Introduction

Sustainable production is a key concept in today’s corporate setting, with emphasis on the need for resources to be consumed in such a way that the survival of future generations will not be undermined. In terms of definition, sustainable production can be viewed as the creation of goods and services by a system that doesn’t pollute the environment, conserves energy and natural resources, provides a healthy and safe working environment for the staff, communities, and consumers, and at the same time is economically feasible and comes with numerous benefits for the workers (Veleva et al., 2001).

In order to attain sustainable production, measures identified as capable of yielding success are the use of management systems. As pointed out by Meinska et al. (2015), companies that desire to focus on attaining sustainability can integrate the ISO 9001 requirements (Quality Management System) and the ISO 14001 (Environmental Management System) jointly to achieve such. This view is also supported in earlier works such as that of Fresner & Engelhardt (2004), where it is pointed out that the basis for attaining sustainable development can come in small steps, with an integrated system being considered to be one of such steps. Furthermore, the research of Jrgensen (2008) also pointed out that the use of management systems makes it easier for organizations to attain sustainability.

In view of the above discussions, this paper was developed to design an integrated management system for The Benneth’s Brands Limited, a bakery products manufacturing firm in Nigeria, based on existing ISO 14001 and ISO 9001. On the same note, this paper will also explore the similarities and differences between ISO 14001 and ISO 9001 as management systems that might make the integration difficult or otherwise easier, and critically evaluate four main barriers to sustainability as organizational issues and the responsibilities of management in addressing such issues.

Integrated Management System for Benneth’s Brands based on existing ISO 14001 and ISO 9001.

The two major standards for management systems that are known in the world are the ISO 9001 (Quality Management System) and the ISO 14001 (Environmental Management System), which have recently undergone revisions. In 2015, the new versions were published and a number of changes came with them. For ISO 9001, the changes include: adopting the new proposed structure of the ISO in order to ensure that the integration process between the different management systems is facilitated and also to make sure that the focus of the management is on risk-based thinking. On the same note, a higher level of emphasis is placed on the need for an involved leadership style, as such would make it easier to be used by knowledge-based service companies and corporations (ISO, 2015a). In terms of ISO 14001, the new version further stressed the need for the system to put into cognisance the internal and external elements that could have an influence on the environment, such as changes being recorded in the competitive environment and climate where the company maintains operations. Another change that is evidenced in the new standard is that it is focused on life-cycle thinking (ISO, 2015b).

Management system standards

The ISO (International Organization for Standardization), a non-government organization, emerged in Switzerland and has become the reference point for standardization of organizational processes. They are responsible for creating a huge number of standards being adopted across the globe today. In the world, one of the most famous standards is ISO 9001 (Quality Management Systems), which was developed in 1987 by the same organization and has since then gone through different revisions in 1994, 2000, 2008, and 2015. There is also another standard that is widely adopted, which is the ISO 14001 (Environmental Management System), which has also undergone different revisions in 1996, 2004, and 2015.

These standards are being implemented by various corporations all over the world for obvious reasons.This is because the implementation of environmental management, for instance, one that is based on ISO 14001, can bring about varied benefits to the organization. These benefits include improvement in its environmental performance as it helps to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, aids in saving light and water, improves solid waste management and a number of other benefits (Poksinska et al., 2003). On the same note, ISO 9001 also comes with its own benefits, which include enhanced customer satisfaction; an increase in production speed and delivery to the customers; improved returns on investments; and a number of other benefits (Casadess & Karapetrovic, 2005).

Basically, the importance of implementing both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 can be seen from the observable growth of companies that have been certified. Records from 1999 to 2015 show that the number of ISO 9001 certified companies in the world increased from 343,641 to 1,033,936, with ISO 14001 also increasing from 13,994 to 319,324 during the same period (ISO, 2017). Therefore, if companies across the world benefit from implementing these management systems, it is also important that Benneth’s brands consider their full implementation in order to enjoy the resulting benefits.

In order to ensure facilitated integration and higher consistency in the different management system standards, the Annex SL was created by the ISO. In this Annex SL, a proposal was made to provide a similar structure, with terms and texts that are common, that would function as the basis for creating and reviewing the next management system that will be developed by the institution or another body that has the intention of working in line with this structure (Tangen & Warris, 2012). This is also the structure that Benneth’s brands will follow when creating their own implementation plan. Considering the revisions recorded in 2015, there are notable increases in the number of clauses, moving up from five to seven. Qi et al. (2013) pointed out that these standards represent the basic foundation upon which companies can lay their economic and environmental development plans.

Created an integrated management system

The designed integrated system is based on a "Pan, Do, Check, and Act" structure (Deming's principle), which represents a continuous improvement process (Kaisen), allowing the company to enhance its environmental and quality management performance (Herghiligiu, 2013; Herghiligiu, 2018).

The Plan: The plan here is to improve the company’s environmental performance while also enhancing its quality management system. Simply put, it reduces the negative impacts of its operations on the environment and improves the quality of its output.

To bring about this outcome, the following steps will be taken:

1. Change the lighting systems to solar and/or LED lights.
2. Install a recycling system to re-use water.
3. Install a central control switch that can turn off lightning and systems across different parts of the company when not in use.
4. Install a temperature control system to reduce the use of air-cooling systems.
5. Monitor production through regular quality checks.
6. Set benchmarks for quality performance.
7. Install automated systems that would reduce the presence of errors and improve overall efficiency.
8. Design products based on customers’ tastes and preferences.
9. Reuse as many resources as possible throughout the production process.

A control and monitoring system will also be activated in order to ensure that these actions are being effected. This will be a quarterly reporting system, where checks will be made in the areas where the systems have been implemented, highlighting underperformance and setting a pathway for improvement.

Act – based on the issues that have been highlighted during the check stage, the company will take the necessary proactive actions to ensure that the objective still remains within sight.

Similarities and differences between ISO 14001 and ISO 9001 might make the integration difficult or otherwise easier.

A number of discussions have looked at the similarities and differences between ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. In line with the view of Tar et al. (2012), these management systems are similar in terms of the benefits that come with their adoption, which include: improvement in efficiency and performance; enhanced customer satisfaction; improved brand image; and improvement in the relationship that exists between the brand and the customers. That is to say, the adoption of these systems, when combined, would amount to sustainable performance for the company. By adopting ISO 14001, the company will be creating goodwill for itself as it will be seen by the customer to be a caring firm. When combined with ISO 9001, the company will manufacture products in the most efficient and effective way, as well as have the product available for customers. Thus, with good will and available products, the resulting effect would be sustainable performance for the company as customers will continue to patronise their products.

In terms of the difficulties that come with the implementation of these standards, Boiral (2011), in a study, pointed out that the major pitfalls when it comes to implementing these management systems include: lack of feedback and monitoring systems; the search for certificates being focused on the commercial areas; excessive or inappropriate documentation; outsourcing of the deployment process; and insufficient resources. All these factors are notable with the two standards, and they inhibit the overall successful implementation of these standards.

Another point of similarity between these management systems is that the clauses are the same because both ISO 14001 and ISO 9001 use the same Annex SL Structure.The ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 clauses are aligned with the Annex SL and they are: organizational context, planning, leadership, operations, support, improvements, and performance evaluation. In any case, Carpinetti & Gerolamo (2016) stated that while there are notable increases in the number of clauses, there is no major change in the requirements, as what is still necessary is for the companies to adapt to these changes. The reason is that most of the changes come in the form of terminology, adopting risk concepts, and so on. Considering this, the implementation will be easier because the company can adopt both systems based on the same structure. Once a structure is built upon, which considers the Annex SL, the entire system can be fused in and implemented at ease.

There are also differences in the legal requirements and environmental aspects. Assuming the company already has ISO 9001 in place, adding ISO 14001 would necessitate a new process to ensure that management can identify the environmental legal requirements that the company will need to apply.This process will also call for maintaining compliance with the requirement by updating changes as they are rolled out. From the environmental aspect, the company will witness the second major process as required by ISO 14001. With this process, management will need to identify all the ways in which the company’s processes will interact with the environment and also assess the significant and non-significant ones. A good example would be that the company will need to identify the criteria and operational controls that should be put in place in order to make sure that the significant aspects don’t have a negative influence on the environment. Thus, these differences can amount to inhibiting factors because addressing one would lead to having to ignore the other (Hammar, 2019).

In any case, Carl Fallon, an ISO 9001 professional, auditor, and consultant, pointed out that these differences shouldn’t discourage companies from implementing these two standards. This is because there are a number of similarities that can bring about easier implementation (Fallon, 2018). On the same note, the company also needs to look at the plus side in terms of the benefits that come with full implementation (Fallon, 2018). Records show that through successful implementation, companies are able to create good will for themselves, satisfy the customer better, advance their delivery system, become more productive (through enhanced innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness), essentially leading to sustainable performance. With all these benefits in view, it becomes clear that the benefits that come with successful implementation outweigh the challenges that implementers are bound to experience.

Evaluation of four major organizational barriers to sustainability and justifiable management responsibilities in addressing such challenges

When it comes to business model innovation, the overall essence is to innovate the company toward creating value, delivering the created value, and capturing the right mechanism that the company can utilize to persuade the customers towards paying for the value and also converting this payment into profits (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010; Teece, 2010). On the other hand, sustainability covers the company’s overall ability to ensure that success is continually repeated over time (Baden-Fuller & Morgan, 2010; Robins, 2013; Wirtz et al., 2016; Zahra et al., 2006; Zott et al., 2011). However, there are a number of factors that inhibit a company’s overall ability to create the desired sustainability (Chesbrough, 2010; Massa et al., 2017). A number of studies have looked at these barriers from both private and commercial buildings (Wirtz et al., 2016; Zahra et al., 2006; Zott et al., 2011) and offered a summary of the findings as discussed below.

Barriers from the organizational context: within the sphere of a company, a number of factors can create barriers. They include the lack of consensus on understanding and focusing on sustainability; the costs associated with enacting processes to bring about sustainability; conflict between the requirements of the shareholders and set sustainability objectives; the absence of empowerment and capacity building; lack of knowledge and information about the building; lack of contextual issues; the absence of strategic leadership and responsibility for driving necessary changes; and issues with respect to integrating the knowledge of the stakeholders (Wirtz et al., 2016; Zahra et al., 2006; Zott et al., 2011).

Barriers from the users: on the side of the users, the company could be facing issues related to awareness of the building by those making use of it; issues related to lack of contextual understanding; lack of information and knowledge about the building; and the absence of committed project goals (coupled with enhanced process legitimacy through credibility and transparency of those making decisions) (Wirtz et al., 2016; Zahra et al., 2006; Zott et al., 2011).

Competence – even when the system is made fully functional, the question of competence also comes into play. The barriers here include awareness of the behaviour of the different users, the absence of professional information and competence, and the lack of strategic leadership and responsibility for driving necessary changes (Wirtz et al., 2016; Zahra et al., 2006; Zott et al., 2011).

Technical – since the discussion is on four main issues, this will be the last issue to be considered. The issue here relates to the perception that buildings certified as sustainable are not a guarantee for energy saving (Wirtz et al., 2016; Zahra et al., 2006; Zott et al., 2011).

Justifiable responsibility of the management in addressing these issues

In terms of what can be done in order to address these issues, Purvis (2015) offered a number of solutions. The first is to adopt sustainability as a unique selling point. The justification is that since consumers are continually seeking to purchase ethically sourced, sustainable products, brands can adopt their sustainability as a point of differentiation, encouraging customers to purchase.

Secondly, the company should focus its thinking on the long term. Purvis (2015) highlighted that one of the main cultural barriers across organizations all over the world is that they seem to be focused on short-term key performance indicators and budgets. However, it is necessary that a business seeking to grow its brand through sustainability strategies should strive to encourage all the parties it works with to consider, and reward, results that are long-term oriented. Basically, the founding view here, which is also prevalent in the construction industry, is that when the perceived costs of creating a sustainable system could create a barrier to such practices, if one is to consider the long-term benefits that would emerge until the lifetime of the sustainable system is exhausted, it becomes clear that the company should bear the cost now and reap the benefits later.

Thirdly, it is recommended that the company should communicate its values differently. On this note, Purvis (2015) stated that people are increasingly becoming involved in the business of sustainability for various reasons. Thus, the implication is that the sustainable business models should be tailored in line with the way the company is communicating with its different markets. However, it is important to be concise about the objective, the form of language, and the approach that will be adopted to ensure the most effective outcome.

The last but not the least, is that the culture of sustainability should be embedded across the entire organization. Herein, Purvis (2015) pointed out that in changing the corporate structure or creating new roles, a sustainability manager might actually be acting only on a bolt-on, when the need could be to effect a complete change in the business culture and priorities of the management. Thus, it is recommended that cultural change and responsibility should be embedded across all levels of decision making because sustainability thinking is known to work best when it is made a full part of the strategic direction of a company.

Conclusion

This research has been able to point out that sustainability is crucial for any company and building one will depend on adopting the right management systems. The two of the most frequently utilized management systems are: ISO 14001 (focused on the environment) and ISO 9001 (focused on quality management). The adoption of these systems has been found to bring about varying levels of benefits, with the ultimate outcome being sustainable business performance. However, there are a number of factors that could inhibit the creation of sustainable businesses based on these models, such as organizational factors, technological factors, user factors, and competency factors. This research has been able to document as well as demonstrate that with the right management mindset, these issues can be averted with a sustainable business eventually. Thus, it is concluded that by adopting the designed management systems based on ISO 14001 and ISO 9001, Benneth's Brands will be able to create sustainable performance.

References

Baden-Fuller, C. & Morgan, M.S., 2010. Business models as models. Long. Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 156–171.

Boiral, O. (2011). Managing with ISO systems: lessons from practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 197-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.12.003.

Carpinetti, L. C. R., & Gerolamo, M. C. (2016). Gestão da qualidade ISO 9001:2015: requisitos e Integração com a ISO 14001:2015 (1. ed.). São Paulo: Atlas. 

Casadesús, M., & Karapetrovic, S. (2005). The erosion of ISO 9000 benefits: a temporal study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(2), 120-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710510577198.

Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long. Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 354–363.

Fallon, C. (2018). What's the difference between the ISO 9001 and the ISO 14001? Retrieved from: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-the-ISO-9001-and-the-ISO-14001 [Retrieved on: 01-03-2020].

Fresner, J., & Engelhardt, G. (2004). Experiences with integrated management systems for two small companies in Austria. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(6), 623-631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.09.013.

Hammar, M. (2019). How to integrate ISO 14001 and ISO 9001. Retrieved from: https://advisera.com/14001academy/knowledgebase/how-to-integrate-iso-14001-and-iso-9001/ [Retrieved on: 01-03-2020].

Herghiligiu, I.V.  (2018). EMS Exploratory Analysis in order to improve its Integration Quality through Fractal Design. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., 238, pp. 597–606.

Herghiligiu, I.V. (2013). Researches Regarding Environmental Management System as a Complex Process at the Organizational Level. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Angers, Angers, France. Available online: http://laris.univ-angers.fr/_resources/logo/TheseHerghiligiuIonut.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2020).

International Organization for Standardization – ISO. (2017). The ISO survey of management system standard certifications. Geneva: ISO. Retrieved in 2020, March 6, from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification/iso-survey.htm?certificate=ISO%209001&countrycode=AF 

ISO (2015a). Introduction to ISO 14001:2015. Retrieved from: https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100371.pdf [Retrieved on: 01-03-2020].

ISO (2015b). ISO 9001: 2015(en) Quality Management Systems – Requirements. Retrieved from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9001:ed-5:v1:en [Retrieved on: 01-03-2020].

Jørgensen, T. H. (2008). Towards more sustainable management systems: through life cycle management and integration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(10), 1071-1080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.006.

Massa, L., Tucci, C.L. & Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business model research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 11 (1), 73–104.

Mežinska, I., Lapina, I., & Mazais, J. (2015). Integrated management systems towards sustainable and socially responsible organization. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(5-6), 469-481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.835899.

Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J. J., & Eklund, J. A. E. (2003). Implementing ISO 14000 in Sweden: motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(5), 585-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710310476543.

Purvis, K. (2015). Nine ways to overcome barriers to sustainable business. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jul/08/nine-ways-to-overcome-barriers-to-sustainable-business [Retrieved on: 01-03-2020].

Qi, G., Zeng, S., Yin, H., & Lin, H. (2013). ISO and OHSAS certifications How stakeholders affect corporate decisions on sustainability. Management Decision, 51(10), 1983-2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2011-0431.

Robins, J. (2013). Editorial managing business models for innovation, strategic change and value creation. Long. Range Plan. 46 (6), 417–418.

Tangen, S., & Warris, A. (2012). Management makeover: new format for future ISO management system standards. Retrieved in 2015, September 9, from http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref1621

Tarí, J. J., Molina-Azorín, J. F., & Heras, I. (2012). Benefits of the ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 standards: a literature review. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 5(2), 297-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.488.

Teece, D.J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long. Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 172–194.

Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T., & Crumbley, C. (2001). Indicators of sustainable production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9(1), 447-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00004-X. PMid:17208696.

Wirtz, B.W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S. & Göttel, V. (2016). Business models: origin, development and future research perspectives. Long. Range Plan. 49 (1), 36–54.

Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J. & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda. J. Manag. Stud. 43 (4), 917–955.

Zott, C., Amit, R. & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research. J. Manag. 37 (4), 1019–1042.