessment as proposed by
Tervonen et al. (2009a). The assessment is based on the CMMI maturity levels, against which
the achievement of business goals is reviewed.
E
SS
Q
OPTIMIZED
Management systems
Integration and co-operation with groups
Learning organization
ISO 14001
OHSAS
18001
ISO 9001
Operative
business
process
management
MANAGED
DEFINED
REPEATABLE
AD-HOC
Figure 7: The integration of EHSQ management to operations and maturity levels.
BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF IMS
In figure n, Zeng et al. (2007) classified the synergies an IMS includes on three levels: 1)
strategic synergy, 2) cultural, structural and resources synergy and 3) documentation synergy.
Zwetsloot (1995) describes the synergies similarly, categorising them into common aspect
synergy, management synergy and organizational synergy.
Casadesus et al. (2011) performed an empirical investigation on whether these synergies
realise in practice using a sample of Spanish organizations with ISO 9001 and/or ISO 14001.
Their results suggest that implementing them into an IMS brings greater benefits to the
organization than having them as separate management systems. Their results showed a
particularly large difference in customer satisfaction.
Zeng et al. (2010) identified the most significant benefits achieved by their case companies
from IMS integration to be the simplification of certification processes, management cost
savings and decreased paper work. In Zeng et al. (2011) two more benefits were pointed out:
decreased complexity of internal management and facilitation of continuous improvement.
Beckmerhagen et al (2003) suggest of prevalent benefits in more detail, the results of the
Zeng et al. studies support these findings.
Zutshi and Sohal (2005) studied the IMS implementation of three Australian business
organizations. The main IMS benefits they discovered were 1) Improved transfer of strategy
to operations 2) Improved resource utililization 3) Better visibility for management through a
holistic view 4) Improved acceptance and understanding of employees of different IMS areas
5) More effective integrated training programs 6) Enhanced communication 7) Positive
bottom line and market image effect 8) Ease of auditing and housekeeping.
Beckmerhagen et al. (2003) point out that the integration of standards and the integration of
systems is largely disconnected. Integration should be done gradually and the order of
integration should be thought out. Full integration should include all the management systems
of an organization and consist of an IMS core and function-specific modules. Their case
study highlights an example in which safety management was not fully integrated, which led
to non-conformance in that area.
Zutshi and Sohal (2005) found these challenges/impediments accompanied by integration: 1)
People’s attitudes and the resulting cultural resistance 2) Lack of a formal strategic plan and a
planning process hinders MS integration 3) Lack of internal expertise to integrate, leading to
the use of consultants which may not provide the desired results 4) Constantly changing
regulations and guidelines 5) Insufficient capability of reporting results in a timely manner 6)
Time-delays in integration.
CONCLUSION
The aim of the study was to look at the integration of HSEQ management from multiple
perspectives. A view of what has caused the interest in integrated management systems and
what is the current theoretical basis of integrated management systems was gained. The posed
research questions were answered in the previous chapters. Below are the answers in a
summarized form:
RQ1: What have been the development paths of different areas of EHSQ management?
Several observations can be made from the comparison of the historical development paths of
the EHSQ management areas. The development paths have been led by different motivators.
E and HS management areas have, especially in the past, been driven by laws and
regulations, although recently a more active mode of development has been introduced, as the
areas have become ways to gain competitive advantages. Quality management has from the
beginning been motivated internally from the need to meet customer requirements
effectively.
Despite different governing factors each area has progressed towards a more holistic view.
The scope has shifted from a detail level, be it individual products, the operator of a machine
or a single health or safety issue towards the organizational level. This increase in scope
explains the need to adopt systems to handle these management areas. Multiple stakeholders,
both internal and external, are constantly involved with each of the management areas and
they become interlinked. The fact that this has happened only recently explains the IMS
“boom” of the last decade.
RQ2: What elements does an integrated management system include and how can the
efficiency of an IMS be assessed?
The current IMS view is to use existing MSs as building blocks that are combined into the
organization’s management process to form a holistic management system. As
Beckmerhagen et al. (2003) stated, a fully integrated management system should include all
the management systems of an organization and consist of an IMS core and function-specific
modules. Through the strategy process, IMS goals and their indicators are defined and
assessed through management reviews. It is possible to assess an IMS in more detail through
the use of i.e. EFQM or CMMI models.
RQ3: What are the main benefits and challenges of IMS implementation on organizational
success?
Integrated management systems aim to gain benefits for the organization by achieved synergy
advantages. Zeng et al. (2007) classify these synergies on three levels: 1) Strategic 2)
Cultural, resources and structural and 3) Documentation. Through synergy achieved through
IMS implementation, concrete benefits such as simplification of certification, management
cost savings, decreased paperwork, decreased complexity of internal management and
facilitation of continuous improvement can be reached (Zeng et al., 2010; Zeng et al., 2011).
Challenges that need to be accounted for when implementing IMSs mostly relate to
management actions and organizational culture. Recognizing the interfaces between different
MSs during the implementation phase is important. Setting clear goals both for the
implementation and the different IMS areas is crucial. Proper management support and
leadership can lessen the cultural resistance to the implementation.
The framework presented in this study can be used to assess individual IMSs using the same
structure: historical developments, elements and assessment and benefits and challenges. This
can be seen as a well-balanced way to investigate an IMS.
This study focused on HSEQ management areas. Further insight could be gained by adding
other areas in the analysis. An interesting topic would also be to analyse and compare several
organizations using the history – elements and assessment – benefits and challenges structure.
REFERENCES
1. Asif, M., Fisscher O.A.M, de Bruijn E.J. and Searcy, C. (2010a) Meta-management of
integration of management systems. The TQM Journal. 22 (6), 570-582.
2. Asif, M., Fisscher O.A.M, de Bruijn E.J. and Pagell, M. (2010b) An examination of
strategies employed for the integration of management systems. The TQM Journal. 22
(6), 648-669.
3. Beckmerhagen, I.A., Berg H.P., Karapetrovic S.V. and Willborn, W.O. (2003) Integration
of management systems: focus on safety in the nuclear industry. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management. 20(2), 210-238.
4. Bounds, G., Yorks, L., Adams, M. and Ranney G. (1994) Beyond Total Quality
Management – Toward the Emerging Paradigm. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
5. Carlson, R. (1962) Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
6. Casadesús, M., Karapetrovic, S. and Heras, I. (2011) Synergies in standardized
management systems: some empirical evidence. The TQM Journal. 23(1), 73-96.
7. Conti, T. (2006) Quality thinking and systems thinking. The TQM Magazine. 18(3), 297308.
8. Dale, B.G., Lascelles, D.M. and Boaden R.J. (1994) Levels of Total Quality Management
Adoption. In: Dale, B.G. (Ed.) Managing Quality. New York: Prentice Hall, 117-127.
9. Dale, B.G. (1999) Managing quality. 3rd ed., Oxford: Blackwell.
10. Hannukainen, T., Slotte, S., Kilpi, E. and Nikiforonow, R. (2006) Johtamisen kuntokoulu.
Helsinki: Talentum.
11. Heiskanen, E. (2004) Ympäristö ja liiketoiminta: arkiset käytännöt ja kriittiset
kysymykset. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
12. Herrero, S.G., Saldana, M.A.M., Campo, M. and Ritzel, D.O. (2002) From the traditional
concept of safety management to safety integrated with quality. Journal of Safety
Research. 33(1), 1-20.
13. Hill, S. and Smith, M. (1995) Risk Management and Corporate Security: A Viable
Leadership and Business Solution Designed to Enhance Cororations in the Emerging
Marketplace. Computers and Security. 14(3), 199-204.
14. Honkasalo, A. (2000) Occupational health and safety and environmental management
systems. Environmental Science and Policy. 3(1): 39-45.
15. Johnson, D. and Walck, C. (2004) Certified Success: Integrating Sustainability
management Systems. Journal of Forestry. 102(5), 32-39.
16. Jørgensen, T. H., Remmen, A. and Mellado, M. D. (2006) Integrated management
systems - three different levels of integration. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14(8), 713722.
17. Kallio, T. (2001) Moderni ympäristöjohtaminen: historia, käsite ja organisatorinen kenttä.
Turun kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja, Sarja B-1:2001, Turku, Kirjapaino Grafia Oy.
18. Karapetrovic, S. and Jonker, J. (2003) Integration of standardized management systems:
searching for a recipe and ingredients. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence.
14(4), 451-459.
19. Kolk, A. and Mauser, A. (2002) The evolution of environmental management: from stage
models to performance evaluation. Business Strategy and the Environment Journal.
316(11), 14-31.
20. Lanne, M, and Tytykoski, K. (2004) Yhteistyö ja kokonaisturvallisuusajattelu
riskienarvioinnissa. Työ ja ihminen. (18), 269-279.
21. Lanoie, P., Laplante, B. and Roy, M. (1998) Can capital markets create incentives for
pollution control?. Ecological Economics. 26(1), 31-41.
22. Levä, K. (2003) Turvallisuusjohtamisjärjestelmien toimivuus: vahvuudet ja
kehityshaasteet suuronnettomuusvaarallisissa laitoksissa. Doctoral dissertation, Helsinki:
Turvatekniikan keskus.
23. Niskala, M. (1997) Ympäristö on kilpailukykytekijä - Ympäristölaskentatoimi tukee
ympäristötietoista yritysjohtamista. Tilisanomat. 2, 64–71.
24. Petulla, J.M. (1987) Environmental Protection in the United States. San Francisco: San
Francisco Study Center.
25. Reason, J. (1997) Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishing Limited.
26. Silen, T. (1998) Laatujohtaminen – menetelmiä kilpailukyvyn vahvistamiseksi. Porvoo:
WSOY.
27. Tervonen, P. (2010). Integrated ESSQ management as a part of excellent operational and
business management - a framework, integration and maturity. Doctoral dissertation.
Oulu: University of Oulu.
28. Tervonen, P., Alapiha, J. and Haapasalo, H. (2009a) Benchmarking ESSQ management
system through tailored maturity model. International Journal of Management and
Enterprise Development. 7(3), 262-280.
29. Tervonen, P., Haapasalo, H. and Niemelä, M. (2009b) Evolution of Safety Management
and Systems in a Steel Production Organization. The Open Management Journal. 2, 1727.
30. Voutilainen, P., Ritola, O. and Moisio, J. (2001) IMS-johtamisjärjestelmä: laatu,
ympäristö ja turvallisuus liiketoiminnan kehittämisessä. Helsinki: Edita.
31. Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B.G. (2000) Management systems: The key integration issues.
Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineering. 214(B), 771-780.
32. Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B.G. (2001) Integrated management systems: A model based on
a total quality approach. Managing Service Quality. 11(5), 318-330.
33. Zeng, X.S., Shi, J.J. and Lou, G.X. (2007) A synergetic model for implementing an
integrated management system: an empirical study in China. Journal of Cleaner
Production. 15(18), 1760-1767.
34. Zeng, X.S., Tam V.W.Y. and Khoa N.L. (2010) Towards effectiveness of integrated
management systems for enterprises. Engineering Economics. 21(2), 171-179.
35. Zeng, X.S., Xie, X.M., Tam, C.M. and Shen, L.Y. (2011) An empirical examination of
benefits from implementing integrated management systems (IMS). Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence. 22(2), 173-186.
36. Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A.S. (2005) Integrated management system: The experiences of
three Australian organizations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.
16(2), 211-232.
37. Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M. (1995) Improving cleaner production by integration into the
management of quality, environment and working conditions. Journal of Cleaner
Production. 3(1-2), 61-66.