Int. J.

Production Economics 113 (2008) 7487

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: [email protected] (P. Castka),
[email protected] (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