Anda di halaman 1dari 18

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, VOL. 12, NO.

6, 2001, 669 - 686

Joint adoption of ISO 14000-ISO 9000


occupational risk prevention practices in
Spanish industrial companies: A descriptive
study

 ngel del Bri o, Esteban Ferna ndez, Beatriz Junquera


Jesu s A
& Camilo Jose Va zquez
Escuela Universitaria de IngenierõÂ a TeÂcnica Industrial, Avda. Manuel Llaneza, 75, 33208 GijoÂn
(Asturias) Spain

abstract This paper intends to analyse the advisability of combining the three management
standards (quality, environment and risk prevention) in Spanish industrial companies, and also to
study with which particular standards this combination is considered adequate. Besides, our objective
is to study if aspects like the size of the company, the level of demand of the environmental legislation
or the ® eld of activity of the companies are elements that aþ ect the tendency of the companies to
integrate the standards.

Introduction
In the past decade, a point of in¯ ection in the development of tools for environmental
management (Angell & Klassen, 1999; Faucheux et al., 1998; Getzner, 1999) and prevention
of occupational risks (Brown, 1996; Cichowicz, 1996; Vega de Seoane, 1999) in companies
has been reached, in parallel with what had occurred with quality management systems in
the 1980s (Hemenway & Hale, 1996; Inman, 1999). The enforcement of the Law of
Prevention of Occupational Risks and the appearance in the year 1996 of the ISO norms of
the series 14000 about voluntary implantation of environmental management systems in
Spain each constitute conditions to which companies must adapt so as not to lose market
share (Vega de Seoane, 1999).
In this way, the tendency towards quality which characterized past decades is nowadays
perceived from a wider angle, including environmental management and safety at work
(Garvin, 1991; Reiman & Gertz, 1994).
This fact is reinforced even more by the existing analogies between the necessary
practices to adopt a quality management system, an environmental management system and
an occupational risk prevention system. All of them are based on the assumption that
preventive actions are more positive than correction once the quality fault, the spillage, the
emission and/or accident that a worker could suþ er have taken place (Cichowicz, 1996).

Correspondence: J. A. del BrõÂ o, Escuela Universitaria de IngenierõÂ a TeÂcnica Industrial, Avda. Manuel Llaneza,
75, 33208 GijoÂn (Asturias) Spain. Tel: 985182458; Fax: 985182240; E-mail: delbrio@opalo.etsiig.uniovi.es

ISSN 0954-4127 print/ISSN 1360-0613 online/00/060669-18 © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/09544120120075307
670 J. A. DEL BRIÂO, ET AL.

Some writers argue that environmental management should be integrated with quality
management and occupational risk prevention in companies to take advantage of their
possible synergies (Brown, 1996; Cascio, 1994; Corbett & Cutler, 2000; Gupta & Sharma,
1996; Kitazawa & Sarkis, 2000; Klassen, 2000). However, in the Spanish industrial scene,
the adoption of environmental management systems and occupational risk prevention systems
is in an incipient state. For this reason, we lack data that could provide us with some reference
about the advisability of combining the three standards and the eþ ectiveness of their
integration. With the present study we intend to collect some relevant information that
contributes to palliate this gap through the description of the situation of Spanish industrial
companies with respect to the combination of the three management systems.
Moreover, we intend to carry out an exploratory analysis that allows us to obtain more
detailed information of the particular standards with which it is considered interesting to
combine the ISO 14001 norm. This analysis refers to the quality management systems that
are not related to the ISO norms, the ISO 9000 norms and/or an occupational risk prevention
system.
Regarding each of these aspects, we repeat the analysis, regrouping the companies
according to certain variables beyond the environmental area. Thus, we consider that big
companies have, in general, more resources of all kinds, which allows them to accede, more
easily than the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to the minimum investment
threshold demanded by environmental practices (Escuela de OrganizacioÂn Industrial, 1996;
O’ Dea & Pratt, 1995). This facilitates that a higher proportion of big companies start
environmental actions, and so it seems reasonable to expect that their experience will provide
them with deeper knowledge of the advisability of combining diþ erent types of standards
than in the SMEs.
Likewise, we expect that the companies that carry out their activity in sectors where the
environmental legislation is stricter will be more concerned about environmental matters.
Consequently, they will tend to develop a conduct more inclined to a joint adoption, and
even to integration, of environmental practices with other management standards (Angell &
Klassen, 1999).
In the same way, having previously adopted a quality management system could motivate
companies towards total quality management (TQM), considering the possibility of its
integration with the environmental management system (Corbett & Cutler, 2000; Hanna &
Newman, 1995; Gupta & Sharma, 1996; Klassen & McLaughlin, 1996; Theyel, 2000;
Vinzant & Vinzant, 1996). Something similar occurs between occupational risk prevention
and natural environment management (Brown, 1996; Cichowicz, 1996; Russell & Sacchi,
1997; Vega de Seoane, 1999). Therefore, we suppose that the companies with previous
experience in quality management systems and/or risk prevention practices will be more
inclined to combine it with an environmental management system based on the ISO 14001
norm.
To conclude this work, we have analysed the factors that induce companies to combine
the standards. We shall carry out this analysis, ® rst, in general and, afterwards, grouping the
companies according to whether they haveÐ or notÐ previous experience in the adoption of
quality management systems and/or in occupational risk prevention practices, since we start
from the assumption that the companies with this experience should value more highly those
reasons relative to common procedures between systems relating to diþ erent management
areas.
In accordance with such objectives, this work is structured as follows. First, the
theoretical and empirical literature related to the advisability and even the need to adopt
together quality, environment and occupational risk prevention management systems in
OCCUPATIONAL RISK PREVENTION PRACTICES 671

companies is reviewed. The following section describes the methodology of the research. In
it, the characteristics of the sample and the variables used are collected. Then, the results
obtained from the empirical study are presented. The last section includes the main
conclusions of the work.

Theoretical foundations and objectives


The pressures from diþ erent interest groupsÐ public administrations, environmental lobbies,
clients and society in generalÐ are raising the companies’ awareness of the importance of the
environment (Graedel & Allenby, 1995; Welford, 1995). In Spain, although industrial
companies are behind, there is an increase in the number of those that assume that the
legislative compliance is not enough to prevent environmental degradation, but it is necessary
to adopt an environmental management system based on prevention and good practices to
respond correctly to external pressures, and even to the internal needs of the company itself.
In fact, this way of responding to the environmental requirements is not new. Hanna
and Newman (1995), Gupta and Sharma (1996), Corbett and Cutler (2000), Kitazawa and
Sarkis (2000) and Klassen (2000) warn of the parallelism between quality management, as
it has been viewed since the end of the 1970s, and environmental management since the
beginning of the 1990s. According to these writers, in view of the widespread perception of
degradation of our natural resources, environmental matters progressively became an object
of social debate, and the clients, both the ® nal consumers and the companies, strongly
increased their environmental demands in a relatively short period of time, in the same way
as quality requirements started to be adopted in the 1970s. As a result of these new demands,
the reactive techniques and the environmental practices based on a strict compliance with
the legislation became old-fashioned. Thus, the process of adoption of the new environmental
management systems is an obvious parallel with what happened previously with quality (Fig.
1). These similarities, even with respect to procedures, have led a lot of companies to develop
the environmental management system in a simultaneous and compatible way with the
quality management system (Gupta & Sharma, 1996; Hemenway & Hale, 1996; Lamprecht,
1996).
On the other hand, there is an increasing number of companies that deal with occupa-
tional health encouraged by the possibility of reducing accident costs and responding to
legislative pressures. In Spain the 31/1995 Occupational Risk Prevention Law is forcing
companies to respond eþ ectively to the demands of the new legislation. In this respect, it has
been veri® ed that such management systems may be more eþ ective in environments where
workers feel safe and the probability of accidents is slight (Engelman, 1993; Kraus, 1994).
This has allowed suggesting the possibility of combining the environmental practices with
occupational safety practices (Brown, 1996; Cichowicz, 1996; Russell & Sacchi, 1997; Vega
de Seoane, 1999).
In accordance with such approaches, we have anticipated the existence of synergies
between the adoption of any quality management system, the ISO 14001 norm and
occupational risk prevention practices (Beechner & Kock, 1997; Corbett & Cutler, 2000;
Kitazawa & Sarkis, 2000; Klassen, 2000; Powell, 1995; Struebing, 1996). In order to con® rm
these approaches, we are going to carry out an exploratory study that allows us to bring the
general view of Spanish industrial companies about the suitability of the joint adoption of
these standards. Next, we shall carry out the same analysis but breaking down the companies
according to a series of variables of an entrepreneurial nature, but beyond the environmental
area. We shall begin with size. Thus, we consider that big companies have more resources of
all kinds, which allows them to accede to the minimum investment threshold demanded by
672 J. A. DEL BRIÂO, ET AL.

Figure 1. Historical evolution of quality and environment

environmental practices more easily than the SMEs (Escuela de OrganizacioÂn Industrial,
1996; O’ Dea & Pratt, 1995). This makes it easier for a higher proportion of companies to
start environmental actions, which brings about experience and, as a result, deeper knowledge
about the suitability of combining diþ erent types standards than in the SMEs.
Secondly, we break down the companies according to the level of demand of the
legislation in the industrial sector where they carry out their activity. In the same way, we
suppose that in those companies that perceive the environmental legislation of the sector as
strict there is deeper awareness about this ® eld and, therefore, it is very likely that they will
have accumulated wider experience in the environmental area and so they will have a diþ erent
view on this point than those companies that ignore or do not pay attention to the legislation
(Angell & Klassen, 1999; Chiesa et al., 1999; Hanna & Newman, 1995).
Finally, we break down the companies depending on whether they have previous
experience in the implementation of quality management systems and/or occupational risk
prevention practices, since we suppose that this experience will facilitate the integration with
the environmental management system based on the ISO 14001 norm; in the ® rst place,
because the companies will be more motivated, especially if the previous experience was
OCCUPATIONAL RISK PREVENTION PRACTICES 673

positive (Brown, 1996; Gupta & Sharma, 1996; Klassen & McLaughlin, 1996; Russell &
Sacchi, 1997; Theyel, 2000); and, in the second place, because the diþ erent systems have
similar practices (Brown, 1996; Cichowicz, 1996; Jackson, 1997; Vega de Seoane, 1999).
The second part of this work is aimed at obtaining information about the systems with
which it is advisable to combine the ISO 14001 norm. The reason for undertaking this
analysis is that the literature on this topic diþ ers. While some writers point out that the
combination of the quality, environmental and occupational risk prevention standards provide
synergies (Beechner & Kock, 1997; Corbett & Cutler, 2000; Kitazawa & Sarkis, 2000;
Klassen, 2000; Powell, 1995; Struebing, 1996), others question the existence of such
synergies given the diþ erent scope of the three standards (King, 1995; Sissell & Mullin,
1995). The quality system focuses on the satisfaction of the consumers’ needs, and therefore
the cost of low quality results in the loss of clients and the deterioration of the brand
(Cichowicz, 1996; Scotto, 1996; Struebing, 1996). The occupational risk prevention system is
directed to the workers to prevent accidents at work and, in this way, eliminate compensations,
temporal leaves, bad image and an unpleasant working environment (Brown, 1996; Cichow-
icz, 1996) On the other hand, the environmental management system has a wider domain,
the whole society, and its implementation contributes to eliminating the sanctions that the
company may incur and, more extensively, the costs of society’s penalties to companies as a
result of the contamination they cause (Cichowicz, 1996; Clements, 1996; Hemenway &
Hale, 1996; Geþ en & Rothenberg, 2000).
As opposed to these two opposite positions, other studies point out that the synergies
do not occur between any quality management system and the ISO 140001 norm, but
between the introduction of some norm of the ISO 9000 and the ISO 140001 series, due to
the fact that both have common procedures (Table 1) (Beechner & Kock, 1997; Cascio et al.,
1996; Clements, 1996; Inman, 1999; Kitazawa & Sarkis, 2000; Lamprecht, 1996; Puri,
1996).
Taking as a basis these theoretical references, we want to know the opinion of Spanish
industrial companies about the advisability of combining the ISO 140001 norm with other
management systems. Likewise, we carry out an analysis taking into account the company’s
size, the level of demand of the environmental legislation and the previous experience the
company may have in quality and risk prevention practices.
In this respect, some contributions point out the potential advantages of integrating the
standards: it allows the company to achieve a more consistent integrated system; the
documentation is collated and redundancies are eliminated; time and costs of adoption are
saved; it is possible to reconcile the objectives and process control; and the company is given
more chances to be diþ erent (Cascio et al., 1996; Cichowicz, 1996; Clements, 1996;
Lamprecht, 1996).

Methodology of the research


Characteristics of the sample
The basic information of this work comes from a more extensive study that attempts to
analyse the environmental situation of Spanish industrial companies starting from the
relations that they maintain with the public administrations in this matter and the extent to
which environmental actionsÐ either of a technical or organizational characterÐ are put into
practice.
The research was initiated in July 1998 with the design of a questionnaire. The initial
version of it was submitted to a pre-test between the months of September and October of
674 J. A. DEL BRIÂO, ET AL.

Table 1. Synergies between ISO 9001 and ISO 1400

Requirements Clause in ISO 9001 Clause in ISO 14001

Responsibility of management 4.1 4.1


Policy 4.1.1 4.1, 4.2.3
Organization 4.1.2 4.3.1
Authority and responsibility 4.1.2.1 4.2.4
Resources 4.1.2.2 4.3.1, 4.3.2
Management representatives 4.1.2.3 4.3.1
Management review 4.1.3 4.5
Introduction of the system 4.2.1 4.0
Document procedures 4.2.2 4.3.4, 4.3.6, 4.2.1
Planning 4.2.3 4.2.1, 4.2.4
Document control 4.5 4.3.5
Purchasing 4.6 4.3.6
Process control 4.9 4.3.6
Testing and inspection 4.10 4.4.1
Control of inspection, measurement and test equipment 4.11 4.4.1
Inspection and test status 4.12 4.4.1
Control of no conforming product 4.13 4.4.2, 4.3.7
Preventive and corrective actions 4.14 4.4.2
Records 4.16 4.4.3
Internal audits 4.17 4.4.4
Training 4.18 4.3.2
Statistical techniques 4.20 4.4.1

Source: Beechner and Koch (1997).

the same year, administered to a small number of industrial companies settled in Spanish
territory and to other social partners involved in the protection of the environment. These
interviews meant an improvement in the original design of the questionnaire.
In December 1998, the ® nal questionnaire was sent to the 5531 companies that were in
the database that we had elaborated, and which had more than 50 workers. The questionnaires
were addressed to the Director of the Department of Environment, when the company had
one, or to the General Manager, if not.
To improve the answer rate, together with the promise to return to the participants in
the study a summary of the results obtained and the enclosing of stamped envelopes for the
answers, a month-and-a-half later we initiated a tracking process of the questionnaires
received. After this process of inspection, the de® ciencies detected in the answers were
recti® ed through telephone calls, by fax or by electronic mail. Likewise, at the same time we
got in contact with the 500 biggest companies to increase the participation rate.
The sample included 373 industrial companies with more than 50 workers that operate
in Spain. The information for the empirical contrast was obtained by means of a survey
designed from the main works carried out on the judgement of environmental aspects in
companies and their subsequent courses of action. Table 2 shows the technical record. The
main characteristics of the sample are collected in Table 3.

Variables employed
In order to undertake the ® rst analysis we asked the managers to indicate in the questionnaire
their judgement about the advisability of combining a quality management system and/or
occupational risk prevention practices with an environmental management system based on
OCCUPATIONAL RISK PREVENTION PRACTICES 675

Table 2. Technical record

Characteristics Survey

Objetive universe or population Industrial companies with more than 50 workers


Geographical/temporal domain The whole national territory/annual: period 1998
Unit of the sample Companies
Size of the sample 373 valid questionnaires
Sampling error/con® dence level 1.5%, con® dence 95.5%
Date of ® eldwork 1 July 1998- 15 May 1999
Subject of the questionnaire Director of the Department of Environment or General Manager

Table 3. Characteristics of the sample

Size

Percentage of Number of
companies companies

Number of employees
50- 100 40.1 145
101- 250 33.4 121
251- 500 10.2 37
501- 1000 8.3 30
More than 1000 8 29

Industrial sector
Food 12.5 46
Textile and by-products 6.8 25
Wood, stationary and by-products 11.7 43
Chemistry 19.6 72
Metal- mechanical and transport 25.8 95
Electronics 14.4 53
Various manufacturers 9.2 34

the ISO 14001 norm.1 This variable is dichotomic: 1 indicates that the combination is
advisable and 0 that it is not. To establish these variables we have followed the empirical
study carried out by Hand® eld et al. (1997), centred on checking the adoption of environ-
mental practices in the companies by means of questions that only permitted two answers:
yes or no. Taking this study as reference, we asked the companies if they thought that there
existed synergies between some of the two management systems (quality and occupational
risk prevention) and an environmental management system based on the ISO 14001 norm.
The companies could answer yes, if they thought that there exist synergies, and no, if their
opinion was the opposite.
For the second analysis, we asked the companies which systems they considered advisable
to combine with ISO 14001. For this we used three dichotomic variables that have the value
1 if the integration of the system with the ISO 14001 norm is considered advisable because
of the existence of synergies, and 0 if not. These are the following: the ® rst refers to the ISO
9000 norm; the second refers to any quality management system except the ISO 9000 norm;
and the third refers to occupational risk prevention practices. The companies could answer
aý rmatively for one, several or all the variables.
In both cases we carry out a separated analysis according to the size, the level of demand
of the environmental legislation in the sector and the existence of previous experience in
676 J. A. DEL BRIÂO, ET AL.

management systems beyond the environmental area. In the ® rst place, for the size we have
classi® ed the companies according to the number of workers. This is a numerical value that
takes whole values from 50 (the minimum number of employees of the companies with which
we have worked). But, in order to facilitate the analysis, we have created ® ve categories
depending on the number of workers:2 ® rst, companies with a number of workers that range
between 50 and 100; second, between 101 and 250; third, between 251 and 500; fourth,
between 501 and 1000; and, ® nally, companies with more than 1000.
Subsequently, we considered that there existed diþ erent environmental awareness in
companies depending on the level of demand of the environmental legislation in the sector
where they carry out their activity. Thus, we have asked for the judgement of this perception
by means of Likert (1- 5) scales, where 1 implies a legislation that is not strict at all, and the
value 5 a very strict legislation.
Lastly, we supposed that the companies would have a diþ erent opinion of the combina-
tion of standards depending on whether they had previous experience in the adoption of
some related to a diþ erent area from the environment. Therefore, we asked the managers to
indicate in the questionnaire if they had adopted a quality management system and/or
occupational risk prevention practices. Both variables are dichotomic: 1 indicates that it has
been adopted and 0 that it has not.
Finally, in order to undertake the third part of the analysis, relating to the judgement of
the advantages of the integration of the standards, we shall use a descriptive analysis again
so as to obtain data about the factors that companies consider suitable for combining the
norms.
Previously, we requested information about the judgement of the advantages of the
integration. These are:
· The system is more consistent and allows the company to achieve an
integrated system, which will become the future tendency (Cichowicz, 1996).
· It shares the documentation and eliminates the redundancies resulting from
having several separately diþ erent (Cascio et al., 1996; Clements, 1996).
· It saves adoption time, since it allows sharing of common procedures (Cascio
et al., 1996; Clements, 1996; Lamprecht, 1996; Puri, 1996).
· It saves costs since, when procedures are shared, long-range economies are
achieved (Cascio et al., 1996; Clements, 1996; Lamprecht, 1996; Puri, 1996).
· It has a common objective, since all the standards include the continuous
improvement of the system (Beechner & Kock, 1997; Powell, 1995; Strueb-
ing, 1996).
· It shares the process control to assure itself of the conformity of the systems
(Beechner & Kock, 1997; Powell, 1995; Struebing, 1996).
· It achieves a greater diþ erentiation of the company (Cascio et al., 1996;
Clements, 1996).
All these items were judged with Likert (1- 5) scales: 1 indicates that joining the standards is
considered to be barely eþ ective; 5 indicates, on the contrary, that companies consider the
integration of the standards to be eþ ective.
As in the previous cases, we used double input tables to study the in¯ uence of the
economic variables. Next, we present the results.

Results
First, we present the descriptive analysis of the advisability of combining the quality-
environment- risk prevention standards, globally and by the size, depending on the sector or
the previous experience in quality management or risk prevention.
OCCUPATIONAL RISK PREVENTION PRACTICES 677

Next, we present the results that allow us to know the opinion of Spanish industrial
companies’ managers about the standards with which it is advisable to combine the ISO
14001 norm and, as in the previous case, we add to the global analysis a broken down one.
Finally, we present the results related to the judgement of the hypothetical advantages
derived from the integration. We have also carried out in this case, apart from the global
analysis, other similar ones, although grouping the companies according to the same variables
as used in the previous analyses.

Combination of quality- environment- risk prevention


Table 4 shows the results of the descriptive analysis regarding the consideration of the
advisability of combining the standards.
Of all the companies of the sub-sample used in this analysisÐ certi® ed with ISO, in
process of or in studyÐ 200 answered this question. The majority of the companies found it
advisable to combine the standards due to the existence of synergies (90.5% are of this
opinion), while only 9.5% (19 out of the 200) did not see the combination as necessary or
advisable. These results support the insights of Powell (1995), Struebing (1996), Beechner
and Kock (1997), Corbett and Cutler (2000), Kitazawa and Sarkis (2000) and Klassen
(2000) about the advisability of the combination.
We repeated the previous analysis, breaking down the companies according to the
number of workers. Table 5 shows the results (in parentheses is the percentage of companies).
We do not ® nd signi® cant diþ erences among the categories relating to size. The majority
of the companies consider it advisable to combine them due to the existence of synergies,
although the percentage is slightly higher in big companies that have between 501 and 1000
workers.
In Table 6 we show the judgement of the advisability of combining the standards
separating the companies into groups according to the level of demand of the environmental
legislation they perceive in their sector (outside the parentheses is the number of companies,

Table 4. Synergies among standards

Number of Percentage of
companies companies

There are synergies 181 90.5


There are not synergies 19 9.5

Total: 200 100

Table 5. Advisability of combination according to size

Synergies with No synergies Total of


ISO 14001 with ISO 14001 companies

Size
50- 100 51 (87.9) 7 (12.1) 58 (100)
101- 250 55 (91.6) 5 (8.4) 60 (100)
251- 500 22 (88) 3 (12) 25 (100)
501- 1000 25 (96.1) 1 (3.9) 26 (100)
More than 1000 21 (91.3) 2 (8.7) 23 (100)
678 J. A. DEL BRIÂO, ET AL.

Table 6. Advisability of combination according to environmental legislation

Synergies with No synergies Total of


ISO 14001 with ISO 14001 companies

Environmental legislation
Not restrictive 5 (100) 0 (0) 5 (100)
Little restrictive 15 (88.2) 2 (11.8) 17 (100)
Relatively restrictive 62 (87.3) 9 (12.7) 71 (100)
Quite restrictive 64 (94.1) 4 (5.9) 68 (100)
Very restrictive 35 (89.7) 4 (11.3) 39 (100)

and in parentheses the percentage of them according to the judgement of the level of demand
of the legislation).
As occurs in the previous case, the percentages are very similar in all the cases and the
level of demand of the legislation does not incline companies to consider more or less
advisable the combination of standards, maybe because they already constitute a step forward
in the management and practices of a voluntary character, instead of a restriction as it occurs
with the legislation.
Companies may have a diþ erent view in relation to the possibility of combining the
standards, depending on whether they have previous experience in the adoption of a quality
management system or occupational risk prevention practices, either because, in this way,
they will be more motivated to make for TQM, or because they perceive they can combine
procedures (Brown, 1996; Cichowicz, 1996; Gupta & Sharma, 1996; Klassen & McLaughlin,
1996; Jackson, 1997; Russell & Sacchi, 1997; Theyel, 2000; Vega de Seoane, 1999).
This encourages us to repeat the analysis of the possibility of combining the standards,
separating into groups the companies depending on whether they had previously adopted or
not a quality management system and/or occupational risk prevention practices.
In Table 7 we present the results with respect to the previous adoption of a quality
management system (in parentheses we include the percentage of companies).
We observe that among the companies that have considered the possibility of obtaining
a certi® cate, although the percentage of those that think that there exist synergies between
the quality management systems and ISO 14001 is always higher, this is even higher among
those with experience in quality management (91.9% as opposed to 71.4% which do not
have it).
Next, we repeat the same analysis to observe if there exist synergies between the adoption
of an occupational risk prevention system and the ISO 14001 system (Table 8).
The percentage of those companies that consider that there are synergies between risk
prevention and ISO 14001 is always higher, but it is higher among those that have experience
in risk prevention management (91% as opposed to 87.9% which do not have it).

Table 7. Quality management system and combination with ISO 14001 (in percentage
for each group)

Synergies with No synergies with Total of


ISO 14001 ISO 14001 companies

Adoption of a quality management system


Yes 171 (91.9%) 15 (8.1%) 186 (100%)
No 10 (71.4) 4 (28.6%) 14 (100%)
OCCUPATIONAL RISK PREVENTION PRACTICES 679

Table 8. Occupational risk prevention practice and combination with ISO 14001 (in
percentage for each group)

Synergies with No synergies with Total of


ISO 14001 ISO 14001 companies

Adoption of risk prevention practices


Yes 152 (91) 15 (9) 167 (100%)
No 29 (87.9) 4 (12.1) 33 (100%)

Systems with which it is advisable to combine ISO 14001


Next, we present the results of a descriptive study which allows us to obtain a general view
of the companies about the system they consider advisable to combine with the ISO 14001
norm (Table 9).
Of all the companies of the sub-sample used in this analysisÐ certi® ed with ISO, in the
process of or in studyÐ 200 answered this question. Table 9 shows that the majority of the
companies ® nd it advisable to combine ISO 14001 with ISO 9000 (79.5% of the companies).
Also, for the most part, the companies do not consider it advisable to combine ISO 14001
with any quality management system diþ erent from ISO 9000 (88% are of this opinion).
Finally, the majority of companies ® nd it advisable to combine ISO 14001 and risk prevention
practices (57%), although in this case the percentages are clearly inferior than with respect
to the ISO 9000 norm. These data support the insights of Cascio et al. (1996), Clements
(1996), Lamprecht (1996), Puri (1996), Beechner and Kock (1997), Inman (1999) and
Kitazawa and Sarkis (2000), who justify the importance of combining those standards that
allow the sharing of common procedures. As we did in the previous case, we carry out a
descriptive analysis taking into account the size of the companies (Table 10).

Table 9. Combination of ISO 14001 with other systems (in percentage for each group)

Systems with which ISO 14001 would be combined

Quality system ISO 9000 Prevention

Yes No Yes No Yes No


24 (12) 176 (88) 159 (79.5) 41 (20.5) 114 (57) 86 (43)
Total 200 (100) Total 200 (100) Total 200 (100)

Table 10. Combination of ISO 14001 with other systems by sizes (in percentage for each group)

Systems with which ISO 14001 would be combined

Quality system ISO 9000 Prevention

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Size
50- 100 6 (10.4) 52 (89.6) 50 (86.2) 8 (13.8) 33 (56.9) 25 (43.1)
101- 250 6 (10) 54 (90) 46 (76.6) 14 (23.4) 35 (58.3) 25 (41.7)
251- 500 3 (12) 22 (88) 18 (72) 7 (28) 14 (56) 11 (44)
501- 1000 6 (23.1) 20 (76.9) 19 (73) 7 (27) 17 (65.3) 9 (34.7)
More than 1000 3 (13.1) 20 (86.9) 19 (82.6) 4 (17.4) 13 (56.5) 10 (43.5)

Total 192 (100) Total 192 (100) Total 192 (100)


680 J. A. DEL BRIÂO, ET AL.

Table 11. Combination of ISO 14001 with other systems by the restrictive objetives of the environmental regulation
(in percentage for each group)

Systems with which ISO 14001 would be combined

Quality system ISO 9000 Prevention

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Environmental legislation
Not restrictive 5 (100) 0 (0) 4 (80) 1 (20) 4 (80) 1 (20)
Little restrictive 2 (11.7) 15 (88.3) 14 (82.3) 3 (17.7) 9 (53) 8 (47)
Relatively restrictive 11 (15.5) 60 (84.5) 52 (73.2) 19 (26.8) 40 (56.3) 31 (43.7)
Quite restrictive 9 (15.2) 59 (84.8) 62 (92.5) 5 (7.5) 40 (58.8) 28 (41.2)
Very restrictive 2 (5.1) 37 (94.9) 25 (65.7) 13 (34.3) 21 (53.8) 18 (46.2)

Total 200 (100) Total 200 (100) Total 200 (100)

In general, regardless of the number of workers, the results coincide with those obtained
for all the sample. That is, in all the cases the majority of companies consider it advisable to
combine ISO 9000 and ISO 14001, but not ISO 14001 with any quality management system
diþ erent from the ISO 9000 norm. All the groups of companies, irrespective of the size,
consider it advisable to combine risk prevention with ISO 14001, although in this case the
percentages are lower than the relation between ISO 9000 and ISO 14001.
Next, Table 11 shows the results of the possible synergies between the systems, taking
into account the level of demand of the environmental legislation. We con® rm that, regardless
of the legislative level of demand with respect to the environment, in all cases the majority of
the companies think that it is advisable to combine ISO 9000 and ISO 14001, but not ISO
14001 with any quality management system diþ erent from the ISO 9000 norm. Irrespective
of the level of demand of the legislation in each sector, companies see it is advisable to
combine ISO 14001 with prevention practices, but in smaller percentages than ISO 14001
with ISO 9000.
Finally, Tables 12 and 13 show the possibility of synergies between the three management

Table 12. Quality management systems with other systems (in percentage for each group)

Systems with which ISO 14001 would be combined

Quality system ISO 9000 Prevention Total

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Adoption of a quality management system


Yes 24 (12.9) 162 (87.1) 149 (80.1) 37 (19.9) 104 (55.9) 82 (44.1) 186 (100)
No 0 (0) 14 (100) 10 (71.4) 4 (28.6) 10 (71,4) 4 (28.6) 14 (100)

Table 13. Risk prevention systems with other systems (in percentage for each group)

Systems with which ISO 14001 would be combined

Quality system ISO 9000 Prevention Total

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Adoption of prevention practices


Yes 19 (11.4) 148 (88.6) 133 (79.6) 34 (20.4) 100 (59.9) 67 (40.1) 167 (100)
No 5 (15.2) 28 (84.8) 26 (78.8) 7 (21.2) 14 (42.4) 19 (57.6) 33 (100)
OCCUPATIONAL RISK PREVENTION PRACTICES 681

standards, taking into account the previous experience in other management systems beyond
the environmental area.
In Table 12 we observe how companies, irrespective of whether they have a quality
management system or not, do not judge it as advisable to combine the ISO 14001 norm
with any quality system (this is so in the case of 87.1% of the companies with an adopted
quality management system and 100% of the companies that do not have it). This is not the
case with the combination between the ISO 9000 norm and the ISO 14001 norm, since
most companies are of the opinion that they should be integrated. In any case, this percentage
is higher among the companies with a quality management system (80.1%) than among
those that do not have it (71.4%). Finally, the majority of companies also ® nd it advisable to
combine ISO 14001 with risk prevention.
In Table 13 we can observe that the companies, whether they carry out risk prevention
practices or not, do not ® nd it advisable to combine ISO 14001 with any quality system
diþ erent from ISO 9000 (this is the case with 88.6% of the companies with adopted
prevention practices and 84.8% of those without it). On the contrary, the majority of
companies think it is advisable to integrate the ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 systems. This
percentage is slightly higher among the companies with prevention practices (79.6%) than
among those which do not have them (78.8%). Finally, the majority of companies with risk
prevention practices think that they should be combined with ISO 14001 (59.9%), but this
is not so with those that have not adopted these practices, since most of them do not consider
it advisable to combine them.

Judgement of the reasons


In order to obtain information about the advantages of the integration of the three manage-
ment systems, we proceed to carry out a descriptive analysis of the reasons why it could be
advisable to combine the standards: to achieve consistency, to share documentation, to save
time, to save costs, to share objectives, to share the process control and to obtain bigger
diþ erentiation (Table 14).
The companies think that the main reason for combining the standards is that it allows
sharing of the documentation (49.2% considered this reason very eþ ective and 40.64% quite
eþ ective). This reason refers to the possibility of eliminating redundancies in the procedures,
and so it supports the existence of synergies between the norms (Cascio et al., 1996;
Clements, 1996).
We are going to observe the importance of these variables separately according to
whether the companies had adopted or had not adopted a quality management system or an
occupational risk prevention system. The results are given in Tables 15- 18.
The reasons considered to be important for combining the standards in companies with

Table 14. Eþ ectiveness of the combination of standards (in parenthesis, the percentage of companies)

Eþ ectiveness Not at all Little More or less Quite A lot Total

Consistency 0 (0) 3 (1.63) 37 (20.1) 86 (46.7) 58 (31.5) 184 (100)


Combine documentation 0 (0) 5 (2.67) 14 (7.49) 76 (40.64) 92 (49.2) 187 (100)
Save time 5 (2.7) 18 (9.73) 40 (21.62) 62 (33.51) 60 (32.43) 185 (100)
Save costs 6 (3.26) 21 (11.41) 48 (26.09) 61 (33.15) 48 (26.09) 184 (100)
Combine objectives 2 (1.07) 8 (4.28) 28 (14.97) 82 (43.85) 67 (35.83) 187 (100)
Combine control 1 (0.05) 7 (3.8) 49 (26.5) 86 (46.5) 42 (22.7) 185 (100)
Bigger diþ erentiation 9 (5.08) 37 (20.9) 61 (34.46) 44 (24.86) 26 (14.69) 177 (100)
682 J. A. DEL BRIÂO, ET AL.

Table 15. Eþ ectiveness of the combination of standards in companies with adopted quality management systems (in
parentheses, the percentage of companies)

Eþ ectiveness Not at all Little More or less Quite A lot Total

Consistency 0 (0) 3 (1.7) 36 (20.9) 80 (46.5) 53 (30.9) 172 (100)


Combine documentation 0 (0) 4 (2.3) 13 (7.4) 69 (39.4) 89 (50.9) 175 (100)
Save time 4 (2.3) 16 (9.2) 34 (19.7) 59 (34.1) 60 (34.7) 173 (100)
Save costs 5 (2.9) 19 (11) 42 (24.4) 59 (34.3) 47 (27.4) 172 (100)
Combine objectives 2 (1.1) 6 (3.4) 27 (15.4) 7 (44) 63 (36.1) 175 (100)
Combine control 0 (0) 7 (4) 47 (27) 79 (45.4) 41 (23.6) 174 (100)
Bigger diþ erentiation 8 (4.8) 36 (21.7) 56 (33.7) 40 (24.1) 26 (15.7) 166 (100)

Table 16. Eþ ectiveness of the combination of standards in companies without adopted quality management systems
(in parentheses, the percentage of companies)

Eþ ectiveness Not at all Little More or less Quite A lot Total

Consistency 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (8.3) 6 (50) 5 (41.7) 12 (100)


Combine documentation 0 (0) 1 (8.3) 1 (8.3) 7 (58.3) 3 (25.1) 12 (100)
Save time 1 (8.3) 2 (16.6) 6 (50) 3 (25.1) 0 (0) 12 (100)
Save costs 1 (8.3) 2 (16.6) 6 (50) 2 (16.6) 1 (8.3) 12 (100)
Combine objectives 0 (0) 2 (16.6) 1 (8.3) 5 (41.7) 4 (33.4) 12 (100)
Combine control 2 (16.6) 0 (0) 2 (16.6) 7 (58.3) 1 (8.3) 12 (100)
Bigger diþ erentiation 1 (9.1) 1 (9.1) 5 (45.4) 4 (36.4) 0 (0) 11 (100)

Table 17. Eþ ectiveness of the combination of standards in companies with adopted risk prevention practices (in
parentheses, the percentage of companies)

Eþ ectiveness Not at all Little More or less Quite A lot Total

Consistency 0 (0) 2 (1.3) 31 (20.3) 76 (49.7) 44 (28.7) 153 (100)


Combine documentation 0 (0) 5 (3.2) 12 (7.7) 67 (43) 72 (46.1) 156 (100)
Save time 3 (2) 16 (10.3) 33 (21.3) 53 (34.2) 50 (32.2) 155 (100)
Save costs 4 (2.6) 19 (12.3) 37 (24) 55 (35.7) 39 (25.4) 154 (100)
Combine objectives 1 (0.6) 7 (4.5) 24 (15.4) 72 (46.2) 52 (33.3) 156 (100)
Combine control 1 (0.6) 5 (3.2) 41 (26.6) 74 (48.1) 33 (21.5) 154 (100)
Bigger diþ erentiation 7 (4.7) 32 (21.6) 52 (35.1) 34 (23) 23 (15.6) 148 (100)

Table 18. Eþ ectiveness of the combination of standards in companies without adopted risk prevention practices (in
parentheses, the percentage of companies)

Eþ ectiveness Not at all Little More or less Quite A lot Total

Consistency 0 (0.8) 1 (3.2) 6 (19.3) 10 (32.3) 14 (45.2) 31 (100)


Combine documentation 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6.4) 9 (29) 20 (64.6) 31 (100)
Save time 2 (6.6) 2 (6.6) 7 (23.4) 9 (30) 10 (33.4) 30 (100)
Save costs 2 (6.6) 2 (6.6) 11 (36.6) 6 (20) 9 (30.2) 30 (100)
Combine objectives 1 (3.2) 1 (3.2) 4 (12.9) 10 (32.3) 15 (48.4) 31 (100)
Combine control 0 (0) 2 (6.6) 8 (25.8) 12 (38.7) 9 (29) 31 (100)
Bigger diþ erentiation 2 (6.9) 5 (17.2) 9 (31) 10 (34.5) 3 (10.4) 29 (100)
OCCUPATIONAL RISK PREVENTION PRACTICES 683

an adopted quality management system are, ® rst, that it allows the sharing of documentation
(90.3% considered this reason very or quite important), which facilitates the elimination of
redundancies in the procedures (Cascio et al., 1996; Clements, 1996); the second most
valued reason is that it allows sharing objectives (80.1% grant it a lot or quite a lot of
importance), which fosters the continuous improvement of the systems (Beechner & Kock,
1997; Powell, 1995; Struebing, 1996); and in third place, it is judged as important in the
provision of more consistency to the system which, according to Cichowicz (1996), is
perceived as the current tendency by the companies (77.4% consider it very or quite
important).
Table 16 repeats the same analysis for the companies without previous experience in
quality management systems. The most eþ ective reasons for the companies without an
adopted quality management system coincide with the previous ones: it allows sharing of
documentation (83.4% considered this reason very or quite important); it allows sharing of
objectives (75.1% grant it a lot or quite a lot of importance); and it provides the system
with more consistency (91.7% consider it very or quite important). That is, the mere
acknowledgement of the norm is enough to value the ISO 14001 norm instead of other
norms.
Table 17 repeats the analysis for the companies with experience in risk prevention. The
reasons considered to be more eþ ective in combining standards in companies with occupa-
tional risk prevention practices are repeated: it allows sharing documentation (89.1% consid-
ered this reason very or quite important); it allows sharing objectives (79.5% grant it a lot or
quite a lot of importance); and it provides the system with more consistency (78.4% consider
it very or quite important).
Table 18 repeats the analysis for the companies without experience in occupational risk
prevention. The reasons considered to be more eþ ective in combining standards in companies
without risk prevention practices are again that: it allows sharing of documentation (93.6%
considered this reason very or quite important); it allows sharing of objectives (80.7% grant
it a lot or quite a lot of importance); and it provides the system with more consistency (77.5%
judge it as very or quite important).
In sum, by means of the descriptive analysis, we have observed that, irrespective of the
adoption of quality management systems and/or occupational risk prevention practices,
companies do not perceive any diþ erences when they judge the reasons why the integration
is advisable, at least in the case of the reasons considered to be more important.

Conclusions
In this work we have tackled the study of the compatibility between quality, environment and
occupational risk prevention.
We have con® rmed, through a review of the literature, that the tendency in companies
should be towards TQM, environment and occupational risk prevention (Corbett & Cutler,
2000; Gupta & Sharma, 1996; Hanna & Newman, 1995; Kelly, 1991; Klassen & McLaughlin,
1996; Neidert, 1993; O’ Dea & Pratt, 1995; Theyel, 2000; Vinzant & Vinzant, 1996).
By means of a descriptive analysis we have been able to obtain empirical data that show
how, for the most part, Spanish industrial companies consider that there exist synergies
between the three types of standards, supporting, in this way, the insights in this ® eld by
Powell (1995), Struebing (1996), Beechner and Kock (1997), Corbett and Cutler (2000),
Kitazawa and Sarkis (2000) and Klassen (2000). However, some theoretical studies indicate
that it is not possible to combine the quality- environment- occupational risk prevention
standards given the diþ erent objectives covered by each of them (King, 1995; Sissell &
684 J. A. DEL BRIÂO, ET AL.

Mullin, 1995). In an intermediate position are the writers who indicate that these standards
have in fact a diþ erent scope, but nevertheless it is possible to combine those that share
common procedures (Beechner & Kock, 1997; Cascio et al., 1996; Clements, 1996; Inman,
1999; Kitazawa & Sarkis, 2000; Lamprecht, 1996; Puri, 1996).
Through a descriptive analysis, we support the arguments of Kitazawa and Sarkis (2000).
The companies we consulted consider, for the most part, that any quality management
system diþ erent from the ISO 9000 norm does not present synergies with the adoption of
the ISO 14001 norm. However, they do recognize the existence of synergies between ISO
9000 and ISO 140001 because they have common procedures. Similarly, we have detected
compatibilities between ISO 14001 and occupational risk prevention.
In the present work, we have repeated each analysis, separating the companies into
groups according to their size, perception of the level of demand of the environmental
legislation and previous experience in other management systems, although we did not ® nd
any substantial diþ erences from the global analysis.
Finally, as the majority of companies think it is advisable to combine the standards with
which the procedures can be shared, we carry out a descriptive analysis to obtain data about
the perception of the advantages that this combination may bring. For the most part, the
companies consider that the main advantage is sharing the documentation, which facilitates
the elimination of redundancies in the procedures. These results coincide with those by
Cascio et al. (1996) and Clements (1996).
This analysis was repeated, breaking down the companies according to their previous
experience in management systems since they may bring a more real view of the hypothetical
advantages. In general, regardless of whether the companies had previously adopted a quality
management system or risk prevention practices, the advantages they judge as more important
are related to the possibility of sharing documentation, sharing objectives and providing the
system with more consistency.

Notes
1. It must be pointed out that, for the analyses carried out in this study, we have not utilized all the cases, but
we have selected a sub-sample with the companies that have adopted, are in the initial stages of, or are
considering the possibility of obtaining some type of environmental certi® cation. These are the companies
to which the questions were addressed exclusively whose information we used for developing the analysis
carried out here. Two hundred and one out of the 373 companies of our sample are in this situation.
2. We have taken as reference the study by the FundacioÂn Entorno (1998), in which when the analyses by
size of centres are undertaken companies are grouped according to the number of workers. The diþ erence
with respect to the study mentioned is that in it companies are divided up into four groups (betwen 0 and
19 employees; between 21 and 99; between 100 and 499; and more than 500). The reason for this
diþ erentiation is that the target population diþ ers between the FundacioÂn Entorno’s analysis and our
analysis.

References
Angell, L.C. & Klassen, R.D. (1999) Integrating environmental issues into the mainstream: an agenda for
research in operations management, Journal of Operations Management, 17, pp. 575- 598.
Beechner, A.B. & Kock, J.E. (1997) Integrating ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, Quality Progress, February,
pp. 33- 36.
Brown, K. (1996) Workplace safety: a call for research, Journal of Operatins Management, 14, pp. 157- 171.
Cascio, J. (1994) International environmental management standards, ASTM Standards News, April,
pp. 44- 49.
Cascio, J., Woodside, G. & Mitchell, P. (1996) ISO 14000 Guide. The New International Management
Standards (New York, McGraw Hill).
OCCUPATIONAL RISK PREVENTION PRACTICES 685

Chiesa, V., Manzini, R. & Noci, G. (1999) Towards a sustainable view of the competitive system, Longe
Range Planning, 32, pp. 519- 530.
Cichowicz, J.A.. (1996) Should ISO 14000 be linked with ISO 9000?, Environmental Quality Management,
Autumn, pp. 77- 81.
Clements, R. (1996) Complete Guide to ISO 14001 (USA, Hardcover).
Corbett, L. & Cutler, D. (2000) Environmental management systems in the New Zealand plastics industry,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20, pp. 204- 224.
Engelman, R. (1993) Japan leads U.S. in safety, Safety and Health, April, pp. 38- 41.
Escuela de Organizacio  n Industrial (1996) El Medio Ambiente en EspanÄa (Madrid, Mundi-Prensa).
Faucheux, S., NicolaiÈ , I. & O’ Connor, M. (1998) Globalization, competitiveness, governance and environ-
ment: What prospects for a sustainable development?. In: S. Faucheux, J. Gowdy & I. NicolaiÈ (Eds)
Sustainability and Firms, Technological Change and the Changing Regulatory Environment (Massachusetts,
Edward Elgar).
Fundacio n Entorno (1998) Libro Blanco de la GestioÂn Medioambiental en la Industria EspanÄola (Madrid,
Mundi-Prensa).
Garvin, D.A. (1991) How the Baldrige award really works, Harvard Business Review, November- December,
pp. 80- 93.
Geffen, C. & Rothenberg, S. (2000) Suppliers and environmental innovation, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 20, pp. 166- 186.
Getzner, M. (1999) Cleaner production, employment eþ ects and socioeconomic developtment, International
Journal Technology Management, 17, pp. 522- 543.
Graedel, T.E. & Allenby, B.R. (1995) Industrial Ecology (Englewood Cliþ s, NJ, Prentice Hall).
Gupta, M. & Sharma, K. (1996) Environmental operations management: an opportunity for improvement,
Production and Inventory Management Journal, 37, pp. 40- 46.
Handfield, R., Walton, S., Seeges, L. & Melnyk, S. (1997) Green value chain practices in the furniture
industry, Journal of Operations Management, 15, pp. 293- 315.
Hanna, M.D. & Newman, W.R. (1995) Operations and environment: an expanded focus for TQM, Inter-
national Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12, pp. 38- 53.
Hemenway, C & Hale, G. (1996) The TQEM- ISO 14001 connection, Quality Progress, June, pp. 29- 32.
Inman, A. (1999) Environmental management: new challenges for production and inventory managers,
Production and Inventory Management Journal, Third Quarter, pp. 46- 49.
Jackson, S.L. (1997) ISO 14001, what do you need to know, Occupational Hazards, October, pp. 127- 132.
Kelly, T. (1991) GEMI: the superhero of environmental management, Quality Progress, April, pp. 26- 30.
king, A. (1995) Innovation from diþ erentiation: pollution control departments and innovation in the printed
circuit industry, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42, pp. 270- 277.
Kitazawa, S. & Sarkis, J. (2000) The relationship between ISO 14001 and continuous source reduction
programs, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20, pp. 225- 248.
Klassen, R.D. (2000) Exploring the linkage between investment in manufacturing and environmental
technologies, International Journal of Operations Management, 20, pp. 127- 147.
Klassen, R.D. & McLaughlin, C.P. (1996) The impact of environmental management on ® rm performance,
Management Science, 42, August, pp. 1199- 1214.
Kraus, T. R. (1994) Safety and quality: two sides of the same coin, Quality Progress, October, pp. 51- 55.
Lamprecht, L. (1996): ISO 14001: Issues & Implementation Guidelines for Responsible Environment Management
(Englewood Cliþ s, USA, Hardcover).
Neidert, A.R. (1993) The ® t between pollution prevention and total quality management, Jour nal of
Environmental Regulation, Autumn, pp. 41- 47.
Nijkamp, P., Rodenburg, C. & Verhoef, E. (1999) The adoption and diþ usion of environmentally friendly
technologies among ® rms, International Journal Technology Management, 17, pp. 421- 437.
O’ Dea, K. & Pratt, K. (1995) Achieving environmental excellence through TQEM strategic alliances, Total
Quality Environmental Management, Spring, pp. 93- 108.
Powell, A.S. (1995) TQM and Environmental Management (New York, The Total Quality Management
Center, The Conference Board).
Puri, S.C. (1996) Stepping Up to ISO 14000: Integrating Environmental Quality with ISO 9000 and TQM
(Portland, OR, Productivity Press).
Reiman, C.W. & Gertz, H.S. (1994) Understanding the important diþ erences between the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award and ISO 9000 registration, Production and Operations Management, 3, pp. 171- 185.
Russell, W.G. & Sacchi, G.F. (1997) Business-oriented environmental performance metrics: building
consensus for environmental management systems, Environmental Quality Management, Summer,
pp. 11- 19.
686 J. A. DEL BRIÂO, ET AL.

Scotto, M.J. (1996) Seven ways to make money from ISO 9000, Quality Progress, June, pp. 39- 41.
Sissell, K. & Mullin, R. (1995) Fitting in ISO 14000: a search for synergies, Chemical Week, 157, pp. 39- 43.
Struebing, L. (1996) 9000 standards, Quality Progress, January, pp. 23- 28.
Theyel, G. (2000) Management practices for environmental innovation and performance, International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, 20, pp. 249- 266.
Vega de Seoane, A.V. (1999) GestioÂn medioambiental y prevencioÂn de riesgos en la industria moderna,
Revista Mensual de GestioÂn Ambiental, December, pp. 13- 26.
Vinzant, J.C. & Vinzant, D.H. (1996) Strategic management and total quality management: challenges and
choices, Public Administrative Quarterly, Summer, pp. 201- 219.
Welford, R. (1995) Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Development (London, Routledge).

Anda mungkin juga menyukai