Journal of Decision Systems

ISSN: 1246-0125 (Print) 2116-7052 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjds20

Quality, safety and environment management

systems (QSE): analysis of empirical studies on
integrated management systems (IMS)

Mariyam Moumen & Houda El Aoufir

To cite this article: Mariyam Moumen & Houda El Aoufir (2017): Quality, safety and environment
management systems (QSE): analysis of empirical studies on integrated management systems
(IMS), Journal of Decision Systems, DOI: 10.1080/12460125.2017.1305648

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2017.1305648

Published online: 10 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjds20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 14 April 2017, At: 21:54
Journal of Decision Systems, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2017.1305648

Quality, safety and environment management systems (QSE):

analysis of empirical studies on integrated management
systems (IMS)
Mariyam Moumen and Houda El Aoufir
LASTIMI Laboratory, High School of Technology EST, Mohammed V University, Sale, Morocco

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Since the early 2000s, the adoption of management systems dedicated Received 4 January 2016
to quality, environment and safety in company, has become an Accepted 21 February 2017
important activity for many organisations. They are considered a
KEYWORDS
symbol of success and a prerequisite for the survival and savings Integrated management
(time, cost, resources). In fact, to survive and prosper in a competitive system; IMS; QSE; quality;
environment, companies need to address all aspects of their processes, safety and environment
including the reduction of costs, the welfare of their employees and
the protection of environment work. However, the reality of each type
of integrated system is different from one organization to another, and
numerous internal and external factors, will condition its morphology.
The aims of this paper is to discuss some empirical studies that have
documented the experiences of organizations in certain countries
such as Spain, Italy, China, India, Australia, which conducted us
to investigate the situation of Moroccan companies operating in
different sectors and activities, to assess performance levels, to identify
priority areas for improvement and to determine the strengths and
weaknesses, the possibility of success and failure firms interrogated on
quality, safety and environment management systems and also discuss
the perceptions of companies about the benefits and difficulties most
experienced during integration of their management systems.

1. Introduction
In last few years, industrial companies are obliged to adapt to a changing environment.
Among these obligations, the company must meet the product quality/process require-
ments, security of employees, protection of the environment and improve productivity.
Therefore, the Quality, Safety and Environment Systems, often called QSE at the centre of
preoccupation related to the optimisation of production. Indeed, the implement of an inte-
grated management system (IMS) offers companies the opportunity to control the risks,
costs, environmental impacts, non-conformities, to satisfy customers and to follow a con-
tinuous improvement approach.
The motivation behind this research is that there is a need to know, why some companies
have integrated their management systems while others in similar context does not adopt

CONTACT  Mariyam Moumen  moumen.mariyam@gmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

management systems, even individual. Understanding the factors of decision-making and

the factors affecting the application of IMS.
In the literature, it was confirmed that there is a change of culture being born, a trend in
businesses all over the world towards the integration of management systems (Douglas &
Glen, 2000; Fresner & Engelhardt, 2004; Jørgensen, Remmen, & Mellado, 2005; Zutshi & Sohal,
2005; Zeng, Shi, & Lou, 2007; Salomone, 2008; Wilkinson & Dale, 2000), the number of com-
panies with more than one certification is increasing constant and many of them already
have experience with integration. In addition, some countries, such as Australia, France,
Holland, Denmark, Spain and Britain have started to develop national standards for IMS.
In this contribution we will make an analysis of a series of work of researchers who studied
the IMS of different perspectives, including examination the possibility of integrating quality,
environment and safety management systems by analysing the potential benefits and difficulties
encountered in the implementation of IMS for organisations, and to explore different approaches
to integration. Which conducted us to investigate the case of Morocco, by a diagnostic survey
destined to 34 Moroccan companies, aimed to assess performance levels, to identify priority
areas for improvement and to determine the strengths and weaknesses, the possibility of success
and failure firms interrogated on quality, safety and environment management systems and
also discuss the perceptions of companies about the advantages and the difficulties experienced
during the integration of MSs in organisations with more than one MS.

2.  Integration and implementation strategies of IMS

The subject of IMSs in terms of quality, environmental and safety management is becoming
increasingly seen as part of an organisation’s management portfolio (Wilkinson & Dale, 2000).
It is conceptualised as a single set of interconnected processes that share a unique pool of human,
information, material, infrastructure and financial resources in order to achieve a composite of
goals related to the satisfaction of a variety of stakeholders (Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003).
The major challenge of an IMS is to lead the organisation in a progress and performance
approach, avoiding duplication, by conducting a policy for the prevention and control of
risks, but also reducing the costs of implementation and monitoring the various manage-
ment systems and finally to be beneficial for all stakeholders (civil society, environment,
personnel).
Therefore, the QSE approach has become a key element in organisational development
and a way to improve their profitability and their images and also to differentiate the com-
petitive level and commit to sustainable development of organisation.

3.  Drivers for IMS implementation

Benefits may be graded in several scopes, we have referred to the theoretical and method-
ological research of justification of research Zhang et al. (2008), Santos, Mendes, and Barbosa
(2011), Asif (2008) and Salomone (2008).
Karapetrovic and Casadesus (2009) believe that an IMS in any form must always lead to
a more efficient system. Wilkinson and Dale (2000) believed that IMS had simplified the
management of their organisations. IMS is considered an evolving system that corresponds
to the self-assessment and benchmarking. It provides direction and corporate structure, and
ensures that individual certification standards are met in a cost effective manner. The
Table 1. Main reasons and motivations driving companies to integrate their MSs.
Areas Benefits from IMS implementation Supporting literature
Management systems • Elimination of documentation duplication Douglas and Glen (2000), McDonald, Mors, and Phillips (2003), Zutshi and Sohal (2005),
• Reduce duplication of policies, procedures and records Simon et al. (2012), Salomone (2008), Karapetrovic and Casadesus (2009), Santos et al.
• More agility system with less redundancy (2011), Sampaio, Saraiva, and Domingues (2012), Karapetrovic and Casadesus (2009),
• Reduce of bureaucracy Simon, Bernardo, Karapetrovic, and Casadesus (2011)
• Flexibility of standards
• Simplified MSs resulting in less confusing, redundancy and conflicts in the
documentation
Overall organisation • Enhanced customer satisfaction Douglas and Glen (2000), Zutshi and Sohal (2005)
• Simplified systems
• Enhanced communication system
• Management cost reduction Simon et al. (2011), Jørgensen et al. (2005), Wright, (2000), Rebelo, Santos, and Silva
(2014), Douglas and Glen (2000), Zeng et al. (2007), Zutshi and Sohal (2005), Santos et
al. (2011), McDonald et al. (2003)
• Operational improvements Fresner and Engelhardt (2004), Holdsworth, (2003), Jørgensen et al. (2005), McDonald et
• Means to sustainable development al. (2003)
• Time saving Zutshi and Sohal (2005)
• Greater acceptance by employees
• Strategic planning
• Holistic vision
• Better synergies between systems Rocha, Searcy, and Karapetrovic, (2007)
• Better use of resources
Performance • Most competent workers McDonald et al. (2003), Simon et al. (2012), Rebelo et al. (2014)
• Most motivated staff
• Increase of organisational efficiency
• Common framework for continual improvement
• Overall organisational performance improvement
• Improvements to risk management
• Better definition of management responsibilities and authority
Audit • Unification of internal audits Salomone, (2008), Simon et al. (2011)
• Reduction of costs of internal audits
• Better use of audit results
Human Resources • Better allocation of resources Zeng et al. (2007), Salomone (2008), Santos et al. (2011), Wright, (2000), Salomone
• Optimised resources (financial and human) to maintaining a single goal (2008), Santos et al. (2011)
• Teamwork promotion
JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 

• Competitive market advantage

• Human Resources Increased employee training
• Optimisation and unification of training activities
 3
4   M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

advantages of an IMS include an optimised management system, improved competitiveness

and better use of resources and so on. Integrating management systems have simplified the
management of their organisations (Low & Chin, 2003). Pun and Hui (2002) estimated that
IMS could help companies to a competitive advantage. This is due to the reduction of the
financial loss, compliance with legislation, the effective allocation of responsibilities and
promoting community goodwill. Matias and Coelho (2002) explained the anticipated ben-
efits of IMS for companies focused on economies of scale in certification and a common
approach to the process for the provision of quality, environmental responsibility and pro-
tection of the labour (Zeng, Xie, Tam, & Shen, 2011).
What motivates organisations to implement IMS can be considered in terms of what can
be drawn from the implementation of IMS. The benefits of integrating management systems
could be powerful motive for implementing IMS. Table 1 shows a list of benefits that could
be achieved from implementing IMS.
However, motivations behind the effect to IMS implementation may be as internal as
external. Internal motives are those that generate from socio-techno-economic areas of an
organisation and further may be classified as reactive or proactive ones. Reactive motives
come from process output and if the management is not satisfied, IMS is then asked to have
corrective measures. They also may result from repeated failures to be in accordance with
current operating, financial and/or regulative goals and targets. On the other side, external
motives affect the organisation from external environment. They may appear on customer
demand that insists on IMSs or on global market competition insisting from a company to
accept the best business practice and regulatory requirements.

4.  Limitations and obstacles of non-integration

Several articles have reported limitations associated to non-integrated MSs (Jørgensen, 2008;
Sampaio & Saraiva 2011). The most common reported disadvantages are related to different
educational contexts and expectations of the MS manager, the traditional organisational
structure focus on departmentalisation, effort duplication and increased bureaucracy
(Beckmerhagen, Berg, Karapetrovic, & Willborn, 2003; Domingues, Sampaio, & Arezes, 2015).
Brewer, Nash, and List (2005), among others, have pointed out that many MSs independ-
ent operating within a single company, each independent with different management teams,
is not a good management practice and Ismail, Abd, Chik, and Zain (2009) reported that
independent subsystems are likely to be isolated from each other, which can lead to the
non-accomplishment of certain expected benefits or the emergence of new derivatives of
this isolation problems (Domingues et al., 2014).
Usually, management commitment on issues related to a product or service quality is
as strong as the commitment to Occupation Health and Safety (OHS) issues. In addition,
stakeholders require continuous improvement in quality, OHS and environment which
enterprises with non-integrated MSS can not answer (Winder, 2000). Zeng, Tam, and Le
(2010) pointed out that the major problems for businesses when using several non-inte-
grated MSs are the high level of complexity in internal management, the decrease in the
effective management and the increase in management costs. In addition, Ismail et al.
(2009) pointed out that the non-integrated MSs conflicts show interest because of the
prevalence of ‘local’ interests associated to each subsystem that may be against the global
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS   5

Table 2. Most reported limitations concerning non-integrated MSs (Asif et al., 2009).
Difficulties in integration Supporting literature
• limited flexibility after integration Karapetrovic (2002)
• Employee resistance during integration (due to the loss of
individual functions
• Unavailability of a common denominator (common features)
• Inadequate audit procedures
• Increased bureaucracy Matias and Coelho (2002), Zutshi and Sohal (2005)
• Reject of a new system by employees
• Unavailability of formal standard for integrating manage- Labodova′ (2004)
ment systems
• Lack of understanding of integration concepts Salomone (2008), Wilkinson and Dale (2000)
• Insufficient financial resources Zutshi and Sohal (2005)
• Risk of not attribute the right level of importance Salomone (2008)
• Each function (such as quality, environmental and health
and safety)
• Lack of knowledge and information on how to integrate Zutshi and Sohal (2005), Salomone (2008), Zeng et al.
(2007)
• Cultural aspects (requires cultural change) Jørgensen et al. (2005), Zeng et al. (2007), Wilkinson
and Dale (2000)

strategic business interests. The most reported limitations concerning non-integrated MSs
are listed in Table 2.

5.  Analysis of empirical studies

Important aspect of IMS research is to find out the factors that affect IMS implementation.
It includes the factors that facilitate IMS implementation as well as factors that prevent or
disturb IMS implementation. A survey of the literature shows that this is the last scope in
research of IMS. However, we find some isolated studies in Australia (Zutshi & Sohal, 2005),
China (Zeng et al., 2007), Spain (Simon, Karapetrovic, & Casadesus, 2012), Portuguese (Santos
et al., 2011), Inde (Khanna, Laroiya, & Sharma, 2010) and Italy (Salomone, 2008) which attempt
to identify the factors influencing IMS implementation in various contexts. Nevertheless,
these studies have certain limitations, this has been discussed in the Table 3 which gives an
overview of the analysis of empiric studies in IMS for consideration of research strategies
realised in some countries.
In china (Zeng et al., 2007), in order to understand the challenges and critical issues
involved in the integration process such as, ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 standards
in Chinese firms, a questionnaire survey was conducted in 104 large and medium-sized firms
in China. It’s concluded that the major problems for an enterprise to operate parallel systems
including: complexity of internal management, weakness management efficiency, acquiring
cultural incompatibility, causing employee hostility and increasing management costs.
The factors affecting the implementation of IMS are classified into internal and external
categories. The internal factors insisted of: human resources, organisational structure, com-
pany culture and understanding and perception. Indeed the negative attitudes against IMS
and the unfavourable culture of business are often cited as the worst factors that can create
a critical climate of implementation of IMS. The external factors including: technical guidance,
certification bodies, stakeholder and customers and institutional environment.
 6 

Table 3. Analysis of empirical studies on IMS.

Data characteristics

Authors/ Years Sample Method Country Main findings

Zeng et al. (2007) n  = 104; Mailed survey China Factors influencing the implementation IMS:
ISO 9001, ISO 14,001 and OHSAS 18,001 Internal factors
Certifications (61 companies have implemented IMS) • Human resources
• Business culture
• Organisational structure
• Understanding and perception
External factors
• Technical consultancy
• Certification organisations provide
• Institutional environment
• Stakeholders and Customers
 M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

Santos et al. (2011) n = 46; Questionnaire Portuguese The main benefits

All SMEs surveyed were certified according to the ISO 9001 • Multiple systems with the same goals
(100%), a quarter of firms were certified according to the • Reduction of management costs
ISO 14,001 (26.1%) and a few certified by OHSAS 18,001 • Unification of internal audits
(15.2%) • Increased employee training
• Better definition of management responsibilities and authority
• Simplified management systems resulting in less confusion
• Redundancy and conflicts in documentation
• Easier compliance of legislation
• Improved organisation and
• Improved external image of the company
Also, some drawbacks were identified, such as
• Increased initial costs associated with a raise in non-conformities
• A need to continuously update all documentation, with a negative impact in the management activity itself,
Incompatible concepts between systems
• The fact that one problem in a single system may affect the overall management system
• Difficulty associated to training and changes in the organisation methods and company culture
Salomone (2008) n = 103; Questionn Italy Drivers of IMS implementation
(out of 103 firms, only 75 had achieved full integration for aire • Pressure of the local community
QMS, EMS and OH&SMS but not CSR) • Customer and Distributor pressure
• Public Authority pressures
• Pressures on competitiveness
• Product improvement
• New opportunities for market
• Continuous improvement
• Improving Productivity
• Image Enhancement
• Reducing management costs
Factors influencing IMS implementation
• Standard unclear
• Incompetent Human Resources
• Costs excessively high
• Lack of information
• Management difficulties
• Insufficient financial support
Zutshi and Sohal (2005) n = 3 Case studies Australia Benefits of integration:• Effective strategic planning
Australian organisations • better use of resources
• Holistic vision
• Better acceptance and understanding between employees
• Benefits of integrated training programmes
• Enhanced communication
• Cost savings and positive market image
• Benefits from integrated audit and housekeeping
Obstacles in integration• Employee Resistance
• Lack of strategic planning
• Lack of consultants and expertise
• Continually evolving regulations and guidelines (as for the environmental management system)
• Need for a rapid reporting system

Douglas and Glen (2000) n = 28; Mailed survey UnitedKingdom Benefits of Integration • Less paperwork
Having integration of only QMS and EMS. (Partial: 20 • Less procedures
organisations Not integrated: 8 Organisations) • Multi-operational auditor
• Easier to managing systems
• Most efficient internal and external improved communication between staff
• Better image with customers
• Cost reduction

Simon et al. (2012) n = 176;
ISO 9001 and ISO 14,001 certifications at least (The majority of
organisations have fully integrated their MSSs)
Mailed survey Catalonia (Spain) Positive effects of integration• Increase of organisational efficiency
• Task simplification (documentation, requirements)
• Better use of the internal and external audit results
• Organisation image improvements
Most difficulties• Lack of human resources
• Lack of supporting technology, lack of support from the administration
• Lack of employee motivation and
• Collaboration department
JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 
 7
8   M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

Generally the quality, environment and safety management systems are different in some
consideration. The differences create difficulties for companies to develop their organisa-
tional culture, facilitate the exchange of information, strengthening the documentary system,
increase the efficiency of management systems and to involve the entire staff to the success
of the managing multiple systems in parallel.
In Portuguese (Santos et al., 2011), in order to characterise the situation of Portuguese
industry, a survey based on a questionnaire was carried out in 46 several Portuguese SMEs,
concerning the certification of their Quality Management Systems (QMS), Environmental
Management Systems (EMS) and Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems
(OHSMS), in their individually form, to identify benefits, drawbacks and difficulties associated
with the certification process and to characterise the level of integration that has been
achieved. All SMEs surveyed were certified according to the ISO 9001 (100%), a quarter of
firms were certified according to the ISO 14001 (26.1%) and a few certified by OHSAS 18001
(15.2%).
Results show that the main benefits that Portuguese SMEs have gained in terms of opti-
mised resources (financial and humans) to maintaining a single goal vs. multiple systems
with the same goals, reduction of management costs, unification of internal audits, increased
employee training, better definition of management responsibilities and authority, simplified
management systems resulting in less confusion, redundancy and conflicts in documenta-
tion, easier compliance of legislation, improved organisation and improved external image
of the company.
Also, some drawbacks were identified, such as increased initial costs associated with a
raise in non-conformities, a need to continuously update all documentation, with a negative
impact in the management activity itself, incompatible concepts between systems and cer-
tainly, the fact that one problem in a single system may affect the overall management
system, simultaneously when compared with individual implementation and deep changes
in the management system due to operational changes, which led to a high difficulty asso-
ciated to training and changes in the organisation methods and company culture.
In Italy (Salomone, 2008), The study was performed using the data obtained from ques-
tionnaire that was distributed to the 103 companies (only 75 had achieved full integration
of QMS, EMS and OHSAS) to investigate the potential of integration from an analysis of
commonalities in terms of real motivations (corporate image, the saving costs, etc.), obstacles
(unclear regulations, lack of financial support, etc.), driving forces and external pressures that
organisations face during the implementation analysed management systems such as quality
(ISO 9001: 2008), environment (ISO 14001: 2004), Health and Safety (OHSAS 18001: 2007).
Undoubtedly, the Italian organisations feel strongly the need to integrate. This is due not
only to the many challenges they face in managing management systems separately, but
also for the substantial benefits derived from integration.
Analysis of commonality in terms of the motivations and obstacles that companies face
when implementing each of the analysed management systems enable to identify many
benefits of integration systems, while the obstacles seem be fewer.
The most notable advantages were the optimisation and unification of the audit, both
internal (78%) and external (65%), reducing documentation control procedures (69%) for
three systems, optimisation and unification of training (58%), a better definition of respon-
sibilities (45%).In general, all areas where synergies between the three systems could be
exploited, thereby saving time, money and labour.
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS   9

In addition, the biggest obstacles identified by companies were the risk to not assign the
right level of importance to each concept of quality, environment, safety (48%), staff reluc-
tance and risk confuse the requirements (11%), lack of technical support (16%). and the
difficulty in organising an IMS (46%).
An interesting remark was that 10% of the companies that declared having integrated
their management system stated they had not experienced any obstacle to integration.
In India (Khanna et al., 2010), the integration of management systems were studied using
a questionnaire on 60 Indian manufacturing organisations. The results indicate that the
majority of responding organisations (about 83%) have integrated their management sys-
tems to some extent. This finding of the research is the same as the studies conducted in
other countries.
The study reveals that focus on stakeholders, top management commitment and training
are critical success factors for implementation of IMS. The main obstacles faced by manu-
facturing organisations in the integration of management systems, including a lack of sup-
port from senior management, lack of training, inadequate technical skills, a lack of training
and awareness.
In parallel the benefits of integration include improving the image of the company, cus-
tomer satisfaction, reducing time and costs required for implementation, improved com-
munication and competitiveness the synergy between the different management systems,
reducing audit costs, elimination of duplication of procedures, response to pressure from
customers and government, also referred integrating environmental benefits through the
reduction of cost and impact on the environment.
The adoption of IMSs in the manufacturing sector is one of the challenges of today. The
authors believe that the recognition of benefits associated with IMS in manufacturing com-
panies spread across the world, making it a common management practice.
In Australia (Fresner & Engelhardt, 2004; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005), the study presents the expe-
riences of three (03) Australian organisations towards integrating their quality, environment and
OHSAS systems. Based on the literature review and experience of the three organisations, it
concluded that ‘the integration of systems and standards’ is one of the main strategies for survival
and savings (time, costs and resources) for organisations. It is also strongly recommended that
a multi-functional team should be established to manage the process. This would ensure that
all sectors of the organisation are represented and consulted, and the positive and negative
issues related to each function are included in the integration process. To cope with many obsta-
cles such as: Employee resistance, lack of strategic planning, lack of expertise and consultants.
In Spain (Simon et al., 2012), a survey was conducted with the aim to analyse the develop-
ment of IMSs ISO 9001 and ISO 14,001 experienced by 176 companies in Catalonia (Spain). In
addition, the survey objectives to assess the impact of integration, namely the degree of inte-
gration, the challenges and difficulties experienced by companies with more than one MS.
Although the organisations naturally encounter difficulties in the process (Karapetrovic
& Jonker, 2003). The results obtained show the most difficulties mentioned by companies
regarding the integration of their MS was the lack of human resources, lack of supporting
technology, lack of support from the administration, lack of employee motivation and
Collaboration department.
Simultaneously integration has also brought positive effects for most companies which
comply with several MSs requirements. Some of the most positive points regarding integra-
tion of MSs are:
10   M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

• Increase of organisational efficiency

• Task simplification (documentation, requirements)
• Better use of the internal and external audit results
• Organisation image improvements.

These points suggest that firms benefit from both internal and external aspects as they
increase their organisational efficiency (more efficient tasks and internal audits) as well as
they improve external characteristics such as firm image and external audits.

6.  The experience with the IMSs in Moroccan firms

6.1.  Methodology of search
Data were collected using a structured empirical study, for reasons of diversification and
adaptation of modes of administration, we used three modes: face to face (interview), inter-
net (e-mail) and the online questionnaire (see https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jrIwp5o-
fOG_JUo0Blo9T24TsvSeIVzkg9-61EJTD_8Y/edit). The questions were developed based on
the opinion of the relevant literature (Dakkak, Chater, Guennoun, & Talbi, 2013; Douglas &
Glen, 2000; Fresner & Engelhardt, 2004; Salomone, 2008; Wilkinson & Dale, 2000; Zeng et al.,
2007; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005).
Our objective behind this empirical study was to know more about the usual practices
of organisations by implementing QSE, to identify different aspects of strengths and weak-
nesses, the opportunities and threats in the enterprise and to analyse the degree of use of
the tools and techniques of QSE systems, in Moroccan companies.
In order to continue this study on the integration of MSs in Moroccan, a new empirical study
was carried out from Mars to July 2015, using a questionnaire addressed to the 50 companies
of different sizes and industries (chemical, mechanical, electronic, food processing …). However,
only 34 responses are taken into account because the other provided incomplete data
(Moumen & El Aoufir 2016); the survey instrument was refined using a pre-test process.
The Selected companies are at least certified according to ISO 9001 and must be interested
with the QSE systems. In order that the diagnosis is complete and efficient, it must first target
persons which will be submitted the questionnaire. Our survey was answered by supervisors,
animators and representatives of managements systems of the quality, safety and
environment.
The questionnaire was answered by the persons in charge of the quality, safety and envi-
ronment area, for these reasons:

• They represent an active role in the QSE strategy.

• These people taking into account their knowledge and training on the subject, this
would allow a better understanding of the issues and to answer the questionnaire.

The characteristics of the 34 Moroccan companies are shown in Table 4:

Table 4. Characteristics of the surveyed companies by number of employees.

Size of firms Small Medium Large
Number of employees 1–49 50–199 200–499 > 500
No. of firms 3 14 7 10
Total 3 14 17
Total (%) 8.82 41.17 50
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS   11

6.2.  Results and discuss

Three main characteristics of the samples from the surveys are discussed such as, the size
of the organisations, the number of employees and the industry sector to which belong
such organisations.

6.3.  Effective business

The distribution of companies interviewed based on their effective of employees gives the
following results (Figure 1). In terms of the number of employees, the majority of the organ-
isations (41%) have between 50 and 199 employees, the number of organisations having
between 200 and 499 employees was 21%. A total of 29% of the organisations have more
than 500 employees.

6.4.  Turnover of businesses

To better define the size of the company, the questionnaire also addresses the distribution
of turnover (Figure 2), 68% of companies having a higher turnover to 100 million dirham’s,
a result which corresponds to the number of large companies interviewed (50% have a
number superior to 200 employees).

Figure 1. Number of employees in the surveyed organisations.

Figure 2. Turnover of the organisations.

12   M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

Figure 3. Industry sectors of the surveyed organisations.

Figure 4. Implementation of the standards.

6.5.  Industry sectors

The companies surveyed belong to several sectors, the dominant sectors are in full devel-
opment in Morocco. Figure 3 gives more details:

• The chemical sector is dominated by (23.52%), whose activities are organically linked to
several industrial activities, namely chemical and pharmaceutical product, phosphates
and fertilisers, etc.
• The Electronics electrical and energetic industry is indicated by 20.58%, because it
is represented by various multinational companies operating in this field in Morocco
• The 14.7% of respondents for each sector, agribusiness because Morocco is a primarily
agricultural country, and the Mechanical Manufacturing and Aerospace, who knows a
great development nationwide.

6.6.  Implementation of standards

During the study, only companies which are at least certified ISO 9001 have been the subject
of a sampling, the 34 companies that have been accepted, show selected certifications
mentioned by the figure after (Figure 4):
The three certifications are dominating ISO 9001, IS0 14001 and OHSAS 18001, 100% of
companies are Certified ISO 9001, while the ISO 14001 represent 64.70% and OHSAS 18001
represent a rate of 38.23% (Table 5).
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS   13

Table 5. Summary table of the main management systems.

Health and security
Quality (QMS) ISO Environment (EMS) (OHSMS) OSHAS Food safety (FSMS)
9001 ISO 14001 18001 ISO 22000
1st publication date 1987 1996 1999 2005
Latest revision 2015 2015 2007 2008
Concerned Customer satisfaction Environmental Personnel Protection Food Safety
stakeholders Protection (products /
services)
Basic analysis Product analysis Environmental Risk analysis for Risk Analysis for Food
analysis occupational safety Safety
and health
Risk Analysis Customer dissatisfac- Controllable Accident and Contamination of
tion environmental incident at work food throughout
aspects and their (ERP- occupational the food chain
impact risk assessment) (food risk
assessment)

A brief description of the addressed management systems is illustrated in the following

table:

6.7.  Levels of integration the management systems

Three levels of integration were discussed by the survey, total integration (the different
systems are intertwined in a single global management system), partial integration (there
are common areas and shared between these systems e.g.: procedures, instructions ...) or
the non-integration (systems are managed separately without any connection between
them) management of systems by Moroccan companies:
The Figure 5 shows that the companies compliant with multiple MSs and perceiving the
benefits of integration prefer full integration (32.35%), while firms who have probably faced
or anticipated the difficulties of integration have opted to keep their MSs separated (23.52%).
The majority of the firms, stay in a medium position with a partial level of integration (44.11%).
It is essential to clarify the reasons that prevent these companies not to engage in the way
of integration of their management systems, which will be specified later.

Figure 5. Integration levels.

14   M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

6.8.  Performance levels of IMSs QSE

Each section QSE of the questionnaire includes 15 questions to remove the essential infor-
mation that allows assessment at each section of the performance. Thus, for elaboration of
questions on each section, we had recourse to the standards chapters of ISO 9001, ISO 14001
and OHSAS 18001.
For each question, we have associated a grid that contains four responses corresponding
columns the following evaluations: ‘true’, ‘rather true’, ‘rather false’, ‘false’. Each response is,
respectively, assigned a weighting coefficient: 1 to 0.7–0.3 to 0. For confidentiality reasons,
the companies will be designated by the numbers: 1, 2, 3 … 34.
The evaluation of the performance level in each section is to calculate the sum of points
obtained in the four columns. Thus, the overall performance is the average performance
levels obtained on the corresponding (Dakkak et al., 2013).
The results of Figures 6, 7 and 8, show:

• A high level of performance in the three categories of questions: QMS Requirements,
Resource Management and Measurement, Analysis and improvement for the majority
of companies (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Performance level of quality management system (QMS).

Figure 7. Performance level of environmental management system (EMS).

 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS   15

Figure 8. Performance level of Occupation Health and safety Management System (OHSMS).

• A significant variability in performance of both safety and EMS (Figures 7 and 8).

The figure shows that the most expanded management system for any type of activity
is that of quality, as the quality management is a central area for any business. It covers all
services (production, logistics, IT, marketing, sales ...). In fact every service, a priori, the full
responsibility for its quality. It’s a support activity aimed to provide services standardisation
of capacity, sharing and re-use of resources to ensure synergies and efficiency to achieve
the expected business strategy. The implementation of the quality management system is
the support process quality of any organisation.
In fact, health and safety at work, environmental management are the priority areas for
improvement on which the organisations should focus the efforts.
From the results of Figure 9, we find that:

• The overall performance of the quality management system is 82.87%, the environment
is equal to 60.24% and for Health and Safety management system is 51.75%.
• A superior performance level on the quality of management compared to the both
other Management systems.

Figure 9. Performance Level for three MSs by company.

16   M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

Despite the numerous similarities between the Quality, Safety and Environment man-
agement systems, a significant difference between performance levels is observed.
Of all respondents, 26 (76.46%) said they are integrated their MSs, certain firms are opted
on the full integration QSE and the others are limited to the partial integration QS or QE.
These are integrated some aspects of their management systems such as the policy, humans
resources, documentation, objectives, procedures and audit.
The rest of companies 8 (23.52%) who are chosen to separate their management systems,
cited a number of reasons for this, including:

• Reduced audit time keeping them separate.

• ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 were still new and not applicable to all sections of the
company that operated the ISO 9000 standard.
• It is too early to assess the systems integration.
• All procedures are not common to all systems.
• Not enough common ground between the three standards.
• External approval was needed for certain documents.

Figure 10 shows performance levels of the three systems in parallel (QSE) by categories
of questions: strategic, tactical and operational.
We observe a variability in the performance of three categories of questions (strategic,
tactical and operational). Especially, superiority at the strategic level in concerning the inte-
gration of policies and objectives. Against at the tactical level such as the integration degree
of documentation, procedures, records and operational level such as the integration of
employee motivation and collaboration between departments, audit, control, these are the
levels that present difficulties requiring stronger improvements.
However, after the diagnosis of the companies surveyed, the sectors activities most con-
cerned with the deployment of an integrated approach are those that have a strong impact
on the three aspects at the same time as the chemical industry whose activities are organ-
ically linked to several industrial activities, namely phosphates and chemical fertilisers,
Pharmaceutical and Chemical services, the treatment of sewage, industrial waste manage-
ment, the use of toxic products and fuels, ..., the Electronics electrical and energetic industry
represented by various multinational companies operating in this field electricity and elec-
tronic production in Morocco and agribusiness industry that is responsible for the manu-
facture of food products. Therefore, the integration has become for many Moroccan

Figure 10. Performance level of the integrated management system.

 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS   17

companies, especially large industrial companies, an absolute necessity for face the ever
evolving market requirements. In other words, it is progressing slowly but surely.
In this context of increased pressure, the quality of products/processes, personnel safety
and protection of the working environment have become permanent concerns both for the
body, consumers and government authorities. For each company manage risks related to
the quality, safety and environment is crucial. So to stay competitive, protect reputation and
enhance brand companies have chosen to deploy an IMS that aims to control and improve
the performance of their products, services and organisations.
In fact, we present in the following section the most benefits and barriers cited by com-
panies during the integration of their management systems according to the strategic, tac-
tical and operational section.

6.9.  The benefits of integration MSs

Figure 11 shows that integration has brought positive effects for most Moroccan companies
that comply with the requirements of management systems implementation. We can deduce
that companies are in favour of integrating their managements systems. Some of the posi-
tives are:
The (82.72%) of businesses voted for a gain of better corporate image, following by the
desire to improve the efficiency of the company with a importance level of (80.08%).
The (78.32%) of companies have a commitment to ensuring a global control of manage-
ment system, a control which ensure the efficacy and the efficiency of activities
undertaken.
The (74.80%) of companies have voted for better use of Results of audits, especially as
the organisations majorities have opted for total integration of internal and external audits,
it reduces the cost of stakeholders, and gains the time.

Figure 11. Benefits of integration management systems.

18   M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

These points suggest that firms benefit from aspects of both internal and external, as
they increase their organisational efficiency (more efficient tasks and internal audits) as well
as they improve the external features such as the company’s image and external audits.

6.10.  The difficulties of integration MSs

Despite the numerous benefits cited above, organisations also come across some challenges
in the process of integration. The difficulties most mentioned by Moroccan companies was
the excessive time to lead the integration of management systems with a level of importance
(89.71%), the lack of guidelines to ensure the integration (82.24%), the lack of support and
collaboration between departments (78.08%) in addition to the reluctance of employees
facing the integration of management systems and resistance to change with a level of
importance (74.76%), The fact that management systems are conducted by different people
from different disciplines, this represents a real barrier that prevents companies to integrate
their management systems, then comes the concern of documentation, Too many docu-
ments to be processed at integration with a level of importance (73.10%), lack of internal
organisational culture (70.61%). While (68.12%) of businesses suggest that standards have
different structures, the ISO 9001 standard focuses on satisfaction of customer, ISO 14001
aims the satisfaction of the environmental community, while OHSAS 18001 is oriented on
the satisfaction of employees by the mastery of health and safety risk (Figure 12).
The emergence of a new organisational model is never without consequences for man-
agement commitment and for staff. It will necessarily involve a change in practices and

Figure 12. Difficulties of the integration MSs.

 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS   19

implemented in those same services. Human resource can therefore appear as a field of
tension. Its stakes become so essential: the new strain of the organisation and thus the
human resource, and to share his design to creative actors with initiative who are working
and not to agents who perform.

6.11.  Human factor: an indispensable actor in the success of an integrated

approach (quality, safety and environment)
By focusing advantage to the IMS, defined as: ‘an IMS is a system that enables the integrated
management of several areas of different management such as quality, safety, environment,
human resources, etc … Within a single organisation.’ we can concluded that participation
and involvements employee appear as mistress weapons necessary for its
implementation.
As such, companies are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of taking into
account the human factor and performance potential that results. In fact, support for leaders
and managers enables organisations to achieve their objectives, optimise their costs, increase
efficiency, productivity and performance. However, training and awareness programmes
help to develop new skills, and to build relationships with those around him, staff, customers
and suppliers. So employees feel involved and committed to the growth and success of the
integrated approach. Meanwhile everyone in the company understands the health and
safety risks it faces, it identifies its customers and knows their expectations, he knows what
the environmental impact of its activities. Beyond these known information he learns and
implements best practices and ensure zero defects, zero accidents and zero environmental
impact.
The recognition of the individual as the fundamental lever of the overall performance of
the organisation cannot be realised on the basis of an understanding of the motivation of
each person. Moreover, the success of the IMS founded on the skills and motivation of staff
in order to guarantee its best engagement in the activities entrusted to it. However, poor
adequacy of staff, is facing obstacles to good management of QSE systems.
For these raisons, nowadays the specialist authors continue in their writings to highlight
the important role of the human potential in achieving performance. This potential is even
identified as the main link in the success of a deployment strategy of IMS and the achieve-
ment of the objective performance.

7. Conclusion
As an exploratory study, this paper contributes to the understanding on how IMS evolve
over time. However, we have been analysed a multiples studies in a different country
(Australia, Spain, Chine …) to identify drivers of IMS implementation and factors that influ-
ence IMS implementation, we have concluded that the Integration of management systems
is considered as a viable organisational approach to cost reduction, operational improve-
ments, efficient management and utilisation of resources, employee motivation and a means
to better compliance to social obligations and requirements of different stakeholders.
However, difficulties were encountered in implementing (integration of individual manage-
ment systems and their implementation) due to lack of formal MSS for IMS and unavailability
of methodologies for implementing IMS.
20   M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

We have acquired that the IMS implementation can be facilitated by catalysts such as get
the full support of top management, addressing IMS in strategic planning, allocation and
prioritisation of resources, setting goals, targets and milestones for IMS, involvement of end
users in the design and implementation phase, expert support IMS, promoting a teamwork
culture and through employee training.
The main purpose of this study is to contribute to the comprehension to how IMSs evolve
over time, as well as to analyse how the perception of the challenges related to the IMSs. In
addition, the document aims to assess the extent of the integration and the challenges faced
by Moroccans companies during the implementation and integration of standardised MSs
in organisations with more than one MS (more detail about the result of the empirical study
in (Moumen & El Aoufir 2016).To achieve these objectives, we conducted an empirical analysis
that investigates data on the perception of quality, security and environmental system man-
agers of the impact of MSs implementation and integration.
The conclusion to be drawn from this study is that the majority of companies with more
than one MS integrated into one system. Therefore, firms appear to prefer integration more
keeping their MSs separated and they evolve to a state of complete integration. Due to the
variable nature of specific core strengths and skills of organisations, an IMS that works well
for one organisation may not work for another; a true IMS would be one that was specifically
designed for this organisation. IMS implementation requires a complete integration at all
levels of the organisation.
According to the results of our study, it is essential that managers and practitioners
become aware of the challenges and barriers of systems integration. If these challenges are
not dealt earlier in the process, they can delay the completion of the integration process.
Recommendations for IMS management include obtaining senior management commit-
ment; using the implementation and integration of guidelines; with training through the
organisation in aspects of integration, and last but not least with integrated audits. The
implementation of these recommendations can vary from one organisation to another,
however, it would mean less resistance for organisations that follows them. In addition,
having IMSs is particularly important for organisations wishing to move to continuous
improvement and business excellence, because it can help organisations effectively address
quality, security and the environmental issues more effectively and systematic.
The different case studies that have been proposed for the purpose of finding answers
to research questions, it should be of interest and value to government regulatory agencies,
practitioners and academicians involved in facilitating IMS implementation.
The study found that the integration of management systems evolves spontaneously.
Sooner or later, almost all organisations in our sample had embarked on this undertaking and,
in many cases, achieved a high degree of integration. Undoubtedly, there are certain elements
such as the structure, size and the economic sector have an influence on perception, benefits
and barriers to adopting a different management systems and their subsequent integration.
For future research, taking into account the perception of enterprises regarding the ben-
efits of integration evolves over time and answers concerning the difficulties encountered
by organisations, it would be interesting to further investigate these results and identify the
relationship between integration difficulties and measures of financial performance. Finally,
another future line of research could be conducted towards the exploration how the new
standards contribute to the integration, how the standards structure impacts integration if
they were written in order to facilitate integration.
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS   21

Acknowledgment
Thank and gratitude to the Mohamed V University for supporting the present research. We would like
to thank all responsible of companies interviewed and certification bodies for their assistance and
cooperation in data collection, which contributed to the success of our work.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Asif, M. (2008). Corporate motivation for integrated management system implementation. High
Technology Small Firms Conference, (21), NVOA, 22 & 23-05, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Asif, M., Debruijn, E. J., Fisscher, O. A. M., Searcy, C., & Steenhuis, H.-J. (2009). Process embedded design
of integrated management systems. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26,
261–282.
Beckmerhagen, I. A., Berg, H. P., Karapetrovic, S. V., & Willborn, W. O. (2003). Integration of management
systems: Focus on safety in the nuclear industry. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, 20, 210–218.
Brewer, D., Nash, M., & List, W. (2005). Exploiting an integrated management system. Middlesex: Gamma
Secure Systems Limited.
Dakkak B., Chater Y., Guennoun M., and Talbi A.. 2013. Diagnostic des Systèmes Qualité, Sécurité et
Environnement des PME/PMI marocaines [Diagnosis of Quality, Safety Systems and Environment
of Moroccan SMEs]. 10ème congrès international qualité et sûreté de fonctionnement QUALITA. 19,
20 et 21 Mars 2013 Compiègne France.
Domingues, J. P. T., Sampaio, P., & Arezes, P. M. (2015). Analysis of integrated management systems from
various perspectives. Total Quality Management, 26, 1311–1334.
Douglas A., & Glen D. 2000. Integrated management systems in small and medium enterprises. Total
Quality Management, 11, 686–690.
Fresner, J., & Engelhardt, G. (2004). Experiences with integrated management systems for two small
companies in Austria. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 623–631.
Holdsworth, R. (2003). Practical applications approach to design, development and implementation
of an integrated management system. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 104, 193–205.
Ismail, A., Abd, A. M., Chik, Z., & Zain, M. F. M. (2009). Performance assessment modelling for the
integrated management system in construction projects. European Journal for Scientific Research,
29, 269–280.
Jørgensen, T. H. (2008). Towards more sustainable management systems: Through life cycle management
and integration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1071–1080.
Jørgensen, T. H., Remmen, A., & Mellado, M. D. (2005). Integrated management systems-three different
levels of integration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 713–722.
Karapetrovic, S. (2002). Strategics for the integration of management systems and standards. The TQM
Magazine, 14, 61–67.
Karapetrovic, S., & Casadesus, M. (2009). Implementing environmental with other standardized
management systems: Scope, sequence, time and integration. International Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17, 533–540.
Karapetrovic, S., & Jonker, J. (2003). Integration of standardized management systems: Searching for a
recipe and ingredients. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 14, 451–459.
Khanna, K., Laroiya, S. C., & Sharma, D. (2010). Integrated management systems in Indian manufacturing
organizations. The TQM Journal, 22, 670–686.
Labodova′, A. (2004). Implementing integrated management systems using risk analysis based
approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 571–580.
22   M. MOUMEN AND H. EL AOUFIR

Low, S. P., & Chin, Y. P. (2003). Integrating ISO 9001 and OHSAS 18001 for construction. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 129, 338–347.
Matias, J. C. O., & Coelho, D. A. (2002). The integration of the standards systems of quality management,
environmental management and occupational health and safety management. International Journal
of Production Research, 40, 3857–3866.
McDonald, M., Mors, T. A., & Phillips, A. (2003). Management system integration: Can it be done? Quality
Progress, 36, 67–74.
Moumen, M., & El Aoufir, H. (2016). Evaluation of maturity level of QSE management systems:empirical
analysis, case of Moroccan companies. Modern Applied Science, 10, 10.
Pun, K. F., & Hui, I. K. (2002). Integrating the safety dimension into quality management systems: A
process model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 13, 373–391.
Rebelo, M., Santos, G., & Silva, R. (2014). Conception of a flexible integrator and lean model for integrated
management systems. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25 (5e6), 683e701.
Rocha, M., Searcy, C., & Karapetrovic, S. (2007). Integrated sustainable development into existing
management systems. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18, 83–92.
Salomone, R. (2008). Integrated management systems: Experiences in Italian organizations. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 16, 1786–1801.
Sampaio, P., Saraiva, P., & Domingues, P. (2012). Management systems: Integration or addition?
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 29, 402–424.
Sampaio, P. & Saraiva, P. (2011). Qualidade e as normas ISO 9000: Mitos, verdades econsequencias [Quality
and ISO 9000 standards: Myths, truths and consequences]. Lisboa: Verlag Dashöfer.
Santos, G., Mendes, F., & Barbosa, J. (2011). Certification and integration of management systems:
The experience of Portuguese small and medium enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19,
1965–1974.
Simon, A., Karapetrovic, S., & Casadesus, M. (2012). Evolution of integrated management systems in
Spanish firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 23, 8–19.
Simon, A., Bernardo, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Casadesus, M. (2011). Integration of standardized
environmental and quality management systems audits. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 2057–
2065.
Wilkinson, G. & Dale, B. G. (2000). Integrated management systems: An examination of the concept
and theory. The TQM Magazine, 11, 95–104.
Winder, C. (2000). Integrating OHS, environmental, and quality management standards. Quality
Assurance: Good Practice, Regulation and Law, 8, 105–135.
Wright, T. (2000). IMS-Three into one will go!: The advantages of a single integrated quality, health and
safety, and environmental management system. The Quality Assurance Journal, 4, 137–142.
Zeng, S.X., Shi, J.J., & Lou, G.X. (2007). A synergetic model for implementing an integrated management
system: An empirical study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 1760–1767.
Zeng, S. X., Tam, V. W. Y., & Le, K. N. (2010). Towards effectiveness of integrated management systems
for enterprises. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 21, 171–179.
Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., Tam, C. M., & Shen, L. Y. (2011). An empirical examination of benefits from
implementing integrated management systems (IMS). Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, 22, 173–186.
Zhang, B., Bi, J., Yuan, Z., Ge, J., Liu, B., & Bu, M. (2008). Why do firms engage in environmental
management? An empirical study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1036–1045.
Zutshi, A. & Sohal, A. S. (2005). Integrated management system. The experience of three Australian
organizations. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 16, 211–232.https://docs.
google.com/forms/d/1jrIwp5ofOG_JUo0Blo9T24TsvSeIVzkg9-61EJTD_8Y/edit