Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 499e506

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

An empirical analysis of the integration of internal and external

management system audits
Alexandra Simon a, *, Luc Honore Petnji Yaya b, Stanislav Karapetrovic c, Martí Casadesús a
a
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Departament d’Empresa, Edifici B e Campus de la UAB 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Barcelona, Spain
b
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Immaculada 22, 08017 Barcelona, Spain
c
University of Alberta, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 5-8b Mechanical Engineering Building, T6G 2G8 Edmonton, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the results of a research study whose main objectives were to analyze and compare
Received 1 March 2013 internal and external management system audits regarding their implementation and integration in
Received in revised form Spanish companies. Nine variables were investigated, namely the audit team, schedule, strategy, plan,
30 October 2013
report, methodology, guidelines, frequency and outputs. The results show that there are some significant
Accepted 4 November 2013
Available online 21 November 2013
differences regarding the audit team formation, the auditing guidelines used and the frequency of
conducting the audits. The rest of the variables did not exhibit significant differences between internal
and external audits. In addition, the integration level of both these categories of audits is very high for all
Keywords:
Audits
the audit elements analyzed.
Management systems ! 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Integration
ISO 9001
ISO 14001
Standards

1. Introduction
One of the most-used management practice is the imple-
mentation of management system standards (MSSs), such as ISO
9001 and ISO 14001 (Casadesus et al., 2009), with over one million
certificates to the former and over 260,000 to the latter (ISO, 2012).
The appearance of new MSSs, for example ISO 50001 for energy
management and ISO 28000 for supply chains, gives organizations
the possibility to manage them jointly in order to benefit from the
existing synergies among MSSs (Karapetrovic and Willborn, 1998;
Douglas and Glen, 2000; Zutshi and Sohal, 2005; Casadesus et al.,
2009). Implementing several MSSs demands many duplicate ac-
tivities (Simon et al., 2011). For example, management systems
(MSs) require all working procedures to be traceable and auditable
(Zeng et al., 2005). Therefore, “several separate documentation
systems are needed to meet their requirements which involve a lot
of documentation, written procedures, checking, control forms, and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 972 41 83 31.
E-mail addresses: alexandra.simon@uab.cat (A. Simon), arinopetnji@hotmail.
com (L.H.P. Yaya), s.karapetrovic@ualberta.ca (S. Karapetrovic), marti.casadesus@
udg.edu (M. Casadesús).
other paper work” (Zeng et al., 2005). In practice, it has been proved
difficult to deal with separate MSs, as well as ensuring that they
align with the organization’s strategy (Zeng et al., 2005). Hence,
integrated management systems (IMSs) have drawn the attention
of both academics and practitioners.
Because the implementation of multiple MSs gives organiza-
tions the possibility to unify them into a single IMS, their audits can
also be integrated (Karapetrovic and Willborn, 2001). It is expected
that organizations that have integrated their MSs to a certain de-
gree will also conduct integrated internal audits to some degree, as
internal audits are a subsystem of the overall MS (Bernardo et al.,
2010). Moreover, it is expected that, if the level of integration of
MSs is high, so will be that of the external audits (Kraus and
Grosskopf, 2008).
There are many studies about MS audits (e.g., Karapetrovic and
Willborn, 2001; De Moor and De Beelde, 2005; Kraus and
Grosskopf, 2008; Bernardo et al., 2011; Simon et al., 2011). How-
ever, studies about their integration and the differences between
external and internal audits are much sparser and contributions in
this direction are very much needed, as suggested by Bernardo et al.
(2010). For example, the results of Bernardo et al. (2010) show that
there are significant parallels between internal and external audits,
although they found that some components of the audit system, for

0959-6526/$ e see front matter ! 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.020
500 A. Simon et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 499e506
instance the internal audit teams, are integrated at a much higher
level than the other components. However, Karapetrovic et al.
(2006) found that some audit components were more integrated
in external than in internal audits. For their part, Salomone (2008)
found that 78% of the studied companies integrated their internal
audits, while this fraction was 65% in the case of external audits.
Therefore, internal audits usually have a lead in most of the inte-
gration aspects studied, which could be related to the level of
integration of the overall MSs. Thus, according to the findings of
these studies, there is need for more literature studying the dif-
ference between the internal and external audits in terms of the
integration of audit elements.
Our first objective is to study to which extent firms with more
than one standardized MS integrate their internal MS audits. The
second objective is to compare the integration of the internal and
external MS audit elements. In the next section, we provide a re-
view of the existing literature on the integration of quality, envi-
ronmental and other standardized MS audits. Subsequently, we
present the methodology and the empirical results of the investi-
gation. Finally, conclusions obtained from the study are discussed.
2. Literature review
2.1. Integration of the audits of MSs
Efforts to facilitate the joint auditing of different MSs have been
done by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
who first revised the standards for auditing quality (ISO 10011:
1990) and environmental (ISO 14010/11/12: 1996) MSs to publish
ISO 19011: 2002, which harmonized the individual audit guidelines
(Karapetrovic and Willborn, 2001), and then, in 2012, revised it in
order to provide more generic guidance (ISO, 2008). ISO 19011:
2012 allows the auditing of any type of a MS (ISO, 2008).
Looking at ISO 19011: 2012 (clause 3.1), an ‘audit’ is defined as a
“systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit
evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which
audit criteria are fulfilled”. According to this standard (clause 3.1,
Note 3), when “two or more management systems of different disci-
plines (e.g., quality, environmental, occupational health and safety)
are audited together”, this is termed a ‘combined audit’.
According to Karapetrovic and Willborn (2000), integrated MS
audits mean that specific audits lose their separate identities and
would be conducted as a single audit, from planning and design,
through execution, to reporting and completion. The level of inte-
gration of MS audits is discussed in Karapetrovic and Willborn
(1998), Karapetrovic (2002, 2003), Beckermagen et al. (2003),
Zeng et al. (2005) and Zutshi and Sohal (2005). These authors
conclude that a high level of integration of MS audits, like in the
case of MSs (Karapetrovic and Jonker, 2003), can lead to more
synergies and effectiveness in the audits.
2.2. Integration of the components of MS audits
It is possible to analyze the integration of MS audits in the same
manner as for the MSs themselves, namely based on the levels of
integration of the main system components, i.e., audit goals, re-
sources, and processes (Bernardo et al., 2011). In fact, the auditing
processes and required resources are fairly generic across quality,
environmental, organizational health and safety (OH&S) and other
types of MSs (Willborn, 1993). Therefore, integrated audits involve,
for instance, a single audit team for all MSs, which performs the
audit in the company at the same time according to the same
schedule (Karapetrovic and Willborn, 2001). Audit integration is
only feasible when the audit team has the right mix of skills and
competences to perform audits of IMSs (Karapetrovic and Willborn,
2000, 2001; De Moor and De Beelde, 2005). A single audit plan,
which includes the audit objectives, scope, audit timing and the
available physical and human resources for the audit, as well as
their management, should also be dispensed (Bafna, 1997; Mills,
1995). The final outcome of the audit is a report (Mills, 2003). As
outlined in international standards and guides, the audit report
includes audit findings and conclusions (positive and negative)
regarding the effectiveness of the MSs with the requirements of the
standards which may be classified as nonconformities and/or op-
portunities for improvement (Djekic and Smigic, 2013). Therefore,
the report for an IMS can include nonconformities and improve-
ment opportunities for each MSS and for the IMS as a whole (Simon
et al., 2011). To effectively audit the IMS, firms will need to establish
a frequency to carry out the audits (Mills, 1995), as well as a
methodology indicating whether the organization chooses a “pro-
cess” or a “requirement” approach (Mills, 1995; Karapetrovic and
Willborn, 1998; Karapetrovic, 2002).
Firms will also need a guideline to audit IMSs (Beckmerhagen
et al., 2003), for example ISO 19011. This standard explains the
principles of MS auditing and offers advice on evaluating auditors
and assessing their competence, guidance on managing audit
programs, as well as guidance on conducting internal and external
audits (Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008). However, the audits can also be
conducted according to the companies’ internal audit guidelines or
other methodologies (Simon et al., 2011).
2.3. Integration of internal and external MS audits
Most businesses are subject to an ever-increasing number of
audits, both internal and external (Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008).
Researchers have suggested that “organizations which rely on both
internal and external audits may receive the maximum benefit
from the auditing process” (Stanwick and Stanwick, 2001).
Regarding the integration of internal audits, Kraus and
Grosskopf (2008) state that they can be much more efficient than
separate audits, as the process under review, along with all its
controls (environmental, health, safety, and quality) has to be
evaluated only once. Moreover, there is less duplication of effort
during the planning, execution, and even follow-up phases of the
audit (Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008). In addition, the requirements
for conducting internal audits are substantially similar under ISO
9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and other MSSs (Kraus and
Grosskopf, 2008). So too are requirements for using corrective
and preventive actions to address audit findings (Kraus and
Grosskopf, 2008). The integration of external audits is also found
to be more efficient because organizations prefer to have integrated
external audits to benefit from synergies that this implies
(Bernardo et al., 2011).
According to ISO 19011:2012, an ‘internal’ or ‘first-party’ audit is
“conducted by, or on behalf of, the organization itself for management
review and other internal purposes, and may form the basis for an
organization’s declaration of conformity” (clause 3.1, Note 1).
‘External’ audits (clause 3.1, Note 2) encompass the so-called ‘sec-
ond-party’ (“conducted by parties having an interest in the organi-
zation, such as customers, or by other persons on their behalf”) and
‘third-party’ (“conducted by external, independent auditing organi-
zations, such as those providing certification/registration of confor-
mity”) audits (clause 3.1, Note 2).
Internal audits generally use existing resources and are con-
ducted by an employee or a team of employees who typically have
extensive tacit knowledge about the organization and its internal
processes (Darnall et al., 2009). By contrast, external audits are
executed by independent outside assessors who provide assur-
ances to the organization and its external stakeholders about the
business’s quality, environmental or other MS practices (Darnall
 A. Simon et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 499e506
et al., 2009). External audits have a greater appearance of objec-
tivity and independence (Karapetrovic and Willborn, 2001), since
an outside independent assessor examines the organization’s MS
practices.
Although there are few studies on the topic of the integration
level of internal MS audits, on one hand, and of the external MS
audits on the other (Douglas and Glen, 2000; Salomone, 2008;
Bernardo et al., 2011), some researchers have suggested that if
the MSs of the audited organizations are integrated, the more likely
it would be that the audits are integrated, as well (Kraus and
Grosskopf, 2008; Salomone, 2008; Bernardo et al., 2010, 2011).
2.4. Empirical studies on the integration of MS audits
Some empirical research has been done on how organizations
carry out the audit process in their MSs (Bernardo et al., 2010, 2011;
Simon et al., 2011). The investigations that study in detail the
integration of internal auditing subsystems or external function-
specific audits include Baldi (1999), Douglas and Glen (2000),
Bamber et al. (2004), Karapetrovic et al. (2006) and Salomone
(2008), Kraus and Grosskopf (2008), Bernardo et al. (2010, 2011)
and Simon et al. (2011).
Results from the available empirical studies show that internal
auditing is among the most integrated processes in the MSs of the
studied organizations and the level of integration of internal audits
is related to the integration level of the MSs in the organization
(Salomone, 2008; Bernardo et al., 2010). Because external audits are
not subsystems of the studied organizations’ MSs, it is difficult to
study the levels of integration of these audits (Karapetrovic and
Willborn, 1998; Kraus and Grosskopf, 2008; Darnall et al., 2009).
Still, the level of integration of external audits has also been found
to be related to the levels of integration of the MS components
(Bernardo et al., 2011).
Several investigations, including Karapetrovic et al. (2006),
Bernardo et al. (2010, 2011) and Simon et al. (2011), have studied
in detail the different components of internal and external audits,
namely the team of auditors, which can be the same for all MSs and
therefore integrated; the time (or scheduling) of the audits, which
can happen simultaneously for all MSs in the firm; the documen-
tation of the audits (plan and report); the strategy and methodol-
ogy used to audit the systems (as independent, interrelated or
integrated systems and “requirement-by-requirement” or “pro-
cess-by-process”, respectively); the use of auditing guidelines, for
instance ISO 19011 (as the only standard for auditing all MSs); and
the detection of non-conformities and improvement opportunities,
which can be generated for each MS separately or can include the
IMS. Regarding the frequency of the audits, although it is not an
element directly related to integration, it is important for com-
panies to know when the internal and external audits of each MS
will happen in order to be able to carry them out in a simultaneous
manner.
The results of the empirical studies on the integration of MS
audits show that, in general, there are significant parallels between
internal and external audits (Bernardo et al., 2010; Simon et al.,
2011). More specifically, Karapetrovic et al. (2006) found that
some components of the external audits were more integrated than
the internal ones. For example, they found that more audits are
conducted in a simultaneous manner during external audits than
during the internal ones. However, this finding is different from the
results found by Bernardo et al. (2010, 2011), who state that some
components of the audit system, for instance the internal audit
teams, are integrated at a much higher level than the corresponding
external audit components. For their part, Simon et al. (2011) found
that the level of integration of all audit components, both internal
and external, was very high.
501
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection
To investigate how companies carry out their audits and to
which extent these audits are integrated, this study adopted a
“purposive sampling” method, meaning that a mail survey was sent
in 2010 to the 176 organizations that had responded in a study
about IMSs in 2006 (Karapetrovic et al., 2006; Casadesus et al.,
2009). The 2010 survey included questions related to the imple-
mentation of MSs, the integration level, IMS benefits and chal-
lenges, and the integration of nine audit elements. The auditing
part of the questionnaire was organized in the way that re-
spondents were asked to tick with an “X” the option(s) that were
practiced in (or were applicable to) their organizations for internal
and external audits. The survey was addressed to the manager in
charge of the Quality Management System (QMS) and/or the
Environmental Management System (EMS) in the organization,
depending on the available contact information. However, in most
cases, the manager was the same person for the QMS and the EMS
as the organizations had their MSs integrated. Follow up calls were
made to increase the number of responses.
Previous results of this survey regarding the IMSs of the orga-
nizations can be found in Simon et al. (2011, 2012a, 2012b and
2012c). The current study focuses only on a specific aspect of the
survey, namely the MS auditing characteristics of the surveyed
companies and the integration level of the nine audit elements (the
audit team, time, strategy, plan, report, methodology, guidelines,
frequency and outputs).
Data collection was completed from February to July 2010. After
rejecting some incomplete or invalid questionnaires, a total of 76
usable responses were retained. This figure represented a response
rate of 43% and 93% reliability, with 95% confidence.
3.2. Data analysis
The notion of this study was to investigate to which extent firms
with more than one standardized MS integrate their internal MS
audits and to compare internal and external MS audits by analyzing
some of the fundamental audit integration performance elements
related to issues such as the audit team formation, the scheduling of
audits, the strategy adopted, as well as the audit plan and the
report. Also, the study investigated the MS audit performance el-
ements with respect to the methodology employed, the guidelines
followed, the frequency in which the audits are carried out, and the
audit outputs. The data collection for the study was not based on
the respondents’ personal feeling regarding MS audit, but rather on
their account of the actual functioning of the audits, principally by
responding to questions on what, how, when and by whom both
internal and external audits are carried out in their organization.
Given that the data were all categorical variables, one of the
principal steps for this study was to choose which statistical anal-
ysis was adequate. Some of the most popular statistical tools to
examine if two sets of data are significantly different from each
other comprises the t-test, the ManneWhitney U test and the one
way ANOVA test (e.g., Cuevas et al., 2004; Rosner et al., 2006; Petnji
et al., 2011). However, after screening our data, the t-test that fol-
lows a student t distribution when the null hypothesis is supported
was discarded because our data normality distribution did not hold.
In the same vein, the non-parametric ManneWhitney U test was
deemed not applicable because it is a permutation test based on the
efficient score that often compares the differences in means.
Moreover, the ANOVA test was also discarded because (i) it pro-
vides a statistical test of whether or not the means of two or more
groups are equal by using a generalized t-test of two samples (ii)
502 A. Simon et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 499e506

Table 1
Relative importance of internal and external MS audits.
(a) (a)
Audit performances Internal External k

N % N %

Team: Df ¼ 3; c2 ¼ 8.246; P ¼ 0.041 1

The audit teams/auditors that carry out the Same audit team for all standards 57 75.0 43 56.6 1a
audit are. Same audit team for selected standards 2 2.6 5 6.6 1b
Different audit teams 13 17.1 26 34.2 1c
Do not know 4 5.3 2 2.6 1d
Scheduling Df ¼ 3; c2 ¼ 4.473; P ¼ 0.214 2
The audits are carried out at the. Same time for all standards 55 72.4 59 77.6 2a
The same time for selected standards 5 6.6 9 11.8 2b
Different times 10 13.2 7 9.2 2c
Do not know 6 7.9 1 1.3 2d
Strategy: Df ¼ 3; c2 ¼ 5.206; P ¼ 0.157 3
The audit teams/auditors audit the different As independent systems 3 3.9 7 9.2 3a
implemented standards. As interrelated system 20 26.3 27 35.5 3b
As an integrated system 47 61.8 40 52.6 3c
Do not know 6 7.9 2 2.6 3d
Plan: Df ¼ 2; c2 ¼ 5.446; P ¼ 0.065 4
The audits of the different implemented One audit plan for all standards 59 77.6 53 69.7 4a
standards use. Different audit plans for each standard 11 14.5 21 27.6 4b
Do not know 6 7.9 2 2.6 4c
Report: Df ¼ 2; c2 ¼ 3.637; P ¼ 0.162 5
The audits of the different implemented One audit report for all standards 60 78.9 57 75.0 5a
standards use. Different audit reports for each standard 9 11.8 16 21.1 5b
Do not know 7 9.2 3 3.9 5c
(a) (a)
Audit performances Internal External k

Oi1 % Oi2 %

Methodology: Df ¼ 2; c2 ¼ 1.612; P ¼ 0.446 6

The audits are carried out. Process by process 46 60.5 43 56.6 6a
Requirement by requirement 23 30.3 29 38.2 6b
Do not know 7 9.2 4 5.2 6c
Guidelines: Df ¼ 3; c2 ¼ 10.413; P ¼ 0.015 7
The audit are carried out following the ISO 19011 22 28.9 31 40.8 7a
guidelines proposed by Another guideline 7 9.2 4 5.3 7b
No guideline 21 27.6 7 9.2 7c
Do not know 26 34.2 34 44.7 7d
Frequency: Df ¼ 3; c2 ¼ 12.649; P ¼ 0.005 8
The audits are carried out with the frequency Less than 6 months 11 14.5 1 1.3 8a
of. Between 6 months and less than 1 year 42 55.3 44 57.9 8b
Between 1 year and 3 years 19 25.0 30 39.5 8c
Do not know 4 5.3 1 1.3 8d
Outputs: Df ¼ 4; c2 ¼ 7.241; P ¼ 0.123 9
The audit. Only detects nonconformities 7 9.2 2 2.6 9a
Shows improvement opportunities for 20 26.3 17 22.4 9b
the implementation of each standard
Shows improvement opportunities for 6 7.9 9 11.8 9c
integration
Shows improvement opportunities for 38 50.0 47 61.8 9d
the implementation of each standards
and for integration
Do not know 5 6.6 1 1.3 9e
a
Internal and external audit evaluations are presented by the overall frequency (N) and the percentage of respondents for each kth audit integration performance element.

that may result in an increase chance to commit a type I error
(Campbell, 2007).
Given that we could compute the data frequency count, one of
the most appropriate tests for this study was the Chi-square test of
independence, as it is suitable to compare proportions between
groups. The Chi-square test is robust and efficient when you aspire
to compare two or more groups and the outcome variables are
categorical (Cohen et al., 2000).
Unlike ANOVA, the concept of one- or two-sidedness for a test
really has no meaning in chi-square tests and it is better to
compute the test statistic and p-value as it does not make any
sample approximations (Satorra and Bentler, 2001). According to
Campbell (2007) the Chi-square has special capabilities that
make it more appropriate than other techniques when analyzing
small sample sizes. However, current recommendations on the
appropriate statistical test mostly specify at least 5 as the
minimum expected number (Campbell, 2007). The extant liter-
ature shows the Chi-square for groups comparison can be
computed in various ways (Cohen et al., 2000; Satorra and
Bentler, 2001; Campbell, 2007), including the Pearson chi-
square that compares the observed and expected counts, and
the Likelihood ratio chi-square that weights the average of the
ratio of the observed and expected counts. In addition, there are
the Fisher’s exact test that analyzes how many contingency ta-
bles are more unusual than the one observed and the Yates’ Chi-
square for correction for continuity and a very small sample size
(Satorra and Bentler, 2001). Given that the categorical nature of
our data did not enable us to calculate the weights of the average
ratio, this study adopted the Pearson chi-square tests of inde-
pendence and goodness-of-fit using the data frequency counts to
detect if there is any performance discrepancy between internal
and external audits.
 A. Simon et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 499e506
Fig. 1. Integration related to the audit team.
We first set the null hypotheses H0k, which states that, for each
kth audit integration performance element with k Є {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9}, there is no significant difference between internal and
external audits. Thereafter, one of the principal steps of the analysis
was to compute the respondents’ favorable-responses frequency
(see Table 1). From then on, we calculated the chi-square values for
each audit integration performance element. Subsequently the p-
values were estimated based on the outcome of those results.
Finally, the overall results were summarized and presented in
Table 1.
4. Results
The results of the chi-square test on the first audit integration
performance elements related to the integration of the audit team
rejected the null hypothesis and displayed that the audit team
integration is significantly different for internal and external audits
(P < 0.05). Moreover, a thorough look at the data for this perfor-
mance (see Fig. 1) shows that, for both internal and external audits,
the percentage of using different teams of auditors for each stan-
dard was low.
Conversely, three-quarters of internal audits are performed with
the same team for all standards and only 17.1% with different teams.
In contrast, only 56.6% of external audits are made up of the same
team and 34.2% are composed of different teams. These results can
be justified on the grounds that internal audits will often be carried
out by the same team because firms may prefer retraining em-
ployees (e.g., a quality auditor in the field of environmental audit-
ing) to hiring new ones (e.g., an employee specialized in auditing
environmental MSs only). On the other hand, external auditors are
usually specialized in a particular field (Williamson et al., 1996),
either quality or environmental, and therefore, external audits will
Fig. 2. Integration related to the audit scheduling.
503
Fig. 3. Integration related to the strategies employed.
be less integrated as they are performed by different auditors or
teams (Zutshi and Sohal, 2005).
The second analysis shows there was no difference in terms of
audit integration performance related to scheduling (P # 0.05).
Nevertheless, the majority of both internal and external audits
were carried out for all MSSs at the same time, while only 13.2% (for
internal) and 9.2% (for external) were audits of the standards at
different times (see Fig. 2).
This finding makes sense considering the fact that many com-
panies integrated their MSs, and therefore, they would conduct
their internal audits simultaneously. It is agreed with Karapetrovic
et al. (2006), who also found that the majority of audits are con-
ducted in a simultaneous manner. In the case of external audits, this
finding also makes sense because it is generally recognized that
audits disturb the processes being audited in the company, and
therefore, auditors usually prefer to simultaneously audit all MSs in
order to avoid this (Mills, 2003).
In the same vein, there was no significant difference in terms of
audit integration strategies employed by either internal or external
auditors (P # 0.05). An in-depth analysis (see Fig. 3) shows more
than 50% of auditors in both categories audited the implemented
standards as an integrated system, whereas 25% or more did it as
interrelated systems and only a few as independent systems.
This is justified because the vast majority of firms, 84.2% ac-
cording to Simon et al. (2012c), have implemented IMSs. This
finding is consistent with Zeng et al. (2005) who argued that, in
practice, it is challenging to deal with separate MSs and guarantee
that they align with the organization’s strategy.
Furthermore, the chi-square test shows there was no significant
difference between the two groups in the way of planning the
audits of the different implemented standards (P # 0.05). Still, Fig. 4
shows around three-quarters of audits use one audit plan for all the
Fig. 4. Integration related to the audit plan.
504 A. Simon et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 499e506
Fig. 5. Integration related to the audit report.
standards, showing that the documentation resources for the au-
dits are highly integrated.
This is in accordance with Zutshi and Sohal (2005) who showed
that companies operating one integrated system will have some
quantifiable and unquantifiable benefits such as “saving of dollars,
better utilization of resources and improved communication across the
organization”. However, they maintained that for the benefits to be
realized, it is essential that organizations are aware of the chal-
lenges and obstacles accompanying integration of systems/stan-
dards (Zutshi and Sohal, 2005). Therefore, if these challenges are
not dealt with early in the process with, for example, a good and
structured audit planning, they can complicate or delay the
completion of the audit (Stanwick and Stanwick, 2001; Zutshi and
Sohal, 2005; Zeng et al., 2005; Bernardo et al., 2011).
Similarly, the results show that there was no significant differ-
ence between the two categories based on the audit reports
(P # 0.05). Nonetheless, the vast majority of the audits are tran-
scribed into only one audit report for all standards (see Fig. 5).
The insignificant difference between the two groups was not a
surprise, given the multiple points that overlap between MSSs, for
example ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 (Karapetrovic et al., 2006), and
that having different audit reports for each MSS simply means
unnecessary duplication of information that is costly and time
consuming (Douglas and Glen, 2000).
In addition, this study investigated the methodology used dur-
ing auditing. The question of interest was to know if the audits were
carried out “process-by-process” or “requirement-by-require-
ment”. The overall results show there was no significant difference
in practice between the two groups (P # 0.05). However, Fig. 6
shows around 60% of both internal and external auditors will do
Fig. 6. Integration related to the methodology.
Fig. 7. Integration related to the guidelines.
the audits process-by-process, whereas only 30% will do it
requirement-by-requirement.
This process approach in the audits used by the majority of or-
ganizations is aligned with the process approach suggested by ISO
9001 (ISO, 2011). Moreover, this finding may also be justified by the
fact that some of the most important benefits resulted from the
integration include “avoiding duplication of procedures”, “reducing
conflict of procedures”, and “reducing requirements for resources”
(Zeng et al., 2005).
This study also investigated whether the auditors were
following the auditing guidelines set by ISO 19011, a guideline other
than ISO 19011, or no guideline at all. The overall results show there
were significant differences in terms of the guidelines used by in-
ternal and external auditors (P < 0.05). Fig. 7 shows 28.9% of in-
ternal auditors use ISO 19011 and 27.6% do not follow any
guidelines. On the other hand, 40.8% of external auditors use ISO
19011 and merely 9.2% follow no guidelines.
Moreover, other guidelines were used in 9.2% and 5.3% of in-
ternal and external audits, respectively. Among those, 42.86% of
responses for internal audits and 75% for external audits specified
that both “ISO 9001” and “ISO 14001” were followed. A further
42.86% (internal) and 25% (external) opted for “ISO/TS 16949”.
Finally, 14.28% of such responses for internal audits stated that an
“internal procedure” was used.
Furthermore, 34.2% of the respondents indicated that they did
not know which guideline was followed in internal audits, while
this percentage was 44.7% for external audits. Nonetheless, it is
important to mention that the survey was not sent to the auditors,
but to QMS/EMS managers. Evidently, in the case of internal audits,
some managers may serve as auditors, but one cannot assume that
Fig. 8. Integration related to the frequency of audits.
 A. Simon et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 499e506
Fig. 9. Integration related to the audit output.
they all do. In the case of external audits, none of the respondents
could have been conducting them. Still, as mentioned before, this
study’s data collection was based on the managers’ accounts of the
actual functioning of audits in their organizations. Thus, the results
of the study cannot confirm the importance and usefulness of ISO
19011, the auditing standard which can now be used to audit any
type of MSSs (ISO, 2008) and which could be a very useful tool for
many organizations to audit their IMS in the future (Karapetrovic
and Willborn, 2001).
The results also show a significant difference between the two
categories on the frequency of carrying out the audits. Fig. 8 shows
57.9% of external audits are performed with the frequency of be-
tween six months and less than one year, with close to 40% be-
tween one and three years, while only 1.3% in less than six months.
In contrast, about 15% of internal auditors accomplish their
audits with the frequency of less than six months, while 55.3% do it
between six months and one year and 25% between one and three
years. Plausibly, internal audits are done in less than six months
because one of the internal auditors’ jobs in the company is to
deliver continuous monitoring and assessment of all MSSs imple-
mented. On the other hand, external auditors are independent of
the company and the frequency of external audits might depend on
certain important factors such as the costs or resources to maintain
an external auditor and the MS certification renewal calendar of the
companies.
Finally, Power and Terziovski (2007) suggest that firms should
implement a continuous improvement based auditing in order to
improve the systems. This study investigates the audit outputs in
relation to detecting nonconformities and showing improvement
opportunities for the implementation of MSSs and the integration
of MSs. The results show that there were no significant differences
between the two categories based on the audit outputs (P # 0.05).
More than 50% of the managers responded that audit outputs show
improvement opportunities for the implementation of each stan-
dard and for integration (Fig. 9).
On the other hand, about 25% responded that the audits show
the potential for improving the implementation of each standard
alone. In contrast, 7.9% (internal) and 11.8% (external) stated that
the audit outputs only show the possibilities of improving MS
integration and less than 10% that they detect non-conformities.
5. Conclusion
In general, the majority of the companies often implement a
variety of MSs, not only to achieve their own objectives, but also to
satisfy their stakeholder needs (Zeng et al., 2005). One of the logical
repercussions is that organizations that have integrated their MSs
up to some degree will somehow conduct integrated internal au-
dits. Grounded on these notions, the objectives of this study were to
505
investigate to which extent firms with more than one standardized
MS integrate their internal MS audits and to compare the integra-
tion of the internal and external audit elements. To respond to the
research objectives, we assessed if there were any differences be-
tween internal and external audits in terms of nine audit integra-
tion performance elements studied.
The overall results show there were no significant differences
between internal and external audits in terms of performance
related to the audit scheduling, strategy, plan, report, methodology
or outputs. However, there were significant differences in three
individual audit integration performance elements, namely the
audit team formation, the guideline followed and the frequency in
which the audits are carried out.
Moreover, this study thoroughly analyzed the differences be-
tween internal and external audits in terms of the various options
under each audit performance elements. For example, contrary to
the external audit that can be composed of different teams, the
majority of internal auditors are in the same team. Furthermore,
about three quarters of both internal and external audits were
conducted simultaneously and used one plan and one report for all
standards.
In addition, the majority of audits in both categories are done
process by process. However, a considerable percentage (more than
30%) of both internal and external audits was carried out require-
ment by requirement. Around 28.9% of internal auditors, and 40.8%
of external auditors, followed the ISO 19011 guideline, while 27.6%
and 9.2%, respectively, followed no guideline at all. However, 34.2%
and 44.7% of the respondents said that they did not know which
guideline was followed in the internal and external audits,
respectively. This result is surprising, especially for the internal
audits, because the survey was sent to the QMS and EMS managers.
A possible explanation, which should be further studied, is that in
the region where the survey is conducted, a majority of QMS and
EMS managers are workers that started at the shop floor level of the
organization and have reached management levels. These workers
usually have very practical experience but sometimes lack of more
“theoretical” training regarding guidelines or other MSs elements.
In the same vein, the majority of the internal audits were done
between 6 months and 1 year. In contrast, 39.5% of internal and
57.9% of external audits were accomplished between 1 and 3 years.
Finally, half of the respondents indicated that both internal and
external audit outputs showed improvement opportunities for the
implementation of each standard and for the integrated system,
whereas around a quarter stated it showed the opportunities for
improving the implementation of each standard alone.
All in all, based on the above findings, this study can confirm
that firms with more than one standardized management system
are likely to integrate their audits, since the majority of the audit
integration performance elements appear to be fully integrated. For
506 A. Simon et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 66 (2014) 499e506
example the majority of 75% of internal audits are performed with
the same team for all standards, the majority of the audits are
transcribed into only one audit report for all standards and around
three-quarters of audits use one audit plan for all the standards. No
differences were found between external and internal audits in six
out of nine audit performance elements.
This study contributes to the body of knowledge in the fields of
IMS and MS audits. It is especially interesting for managers and
practitioners as audits have been uncovered by several authors as
one key factor in the success of standardized and integrated MSs. In
particular, Salomone (2008), Bernardo et al. (2010) and Simon et al.
(2011) presented the optimization and/or unification of internal
and external audits as one of the main benefits obtained from the
implementation of an IMS.
For future research, it would be interesting to conduct the sur-
vey in a different location, as conducting it in Catalonia only was
one of the main limitations of this study. Moreover, investigating
the topic of the integration of MS audits by analyzing the percep-
tions of managers, and other participants in the auditing process
(Simon et al., 2011), such as auditors or auditees, may be of interest.
Since certain factors such as the lack of specialized auditors or the
differences in the elements of the standards (Karapetrovic et al.,
2006) may possibly affect the degree of integration for both inter-
nal and external audits it may be interesting to extend this research
by investigating what may be the potential barriers to the audits’
integration (both for internal and external audits). In addition,
other future research may be to investigate the evolution of MS and
IMS audits over time.
References
Bafna, S., 1997. The process audit: often ignored but never insignificant. Qual. Prog.
30 (12), 37e40.
Baldi, D., 1999. Management system mergers. Environ. Prot.. Available at: http://
www.eponline.com/ (accessed 11.11.12.).
Bamber, C., Sharp, J., Castka, P., 2004. Third party assessment: the role of the
maintenance function in an integrated management system. J. Qual. Mainten.
Eng. 10 (1), 26e36.
Beckmerhagen, I., Berg, H., Karapetrovic, S., Willborn, W., 2003. Integration of
management systems: focus on safety in the nuclear industry. Int. J. Qual.
Reliabil. Manage. 20 (2), 209e227.
Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., Heras, I., 2010. An empirical study on
the integration of management system audits. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (5), 486e495.
Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., Heras, I., 2011. Relationships between
the integration of audits and management systems: an empirical study. TQM J.
23 (6), 659e672.
Campbell, I., 2007. Chi-squared and FishereIrwin tests of two-by-two tables with
small sample recommendations. Stat. Med. 26 (19), 3661e3675.
Casadesus, M., Heras, I., Karapetrovic, S., 2009. The 9000 with the 9000: An Analysis
of the Impact of the ISO 9000 Standard in Catalonia. Acc1ó, CIDEM/COPCA.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., 2000. Research Methods in Education.
Routledge.
Cuevas, A., Febrero, M., Fraiman, R., 2004. An anova test for functional data. Comput.
Stat. Data Anal. 47 (1), 111e122.
Darnall, N., Seol, I., Sarkis, J., 2009. Perceived stakeholder influences and organi-
zations’ use of environmental audits. Account. Organ. Soc. 34, 170e187.
De Moor, P., De Beelde, I., 2005. Environmental auditing and the role of the
accountancy profession: a literature review. Environ. Manage. 36 (2), 205e219.
Djekic, I., Smigic, N., 2013. Environmental issues revealed in certified bottling
companies in the Republic of Serbia. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 263e269.
Douglas, A., Glen, D., 2000. Integrated management systems in small and medium
enterprises. Tot. Qual. Manage. 11 (4e6), 686e690.
ISO, 2008. The Integrated Use of Management System Standards. International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO, 2011. ISO 19011. International Standard: Guidelines for Auditing Management
Systems. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO, 2012. The ISO Survey of Management System Standard Certifications e 2011.
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Karapetrovic, S., 2002. Strategies for the integration of management systems and
standards. TQM Mag. 14 (1), 61e67.
Karapetrovic, S., 2003. Musings on integrated management systems. Measur. Bus.
Excell. 7 (1), 4e13.
Karapetrovic, S., Casadesus, M., Heras, I., 2006. Dynamics and Integration of Stan-
dardized Management Systems. Documenta Universitaria, Girona, Spain.
Karapetrovic, S., Jonker, J., 2003. Integration of standardized management systems:
searching for a recipe and ingredients. Tot. Qual. Manage. Bus. Excell. 14 (4),
451e459.
Karapetrovic, S., Willborn, W., 1998. Integrated audit of management systems. Int. J.
Qual. Reliabil. Manage. 15 (7), 694e711.
Karapetrovic, S., Willborn, W., 2000. Generic audit of management systems: fun-
damentals. Manage. Audit. J. 15 (6), 279e294.
Karapetrovic, S., Willborn, W., 2001. Audit systems: concepts and practices. Tot.
Qual. Manage. 12 (1), 13e28.
Kraus, J., Grosskopf, J., 2008. Auditing integrated management systems: consider-
ations and practice tips. Environ. Qual. Manage. 18 (2), 7e16.
Mills, D., 1995. Manual de auditoría de la calidad. Gestion 2000. Barcelona.
Petnji, Y.L.H., Marimon, F., Casadesus, M., 2011. Customer’s loyalty and perception of
ISO 9001 in online banking. Ind. Manage. Data Sys. 111 (8), 1194e1213.
Power, D., Terziovski, M., 2007. Quality audit roles and skills: perceptions of non-
financial auditors and their clients. J. Oper. Manage. 25, 126e147.
Rosner, B., Glynn, R.J., Lee, M.L.T., 2006. The Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired
comparisons of clustered data. Biometrics 62 (1), 185e192.
Salomone, R., 2008. Integrated management systems: experiences in Italian orga-
nizations. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (16), 1786e1806.
Satorra, A., Bentler, P.M., 2001. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for
moment structure analysis. Psychometrika 66 (4), 507e514.
Simon, A., Bernardo, M., Karapetrovic, S., Casadesus, M., 2011. Integration of stan-
dardized environmental and quality management systems audits. J. Clean. Prod.
19, 2057e2065.
Simon, A., Bernardo, M., Karapetrovic, S., Casadesus, M., 2012a. Implementing
integrated management systems in chemical firms. Total Qual. Manag. Bus.
Excell., 1e16.
Simon, A., Karapetrovic, S., Casadesus, M., 2012b. Difficulties and Benefits of Inte-
grated Management Systems. Ind. Manag Data Syst. 112 (5), 828e846.
Simon, A., Karapetrovic, S., Casadesus, M., 2012c. Evolution of integrated manage-
ment systems in Spanish firms. J. Clean. Prod. 23, 8e19.
Stanwick, P., Stanwick, D., 2001. Cut your risks with environmental auditing. J. Corp.
Account. Fin. 12, 11e14.
Willborn, W., 1993. Audit Standards: a Comparative Analysis. ASQ Quality Press.
Williamson, A., Rogerson, J.H., Vella, A.D., 1996. Quality system auditors’ attitudes
and methods: a survey. Int. J. Qual. Reliabil. Manage. 13 (8), 39e52.
Zeng, S.X., Tian, P., Shi, J., 2005. Implementing integration of ISO 9001 and ISO
14001 for construction. Manage. Audit. J. 20 (4), 394e407.
Zutshi, A., Sohal, A.S., 2005. Integrated management system. The experience
of three Australian organisations. Int. J. Qual. Reliabil. Manage. 16 (2),
211e232.