int. j. prod. res., 2002, vol. 40, no.

15, 3857±3866

The integration of the standards systems of quality management,

environmental management and occupational health and safety
management

JOAÄO CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA MATIAS{ and

DENIS A. COELHO{*

This paper considers the systems of Quality, Environmental and Occupational

Health and Safety management. It prospectively analyses the advantages and
disadvantages of integrating these systems, as opposed to the systems having
independent management in a manufacturing company. Quality Management
standards’ (ISO 9000) evolution towards Total Quality Management is the start-
ing point. Recent revisions embodied some of the requirements portrayed in the
Environmental Management standards (ISO 14000), as well as issues pertaining
to Occupational Health and Safety (OHSAS 18001). This tendency towards inclu-
sion of material from di€ erent standards systems is expected to be even more
evident in the forthcoming revision of the ISO 9000 standards. There is still a
notorious absence of an integrated document; ISO has not yet adopted the
OHSAS 18001 standard and there are hardships inherent in such an integrative
approach. Commonalities between the three systems are emphasized. Foreseen
advantages for companies pertain to economies of scale in the certi®cation pro-
cesses and a joint approach to the provision of quality, environmental responsi-
bility and workforce protection. As a conclusion, the need to pursue standards
integration is emphasized. The paper also exposes some predictive gains to be
encountered in further integrating the standards system with the inclusion of
ergonomics certi®cation.

1. Introduction
In the recent past, areas in the organization, including Quality Management
Systems (ISO 9000) and Environmental Management Systems (ISO 14000), have
increasingly been certi®ed, while their contribution to adding value to performance
and management success has been proven. ISO is the International Standards
Organization (http://www.iso.ch), a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies from some 130 countries. ISO is a non-governmental organization established
in 1974. The mission of ISO is to promote the development of standardization and
related activities in the world with a view to facilitating the international exchange
of goods and services, and to developing cooperation in the spheres of intellectual,
scienti®c, technological and economic activity. More recently, the US Occupational
Health and Safety Administration (http://www.osha-slc.gov) published the
Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS 18001:1999). This
standard is aimed at supporting and helping to systematize the management of
risk factors and the promotion of good working conditions. This set of challenges

Revision received May 2002.

{ Department of Electromechanical Engineering, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001
CovilhaÄ, Portugal.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: matias@demnet.ubi.pt

International Journal of Production Research ISSN 0020±7543 print/ISSN 1366±588X online # 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/00207540210155828
3858 J. C. O. Matias and D. A. Coelho

to the organization (quality management, environmental management and occupa-

tional health and safety management), in order to be workable and pursuable, needs
integration into a common system. Further bene®ts can be reaped from the consid-
eration of ergonomics as a component part for further integration of management
systems in the organization. This paper considers these aspects of manufacturing
management from a perspective of strategy selection and policy formulation within
the manufacturing company.

2. ISO 9000, ISO 14000 and OHSAS 18001 standards

Considering the increasingly larger challenges companies are facing, a great deal
of attention has been paid to aspects related to quality. Quality appears as a funda-
mental requirement for competitiveness, and this has been accompanied by the
evolution of the concept of quality from simple quality control to current Total
Quality Management (TQM). TQM’s goal is the complete satisfaction of internal
and external customers, a philosophy that is aimed towards continuous improve-
ment. In order to improve e cacy in the adoption of this management philosophy, a
formal Quality System (QS) ought to be implemented in organizations. The QS is
supported by a series of procedures, which are described in a standardized docu-
ment, the Quality Manual, which covers all the personnel in the organization.
For the vast majority of cases, the companies that have adopted the TQM
management philosophy have implemented their Quality System through the ISO
9000 Standards (Standards for the Management of Quality Systems) in the context
of the Quality Certi®cation process of the company (Matias 1999). These standards,
having already achieved 350 000 cases of certi®cation by the end of 2000, and having
been originally published in 1987 (http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/iso9000-14000/iso9000/),
were created with a ¯exible character, to which contributes the periodical revision
that was envisaged at the time of their creation. The ®rst revision came to be
published in 1994 and the second one at the end of 2000.
The ISO 9000 Standards describe a set of fundamental elements that enable the
design and implementation of quality management systems. The application of the
standards must be adapted case by case, according to the industry and the nature of
products and processes of the company. For instance, a service company and a
manufacturing company will apply the ISO 9000 Standards di€ erently. In general,
however, implementing these standards will raise several abilities of the company, of
which examples include: providing a marketing bonus (by communicating to the
outside an image of an organized company), improving the performance of opera-
tions, allowing a more appropriate selection of suppliers and subcontractors and
reducing the number of audits carried out by customers (buyers).

2.1. 1994 revision (ISO 9001: 1987, ISO 9001: 1994)

In this ®rst revision, aside from other issues considered in the standard, the
organization stakeholders were clearly de®ned as: Customers, Employees/
Collaborators, Suppliers, Shareholders/Owners and Society. A special emphasis was
given to people, as well as a special attention to processes, in a clear approximation,
although yet insu cient, to Total Quality Management (TQM).
Objects approached in this revision are also environmental issues. These issues
happen to be considered in the ISO 14000 Standards (Standards for the
Environmental Management Systems), which place formal evidence in considering
Society as one of the stakeholders of the organization. The natural environment is
 Integration of standards systems 3859

often de®ned as the surroundings in which an organization operates, and it extends

from within the organization to the global system. Many organizations strive to
achieve and demonstrate sound environmental performance by controlling the
impact from their activities, products and services on the natural environment.
This is partly due to the public concerns of society over the safety of products,
human comfort, destruction of the natural environment and the high cost of com-
pensation or clean-up expenses incurred as a result of accidents.
Both Quality Management (ISO 9000) and Environmental Management (ISO
14000) approaches emphasize common terms, such as leadership and top manage-
ment or continuous improvement. Moreover, both approaches focus on process
improvement and optimisation, e.g. optimising a process in order to increase the
level of quality, thus solving many problems that are related to the environment,
such as `zero defects’ (from TQM), which in turn lead to the reduction of waste. In
other words, the allusion to `society’ made in the ISO 9000 standards, with a set of
formal procedures to protect society, shows the clear intention of expanding these
standards towards Environmental Management (ISO 14000). Occupational health
and safety, environmental protection and energy conservation are also mentioned in
both these sets of standards, although more thoroughly in ISO 14000. What can
thus be inferred from ISO 9000 is a concern with environmental preservation, both
externally to the organization, in terms of the natural environment, and internally to
the organization, in terms of the work environment.

2.2. 2000 Revision (ISO 9001: 1994, ISO/CD1 9001: 2000, ISO 14001: 1996;
OHSAS: 1999)
The 2000 revision of ISO 9000 reinstates and reformulates the de®nition of
quality, phrasing it as `the ability of a complete set of realized, inherent character-
istics of a product, system or process to ful®l requirements’ (ISO/DIS 9000:2000,
Quality Management SystemsÐFundamentals and vocabulary). In this revision, the
approximation to Total Quality Management was made even greater, and an
increased set of commonalities is now found between these standards and Quality
Awards such as the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award (USA), or the
award granted by the European Foundation for Quality Management. Among
other topics, continuous improvement is emphasized, and is required in a formal
manner. In this revision, emphasis is also given to the management of resources,
through the comprehensive treatment of new elements such as information, commu-
nication, infrastructure and work environment. In this way, a step was taken
towards the preservation of the external environmentÐISO 14000Ðand towards
the preservation of the internal environmentÐwhich also happens to be speci®cally
treated in the OHSAS 18001 standard (Occupational Health and Safety Assessment
Series Standard, published by the US Occupational Health and Safety
Administration). Occupational Health and Safety management aims to create and
maintain a safe working environment, while protecting and maintaining the good
health of the workers.
OHSAS 18001 has been developed to be compatible with ISO 9000 and ISO
14000 management system standards in order to facilitate the integration of quality,
environmental and occupational health and safety management systems in organiza-
tions. OHSAS 18001 supports, and contributes to systematizing an appropriate
management of the risk incurred by the workers/employees/collaborators through
good working conditions. Concerning the latter, a change has been made in the 2000
3860 J. C. O. Matias and D. A. Coelho

version of the quality system towards emphasizing Human Factors, with the intro-
duction of a new concept of `working environment’. The importance of human
resources and their working environment for the quality of products is explicitly
emphasized. Consequently, and in a systematic way, the organizations with quality
and environmental management systems, which are certi®ed, or which are on the
way to become certi®ed by the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 standards, respectively,
should integrate in their management philosophy a system of management of occu-
pational health and safety (OH&S). There are several requirements and points that
are common to the three management systems, and there is a notorious equivalence
between the main general requirements of the three, namely: system requirements,
leadership (management responsibility), management of resources, management of
processes, system implementation and monitoring and measuring. The three sets of
standards have a common underlying principle: continuous improvements based on
Deming’s cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act). Hence, the three sets of standards share the
same structure, and were composed on the basis of that cycle. System documenta-
tion, records, policies, planning, responsibility, implementation, operational control,
communication, veri®cation, audits, conformity, continuous improvements and pre-
vention are speci®c requirements that are common to all three standards. In the
following paragraph, some examples of these speci®c requirements common to the
three sets of standards are presented in more detail.
Concerning leadership, the three sets of standards prescribe that top management
should ensure process leadership, so that maximum responsibility should rest with
top management. Top management should nominate one of its members to conduct
the correct implementation of the management system. Concerning prevention, all
three sets of standards de®ne that preventative actions should be identi®ed in order
to prevent the occurrence of potential `non-conformities’. In terms of continuous
improvements, all three standards establish that the management system should be
improved in a continuous manner. As mentioned earlier, the three standards are
structured in accordance with Deming’s cycle to suit this purpose of continuous
improvements.
The structure of OHSAS 18001 was developed to foster compatibility with the
standards systems of quality management (ISO 9000) and environmental manage-
ment (ISO 14000). This compatibility eases the integration of the three systems in the
organization, since each of the three systems is part of a common higher level of
management, despite their di€ erences in focus. In short, ISO 9000 is geared towards
customer satisfaction, ISO 14000 aims at supporting environmental protection and
pollution prevention management while promoting a social and economic harmony,
and OHSAS 18001 is directed at the pro-active control of occupational risk enabling
the organization to improve its safety and health related performance.

3. Occupational health and safety

Ergonomics, health and safety are the speci®c areas in an organization where the
promotion of good work conditions can take place. An important part of worker
satisfaction in a company is guaranteed through adequate ergonomics, occupational
health and safety conditions; the remaining part is mainly concerned with economic
aspects. Ergonomics and OH&S contribute to product conformity, since these ®elds
ensure that conditions necessary for thoroughly carrying out work tasks are met.
Inadequate working conditions have negative e€ ects in the organization on two
dimensions (Kristjuhan and Kalle 2000).
 Integration of standards systems 3861

. Decrease of e ciency, with negative e€ ects on productivity, a€ ecting the

®nances of the organization;
. Increase in work accidents and injuries, which brings aggravated costs to both
the organization itself and its country (society) of insertion.
Eurostat estimates that, in the European Union, 30% of the workforce complain
about back pain (that is more than 44 million people), 17% complain about upper
and lower limb muscular pain and 45% complain about pain caused by straining.
Eurostat is the Statistical O ce of the European Communities (http://europa.eu.int/
en/comm/eurostat/). According to this source, more than 600 million man-days of
work are lost every year in Europe due to occupational diseases. Furthermore, the
®nancial costs of all occupational related health problems varies between 2.6% and
3.8% of the European Union’s Gross Internal ProductÐand about 50% of these
costs concern musculoskeletal disorders.
Consequently, an organization may reap various bene®ts from the implementa-
tion of a management system that is focused on issues pertaining to workers’ occu-
pational health and safety. As an example, through augmenting worker job
satisfaction, an increase in productivity may be obtained, which can imply greater
e ciency and ®nancial revenue for the organization. Adequate management of
occupational health and safety would, thus, also bring a positive in¯uence in share-
holder interest and, consequently, in the organization’s suppliers, given the oppor-
tunities for business. Moreover, bene®ts are also to accrue at the level of product
compliance and conformity, bringing satisfaction to customers and a reduction of
scrapped materialÐwith the implied environmental bene®ts. One can thus conclude
that all the elements interested in the organization would be satis®ed.
Currently, the implementation of quality management systems guided through
ISO 9000 has reached a level of 350 000 certi®ed organizations. The implementation
of environmental management systems guided through ISO 14000 accounted, in mid
2001, for over 15 000 certi®ed organizations, half of which were audited for certi®ca-
tion in the period from 1999 until mid 2001. One should remark that there is really
nothing signi®cantly innovative about ISO Management System Standards, except
that there is a consensus on the elements contained in the standards. The value of the
ISO standards is that they give companies, and organizations in general, a common
foundation to discuss and evaluate the minimum expectations in a competently
designed and executed system. The OHSAS 18001 standard, although not yet
adopted by ISO, may well have a similar role in the implementation of management
systems related with occupational health and safety. The OHSAS 18001 standard
includes the principles laid down in the BS 8800 (guideline issued by British
Standards Institution in 1996). It was o cially released in 1999 in a formulation
that congregates guidelines from a number of standardizing organizations from
di€ erent countries. It may be adopted by ISO, or serve as a basis for the creation
of a referential ISO management system standard, which would then foster its global
acceptance.

4. Integration of the systems of quality management, environmental management

and occupational health and safety management
We have emphasized a correspondence, although not in the totality, between the
ISO 9000 and the ISO 14000 standards. The International Standards Organization
3862 J. C. O. Matias and D. A. Coelho

(ISO) proposes that the implementation of a system for environmental management

be made as an integration to a previously or simultaneously implemented system of
quality management, in order to reduce both the costs of implementation and the
running costs. Moreover, in the case that companies or organizations are not yet
certi®ed by ISO 9000, the auditing for the Quality Management Systems and for the
Environmental Management Systems can be made simultaneously. The auditing
teams would then be complemented with environment auditors, and should also
be enriched with energy auditors, given the importance of this area. In the future,
it is expected that these standards be united in one single system, giving rise to a
single document. However, there are currently some major di€ erences in the char-
acter of enforcement of the ISO 9000 and the ISO 14000 standards. According to
ISO, while the former have a character of application that is 100% voluntary, the
latterÐalthough being also applied voluntarilyÐimpose requirements that are
common to legal demands in many countries. Given this di€ erence in the character
of implementation, concerning an overlap with legal demands, the uni®cation in a
single system is not, therefore, likely to occur in the very near future. Moreover,
although these standards, together with the OH&S standards, have some degree of
compatibility in their present form, the hardships of integration into a single docu-
ment increase given that ISO has not yet recognized or created a management system
standard for OH&S. ISO 14000 standards have not yet been globally accepted,
which is also applicable to a higher degree to OHSAS 18001, and stands in contrast
with the general acceptance of ISO 9000. While the superimposition of the ISO
14000 standards with legal demands exists in many countries, the OHSAS 18001
standards have not yet been recognized or adopted by ISO. The application of the
environmental management and occupational health and safety management
standards hence varies greatly from country to country.
Given the impossibility of utilizing a unique document for the systems of
standards mentioned, and to which is added energy issuesÐgiven their increasingly
recognized connection to environmental issuesÐan alternative solution would be the
integration of the di€ erent management systems inside the organizations. However,
it becomes compulsory then that the bene®ts of such integration be greater than the
sum of the partial bene®ts of the independently managed systems. Disadvantages
should also be relatively smaller. It seems evident that there are barriers to such
integration. Although an a nity can be found, generally, among the systems, there
are di€ erences found in their internal requirements. Given that a company, or
organization, has functioned with the systems as separate entities, fear of change
may exist and manifest itself as opposition to the integration. Integration will a€ ect
company organization, and could lead to the loss of some power, even though
theoretical, of some former directors. This situation is clearly more relevant for
organizations that have attained success with previous systems. Change is easier
when `things are not working properly’, or `are not running so well’. Another
problem can be the increase in bureaucracy, which may get larger given the complex-
ity intertwined with system integration. However, and according to the advice given
in ISO 9000 documentation, a company should tailor its management systems to its
dimension and reality, only putting down on paper what is strictly necessary.
In what concerns bene®ts, or favourable arguments, for the integration of the
di€ erent management systems discussed, these are, above all, linked to the advan-
tages of integrating information. Information di culties, such as bottlenecks, can
pre-exist due to communication problems occurring in disperse systems. These
 Integration of standards systems 3863

disperse systems may, however, share common goals, such as continuous improve-
ments, zero defects, or prevention of accidents. In this way, these activities can be
integrated into a single system and, as such, avoid the threefold, or greater, increase
of those documents and information channels. The interest in this integration is
justi®ed by the chaining of demand/supply inside an organization, which implies
that the satisfaction of local and proper requirements would later turn these into
general requirements. It is also worth mentioning the reduction in the individual
certi®cation costs, given the number of audits that are presently needed. The breadth
of specializations represented in the auditing teams would conversely increase in the
case of uni®cation of the management systems and their implicit certi®cation. In the
vision of uni®cation, the term Total Quality Management would represent, in formal
terms, all the management systems in the organization, given that it is not possible
to satisfy the external customers without satisfying the internal customers. Only in
this manner will the interests of all the organization’s stakeholders (employees,
customers, shareholders, suppliers and society) be conveniently satis®ed.

5. Further integration considering ergonomics

Quality is often de®ned as the `ability to meet customer expectations and require-
ments on products, systems or processes’. A standard concept of total quality pro-
grammes is continuous improvement. In essence, this philosophy springs from the
belief that there are no permanent ®xes for any particular issues, and that improve-
ments can and should always be sought for each aspect of a system. Deming’s cycle,
which considers Plan, Do, Verify and Act upon the eventual non-conformities,
guides this process, which should be never-ending. Ergonomics can provide insights
and perspectives to help in making continuous improvements. The remainder of
this section, takes a closer look at what ergonomics is, shedding some light on its
potential for contributing towards continuous improvements.
There are various de®nitions of ergonomics. Some authors consider it a science
(Karwoski 1996, Laville 1998); others recognize elements of both scienti®c and
technological nature in the discipline of Human Factors and Ergonomics
(Hendrick 1995, Wilson and Corlett 1995). Some emphasize systematic and commu-
nicational aspects (Montmollin 1997), while others focus on the question of ®tting
the machine (or the work) to the human (Sperandio 1988, Pheasant 1991, Corlett
and Clark 1995). Despite the di€ erences found in di€ erent authors’ de®nitions, the
following aspects are common in most of the de®nitions of ergonomics found in
French, British and US literature, as surveyed by Moraes (2000):

. the utilization of scienti®c data about the human;

. the multidisciplinary origin of these data (anatomy, physiology, biomechanics,
neurophysiology, psychophysiology, psychology, cognitive science, sociology,
anthropology, semiotics);
. the interdisciplinary character of ergonomics (or human factors);
. its application to technical devices, to work organization and training and the
parameters and recommendations proposed by ergonomics;
. the relationship of ergonomics with the design of machines, artefacts, consu-
mer products, durable equipment, information systems, warnings and signs,
documents, computer interfaces and displays, tasks, work organization,
instructions and procedures;
3864 J. C. O. Matias and D. A. Coelho

. the perspective on the use of these technical devices by the normal population
of workers, with their capacities and limitations, without implying a selection
that chooses the `right men’;
. ®tting machines, environments and work to the human, and not the opposite;
. the consideration of the capacities, characteristics, skills and limitations of the
user population;
. the objectives of safety, comfort and well being.

The Executive Council of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) consid-

ered in 2000 that `Ergonomics (or Human Factors) is the scienti®c discipline con-
cerned with the understanding of the interactions among humans and other elements
of a system, and the profession that applies theoretical principles, data and methods
to design in order to optimise human well-being and overall system performance’.
The latter de®nition adds the aspects of optimizing overall system performance as a
goal in ergonomic design. Within the discipline, three domains of specialization are
highlighted by IEA: physical ergonomics, cognitive ergonomics and organizational
ergonomics.
In one of the arenas of ergonomics actionÐcompaniesÐcontinuous company-
wide improvements approaches are being designed aimed at linking ergonomics with
quality, occupational health and safety and natural environment protection aspects
of organizational performance. These are duly justi®ed due to the inherent interre-
lationships between product quality defects, workplace design defects, and opera-
tional defects (Karwowski and Dzissah 2000).
One can argue that, as a discipline, ergonomics has been mostly focusing on
eliminating human pain and discomfort, both of a physical and cognitive nature,
and in so doing, minimizing loss. A recent approach to ergonomic design, in the
context of consumer products, has been brought forward by Jordan and Macdonald
(1998). It concerns the creation of products that bring positive bene®ts to users, in
terms of pleasures. Such an approach, when extended to the discipline of ergonomics
and human factors, could be coined as the maximization of gain and pleasure, as
opposed to minimizing pain and loss.
Ergonomics can be essentially de®ned in a way similar to the de®nition of quality
presented at the beginning of this sectionÐ`designing tools, systems and products to
meet the needs of the user’. `Knowing the customer (internal or external)’, a quality
motto, could thus be translated into a reciprocal ergonomics motto as `knowing the
user’. However, the overlapping of the de®nitions is not total, and there is more to
it than just a simple displacement of the object of knowledge, as implied in the
simplistic correspondence of the mottoes presented above. Product quality can be
thought to include ergonomics, as well as environmental aspects and others. On the
other hand, ergonomics emphasizes some issues such as physical ®t or operational
expectations, of which customers are not always consciously aware. The multidisci-
plinary nature of research and practice in both ergonomics and quality management
provides, however, several opportunities for integration. The two disciplines should
work together in order to bene®t from integration in some areas of a company, such
as products and processes, in order ultimately to increase the competitiveness of the
organization. Moreover, ergonomic design is concerned with more than the design of
products and processes and their ability to meet user requirements. It is also con-
cerned with the activities per se of design and development. The suitability of the
 Integration of standards systems 3865

actual design process has a great in¯uence on the quality performance of organiza-
tions.

6. Conclusions
There is some evidence on the common orientation found in the systems of
standards of Quality Management, Environmental Management and Occupational
Health and Safety Management. In the course of the revisions that ISO 9000 has
been subjected to, important steps were given in the direction of the requirements of
quality excellence awards, which are representative of the TQM philosophy. These
revisions have considered people and processes as a special target of attention. In
what concerns the approach to the remaining standard systems mentioned (ISO
14000 and OHSAS 18001), this direction of approach is increasingly geared towards
environmental issues. The external environment is considered in environmental man-
agement aspects and the internal environment is considered in occupational health
and safety aspects. Given the common objectives, the reuniting of the independent
documents in a representative document of the totality of the systems would be
logical. However, this is not likely to occur in the very near future, given the afore-
mentioned superimposition of the requirements stated in ISO 14000 with the legal
demands of many countries and the fact that OHSAS 18001 have not yet been
adopted or recognized by ISO (an international and independent organization
with the credibility and impartiality necessary to foster global dissemination of the
standards).
An alternative way to reap the bene®ts of a simultaneous approach would thus
consist of integrating, in practice inside the manufacturing company, the mentioned
systems. This would be possible given a common structure, or backbone, that cuts
through the three systems. Commonalities consist, among other things, of contin-
uous improvement, in accordance with Deming’s cycle, which considers Plan, Do,
Verify and Act upon the eventual non-conformities. However, in order to reap the
bene®ts from this integration, which would consist of the e cacy of actions given
the smaller spread and dispersion of information, it is necessary that organizations
proceed in a form that is adapted to their dimension and characteristics. Otherwise
they would take the risk of increasing bureaucracy, or having shocks of authority.
Consequently, the organizations should only aim and go for such a process of
management systems integration after having acquired full conscience of the
length and breadth of the steps that are necessary to be taken. This ought to be
done in a systematic manner, weighing all the pros and cons springing from each
part of the envisaged transformation and also from a holistic perspective.
Still, however, emphasis is drawn again on the great interest that would be
brought by the publication of a document representing all the management systems
in the company or organization. This interest is partially justi®ed by the chaining of
demand/supply inside an organization, on the one side, and the reduction of the
individual certi®cation costs, on the other. In the vision of uni®cation, the term Total
Quality Management would represent, in formal terms, all the management systems
in the organization, conveniently satisfying the interests of all the organization’s
stakeholders (employees, customers, shareholders, suppliers and society).
At present, many companies would probably bene®t from linking their quality,
environmental protection aspects, occupational health and safety aspects and aspects
of organizational performance in their management systems. Working conditions
in¯uence product quality, while productivity improvement is dependent upon
3866 Integration of standards systems

quality, ergonomics, occupational health and safety and environmental management

activities. System performance can be improved by minimizing process de®ciencies,
accidents, environmental pollution, and increasing the general well being of all
employees/collaborators. Because of the inherent mutual dependencies between pro-
duct quality defects, workplace design and operational defects, models for manage-
ment systems are needed to guide the integration of quality with environmental
protection, occupational health and safety, and ergonomics.

References
Corlett, E. N. and Clark, T. S., 1995, The Ergonomics of Workspaces and Machines: a
Design Manual, 2nd edn (London: Taylor & Francis), p. 128.
Hendrick, H. W., 1995, Future directions in macro ergonomics. Ergonomics, 38, pp. 1617±
1624.
International Standards Organization, 1987, ISO 9001, Quality systemsÐmodel for
quality assurance in design/development, production, installation and servicing.
International Standards Organization, 1994, ISO 9001, Quality systemsÐmodel for
quality assurance in design/development, production, installation and servicing.
International Standards Organization, 1996, ISO 14001, Environmental management
systems - speci®cation with guidance for use.
ISO/TC176/SC2/N415ÐISO CD1 9001:2000, Quality Management Systems: Requirements.
Jordan, P. W. and Macdonald, A. S., 1998, Pleasure and product semantics. In M. A.
Hanson (ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics (London: Taylor & Francis), pp. 264±268.
Karwowski, W., 1996, IEA Facts and Background (Louisville, KY: IEA Press), p. 43.
Karwowski, W. and Dzissah, J., 2000, Design and evaluation of system integration e€ orts
for occupational & environmental safety and health, ergonomics and quality manage-
ment. Proceeding of Ergonomics in Quality Management Conference of the Portuguese
Ergonomics Association (APERGO), Costa da Caparica, p. 12.
Kristjuhan, UÈ . and Kalle, E., 2000, An ignored key to high productivity and quality. In D.
PodgoÂrski and W. Karwowski (eds): Ergon-Axia 2000ÐErgonomics and Safety for
Global Business Quality and Productivity, Central Institute for Labour Protection,
Warsaw, pp. 203±206.
Laville, A., 1998, L’Ergonomie, 6th edn (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France).
Matias, J. C. O., 1999, Normas de GestaÄo da Qualidade Ambiental Total. Revista
Electricidade, No 370, pp. 247±251.
Montmollin, M., 1997, Vocabulaire de l’ergonomie, 2nd edn (Toulouse, France: Octares).
Moraes, A., 2000, Ergonomia: Arte, CieÃncia ou Tecnologia? In Anais do I Encontro Pan-
Americano de Ergonomia e X Congresso Brasileiro de Ergonomia, Rio de Janeiro,
Abergo, CD-ROM.
Occupational Health and Safety Administration, 1999, OHSAS 18001, Occupational
Health and Safety Management SystemsÐSpeci®cation. Occupational Health and
Safety Assessment Series.
Pheasant, S., 1991, Ergonomics, Work and Health (London: Macmillan), p. 358.
Sperandio, J.-C., 1988, L’ergonomie du Travail Mental, 2nd edn (Paris: Masson), p. 140.
Wilson, J. R. and Corlett, E. N., 1995, Evaluation of human work; a practical ergonomics
methodology (London: Taylor & Francis), 1134 pp.