This paper aims to investigate what views ISO member body delegations and invited participants had about the divergence from the meta-standard approach towards a guidance standard. It will shed light on the perception of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 that are held by standard developers.
This paper aims to investigate what views ISO member body delegations and invited participants had about the divergence from the meta-standard approach towards a guidance standard. It will shed light on the perception of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 that are held by standard developers.
This paper aims to investigate what views ISO member body delegations and invited participants had about the divergence from the meta-standard approach towards a guidance standard. It will shed light on the perception of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 that are held by standard developers.
The impact of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 on standardisation of social responsibilityan inside perspective Pavel Castka a, , Michaela A. Balzarova b a Department of Management, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand b Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand Accepted 20 February 2007 Available online 13 November 2007 Abstract Following a growing interest in corporate social responsibility, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) announced plans for development of the ISO 26000guidance standard for social responsibility. Despite initial signals that ISO 26000 will be built on the intellectual and practical infrastructure of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, the Advisory Group on Social Responsibility set a different direction: a guidance standard and not a specication standard against which conformity can be assessed. This paper aims to investigate what views ISO member body delegations and invited participants in international standardisation of social responsibility had about the divergence from the meta-standard approach towards a guidance standard. To answer the research question, the discussions at the ISO International Conference on Social Responsibility, where ISO member body delegations and approximately 40 invited organisations commented on this matter, have been analysed. As a result of this understanding, not only will insight into the rst steps of standardisation of social responsibility be provided, but it will also shed light on the perception of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 that are held by standard developers. r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: ISO 26000; ISO 9000; ISO 14000; Corporate social responsibility; Management systems; Standardisation 1. Introduction In the past, companies were facing growing demands from customers, who hugely impacted on the way they operated, whereas todays demands have shifted toward addressing a wider spectrum of stakeholders (Rosam and Peddle, 2004). This evolution of business and societal environment is bringing quality management closer with other elds, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate governance and business ethics. Many scholars have started to point towards this evolutionary trend and some of them argue that for quality to remain a viable concept in the 21st century, it must embed more deeply and rmly the issues of virtue (Ahmed and Machold, 2004). As CSR is gaining its momentum, other scholars point to obvious parallels in quality and CSR evolution (Peddle and Rosam, 2004; Waddock and Bodwell, 2004; Castka et al., 2004a, b) as well as assert the convergence of these two elds of study. Indeed, this convergence is happening at many levelsone of which is the arena of international ARTICLE IN PRESS www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe 0925-5273/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.048
Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 3 364 2987x8617;
fax: +64 3 364 2020. E-mail addresses: pavel.castka@canterbury.ac.nz (P. Castka), balzarom@lincoln.ac.nz (M.A. Balzarova). standardisation. In the 1980s, following on from British Standard BS 5750, the International Orga- nization for Standardization (ISO) developed ISO 9000a generic quality management systems stan- dard (MSS), which became accepted globally. Followed by the ISO 14000 environmental manage- ment system in 1996, a similar scenario has been happening with the social responsibility eld. In 2004, ISO announced a new work item: ISO 26000- guidance standard for social responsibility to be introduced by 2008. The pre-standardisation pre- paratory work suggested that the impact of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 on the standardisation of social responsibility is likely to be substantial. ISO/ Bulletin (2002) informed that ISO standard for social responsibility would evolve from quality and environmental standards (ISO 9000 and ISO 14000). Specically, the ISO Committee on Con- sumer Policy (ISO COPOLCO, 2002) recommended a meta-standard approach to the social responsi- bility standard against which rms could self- declare compliance or could seek certicates from authorised third parties. However, the Advisory Group on Social Responsibility, which was estab- lished as a result of Resolution 78/2002 and given the purpose of determining whether ISO should proceed with the development of ISO deliverables in the eld of corporate social responsibility, recom- mended that a guidance document, and therefore not a specication document against which con- formity can be assessed should be developed (ISO/ AG/SR, 2004a, b). As the next step in this pre- standardisation work, ISO held the ISO Interna- tional Conference on Social Responsibility and invited ISO member body delegations and other international organisations to debate recommenda- tions made by the Advisory Group on Social Responsibility. We conducted our research at this stage of the process of the social responsibility standardisa- tion, i.e. before the process of the development of ISO 26000 started. Our aim was to investigate the question what impact has ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 had on the direction of the develop- ment of ISO 26000 guidance standard for social responsibility? In particular, we aimed to investi- gate what views ISO member body delegations and invited participants had on the proposal to move from the meta-standard approach towards a guidance standard. To answer our research ques- tion, we analysed the discussions at the ISO International Conference on Social Responsibility, where ISO member body delegations and approxi- mately 40 invited organisations commented on this matter. The paper has the following structure. Firstly, we look at ISO MSS and discuss the situation in this area. Secondly, we shift the focus towards social responsibility standardisation and present recent developments within the ISO related to social responsibility standardisation. Thirdly, we describe in detail our research engagement. Fourthly, the results are presented, analysed and concluded with a discussion of social responsibility standardisation, limitations of our research and implication for future develop- ments in the arena of social responsibility standar- disation. 2. ISO management systems standards: state-of-the- art Uzumeri (1987) explains that in the late 1980s standards bodies made major breakthroughs in management standardisation by developing MSS. These standards emerged in elds as diverse as product quality, nancial controls (the COSO Framework), white-collar crime prevention and environmental management. The most prominent are ISO MSS, namely ISO 9000 and ISO 14000. By developing this voluntary set of standards, ISO aimed to facilitate international exchange of goods and services as well as simplify business-to-business operations. In order to be certied, organisations have to comply with the requirements described in these standards. This compliance is veried by a third-party audit carried out by an accredited certication agency. ISO 9000 is designed as an MSS, i.e. a system to establish policy and objectives as well as a way to achieve these objectives. Uzumeri (1987) refers to ISO 9000 as a meta-standarda standard based on a list of design rules to guide the creation of entire classes of management systems. Since its introduc- tion in 1987, ISO 9000 has been revised in 1994 and 2000 (Kartha, 2002; Laszlo, 2000; Struebing, 1997). Of paramount importance is the 2000 revision that further strengthened the focus on a systems approach to management, which was less empha- sised in previous versions. The revised ISO 9000:2000 family of standards includes a model of a process-based quality management system and a much stronger emphasis on systems nature of the standard. Furthermore, ISO 9000:2000 promotes a ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 75 set of eight principles (customer focus, leadership, involvement of people, process approach, systems approach to management, continual improvement, factual approach to decision making and mutually benecial supplier relations), which form a basis for the quality management principles within the ISO 9000 family and beyond. ISO 14000, introduced in 1996 and revised in 2004, shares the same approach and principles with ISO 9000. Moreover, both standards contain appendices that directly demon- strate the link between respective clauses of these standards. Both standards have spread globally. In 2004, the ISO reported over 670,000 ISO 9000 certicates in 154 economies and over 90,000 ISO 14000 certi- cates in 127 economies (ISO/Survey, 2004). Indeed, many inuential organisations adopted the standard, despite the fact that ISO 9000/14000 are voluntary and not a mandatory directive (Brunsson and Jacobsson, 2000). This in turn forced others (directly or indirectly) to adopt ISO standards. Indeed, the research into the diffusion of ISO 9000/14000 standard demonstrates that the role of multinational networks here is crucial they are viewed as key actors responsible for coercive isomorphism (Guler et al., 2002; Neumayer and Perkins, 2005; Corbett and Kirsch, 2001). The diffusion mechanisms usually involve contrac- tual requirements imposed by multinationals, the industry or key players in the supply chain. Cohesive trade relationships between countries (Guler et al., 2002) play a similar role. In the domestic context, the number of past adoptions, share of manufacturing GDP and level of education are positively correlated with the adoption of ISO 9000. However, bureaucracy and/or corrupt reg- ulatory interventions by governments are reported as key deterrents in the diffusion (Neumayer and Perkins, 2005). Hence this popularity of the standard does not necessarily originate from its appropriateness. This is one of the major criticisms of ISO 9000. ISO 9000 is often imposed upon organisations and organisations are also seen to be opportunistic in pursuing certication to increase sales rather than to improve quality (Abraham et al., 2000). Related to previous discussion is the question whether ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 actually bring any value for certied organisations. Many studies strongly advocate for the benets that organisations gain from ISO 9000 certication (Sharma, 2005; Briscoe et al., 2005). For instance, Poksinska et al. (2003) summarise the following benets stemming from ISO 9000 and ISO 14000: Internal performance benets (cost reductions, environmental/quality improvements, increased productivity, improved employee morale) Relations benets (improved relations with communities and authorities) External marketing benets (improved corpo- rate image, increased market share, increased customer satisfaction, increased on-time deliv- ery) However, recent discussions on ISO 9000 (both academic and from practitioners) report contra- dictory and ambiguous ndings and opinions. For instance, van der Wiele et al. (2005) report improvements in companies perception of the ISO 9000 standard, whilst Casadesu s and Karapetrovic (2005) argue that benets that organisations obtain from the ISO certication are eroding. Corbett et al. (2005) found that ISO 9000 certication leads to improved nancial performance measured by return on asset. On the other hand, studies set up to conrm that the market values ISO 9000 (Martinez- Costa and Martinez-Lorente, 2003; Aarts and Vos, 2001) did not reveal any linkage. In a similar vein, Corbett and Klassen (2006) argue that the link between nancial performance and environmental management is inconclusive after more than three decades of research. More important is to look at factors moderating successful implementation. Here some studies conclude that the ones who benet from ISO 9000 are those who learn (Naveh et al., 2004) and that the certication provides little guarantee of high-performance outcomes unless it is accompanied by transformational and transac- tional change (Abraham et al., 2000; Briscoe et al., 2005; Balzarova et al., 2006; Castka et al., 2004c). This is further emphasised by Takakusa (2005), who warns that the benets of ISO 9000 could be constrained by the way different organizations implement the QMS standard and how committed they are to an ISO 9000-based system. Indeed, organisations differ in sizes, have different structur- al and infrastructural designs and ownership ar- rangements. All of these factors inuence the approach toward adoption of ISO 9000 standards. This stems from the meta-standard nature of the standard (Uzumeri, 1987), which is clearly a double- edged sword: on the one hand it makes the standard ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 76 generic in nature and gives organisations freedom to translate it into their unique settings. On the other hand, the consistency and quality of this transla- tion becomes problematic. To assure this consistency, the ISO certication process includes a third-party certication audit carried out by an accredited verication body. The aim is also to reduce the number of second-party audits, assist organisations in creating networks and facilitate the business-to-business operations. How- ever, the credibility of certication has become increasingly criticised by organisations, consultants and members of the ISO community. For example, Lal (2004) states: Judging by the views expressed in various forums, one cannot help but conclude that ISO 9000 certication has fallen short of expectations. The main reason for laxity and malpractice in ISO 9000 certication is that what was originally meant to be a service to industry is increasingly a business motivated by prot. Lal (2004), similar to Seddon (2000), furthermore summarises the weakness of the present system: The commercial nature of the relationship between the certier and the audited organisa- tion The technical competence of auditors Accountability of the certication body to the nal customers and end users of the audited companys products and services In conclusion, there is a large body of literature on ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, which provides rich evidence on various aspects of these two standards. However, there seems to be one signicant difference between empirical studies (such as Briscoe et al., 2005; Casadesu s and Karapetrovic, 2005; Corbett et al., 2005; Naveh et al., 2004; van der Wiele et al., 2005) and views expressed by practitioners (Dalgleish, 2005; Lal, 2004; Seddon, 2000). Whereas the authors of empirical studies in general agree that ISO 9000 certication is benecial (even Casadesu s and Karapetrovic, 2005 conclude in this way despite their overall criticism), many practitioners, deriving from largely anecdotal evidence, argue against ISO 9000 (Seddon, 2000) and claim that ISO 9000 proves ineffective (Dalgleish, 2005). 3. Towards ISO 26000 With over a decade of delay after ISO 9000 and shortly after the introduction of ISO 14000, the rst attempts were made to provide standards for social responsibility. Similar to quality, where a national standard produced by the British Standards Institu- tion (BS5750, 1987) led to an international stan- dardisation of quality management, the rst social responsibility standards were developed by the National Standards Bodies in Australia, France, Mexico, Japanto name but a few. Furthermore, other standards outside National Standards Bodies were developed, such as AA 1000 (1999) and SA 8000 (2001). In ISO/Bulletin (2002), the ISO announced its intention to grasp the area of social responsibility with further possibility to develop a standard. Firstly, ISO formed the ISO Committee on consumer policy (ISO COPOLCO), which announced that a trio of ISO management stan- dardsISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO corporate social responsibility MSS (CSR MSS)would support business efforts to show that an organisa- tion cares about quality, environment and the social effects of a production or activity (ISO COPOLCO, 2002). In their report, the committee has, amongst other issues, recommended that (ISO COPOLCO, 2002): ISO CR MSSs would constitute an internation- ally agreed-upon framework for operationaliza- tion of corporate responsibility commitments, capable of producing veriable, measurable out- puts. The ISO CR MSSs would build on the intellectual and practical infrastructure of ISO 9000 quality MSSs and ISO 14000 MSSs, and the momentum associated with close to one-half million rms certied as compliant with these standards. As with ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, rms could self-declare compliance with the proposed ISO CR MSSs or could seek certicates from authorized third parties. It should be emphasized, however, that ISO CR MSSs would be insufcient by themselves to assure that a rm has developed and implemented an effective CR approach. Thus, ISO CR MSSs would be one piecealbeit a fundamental building blockof effective CR approaches. Where ISO COPOLCOs report shows the link between social responsibility standard, ISO 9000, ISO 14000 and MSS approach, the lately formed ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 77 (AG SR) dismissed this intent and recommended a guidance document, and not a specication docu- ment against which conformity can be assessed (ISO/AG/SR, 2004b): for use by business and other organisations, that emphasises results and performance im- provement, that adopts a common terminology in this area, that assists organisations in effectively addres- sing their social responsibilities in various cultures, societies and environments, that can complement other relevant instruments and tools, that is not intended to reduce the governments authority to address the social responsibility of organisations, that is of use to business and other organisations of all sizes, that provides practical guidance on methods and options for operationalising social respon- sibility, identifying and engaging with stake- holders, enhancing credibility in claims made about social responsibility, that should be written in clear and understandable language. By this step, ISO 26000 has taken a different approach in comparison to ISO 9000 and ISO 14000. Apart from a shift from the meta-standard approach and from third-party certication, ISO 26000 has a much broader content (see Table 1 key elements). It not only gives guidance for organisations to implement social responsibilities (SRs), but also provides guidance on SR context, SR principles and guidance on core SR subjects/ issues. 4. Research engagement As a new standard for social responsibility emerges, the inevitable question arises: is the standardisation in social responsibility fundamen- tally different from quality and environment? What are the similarities and differences between quality, environment and social responsibility? What can we expect from social responsibility standardisation? Apparent parallels can be identied that would suggest that standards in social responsibility, quality and environment should show certain similarities. All of these concepts are somehow elusive and multiple meanings and denitions exist (Waddock and Bodwell, 2004; ISO/AG/SR, 2004a; Lockett et al., 2006). According to Waddock and Bodwell (2004), this was a problem in the early days of quality movement and consequently many managers questioned whether quality was measur- able and whether there was a business case for qualitysimilarly to social responsibility. In other words, these concepts are organisation and sector specic and a standard needs to take this into consideration. In the case of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, a meta-standard approach provided a solu- tion. ISO 26000 also aims to assist organisations to deal with social responsibility and also aims to be generic. Hence from the perspective of design, we would expect that ISO 26000 would be built on the ARTICLE IN PRESS Table 1 A comparison of ISO 9000, ISO 14000 and ISO 26000 Standard ISO 9000 ISO 14000 ISO 26000 General description Quality management systems standard Environmental management systems standard Guidance on social responsibility Third-party certication Yes Yes No Key elements Quality management system Management responsibility Resource Management Product realization Measurement, analysis and improvement Environmental policy Planning Implementation and operation Checking Management review The SR context in which all organisations operate SR principles relevant to organisations Guidance on core SR subjects/issues Guidance for organisations implementing SR Note: Key elements of ISO 26000 are based on the Design Specication (ISO/TMB/WG SR N49, 2005). P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 78 intellectual and practical infrastructure of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, as well as be designed as a meta- standard. However, social responsibility requires a much wider stakeholder base to be considered in compar- ison to quality. The ISO 9000 quality management standard is focused predominantly on the customer and meeting the customers requirements. Social responsibility, in contrast, considers stakeholders ranging from customers to society in large. A further difference is the control and feedback mechanism. Quality is much more market driven and customers can mostly directly assess the quality of products and services. However, this is different for social responsibility as well as environment. As Terlaak (2002) asserts, for stakeholders to distin- guish and to make informed decision on whether ISO 14000-certied rms outperform in environ- mental terms than those that are not certied is difcult. Despite possible differences between qual- ity and social responsibility, with respect to control mechanisms of organisational quality and social performance, there are clear similarities between social responsibility and environment. Social re- sponsibility performance, which is similar to environmental performance, is often less transpar- ent than quality. This suggests that environmental and social responsibility standards should be result based. However, ISO 14000 (developed through the same standard development process as ISO 26000) is designed as a process-based standard and not as a result-based standard. Therefore, we expect ISO 26000 to be closely aligned with ISO 14000 and to require organisations to develop their management systems around their social responsibility aspects and impacts. Similarly, we expect ISO 26000 to be based on processes as ISO/AG/SR (2004b) state that ISO has to recognise that it does not have either the legitimacy or the authority to set social obligations that are dened by governments. The work on international standardisation in- evitably brings with it a conict of interests and principles (Hallstrom, 2004). In comparison to ISO 9000, the development of ISO 26000 requires a much wider stakeholder base to be involved. This includes stakeholders that have different expecta- tions, benets and views on social responsibility standardisation. Since the ISO process of interna- tional standards development is based on a con- sensus of involved parties, we expect that the nal product, a guidance standard for social responsi- bility, will reect this. The preceding review of the literature on benets from ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certication not only highlighted certain decoupling of empirical ndings and practitioners perception of ISO MSS, but also showed that practitioners are rather doubtful about the empirical results. We therefore expect that the standard development agenda will be largely politically driven and that participants will show contradictory views based on their interests and personal beliefs. This last point led us to an exploratory design for this study. Hence, we aim to answer the what and why questions stated previously. In our quest to investigate the research question what impact has ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 had on the direction in the development of ISO 26000 guidance standard for social responsibility?, we investigate what views ISO member body delegations and invited partici- pants (further referred to as standard developers) had on the proposal to move from the meta- standard approach towards a guidance standard. We conduct this inquiry in the three research areas (RAs) that capture the difference between the ISO 9000, ISO 14000 approach and that of ISO 26000: RA1MSS, RA2process approach, RA3certication. In other words, we want to understand what are the views of the standard developers in terms of MSS, process approach and certication. In parti- cular, who supports/dismisses these approaches and why as well as what alternatives are available. Our overall aim is to explore this area and provide an in- depth picture of the views surrounding this matter. 4.1. Sample Our sample consists of ISO member body delegations, invited international groups and orga- nisations at the ISO International Conference on Social Responsibility. The conference took place in Stockholm, Sweden, on June 2004. It drew together 355 participants from 66 countries, including 33 developing countries, representing the following stakeholder groups: national standards bodies, industry, government, labour, consumers, ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 79 international and nongovernmental organisa- tions (NGOs). 4.2. Data gathering The conference consisted of plenary sessions, stakeholder presentations, panel discussions and parallel breakout sessions. The rst two (plenary session and stakeholder presentations) consisted of presentations from the Advisory Group on Social Responsibility members and invited speakers, while the remaining two were made up of round-table discussions. We tape-recorded all presentations and discussions, which were then transcribed verbatim. We did not take part in the discussions, allowing the participants to express their views openly. Our approach was to analyse what was said, rather than force the discussion or use of other means, such as individual interviews, to collect additional data. This would undoubtedly strengthen our research design, yet it was physically and politically impos- sible. 4.3. Data analysis For the purposes of data analysis, we have used the coding system depicted in Fig. 1. We had three high-level codes that corresponded to the main research areas (RAs 13; discussed previously). Secondly, for each cluster, we used a second tier of codes that consisted of stakeholder group, stakeholder position and stakeholder rationale (all described in Fig. 1). At the rst stage of data analysis, we reviewed the whole transcript and selected the data that were applicable to this research (i.e. statements from the participants related specically to issues in RA 13). Consequently, we worked independently from each other and used the high-level codes to cluster the data. Afterwards, we came together and compared our results. We followed the advice of Miles and Huberman (1994) as well as Druskat and Wheeler (2003) to assess the inter-rater reliability, i.e. a number of agreements divided by the sum of the total number of agreements and disagreements. The initial result was 0.91, which exceeded the minimal level set by Miles and Huberman (1994). We concluded that this was because (a) the coding scheme was set at a high level (we had only three coding clusters as described above); (b) we are both experienced coders; and (c) we have both prior experience in this area and therefore were able to understand the jargon used by the participants. We have furthermore decided to resolve the discrepan- cies. After this initial clustering, we coded the in- formation using the second tier of codes (see Fig. 1). We used an identical coding system for all clusters. For instance, the statement I fully agree with [the previous speaker] about PDCA [Plan Do-Check Act]. It has the operational element companies want by a participant from industry was coded as [Stakeholder groupindustry], [Stakeholder posi- tionagreement], and the statement it has the operational element companies want was coded as [Stakeholder rationalejustication]. At this stage of the data analysis, we also discussed the possibility of introducing a more detailed coding system. This idea was however dismissed. The discussions (hence the data) ap- peared to be rather generic without needing a great level of detailed analysis. In general, participants ARTICLE IN PRESS Management System Standards Certification Process Approach Stakeholder groups Stakeholder position (agreement vs. disagreement) Stakeholder rationale (justification of stakeholders position)
national standard bodies
industry
government
labour
consumers
international and nongovernmental
organisations (NGOs) Fig. 1. Coding system for the study. P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 80 expressed their agreement or disagreement with the issue of MSS, process approach and certication, as well as provided a short explanation (see example above). Here our coding system proved sufcient. In some cases, however, we were not able to use the very element in our coding system. For instance, discussions based around certication in many cases brought statements such as certication would not bring any value without either rationale behind the statement or justication. However, this was in line with our expectation that the process of ISO 26000 development is in its infancy and also that it would be politically driven. Hence at this stage, standard developers would focus predominantly at clarica- tion of their positions and general views. In Table 2, we present extracts from the data to illustrate the nature of the data. In the following sections, we present the results of this study. ARTICLE IN PRESS Table 2 Excepts from the data Management systems standard The advisory group recommends guidance not a specication document against which the conformity can be assessedyy. The background, the discussion of this topic was that classical management system approach not promotedyenhancing credibility that is the area where ISO can add valuey. ISO guidance document must be more than addressing management systems standard, it should give the practical guidance on diversity of issues and how to handle them, business needs (small and medium, different sizes), national regulations. AG Member, ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility I like very much the concept of SA 8000 standard, which uses the concept of conventions and that is the correct one for the companies. And I think that is a good approach because at the one hand it fulls the recommendation of the report that the existing laws are not changed and are taken as they are, and make the requirements for the companies. Participant, Plenary ya management system framework is not agreeable. Participant, NGO I heart my colleague that he is seeking the certiable standard in order to supersede SA 8000 and its requirements with the presumption that ISO has a powerful enough brand to supersede these other requirements. That is the question to answer whether ISO has the powerful enough brand. And whether it will just become another requirement. Participant; Industry session I do not agree with ICC what they said yesterday and I do not agree with SIEMENS. Yes it will be difcult and yes it is a complex area. If ISO will not do it, we will have others who will produce international, national, local difcult initiatives that will all make this area and make it more difcult to move around. ISO needs to take this forward not just as a guidance document but also as a standard documenty. Denitely the standard, we need to take discussions. Participant, Plenary I fully agree with [the previous speaker] about PDCA. It has the operational element companies want. Maybe multinationals do not want the standardy. it is a well-known methody. we need to give [companies] a tool to prioritize because companies cannot address these issues at the same time. Participant; Industry session Process approach Over last 2 years we have benchmarked many standards, Australian, Spain, Japan, Mexico; if go to AA1000 or SA 8000, what is the main component? PDCA. Participant; Industry session As we discussed in the AG, this PDCA method smells much too much as a future management system standard, this is not the way to tackle CSR. CSR needs some better tools, some better guidance than a classical management system standard. This is why the recommendations say this is not the subject to guidance document. AG Member; ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility Certication There is a very strong concern within the NGO community that ISO document will become the alibi document to use the standard for advertising purposes and that is the reason why we want to have a standard that contains ethical requirements and not the management system standard. A management system standard would be hardly agreeable with the NGO. Participant, NGO P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 81 5. Results 5.1. Management systems standard (MSS) The topic of the MSS approach, as a basis for the social responsibility standard, became a leitmotif throughout the entire conference. Overall, our data shows that the participants were polarised into two groups. There were those who favoured the MSS approach and those who opposed it. This polarisa- tion was predominantly inuenced by (a) a personal stance towards meta-standards, (b) belonging to a particular stakeholder group and (c) demography- developed versus developing countries. Advocates (including past ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 developers, consultants, company representa- tives, etc.) pointed to the benets that companies obtain from ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certication such as improved performance, acquiring of best practices or improved communication in the supply chain. Furthermore, ISO 9000 was presented as an established platform that could contribute to the dissemination of, and learning about, social responsibility standard as well. The opponents representing NGOs, Labour and some Industry, especially large multinational corpora- tions, strongly dismissed the idea of MSS. Industry representatives argued that an MSS is not necessary because the industry has their own solutions to deal with social responsibility and ethical issues. Further- more, it was mentioned that ISO 9000 often does not full the internal requirements of multinational corporations, and yet another standard would only increase the cost with little impact on improvement of social responsibility in organisa- tions. In case of NGOs and Labour participants, they were against an MSStheir alternative being a guidance document. ARTICLE IN PRESS Table 2 (continued ) You cannot have any system without some kind of process of verication. However, I think that the problem with the certication has been, that it is one process of verication and there many different processes of verication that are dependant upon who is relying on claims; and the size of the organisation and the purpose of making the claims, so I think that one of the benets of the document or standard document might be to set out alternative methods of verication so that they match the organisation and so they match the intent, of what the claim is being used for and who is being relying it upon. Participant, Others I think to set a standard for this matter would be a huge mistake. Because what is a standard? We put a standard in place in order to prevent people from doing things that should not have been done or to give the guidance how they should do things they do not know. Now, in this subject matter, we need to give guidance to different corporation how to be leaders in this world by giving example of leadership to other corporation, suppliers, environment, to the public. Participant, Motorola yCertication would not bring any value for the company and its suppliers and that they would only put millions into certication. Participant, siemens I know that there might be a cost [for certication] that customers will have to pay but they are also paying $200mil nes for doing bad marketing. So we need to discuss what is ethical pay and what is SR for organisations not just companies. And also take into consideration countries where governments dont have the same strengths and same resources for doing this. We need to be fair as organisations. We need to help each other to move this forward because it is our responsibility. Participant, Industry The key question is how to make it credible. And I am afraid that there are no options available than to go for 3rd party certication. Participant, Industry I fundamentally disagree with the notion of guidance document being satisfactory. Regardless of whether or not the certication has been done up to date, there are ways to verication [agrees with previous speaker] to getting this credibility, perhaps better than it exists. Participant, National Standards Body Note: Language in the quotes was not corrected; PDCA Plan Do Check Act; NGO non-governmental organisations; AG Advisory Group; CSR Corporate Social Responsibility. P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 82 Participants from developing countries showed considerable agreement on the benet of having an international standard for social responsibility. Some of these explicitly pointed out that an MSS would be preferable. The major argument was that many CSR standards are imposed on suppliers from developing countries. These organisations have to comply with them and that is a prerequisite for these organisations to enter some markets and networks. Here, as one participant said, it would be better to have one leader [ISO] than hundreds of different schemes. Furthermore, participants from developing countries emphasised the need to involve their representatives in the ISO 26000 development process. They typically stated that with ISO developing countries can at least inuence the standard. The participants showed disunity over the funda- mental approach to standardisation of social responsibility. Some were in favour of guidance standard, while others were in favour of manage- ment systems standard. Whilst the plenary was asked to indicate by vote who was in favour of these approaches, the result was a 50:50 split. 5.2. Process approach Process approach is one of the eight quality principles (ISO 9004) and a fundamental building block of ISO 9000/ISO 14000. Therefore, it was another key theme of the discussions. Similar to the discussions around the suitability of the MSS approach, the participants remained divided in their opinions. Firstly, it was argued by the member of the Advisory Group on Social Responsibility that the process approach is not suitable for social respon- sibility standardisation: ISO must focus on results. Not on process. ISO 14000 is a processit does not work with social responsibility. That is why we are talking about the guidance documenty [we need to] provide practical methods and guidance for operationa- lizing SR, fullling the expectations of the society, identifying and engagement with stake- holders. Even though many participants acknowledged that the process approach does not a priori ensure results, they also pointed out possible drawbacks embedded in the results approach such as introdu- cing uniformity of views on social responsibility, the danger of ignoring local differences, forcing the focus on results instead of on improvement. Furthermore, many of these drawbacks were closely discussed in relation to the differences in regulatory systems, which limited the success of reinforcement of international law in many countries and the legitimacy of ISOs social responsibility standard. It was generally acknowledged that these were clearly the forces constraining, and signicantly affecting, the design of the social responsibility standard. Secondly, the PDCA approach, mostly used by quality practitioners and advocated by leading quality experts, is a critical mechanism in ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, became another controversial topic in the discussion. Here again, it was the dismissive position of the Advisory Group on Social Responsibility towards the PDCA that triggered the debate. Many participants expressed their support for the PDCA approach explicitly. They had two common arguments: (a) it is a well-established mechanism to learn and (b) many national and other standards employed this approach. The former argument was that PDCA has the opera- tional elements that companies want, it is a well known method and we need to give companies the tool to prioritise because they cannot address these issues at the same time. The latter arguments linked the PDCA to other standards like SA8000, AA1000 or national initiatives/standards in coun- tries such as Australia, Spain, Japan, Mexico. 5.3. Certication The issue of certication came across hand in hand with the discussion on the feasibility of an MSS and experience with the ISO 9000/ISO 14000 certication. Here, the credibility of certication was often questioned and many participants com- mented sarcastically about the verication indus- try or a small number of consultants having jobs out of that. The following themes, underlying most of the arguments, are addressed below. Firstly, some participants expressed a fear about a possible misuse of certication. Especially, NGOs and labour participants were very vocal in dismissing the idea of certication, which they felt could become an alibi document for advertising purposes rather than a real commitment to social responsibility. At the other side of the spectrum, some industry participants pointed out that if some activist groups start to mandate that you can sell and must have a SR standard on this or that ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 83 market, it will become quasi-mandatory to do a business. Secondly, it was often reported that the nature of MSS drives the behaviour towards compliance with minimal requirements rather than seeking improvements or encouraging a genuine effort into improvement-related activities. Many participants strongly asserted that social responsibility standar- disation should be voluntary and based on leading by example, not by imposing rules and require- ments: y to set a standard in this matter would be a huge mistakey leadership is never imposed. Leadership is earned and therefore we should not do the standard and [force] corporations to be the leaders of so and so. The right way is to let corporations earn the leadership. The right way is to give an opportunity to guide smaller organisation and public in order to get the right results. We should provide the guidance for organisations to be leaders in the world. Many participants were pointing out that if there are no requirements in ISO 26000, it would be very difcult to judge organisations commitment to social responsibility and ISO 26000. As one participant put it: it is a risk for ISO itself and its reputation if organisations will claim that they follow ISO guidance. We will not know because of the missing requirements. However, the representatives of multinationals pointed out that ISO 9000/ISO 14000 requirements are often not sufcient for their business and that their corporations require more from their suppli- ers. They also stressed that certication would not bring any value for the company nor the suppliers, and would just put millions into the certication industryincreasing the cost for their customers and suppliers. However, other participants, even though ac- knowledging that the certication process was not fully satisfactory thus far, probed further discussion into how to improve the certication process and, in fact, redesigning it in order to suit the changing societal needs. Firstly, it was mentioned that ISO should come with alternative methods of verica- tionto match different needs of various organisa- tions. Here participants mentioned, for instance, that social responsibility intensity in various in- dustries differswith some organisations and some industry sectors having rarely problems with ethical issues and others having those more often (see also the quote in Table 2). Secondly, it was suggested several times that ISO can establish a web-site listing organisations following the standard and their resultsa proposition favoured by some and regarded as not sufcient by others. 6. Discussion Through this study we have conrmed that the standard development agenda in its initial stages has been driven by politics and the participants have shown contradictory views based on their personal interests and beliefs. At the same time, the study provided a rich picture of the views of standard developers on the divergence from a meta-standard towards a guidance standard. The study also highlighted the impact of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 on the development of ISO 26000. Our rst conclusion from this study is that standard developers have polarised opinions over the nature of the future social responsibility standard. Our research shows that despite the existence of ISO 26000 development primary as a guidance standard, there is a large percentage of standard developers who strongly advocated a management systems approach and third-party certication, which would be similar to ISO 9000 and ISO 14000. What should also be noticeable is the disparity of views of different stakeholder groups on these issues; as shown, there was a strong opposition from the labour and NGO stake- holder group, as well as a division of opinions amongst industry stakeholders. However, third- party certication was almost unanimously seen as a problematic areano matter whether participants supported certication or not. Proponents of certication typically argued that there was no better way whilst the opponents dismissed certica- tion pointing at disfunctionality, malpractice and disreputable practices in the certication industry. Overall, the disagreement of standard developers over the issue of third-party certication is probably one of the major forces towards a different direction for standardisation of social responsibility. Our second conclusion was that the shift toward a guidance standard (as opposed to MSS) was largely a politically driven decision. The direction set by the Advisory Group on Social Responsibility was to develop a guidance standard, and therefore not a specication standard against which conformity ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 84 could be assessed. This has been maintained even though a large percentage of standard developers expressed different points of view. From this we conclude that the decision to develop a guidance standard rather seems to be a platform for a consensus of involved parties and not necessarily a directive to develop a substantial standard for social responsibility. As shown, politics played a signi- cant role in the early stages of ISO 26000 develop- ment. Here, our conclusion is echoed by Bowers (2006): The International Labor Organization (ILO) is participating, but only under the security of its memorandum of understanding [effectively giv- ing ILO veto power over labor related sections in the standard]. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), a privately organized and funded NGO that develops standards, is participating, but certainly in part to protect its own interests. Other NGOs and consumers who are participat- ing would prefer a mandatory minimum stan- dard that could be more demanding than a national labor or environmental standard. Gov- ernments, to the limited extent they are partici- pating, are either protecting their turf or seeking powers they do not have statutorily or nan- cially. Our nal conclusion from this research study is a call for future research in the arena of ISO management standards. Some of the arguments and opinions of standard developers that were used to inuence the development of ISO 26000 deserve attention and empirical investigation. In particular, the arguments over the malpractice in third-party certication and inefciencies of ISO management systems standards in general require further inquiry. Our experience, from working with practitioners and professional bodies in quality in several countries and with the ISO community, conrms the somewhat negative attitude amongst practi- tioners towards ISO management system standards and third-party certication. However, apart from this anecdotal evidence, we have not found any empirical study that has credibly dealt with these issues. 7. Limitations of the research There are some limitations to our research that we would like to acknowledge. This research is limited to the investigation of the impact of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 on the development of social responsibility standard. Hence, other topics that are closely related (such the role of governments, the role of legislation, legislative enforcement in devel- oping countries, alignment with ILO Conventions) are outside the scope of this paper. Furthermore, it should be noticed that the data collected in this research were focused largely at the high-level issues, such as the feasibility of an MSS or credibility of certication. The research at this stage did not allow for deeper inquiry into further explanations. Hence this research should be seen as a reection of the rst stages in the development of social responsibility standards and as a basis for future investigations. Further limitation of this research is in the choice of the participants for our study. This study provides an inside perspective on the standard development and includes its direct participants. The study, therefore, relies on the appropriateness of the nomination process of the ISO, and hence inevitably has its limitation. For instance, some countries choose not to get involved, some stake- holder groups can be under-represented (Hallstrom, 2000) and the whole process of standardisation is inuenced by self-interest of standard developers and their respective stakeholder groups (Bowers, 2006; Hallstrom, 2000; Seddon, 2000). Nevertheless, our research aimed to investigate those views, so it may only be appropriate for the purpose of this study. 8. Future research The introduction of ISO 26000 will inevitably bring fruitful ground for future research. Amidst the plethora of options, we would like to highlight and recommend several areas. Firstly, studies into diffusion patterns of ISO 26000, which determine why, under what circumstances and which organi- sations and supply chains adopt ISO 26000, will shed more light on the role of ISO 26000 in the pursuit of the SR agenda. Here, the work on diffusion of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 (i.e. Corbett, 2006) and rst predictions on the diffusion of ISO 26000 (Castka and Balzarova, 2007) can serve as useful starting points. Secondly, since ISO 26000 will not be certiable, evaluations of claims made in relation to ISO 26000 will also be necessary. Here researchers can initially focus on the theoretical developments and debates (before the introduction of ISO 26000) and later on the evaluation of the ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 85 claims organisations will make in relation to ISO 26000. Thirdly, recent debates within ISO suggest that there is a willingness in ISO to tighten certication and accreditation practices (Wade, 2002; Lal, 2004). The International Accreditation Forum and ISO stepped forward to address the criticism by revisions of the requirements for accreditation bodies, who accredit conformity, and for auditor competences (Feary, 2005). Future studies can focus on analysis and evaluation of these activities to determine whether this can bring ISO 26000 towards third-party certication. 9. Conclusion ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 signicantly inuenced the rst steps in standardisation of social responsi- bility. Indeed, the global diffusion of both of these standards and its meta-standard approach to standardisation of management practice gave the initiators of social responsibility standardisation an approach to grasp the social responsibility agenda (ISO/Bulletin, 2002). This is true not only for national standards such as DR03028 (2003) and SII10000 (2001), but also for standards such as SA8000 (2001) and AA1000 (1999). SA8000 was designed as an auditable standard for a third-party verication system and AA1000 is an accountability standard, focused on securing the quality of social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting. Both of these are built around notions of policies, audits, management reviews and continuous im- provement, which are typical elements of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000. ISO 26000 avoided third-party certication, yet this can cause problems and raise further questions. Research shows that guidance documents are often widely unknown and their purpose is unclear (Boys et al., 2004). The risk here is that a guidance document, without a clear purpose and question- able credibility, can hamper the adoption and diffusion process of ISO 26000. Indeed, third-party certication can provide at least some level of condence even if it is perceived as having eroded credibility. Hence ISO 26000 will have to nd other ways to insure that the standard is not misused. One of the ways would be to use the approach of UN Global Compact and require companies to disclose information about the ways it supports ISO 26000 and its principles. Other approaches can encompass different certication schemes tailored to the type of claims that the organisation makes. Developments in these areas are necessary for ISO 26000 to add value to the uptake of the social responsibility agenda. References AA1000, 1999. AA 1000 Standard, AccountAbilityInstitute of Social and Ethical Accountability, London. Aarts, F.M., Vos, E., 2001. The impact of ISO registration on New Zealand rms performance: A nancial perspective. The TQM Magazine 13, 180. Abraham, M., Crawford, J., Carter, D., Mazotta, F., 2000. Management decisions for effective ISO 9000 accreditation. Management Decision 38, 182. Ahmed, P.K., Machold, S., 2004. The quality and ethics connection: Toward virtuous organizations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 15, 527. Balzarova, M., Castka, P., Bamber, C., Sharp, J., 2006. How organisational culture impacts on the implementation of ISO 14001:1996a UK multiple-case view. Journal of Manufac- turing Technology Management 17, 89. Boys, K., Karapetrovic, S., Wilcock, A., 2004. Is ISO 9004 a path to business excellence? Opinion of Canadian standards experts. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 21, 841. Bowers, D., 2006. Making social responsibility the standard. Quality Progress 39, 35. Briscoe, J.A., Fawcett, S.E., Todd, R.H., 2005. The implementa- tion and impact of ISO 9000 among small manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management 43, 309. Brunsson, N., Jacobsson, B., 2000. The contemporary expansion of standardization. In: Brunsson, Jacobsson (Eds.), A World of Standards. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 117. BS5750, 1987. Quality Systems. British Standards Institution, London. Casadesu s, M., Karapetrovic, S., 2005. The erosion of ISO 9000 benets: A temporal study. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 22, 120. Castka, P., Balzarova, M., 2007. ISO 26000 and supply chains on the diffusion of the social responsibility standard and practices. International Journal of Production Economics, doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.10.017. Castka, P., Bamber, C., Bamber, D., Sharp, J.M., 2004a. Integrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) into ISO management systemsin search of a feasible CSR manage- ment system framework. The TQM Magazine 16, 216. Castka, P., Bamber, C., Sharp, J.M., 2004b. Implementing Effective Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate GovernanceA Framework. British Standards Institution, London. Castka, P., Balzarova, M., Bamber, C., Sharp, J., 2004c. How can SMEs effectively implement the CSR agendaa UK case study perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 11, 140. Corbett, C.J., 2006. Global diffusion of ISO 9000 certication through supply chains. Manufacturing and Services Opera- tions Management 8, 330. Corbett, C.J., Kirsch, D.A., 2001. International diffusion of ISO 14000 certication. Production and Operations Management 10, 327. ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 86 Corbett, C.J., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending the horizons: Environmental excellence as key to improving operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 8, 5. Corbett, C.J., Montes-Sancho, M.J., Kirsch, D.A., 2005. The nancial impact of ISO 9000 certication in the United States: An empirical analysis. Management Science 51, 10461059. Dalgleish, S., 2005. ISO 9001 proves ineffective. Quality 44, 16. DR03028, 2003. Corporate Social Responsibility-Draft Austra- lian Standard, Committee MB-004. Standards Australia, Sydney. Druskat, V.U., Wheeler, J.V., 2003. Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal 46, 435. Feary, S., 2005. Effective accreditation is essential for audit competence. ISO Management Systems 5, 1822. Guler, I., Guillen, M.F., Macpherson, J.M., 2002. Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certicates. Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 207. Hallstrom, T.K., 2000. Organizing the process of standardiza- tion. In: Brunsson, Jacobsson (Eds.), A World of Standards. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 8599. Hallstrom, T.K., 2004. Organizing International Standardiza- tion. ISO and IASC in Quest of Authority. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. ISO/AG/SR, 2004a. Working Report on Social Responsibility. ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. ISO/AG/SR, 2004b. Recommendations to the ISO Technical Management Board, Document: ISO/TMB AG CSR N32. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. ISO/Bulletin, 2002. A Daunting New ChallengeAre Standards the Right Mechanism to Advance Corporate Social Respon- sibility. ISO Bulletin. ISO COPOLCO, 2002. The desirability and feasibility of ISO Corporate Social Responsibility Standards. Final Report by the Consumer Protection in the Global Market Working Group of the ISO Consumer Policy Committee (COPOLCO), May 2002. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. ISO/Survey, 2004. The ISO Survey of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 Certicates. Fourteens cycle: up to and including 31 December 2004. International Organization for Standardiza- tion, Geneva. ISO/TMB/WG SR N49, 2005. ISO Guidance Standard on Social ResponsibilityISO 26000, ISO/TMB/WG SR. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. Kartha, C.P., 2002. ISO9000: 2000 quality management systems standards: TQM focus in the new revision. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge 2, 1. Lal, H., 2004. Re-engineering the ISO 9001:2000 certication process. ISO Management Systems 4, 15. Laszlo, G.P., 2000. ISO 90002000 version: Implications for applicants and examiners. The TQM Magazine 12, 336. Lockett, A., Moon, J., Visser, W., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of inuence. Journal of Management Studies 43, 115136. Martinez-Costa, M., Martinez-Lorente, A.R., 2003. Effects of ISO 9000 certication on rms performance: A vision from the market. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 14, 1179. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, London. Naveh, E., Marcus, A., Moon, H.K., 2004. Implementing ISO 9000: Performance improvement by rst or second movers. International Journal of Production Research 42, 18431863. Neumayer, E., Perkins, R., 2005. Uneven geographies of organizational practice: Explaining the cross-national transfer and diffusion of ISO 9000. Economic Geography 81, 237. Peddle, R., Rosam, I., 2004. Finding the balance. Quality World, 1826. Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J.J., Eklund, J.A.E., 2003. Implement- ing ISO 14000 in Sweden: Motives, benets and comparisons with ISO 9000. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 20, 585. Rosam, I., Peddle, R., 2004. Implementing Effective Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate GovernanceA Guide. British Standards Institution, London. SA8000, 2001. Social Accountability. Social Accountability International, London. Seddon, J., 2000. The Case Against ISO 9000. Oak Tree Press, Dublin. Sharma, D.S., 2005. The association between ISO 9000 certica- tion and nancial performance. The International Journal of Accounting 40, 151. SII10000, 2001. Social Responsibility and Community Involve- ment. Draft Standard. Standards Institution Israel, Tel Aviv. Struebing, L., 1997. Changes to ISO 9000 in the year 2000. Quality Progress 30, 19. Takakusa, H., 2005. Fast forwardJapanese perspective on ISO 9001 advocates implementation knowledge-sharing. ISO Management Systems 5, 30. Terlaak, A.K., 2002. Exploring the adoption process and performance consequences of industry management stan- dards: The case of ISO 9000. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. Uzumeri, M.V., 1987. ISO 9000 and other metastandards: Principles for management practice? The Academy of Management Executive 11, 21. van der Wiele, T., Iwaarden, J.V., Williams, R., Dale, B., 2005. Perceptions about the ISO 9000 (2000) quality system standard revision and its value: The Dutch experience. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 22, 101. Waddock, S., Bodwell, C., 2004. Managing responsibility: What can be learned from the quality movement? California Management Review 47, 25. Wade, J., 2002. Is ISO 9000 really a standard? ISO Management Systems 2, 127. ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Castka, M.A. Balzarova / Int. J. Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487 87