Fad MScThesis HideAppendixGContent

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/334964304
DEVELOPING A GUIDELINE FOR AN INTEGRATED QMS, EMS, OHSMS AND

EnMS.
Thesis · August 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 792
1 author:
Fadzilah Mohamad
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
6 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Developing a guideline for Integrating Quality, Environmental, Occupational Health and Safety and Energy Management System View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Fadzilah Mohamad on 05 August 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DEVELOPING A GUIDELINE FOR AN INTEGRATED QUALITY,
ENVIRONMENTAL, OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND
ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
FADZILAH BINTI MOHAMAD
UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA

DECLA
RATION
UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA
STATUS CONFIRMATION FOR MASTER’S THESIS

ACADEMIC SESSION: 2016/2017
I, FADZILAH BINTI MOHAMAD, agree to allow this Master’s Thesis to be kept at Library under
the following term:
1. This Master’s thesis is the property of the Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
2. The library has the right to make copies for educational purposes only.
3. The library is allowed to make copies of this report for educational exchange between higher
educational institutions.
4. **Please mark ( √ )
5.
CONFIDENTIAL Contains information of high security or of great
importance to Malaysia as STIPULATED under the
OFFICIAL SECRET ACT 1972)
✓ RESTRICTED (Contains restricted information as determined by the

organization/institution when research was conducted)
FREE ACCESS
Approved by
..................................................... ........................................................................
(SUPERVISOR’S SIGNATURE)
Permanent Address : ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR. NOR

HAZANA ABDULLAH
NO. 39, JALAN MAWAR 6,
PERUMAHAN AWAM KERAJAAN,
81800 ULU TIRAM, JOHOR BAHRU,
JOHOR, MALAYSIA.
Date: _____________________________ Date: ________________________________
NOTE:
** If this Undergraduate Project Report is classified as CONFIDENTIAL or
RESTRICTED, please attach the letter from the relevant authority/organization stating
reasons and duration for each classification.
This thesis has been examined on date 29-Aug-2016 and is sufficient in fulfilling the
scope and quality for the purpose of awarding the Degree of Master of Science in
Technology Management.
Chairperson:
Dr. Rozlin Zainal

Faculty of Business, Entrepreneurship and Technology Management
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Johor
Examiners:
Associate Professor Dr. Roslina Abdul Wahid

Faculty of Business Management
Universiti Institut Teknologi MARA
Dr. Ng Kim Soon

Faculty of Business, Entrepreneurship and Technology Management
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Johor
A thesis submitted in
fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the
Degree of Master of Science in Technology Management by Research
Faculty of Technology Management and Business

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
APRIL 2017
ii
I hereby declare that the work in this thesis is my own except for quotations and
summaries which have been duly acknowledged.
Student : .........................................................
Date :
Supervisor : ..............................................................
: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR. NOR
HAZANA BINTI ABDULLAH
Co-supervisor : .................................................................
: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR.MUSLI
MOHAMMAD
iii
DEDICATION
Thanks to Allah, for without His Mercy and Guidance, I would have never been able
to make this happen. Also, I dedicate this thesis to my dear family and friends. A
special feeling of gratitude to my beloved mum and brothers who always prays for my
success. I also dedicate this thesis to my dear friend Simon Kee and his parents, without
whom I may not have taken the effort to pursue further with my education. I dedicate
this work also to all my well-wishers throughout this journey and thanking all for the
support, motivation and confidence in me.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Very special thanks to Associate Professor Dr. Nor Hazana Abdullah and Associate
Professor Dr. Musli Mohammad for their countless hours of reflecting, reading,
encouraging, and most of all patience throughout the entire process. Also, thank you
to Puan Nor Kamariah Kamaruddin who have always been a motivator throughout my
journey. I would like to acknowledge and thank UTHM for allowing me to conduct
this research and providing me assistance required. Last but not least, special thanks
to all the expert panels whose passion, excitement and willingness to provide feedback
made the completion of this research a precious experience.
v
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this thesis is to develop a guidance document for integrating quality,
environmental, occupational health and safety and energy management systems for
manufacturing industries. The thesis presents the current status and strategies of the
Integrated Management System (IMS) in Malaysian manufacturing industries. As to
understand the status and strategies of IMS implementation, quantitative data
collections through questionnaire survey were performed. In total, 40 responses from
a variety of manufacturing sectors were analyzed. The result shows that manufacturing
industries are embarking on IMS regardless of the types and sizes of the organizations.
They are applying various strategies as long as it is practicable for their organizations’
business activities and processes due to the absence of international or national
standards as a guideline for IMS. Concurrently, qualitative data was collected through
Delphi Technique Expert Opinion Method with three rounds of experts’ views
collection for the purpose of developing the guidance document. Nine experts panel
from the category of academician, government body, and practitioners (consultants
and auditors) participated in the activity. They have agreed to the proposed content
and also raised their suggestions for improvement of the proposed document. The
document has been prepared using the High Level Structure documented as Annex SL
by ISO Directive. This structure is similar to the current release of ISO 9001:2015
and ISO 14001:2015 International Standard.
vi
ABSTRAK
Tujuan laporan ini adalah untuk menghasilkan satu dokumen panduan untuk
mengintegrasikan sistem pengurusan kualiti, alam sekitar, kesihatan dan keselamatan
pekerjaan dan tenaga di dalam memenuhi keperluan industri pembuatan. Tesis ini
membentangkan status semasa dan strategi sistem pengurusan bersepadu (IMS) yang
sedang dipraktikkan oleh sekumpulan syarikat yang mewakili industri pembuatan di
Malaysia. Data kuantitatif telah dikumpulkan melalui pengedaran borang soal selidik
dengan tujuan untuk memahami status dan strategi pelaksanaan IMS. Keseluruhannya,
sebanyak 40 respon daripada pelbagai sektor pembuatan telah dianalisa. Dapatan
kajian menunjukkan bahawa industri pembuatan melaksanakan IMS tanpa mengira
jenis dan saiz sesebuah organisasi. Mereka menggunakan pelbagai strategi yang
didapati praktikal dan sesuai untuk aktiviti perniagaan dan proses organisasi mereka.
Ini disebabkan ketiadaan piawaian di peringkat antarabangsa mahupun kebangsaan
yang dikeluarkan sebagai garis panduan bagi pelaksanaan IMS. Pada masa yang sama,
pengumpulan data kualitatif juga telah dijalankan melalui Teknik Delphi Pendapat
Pakar bagi mendapatkan pandangan pakar-pakar mengenai dokumen panduan yang
dicadangkan di dalam tiga pusingan. Sembilan panel pakar darikategori ahli akademik,
badan kerajaan, dan pengamal IMS (jururunding dan juruaudit) telah mengambil
bahagian di dalam proses tersebut. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan panel-panel pakar
telah bersetuju dengan kandungan dokumen panduan IMS yang dicadangkan dan juga
mengutarakan pandangan mereka bagi tujuan penambahbaikan dokumen asal yang
telah dicadangkan. Dokumen ini telah disediakan dengan menggunapakai “High Level
Structure” yang didokumenkan sebagai Annex SL oleh ISO Directives. Struktur yang
sama telah digunapakai di dalam terbitan terbaru piawaian antarabangsa ISO
9001:2015 dan ISO 14001:2015.
vii
CONTENTS
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background of the research 1
1.3 Problem statements 3
1.4 Objective of the research 4
1.5 Scope of research 5
1.6 Importance of the research 5
1.7 Limitation of the research 6
1.8 Layout of the thesis 7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.0 Introduction 8
2.1 Evolution of Management System Standards (MSSs) 8
2.2 Brief Introduction of QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS 10
2.2.1 Quality Management System (QMS) 10
2.2.2 Environmental Management System (EMS) 15
viii
2.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety Management

18
System (OHSMS)
2.2.4 Energy Management System (EnMS) 22
2.3 Trend of MSSs certifications 26
2.4 Integrated Management System (IMS) 28
2.5 Organizational Theories and Management Fashion 31
2.5.1 Classical Management Theory 39
2.5.2 Theories Discussed in Previous IMS Literatures 44
2.5.2.1 System Approach for IMS 45
2.5.2.2 Stakeholder Theory for IMS 46
2.5.2.3 Contingency Theory 47
2.6 Benefits of IMS Implementation 48
2.7 Strategies of IMS 49
2.7.1 Ways of Integrating the Management Systems 49
2.7.2 Types of Management System Integration 54
2.7.3 Approaches and Proposed Frameworks for
56
Integrating the MSs
2.8 Conclusion 70
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 71
3.0 Introduction 71
3.1 Research Approach 72
3.2 Research Design and Research Method 72
3.2.1 Quantitative 73
3.2.1.1 Survey and Instrument 74
3.2.1.2 Pilot test 77
3.2.1.3 Questionnaire Distribution 77
3.2.1.4 Survey Response 77
3.2.1.5 Descriptive Analysis 78
3.2.2 Qualitative 78
3.2.2.1 Delphi Technique Expert Opinion 78
3.2.2.2 Delphi Panel Selection 82
3.2.2.3 Qualitative Analysis 84
3.3 Conclusion 84
ix
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 85

4.0 Introduction 85
4.1 Quantitative Result- Survey 85
4.1.1 Profiles of the Survey 85
4.1.1.1 Response Rate 85
4.1.1.2 Profile of the Respondent (Sizes and
87
Types)
4.1.2 Status of IMS Implementation 90
4.1.2.1 Profile of IMS Practicing Companies 90
4.1.2.2 Reasons for Not Integrating the MSs 93
4.1.2.3 Extent of Practice Adapted among the
94
IMS Companies
4.1.3 Strategies for Implementing IMS 97
4.1.3.1 Ways of Integrating MSs 97
4.1.3.2 Approaches Used for Integration 99
4.1.3.3 Methods of Determining Processes/
100
Area for Integration of MSs
4.2 Qualitative Result- Delphi Technique Expert Opinion 101
4.2.1 Draft of IMS Guidance Document 101
4.2.2 Respond to Questionnaire during Round 1 102
4.2.3 Respond to Questionnaire during Round 2 107
4.2.3.1 Clarity of the Content of IMS Guidance
109
Document
4.2.3.2 Clarity of the IMS Model 109
4.2.3.3 Clarity of the Content of Clause 4-
110
Context of the Organization
4.2.3.4 Clarity of Clause 5- Leadership 110
4.2.3.5 Clarity of Clause 6- Planning 111
4.2.3.6 Clarity of Clause 7- Support 112
4.2.3.7 Clarity of Clause 8- Operation 113
4.2.3.8 Clarity of Clause 9- Performance
113
Evaluation
4.2.3.9 Clarity of Clause 10- Improvement 114
x
4.2.3.10 Significance of the IMS Framework in

115
Organization
4.2.3.11 Significance of the IMS Guidance
116
Document in Organizations
4.2.3.12 Strength of the IMS Guide and
117
Framework
4.2.3.13 Weakness of the IMS Guide and
117
Framework
4.2.3.14 Suggestion for Improvement 118
4.2.3.15 Finalized IMS Guidance Document 120
4.3 Concurrent Embedded Design 120
4.4 Conclusion 121
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND ‘ ‘’’
122
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction 122
5.1 Review of Achievement of the Research Objectives 122
5.1.1 The status of IMS Implementation in
122
Malaysian Manufacturing Sector
5.1.2 The Strategies for Implementing IMS and
its implementation in Malaysian 125
manufacturing sector
5.1.3 The proposed framework and draft of
IMS guidance document for
129
implementing IMS in the manufacturing
sector
5.2 Summary 129
5.3 Recommended Flow of IMS Implementation 130
5.4 Recommendation for Future Research 134
REFERENCES 135
APPENDICES 150
VITA 238
xi
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Examples of MSSs 10

2.2 The ISO 9000-QMS Families and its Evolutions 13
2.3 The ISO 14000-EMS Families and its Evolutions 16
2.4 The OHSAS 18000-OHSMS Families and its Evolutions 21
2.5 The ISO 50001: 2011-EnMS Families and its Evolutions 24
2.6 Literature Reported Organizational Integration Definitions 29
2.7 Important events in the development of TQM and the 33
development of Management and Organization Theory
2.8 Functions of CMT vs MS Standards Model 40
2.9 Compatibility of CMT principle with MS standards and 41
TQM
2.10 Summary of Theories Discussed in some of the Literatures 44
of IMS
2.11 Ways of Integrating MSSs in IMS literatures 51
2.12 Sequence of MSS Implementation 57
3.1 Research problems 71
3.2 Research Design 73
3.3 Research Objective (Previous vs Current Research) 76
3.4 Nominated Expert Panels 83
3.5 Summary of Research Methodology 84
4.1 Samples 86
4.2 Responses, Responding Medium, Eligible and Ineligible 87
Respondents
4.3 SME Definition in Malaysia 87
4.4 Survey Response 88
4.5 Type of Industries 89
4.6 Matrix of Certification of MSSs Achieved by the 90
Respondents
xii
4.7 Profile of the IMS Companies 93

4.8 List of Participating Expert Panels 103
4.9 The Demographic Study of the Expert Panels 105
4.10 Clarity of IMS framework and guidance document 109
4.11 Clarity of IMS Model 110
4.12 Clarity of Clause 4 110
4,13 Clarity of Clause 5 111
4.19 Significance of the IMS framework 115
4.20 Significance of the IMS Guidance Document 116
4.21 Summary of Results in-line with Research Objectives 120
5.1 Comparison of Integration Areas 128
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 ISO 9001 Model 14

2.2 EMS Model 18
2.3 OHSMS Model 22
2.4 EnMS Model 26
2.5 Trend Chart of MSS Certification Worldwide 27
2.6 An illustration of single and fully integrated system 30
2.7 Degree of Integration according to some authors 53
2.8 Separate Management System 54
2.9 Aligned System Approach/ Partial Integration 55
2.10 An Integrated Approach/ Full Integration 56
2.11 Alignment of ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 14001:1996 using 58
the systems approach
2.12 PDCA Model on IMS 61
2.13 SHEQMS Model 62
2.14 The combination of risk analysis (“seven steps”) and 64
OHS management spiral
2.15 A model of an integrated quality, environment, and health 67
and safety management system using TQM approach
2.16 An IMS Model using the basis of Business Excellence 69
framework
3.1 Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis 74
3.2 Design of Survey 76
3.3 Typical Three Round Delphi 80
3.4 Three Round Delphi Process 81
3.5 Design of Delphi Expert Opinion Research Design 82
4.1 Current Status of IMS Practice 91
4.2 Types of MSSs Integrated 92
xiv
4.3 Reasons for Not Implementing IMS 94

4.4 Trend of IMS practicing companies among the 95
respondents
4.5 Ways the respondents integrated their MSs 96
4.6 Duration of IMS Development from Start to Successful 97
Integration
4.7 Ways of Integration 98
4.8 Sequence of MSs Integration 99
4.9 Frequently used Approaches in IMS 100
4.10 Integration Areas 101
4.11 Experts Opinion on the Draft IMS Guideline content 108
5.1 Flow of Implementation of the IMS 133
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
MS Management System
MSSs Management System Standards
IMS Integrated Management System
QMS Quality Management System
EMS Environmental Management System
OHSMS Occupational Health and Safety Management System
EnMS Energy Management System
QEEnHSMS Quality, Environmental, Occupational Safety and Health and

Energy Management System
MR Management Representative
OHSAS Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series
ISO International Organization for Standardization
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UTHM Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
DSM Department of Standard Malaysia
SIRIM Scientific and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia

xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Memohon Kebenaran Mendapatkan Maklumat 153

Firma
B Survey on Integrated Management System 155
C Appointment Letter for Expert Panels Contributing 161
to the Validation of the Proposed “Quality,
Environmental, Energy and Health and Safety
Management System (QEEnHSMS) Integration
Guide
D Evaluation of the Proposed Framework and 163
Guidance For Integrating Quality, Environment,
Energy And Health And Safety Management
System (Round 1)
E Evaluation of the Proposed Framework and 165
Guidance For Integrating Quality, Environment,
Energy And Health And Safety Management
System (Round 2)
F Initial Draft of Proposed Framework And Guidance 167
For The Integration Of Quality, Environment,
Energy And Safety Management System
G Proposed Framework and Guidance Document for 205
the Integrated Management System (IMS) of
Quality, Environment, Energy and Occupational
Health and Safety Management Systems (Revised
Based On Experts’ Opinion)
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
This chapter comprises the background of the research, problem statements, objective
of the research, scope of the research, importance of the research, limitation of the
research and finally the order of the chapters in this thesis.
1.2. Background of the Research
The adoptions to standard-based management system standards (MSSs) are voluntary.

However, the supply chain has somehow made it imperative to ensure a certain level
of compliance is maintained in companies. This is because larger companies have
observed positive impact when the suppliers have MSSs implemented within them
(Casadesus et al., 2009; Domingues et al., 2011; Heras et al., 2010) . Thus, multiple
MSSs implementations in companies are increasing due to the necessity to fulfil
stakeholder demand (Barnett & King, 2008; Bernardo et al., 2010a; Simpson et al.,
2012; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005) despite the resources limitations that the companies are
facing internally (Mohamad et al., 2014b; Simon et al., 2011). Therefore, the
implementations of the MSSs are the current market trend and are gradually applied
as a guide for stakeholder requirement compliance by many companies’. Evident to
this fad is the continuous rise in certification to various MSSs worldwide namely ISO
9001 Quality Management System (QMS), ISO 14001 Environmental Management
System (EMS), OHSAS 18001 Occupational Health and Safety Management System
2
(OHSMS), ISO27001 Information Security Management System (ISMS), ISO/ TS

16949 QMS for Automotive Production, ISO 13485 QMS for Medical Device
Industry, ISO 22000 Food Safety Management System (FSMS), ISO 50001 Energy
Management System (EnMS), SA 8000 Social Accountability International Standard
and AA 1000 AccountAbility series (Bernardo et al., 2010a; ISO Survey, 2012;
OHSAS Project Group, 2012). These standard based MSSs are released by either
national or international bodies (Simpson et al., 2012). Due to the standards being non-
integrated, some of these certificates of different standard-based Management Systems
(MSs) are issued to the same companies (FMM, 2013; SIRIM QAS).
This phenomenon of the multiple MSSs implementation and certification
observed in the current market situation (Zeng et al., 2007a) is tied closely with the
stakeholder requirements compliance (Bernardo et al., 2010a) and the
internationalization of the businesses (Kartha, 2004). As a result of the rising
stakeholder requirements, companies are obliged to build their business processes in a
socially responsible manner. Thus, many companies adapt to various standard-based
management system that stipulates the specific management system requirements
respective to the standard (Simpson et al., 2012). It is expected that through the
adaptation to MSSs, the companies are able to ensure that all activities, products and
services are compliant with the stakeholder requirements (Asif et al., 2008) namely
quality, environmental, occupational health and safety, energy and others relevant to
the organizations’ business activity.
Indeed, the adaptation to the escalating and changing stakeholder requirements
(Simpson et al., 2012) are also encouraged by the industry association, to improve the
perception of their industry among regulators and community (Barnett & King, 2008;
Simpson et al., 2012), as well as to boost clients’ confidence level on individual
companies. Additionally, certified companies are also subject to continuous
improvement activity to enhance further the effectiveness and efficiency of specific
areas where stakeholder requirements are demanded, for sustaining the business as
well as maintaining the certifications achieved.
From the economic point of view, Malaysia is moving towards achieving the
status of a developed country by the year 2020 (Islam, 2011). However, in achieving
a developed country status, economic accomplishment is important. Statistics revealed
that the contribution of the manufacturing sector is 67% of the export (Economic
Planning Unit, 2014) and is 25% of the GDP which includes 3.6 million (28.9%)
3
employment (FMM, 2013). In addition, the Malaysian SME Master Plan 2012-2020
has set specific objective and targets for SMEs to achieve; 41% of GDP, 62%
employment and 25% exports by the year 2020 (National SME Development Council,
2012). In order to generate higher contribution from the manufacturing sector, trade
capacity building is important. In fact, trade capacity building is a requisite to achieve
global competitiveness for Malaysian industry. However, in trade capacity building, a
major concern is to address the stakeholder requirement. The phenomenon of
increasing number of organizations with multiple MSS in Malaysian SMEs -mainly to
address the stakeholder requirements- is considered by the analyst as part of the trade
capacity building that contributes to the economic development (Tambunan, 2009).
Therefore, to achieve the set national target and to support the manufacturing
industries to perform better, it is beneficial to develop an Integrated Management
System (IMS) guidance document that is able to fulfil varying stakeholder requirement
and guide the industry in a better manner.
1.3. Problem Statements
For the sake of business sustainability, many business entities have adopted
multiple management systems by using the MSSs as a tool that supports the strategic
management of various elements required by the stakeholders. A compilation of
database prepared during this research based on Federation of Malaysian
Manufacturers (FMM 2013) and Malaysian Certified website shows that there are a
number of 463 companies in Malaysia which are certified to two or more MSSs. The
certifications include the interest in managing product quality, resources, energy and
environment which has somewhat developed separately (Giancarlo, 2005). Although
no database is available to quote the number of IMS practicing companies in Malaysia,
the survey conducted by SIRIM Training Services found that the system integration is
well received among the companies with multiple MSSs (Idris et al., 2012).
As to handle the rising stakeholder requirements, increasing number of MSSs
are published and multiple MSSs are implemented, certified and maintained (Zeng et
al., 2007a), despite the resources limitation within the companies. Thus, integration of
multiplying requirements into one holistic business management system is crucial. As
a result, companies can address various stakeholder requirements in an integrated
manner (Asif et al., 2010b). The researchers of the decade -between year 2005 to 2014-
4
do agree that IMS adaptation is favourable for companies (Asif et al., 2008; Casadesus
et al., 2011; Rory Sullivan, 2005; Sampaio et al., 2012).
However, business survival outweighs the costly implementations of the
multiple MSSs. Businesses in many sectors seek certification to the standards in order
to win bids or remain in the clients’ approved suppliers list (Bendell & Boulter, 2004).
Thus, “integration would ensure that only one management system is present within
the organization, which could be efficiently and effectively understood, implemented
and maintained” (Zutshi & Sohal, 2003). As a result, companies will be able to achieve
cost saving, improve resources utilization and allows better communication within the
organization (Mohamad et al., 2014b; Zutshi & Sohal, 2003). Therefore, an integration
guide will be a useful aid to support the companies pursuing the IMS implementation.
Besides, at this moment, no international or national standard have addressed
the process of integration of MSSs and the best way to accomplish it (Bernardo et al.,
2010a; Domingues et al., 2011; Labodova, 2004; Mohammad, 2006). Therefore, it is
appropriate create an IMS guideline.
1.4. Objective of the Research
In this research, in addition to exploring the status of IMS implementation in

manufacturing sector, the extent of implementation and the strategies in implementing
the IMS, it is also taking into consideration the scholars views, as well as
manufacturing sectors multiple MSSs adoption. With the aim to fulfil the need, a
framework and a draft guidance document for IMS are proposed. Hence, the objectives
of this research are:
a) To assess the status of IMS implementation in the Malaysian manufacturing
sector
b) To investigate the strategies for implementing IMS and its implementation in
the Malaysian manufacturing sector
c) To develop guideline for IMS implementation in the Malaysian manufacturing
sector comprising Quality, Environmental, Occupational Health and Safety
and Energy Management Systems.
1.5. Scope of Research

5
This study focuses on developing an IMS guideline for the implementation in

Malaysian manufacturing sector. The scope of this research is limited to:
a) Organization refers to companies in manufacturing sector based on FMM2013,
Malaysian Certified website (companies certified by SIRIM) and also the
UNIDO EnMS program first batch participants.
b) The sample consists of companies with the certification of a minimum three
MSS within the range of QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS.
c) The scope of the IMS is set as QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS since these are
the four general MSSs that are applicable to any type and size of organizations
worldwide. These standards are also identified as the most common
composition of IMS implementation, namely the subsets of Quality and
Environmental Management System (QEMS), Environmental and
Occupational Health and Safety Management System (EHSMS),
Environmental and Energy Management System (EEnMS), Energy and
Occupational Health and Safety Management System (EnHSMS), Quality and
Energy Management System (EnMS) and Quality, Environmental and
Occupational Health and Safety Management System (QEHSMS) (Mohamad
et al., 2014b). The analysis concurred that the integration of these four MSSs -
Quality, Environment, Occupational Health and Safety and Energy
Management System- have not been well-established (Mohamad et al., 2014b).
Therefore, the scope of the integration guide suggested here are the MSs
relating to the elements of Quality, Environmental, Occupational Health and
Safety and Energy.
d) IMS guideline refers to a general guideline to guide the manufacturing sector
that intends to pursue IMS implementation for QMS, EMS, OHSMS and
EnMS.
1.6. Importance of the Research
The percentage of companies reporting better performance result is higher in

companies’ with multiple MSS certificates than those with single certification
(Casadesus et al., 2011). Malaysian organizations are paying more attention to the
needs of MSSs and best practices. It was also evident from a survey that systems
integration is getting popular among the organization for example ISO 9001 being
6
integrated with ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001(Idris et al., 2012). This study is
important to:
a) provide assistance and structured guidance to companies for implementing
IMS and getting through the implementation
b) encourage more companies to adopt IMS so that the MSSs subscribed are
holistically practiced in the organization
c) recommend possible synergies within the MSSs being certified
d) be referred as an additional literature for current business environment in
Malaysia.
1.7. Limitations of the Research
This study covers the manufacturing sector in Malaysia only. There are only four
MSSs, namely QMS, EMS, OHSMS, and EnMS focused in the research. However,
the extent of integration of MSSs in the companies is dependent on the commitment,
necessity for IMS implementation, resources availability and readiness for change
within the organizations itself.
A consolidated database of companies that have implemented multiple MSSs

is also lacking. Due to these limitations, the respondents list were self-initiated based
on FMM Directory 2013, SIRIM’s Malaysian Certified website and United Nations
Industrial Development Organizations’ Energy Management Program participants.
Therefore, only limited samples are taken as mentioned in the scope.
The common trios among the companies are the QMS, EMS and OHSMS.
Since 2011, the companies are also being introduced to ISO 50001. Although the
numbers of certified companies are less, that is a number of 14 certified companies in
Malaysia by the end of 2015, the energy management is crucial in combating with the
energy security challenges.
1.8. Conclusion
7
This thesis consists of five chapters. The Chapter 1 introduces the research
background, the problem statement, the research objectives, the scope of the research,
the importance of the research and the limitations of the research. The Chapter 2
explains detailed literature review relating to the IMS which helps in understanding
the IMS implementation. The Chapter 3 describes the methodology to be applied to
gain the appropriate result of the research title. The Chapter 4 analyzes the findings of
the survey based on the data collected and compiled; and the result of Delphi Method
Expert Opinion gathered. The Chapter 5 discusses and concludes the finding in relation
to the research objectives and recommends future research idea.
8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter presents an overview of the Integrated Management System (IMS) and
the four MSs that have been selected for the integration purpose as per the Scope of
Research mentioned in section 1.4 of Chapter 1. It provides a basic description of the
evolution of Management System Standards (MSSs) and its trends. It is followed by
the introduction of the Quality Management System (QMS), Environmental
Management System (EMS), Occupational Health and Safety Management System
(OHSMS), Energy Management System (EnMS) and Integrated Management System
(IMS). The chapter further explains the theories and concepts of organizational
improvements, the benefits and barriers, the types, the strategies, the approaches, the
methods and the techniques of IMS, and the previously suggested frameworks of IMS.
Finally, a conclusion of this chapter is presented.
2.1. Evolution of Management System Standards (MSSs)
The compliance and certification to MSSs are optional. However, they are being
emphasized as obligatory criterion towards business and corporate sustainability.
From a corporate perspective, sustainability encompasses triple bottom line
(economic, environmental and social issues) that have business implications
(Muhammad Asif et al., 2011). Thus, in addressing the challenges of corporate
sustainability for instance rapidly changing market conditions, coordination of
9
operations at a global level and an increased reliance on outsourcing, a number of

MSSs have emerged, with intention to help managers to systematically address the key
stakeholder requirements including quality, environmental (including energy), safety,
information security, supply chain security and others (Karapetrovic, 2003;
Karapetrovic et al., 2010; Muhammad Asif et al., 2011). These International Standards
on MSs are published by International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and
OHSAS Project Group specifically on OHSAS 18001 (Muhammad Asif et al., 2011).
The ISO story is shared to the public through their website
(http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm). ISO began to operate since 1946, when
delegates from 25 countries met at the Institute of Civil Engineers in London, followed
by a decision to establish an international organization ‘to facilitate the international
coordination and unification of industrial standards’. Hence, in February 1947, ISO
officially begin its operation with “ISO” as its acronym. Although the term
'International Organization for Standardization' has different acronym in different
languages (for instance English acronym as IOS, French acronym as OIN
for Organisation internationale de normalization). The founders decided to use ISO
because it is derived from the Greek word “isos”, which means equal
(http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm). This international body have published
various MSSs which includes general standards, sector specific standard and product
specific organizational requirements (Romero, 2006). MSSs published by ISO are
indexed with “ISO” acronym followed by an index number. However, ISO has not
introduced any standard relating to safety yet (Jorgensen & Simonsen, 2002).
The safety standard, Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series
(OHSAS); OHSAS 18000 series were not introduced by any specific organization.
Rather, it was a combination of various international certification bodies, for which
British Standard Institute (BSI) provided the secretariat. OHSAS 18000 series were
developed with the basis in BS 8800 British National standard addressing OHSMS
(Jorgensen et al., 2006). Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS)
aims to provide guideline for OHSMS that is able to create and maintain safe
workplace conditions and protect employees from workplace injuries and illnesses
(Fan & Lo, 2012).
With the introduction of ISO 9001 QMS standard in the year 1987 as
organizations guideline and well-received by organizations, International Standards
were continuously released. Following the launch of the ISO 9000, MSSs have been
10
progressively developed for environmental management as ISO 14001, occupational

health and safety as OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001, corporate social responsibility as
AA1000), (Karapetrovic, 2003; Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003; Rocha et al., 2007) and
efficient energy management as ISO 50001 (Casadesus et al., 2009; Ranky, 2012) to
name a few. It is clear that new standards continue to emerge and existing standards
are undergoing periodic updates (Karapetrovic, 2003; Rocha et al., 2007).
Table 2.1 consists of standards discussed by Romero (2006). The OHSAS
18001 and ISO 50001 are added-on to this table as general standards. OHSAS 18001
and ISO 50001 standards are compatible with ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 (Eccleston et
al., 2012; Jorgensen et al., 2006). The demand trends of these standards are discussed
in Section 2.3.
Table 2.1: Examples of MSSs (Romero, 2006)
General Standards
ISO 9001 Quality Management System (QMS)
ISO 14001 Environmental Management System (EMS)
ISO 50001 Energy Management System (EnMS)
OHSAS 18001 Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS)
Sector Specific
ISO 22000 Food Safety Management System (FSMS)
Product Specific
ISO/TS 16949 QMS for Automotive
ISO 13485 QMS for Medical Devices
2.2. Brief Introduction of QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS
As mentioned in Section 1.4 of Chapter 1, the topic of this thesis intended to limit the
scope on integration to the four MSSs, namely QMS, EMS, OHSMS, and EnMS. Thus,
the following subsections provide the overviews on the MSSs included in the
integration.
2.2.1 Quality Management System (QMS)

11
ISO 9001 was adopted from BS 5750 (Baulch-Jones I, 1994) as a set standard for
quality assurance in design, development, production, installation and service (Kartha,
2004). Kartha (2004) also described the purpose of the deployment of ISO 9001 was
to simplify the international exchange of goods and services by developing a common
set of quality standard (Kartha, 2004). On the other hand, Wahid & Corner (2009)
described the purpose of the ISO 9000 series as a standard to assist organizations of
all sizes and types to implement and operate an effective QMS (Ab. Wahid & Corner,
2009). Although the purpose are described by researchers in different perspectives, it
can be summarized as a channel that creates universal uniformity in making the
product and services of any type and size of organization to achieve a reasonably
acceptable quality level.
Initially, ISO 9001 standard was not widely implemented in the USA and
Japan. However, a major boom in ISO 9001 certification happened due to the fact that
companies exporting to the EU had to become registered to ISO 9001 because
European Community set ISO 9001 registration as a pre-requisite for doing business
with other nation (Kartha, 2004); and also due to the adoption and promotion of these
standards by major governmental and professional bodies (Karapetrovic et al., 2010).
Since the implementation was done due to the pre-requisite, some companies did
question the merit of maintaining the quality system and added value of such system
adaptation (Piskar & Dolinsek, 2006). However, the experienced companies agreed
that as a result of QMS implementation, financial indicators reveals the performance
improvement in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of the business (Piskar &
Dolinsek, 2006). The QMS is agreed as a value-adding element by other researchers
too (Kartha, 2004; Lourenco et al., 2012). Besterfield, D. H., Besterfield, C.,
Besterfield, G. H., & Besterfield, M. (1995), emphasized that through continual fine-
tuning of operations to achieve incremental improvements, customer satisfaction will
be maximized and the financial result will follow (Besterfield et al., 1995).
The organizations can enjoy significant benefits, provided that the
implementation and certification process of standards are properly understood and
executed (Grant et al., 1994; Lourenco et al., 2012). Among those significant benefit
is the substantial performance improvement compared to uncertified peers (Kartha,
2004). Thus, getting certified is undeniable. Key benefits of ISO 9001 discussed by
researchers in various editorials include gaining competitive advantage, improved
business performance, attracting investment, enhancing brand reputation, saving
12
money, streamlining operations, reduction of wastages, improving product and service

quality, reducing customer complaints, encouraging internal communication, raising
morale, and improving customer satisfaction (Heras et al., 2010; Karapetrovic et al.,
2010; Lourenco et al., 2012; Mohamad et al., 2014b; WM To; Peter KC Lee; Billy
TW Yu, 2012).
Historically, the series of International standard for QMS consists of the ISO
9000, ISO 9001, ISO 9002, ISO 9003 and ISO 9004 (Affisco et al., 1997; Besterfield
et al., 1995). It is prepared by ISO Technical Committee 176 (ISO/TC176). Table 2.2
summarizes the release and revision of each standard in this family. The ISO 9000,
which provides fundamentals and vocabulary used in the entire ISO 9000 family of
standard, was released in 1987 and revised periodically.
The ISO 9001, ISO 9002, and ISO 9003 were released in the year 1994 and revised
periodically too. The revision in the year 2000 integrated the ISO 9001, ISO 9002 and
ISO 9003 into one standard, yet still address as “ISO 9001”. Hence, resulting from this
revision, the ISO 9001 became the only ISO standard against whose requirements a
QMS can be audited and certified by external certification bodies (Affisco et al., 1997;
Zeng et al., 2007a; Zeng et al., 2007b). Meanwhile, organizations which have been
certified to ISO 9002 and ISO 9003 before the year 2000 were required to upgrade
their certification to the ISO 9001:2000 by December 2003 (Bendell & Boulter, 2004).
Later in 2008, ISO 9001:2008 version was released and certified companies were
required to upgrade by 2010. Recently, in the release of ISO 9001:2015 version, a
major change is observed (Technical Committee ISO/ TC176, 2015). Certified
companies are required to upgrade by September 2018.
13
Table 2.2: The ISO 9000- QMS Families and its Evolutions (Bendell & Boulter, 2004; http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm, ; Zeng et al.,
2007b)
Standard Description 1987 1994 2000 2005 2008 2009 2015 Remarks
Non-
QMSs- auditable &
ISO
Fundamentals and Released Revised Revised Revised - - Revised Non-
9000
Vocabulary certifiable
standard
QMSs-
Requirements
ISO
(to companies Released Revised
9001
who design their Note:
own products and The three
services) standards
QMSs- were ISO
ISO Requirements integrated 9001:2000
Released Auditable &
9002 (to companies who into one Quality
- Revised - Revised certifiable
do everything Exclusion Management
standard
except design) allowed on Systems-
QMSs- inapplicable Requirements
Requirements clauses in
ISO (to companies where clause 7-
Released
9003 products or services Product
can be verified only Realization
by inspection and
test)
QMSs- Managing Non-
for the Sustained Approved auditable &
ISO Success of an for revision Non-
Released - - Revised
9004 Organization- A on 3-Dec- certifiable
Quality Management 2015 standard
Approach
13
14
The ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008 QMS versions introduces eight (8)
Quality Management principles. Those are customer focus, leadership, the
involvement of people, process approach, system approach to management, continual
improvement, factual approach to decision-making and mutually beneficial supplier
relationship (Kartha, 2004). These principles provide a platform for deploying good
management practice throughout the organization (Hele, 2003). Also, the standard ,
consist of five auditable clauses, namely Quality Management System (Clause 4),
Management Responsibility (Clause 5), Resources Management (Clause 6), Product
Realization, and (Clause 7) and Measurement, Analysis and Improvement (Clause 8).
The ISO 9001:2000 and the ISO 9001:2008 QMS version also applied a process
approach model. All the five clauses are linked in the Process Approach model as
illustrated in Figure 2.1. This research is using ISO 9001:2008 as the QMS standard.
Continual improvement of
the quality management system

Custome Custome
rs rs
Manage
(and men (and
othe othe
r r
inter Reso Measu Satiinter
este u re este
s
d d
f
parti parti
Requir
es) Product P Output es)
Input
em reali r
en
Key
Value-adding activities
Information flow
Figure 2.1: ISO 9001 Model (Technical Committee ISO/ TC176, 2008)
However, the latest version, the ISO9001:2015 released in September 2015

stipulates only seven management principles which are the customer focus, leadership,
engagement of people, process approach, improvement, evidence-based decision
making and relationship management (Technical Committee ISO/ TC176, 2015). The
15
format is restructured to adapt to Annex SL format that consist of seven auditable

clauses namely Context of the Organization (Clause 4), Leadership (Clause 5),
Planning (Clause 6), Support (Clause 7) Operation (Clause 8), Performance
Improvement (Clause 9) and Improvement (Clause 10). This standard employs the
process approach, which incorporates Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) Cycle and Risk
Based Thinking (Technical Committee ISO/ TC176, 2015).
Meanwhile, ISO 9004 is guidance on a wider range of objectives of a QMS
particularly in managing the long-term success and continual improvement of an
organization. It addresses both effectiveness and efficiency (Bendell & Boulter, 2004).
It was released in 2000 and revised in 2009, in line with the release of ISO 9001: 2008,
the most popular QMS standard in Malaysia and worldwide. Meanwhile, ISO
9004:2009 is approved for revision on 3rd December 2015 in line with the recent
release of ISO 9001:2015 (Technical Committee ISO/ TC176, 2015)
2.2.2 Environmental Management System (EMS)
The Chernobyl accident is one of the “worst technogenic environmental disaster”

(Serebriakova, 2005), where a nuclear-power complex had two explosions in one of
the reactors, which blew-off 1 000 tons of cover plate and the roof of the building (Bell
& Shaw, 2005). The accident occurred at 01:23 a.m. on 26 April 1986, owing to a fatal
combination of design error, illegal operation, and unauthorized experiment. Due to
this accident, a land area of 23,000km2 was heavily contaminated, followed by a large-
scale restriction of agricultural activities and mass evacuation of both urban and rural
areas. The surrounding area of the accident spot remains as “Exclusion Zone” (Bell &
Shaw, 2005). This accident is a typical example of the dangers of ignoring
environmental matters (Bell & Shaw, 2005). On the other hand, there are many other
“environmental disasters” happened and have caused significant impact worldwide.
Browsing the internet using the keyword “industrial accident” will result in too many
cases indeed.
Respectively, quality of natural environment surrounding the products,
activities and services are also being discussed as an additional requirement for
business in the 21st century (Zeng et al., 2005). Thus, processes are deemed necessary
to be assessed for its environmental friendliness. Therefore, the ISO 14000 standards
for EMS Requirements with Guidance for Use were introduced by ISO, as a result of
16
the negotiations at the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) and the ISO commitment to respond to United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in year 1992 at Rio de Janeiro (Zeng et al.,
2005).
ISO 14001 is an EMS standard that is widely used to provide a structured
approach. It is applied by companies that are considering to institute good
environmental management practices such as planning and implementing
environmental protection measures and by which, if effectively implemented, may
help the company to continually improve environmentally and economically (Chavan,
2005; Searcy et al., 2012). Moreover, the EMS standard provides an orientation for
establishing the EMS that can help firms to demonstrate publicly their commitment
towards the protection of the natural environment. It is based on three principles, which
are the pollution prevention, continuous improvement and voluntary participation
(Bansal & Hunter, 2003; Murillo-Luna & Ramon-Solans-Prat, 2008).
The ISO 14001 were first launched in 1996 and revised in 2004 and 2015. A
newly revised standard have been released by ISO in 2015. This is an auditable
standard and organization can apply to be certified by an external certification body
(Bansal & Hunter, 2003). In particular, ISO 14001 helps to guide environmental
management in a structured manner and reduces the impact of organizations’ activities
on the environment and helps to demonstrate sound environmental management.
The ISO 14004 provides additional guidance and useful explanation for the
purpose of implementation and continual improvement of ISO 14001 (ISO, 2009).
Table 2.3 summarizes the release and revision of ISO 14001 and ISO 14004.
Table 2.3: The ISO 14000-EMS Families and its Evolutions (ISO, 2009)
Standards Description 1996 2004 2015 2016 Remarks

EMSs-
Auditable &
Requirements
ISO 14001 Released Revised Revised Certifiable
with Guidance
standard
for Use
EMS- General Target
Guidelines on publication Non-auditable
Principles, date: 17th & Non-
ISO 14004 Released Revised
Systems and Apr 2016 certifiable
Support standard
Techniques
The remaining standard within the family focuses on other areas of

environmental sustainability such as environmental labels and declaration
17
(ISO14020), environmental performance (ISO14031), Life-cycle Assessment

(ISO14040), Environmental Communication (ISO14063), Greenhouse Gas
accounting and verification , and accreditation (ISO14064, ISO14065) and many
others which can be referred for detail on http://www.iso.org (ISO, 2009).
ISO 14000 series developed by ISO is a collection of voluntary standards that
assists organizations to achieve environmental and financial gains through the
implementation of effective environmental management. It provides a model for
streamlining environmental management and a guideline to ensure environmental
issues are considered within decision-making practices (Chavan, 2005).
Among the benefits of ISO 14001 EMS are the minimization of environmental
liabilities, efficient use of resources, reduced wastes, good corporate image, build
environmental awareness among the employees, gain better understanding of the
environmental impacts of business activities, increased profit and improving
environmental performance through more efficient operations (Chavan, 2005) and as
a self-regulatory system in compliance with legal requirements (Zutshi & Sohal,
2003).
The EMS implementation Model is based on Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA)
cycle as described in Figure 2.2 which includes five (5) auditable sub-clauses
including:
a) formulation and documentation of “Environmental policy”,
b) EMS “Planning” by assessing environmental aspects and impacts, and the
necessary control measures, as well the identification of relevant legal and
other requirements and its’ evaluation of compliance. Based on this
information, objectives, targets, and environmental program shall be
formulated,
c) EMS “Implementation and operation” is to allocate resources available as
per the requirement in order to set-up an adequate EMS suitable for the
organizations, capacity and capability building, setting the operational
control, fixing internal and external communication channels by suitable
means, documentations control and the emergency preparedness and
response,
d) “Checking” allows measurement of the performance based on the
objectives, targets and EMPs set as well the evaluation of compliance
18
performed. Also, it focuses on the tackling of the non-conformities,

corrective action, and preventive actions,
e) Management review phase is to review the result of the items detailed by
the top management, managers and key personnel’s and to obtain feedback
in order to proceed with continual improvement of environmental
performances and EMS.
CONTINUED
IMPROVEM
ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
ACT MANAGEMENT POLICY
REVIEW
PLANNING
CHECK VERIFICATION IMPLEMENTATIO

N& DO
OPERATION
Figure 2.2: EMS Model (ISO/ TC207 Environmental Management, 2004)
2.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS)
Global companies are facing safety risks, making the statistics of occupational
accidents higher, both fatal and non-fatal. The facts and figures released by
International Labor Organization (ILO), summarizes as follows:
a) 2.02 million people die each year from work-related diseases,
b) 321,000 people die each year from occupational accidents,
c) 160 million non-fatal work-related diseases per year and
d) 317 million non-fatal occupational accidents per year.
This also means that every 15 seconds, a worker dies from a work-related
accident or disease. Besides, every 15 seconds, 151 workers have a work-related
19
accident. Undeniably, this deaths and injuries take a particularly heavy toll in
developing countries, where a large part of the population is engaged in hazardous
activities, such as agriculture, construction, fishing and mining and others (ILO, 2013).
In addition to the statistics from ILO, as to quote an example, one of the most
terrible industrial accidents in the history to be recapped is in Bhopal, India,
(http://www.bhopal.com/, 2014) whereby more than 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanides
gas leaked from a pesticide plant, which immediately kills 3, 800 people and caused
significant morbidity and premature death for thousands more. This disaster that
happened on 3rd December 1984, affected Union Carbide’s operation worldwide
(Broughton, 2005). After 25 years of the disaster, more than 500,000 registered victims
have survived the tragedy. Clinical studies have also shown chronic illnesses in
exposed groups. The survivors continue to experience a higher incidence of reported
health problems (Mishra et al., 2009). This and many others are the eye-openers to
International Labor Organization (ILO) in announcing a framework covering a
systematic approach to OSH that includes all industries and workers (International
Labour Organization, 2011). Considering the industrial accidents and the occupational
health and safety risks of Chernobyl, Bhopal and other similar occurrence, the
necessity for a guidance standard on Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) are
deemed relevant by ILO (International Labour Organization, 2011) .
Therefore, further to the adoption of the ISO 9000 QMS and ISO 14000 EMS
standards in the early 1990s, the possibility of developing an ISO standard on OSH
MSs was discussed at an ISO International Workshop in 1996 (International Labour
Organization, 2011). During this workshop, the participants agreed that ISO should
discontinue its efforts on OHSMS standard. Instead, because of its tripartite structure,
the International Labour Organization (ILO) would be a more appropriate body than
ISO to elaborate international guidance documents for the establishment and
implementation of an effective occupational safety and health MSs (International
Labour Organization, 2011). Therefore, ILO proceeded with its work in 1998.
Concurrently, in 1999, British Standard Institute (BSI) launched official proposal on
OHSMS as an ISO standard. This caused strong international opposition and a
campaign to stop the ISO work. Later, BSI developed OHSMS guidelines in the form
of private technical standard that is OHSAS 18001(International Labour Organization,
2001; Jorgensen et al., 2004). The OHSAS 18001 was formulated by international
20
certifying bodies, with the basis in BS 8800 and was first published in 1999, for which
BSI provided the secretariat (Jorgensen et al., 2006).
Although ISO have twice conducted ballot (in 1999 and in 2007) about whether
to develop an ISO standard in OHS field, both times the proposals were voted down
(International Labour Organization, 2011; Jorgensen et al., 2004). This was due to the
international agreement since ISO Workshop in 1996, during which it was agreed that
the ILO is more appropriate to take charge of the OHSMS development due to its
tripartite structure -as an agency by United Nation which consists of the government,
employer, and worker representatives- (International Labour Organization, 2011).
Communication regarding the development of OHSMS standard had been initiated
again by BSI in February 2013, and again, ISO seeks out for a ballot vote by 11 June
2013. New Work Item Proposal(NWIP) had been circulated for the purpose of seeking
ISO International Experts’ opinions on the matter again (BSI & ISO, 2013). The NWIP
had been accepted and ISO has formed Project Committee 283(PC283) to proceed
with the development of the standard and estimated to release the finalized standard as
ISO 45001:2017 (BSI & ISO, 2013).
Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) aims to provide the
guideline for OHSMS that is able to create and maintain safe workplace conditions
and protect employees from workplace injuries and illnesses (Fan & Lo, 2012). “It is
also to systemize the safety management, which often left to the discretion of the
employers” (Scipioni et al., 2001). It can be described as a de facto standard and is
used as the basis for certification of OHSMS (Jorgensen et al., 2006). OHSAS 18000
series of standard consist of OHSAS 18001 OHSMS Requirements and OHSAS 18002
Guidelines for the Implementation of OHSAS 18001. Table 2.4 summarizes the
release and revision of OHSAS 18001 and OHSAS 18002
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OHSAS_18001). OHSAS 18001 is developed to be
compatible with ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 since its development in the 1990s
Jorgensen, T.H. et al., 2004).
Table 2.4: The OHSAS 18000- OHSMS Families and its Evolutions
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OHSAS_18001)
Standards Description 1999 2000 2007 2008 Remarks

Auditable &
OHSAS OHSMS-
Released Revised Certifiable
18001 Requirements
standard
OHSAS Guidelines for Non-auditable
Released Revised
18002 the & Non-
21
implementation certifiable
of OHSAS standard
18001
The benefits of adopting the OHSMS discussed in literature includes improved

company image, improved productivity, efficiency and safe working environment, risk
reduction on occupational safety and health accidents and as a self- regulatory system
in compliance with legal requirements (Fan & Lo, 2012; Omran et al., 2008).
The OHSMS implementation model is also based on PDCA cycle as described in

the Figure 2.3, same as ISO 14001 EMS (Zeng et al., 2007a). The OHSAS 18001
standard consists of five (5) auditable sub-clauses:
a) formulation and documentation of “OHS policy”,

b) OHSMS “Planning” by developing a methodology for identifying and
assessing the hazard, and determining the control methods as well the
identification of relevant legal and other requirements and its evaluation of
compliance. Based on this information, objectives, targets and OHS program
shall be formulated.
c) OHSMS “Implementation and operation” is to allocate resources available as
per the requirement in order to set-up an adequate OHSMS to the organization,
capacity and capability building, setting operational control, fixing the internal
and external communication channels by suitable means, participation and
consultation methodologies, documentation and its control as well the
emergency preparedness and response. Also, it focuses on the tackling of the
incident investigation, non-conformities, corrective action and preventive
actions.
d) “Checking” allows measurement of the performance based on the objectives,
targets and OHS programs set as well as the evaluation of compliance
performed.
e) Management review phase is to review the result of the four phases by the top
management, managers and key personnel’s and to obtain feedback in order to
proceed with continual improvement OHS performance and OHSMS.
22
Continual Improvement
OH&S policy
Management
review
Planning
Implementati
Checking and
on &
correctiv
Operatio
e action
Figure 2.3: OHSMS Model (OHSAS Project Group, 2007; Zeng et al., 2007a)
2.2.4 Energy Management System (EnMS)
Energy is embedded in any type of goods and is needed to produce any kind of
service (Mohamad et al., 2014a). Currently, energy security is one of the global issues.
British Petroleum in 2009 were quoted to have reported that the world’s growing thirst
for energy/second amounts to almost 96,000 meter3 of natural gas, 1,000 barrels of oil
and 222 tons of coal (Setti & Balzani, 2011). Looking up to the statistics, the world
electricity consumption is quantified as 42.6% in the industrial sector (International
Energy Agency, 2013) which causes the increase of carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus, the
rising CO2 level results in the greenhouse effect which, in turn, caused climate change
(Setti & Balzani, 2011). The climate change leads to natural disasters such as floods,
droughts and tornadoes, which have a tendency to reduce the environmental impact if
protection of the climate is done globally through a sum of local contributions by
adopting efficient EnMS (Fiedler & Mircea, 2012).
Therefore, there exist serious need to control and manage the energy worldwide
whereby industrial development is relied on in reducing poverty and improving the
quality of life, through sustainable practices (United Nations Industrial Development
23
Organization, 2011). In the meantime, the proliferation of national energy

management standards, which were introduced in Denmark, Sweden and Ireland since
2001 onwards that have shown significant energy performance improvement and
continuous improvement (Gudbjerg et al., 2009; Mohamad et al., 2014a). Thus, United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) recognized the industry’s
need to enhance competitiveness while responding effectively to climate change, with
a systematic management method.
Hence, in March 2007, UNIDO hosted a meeting of experts from developing
countries and emerging economies, nations that had adopted or were developing
national energy management standards and representatives from the ISO Central
Secretariat. That meeting led to the submission of a formal recommendation to the ISO
Central Secretariat to consider undertaking work on an international energy
management standard. Responding to the recommendations, in February 2008, the
Technical Management Board of ISO approved the establishment of a new project
committee (PC 242 –Energy Management) to develop the new Management System
Standard for Energy Management. Close coordination of the planned activities led to
the first meeting of ISO PC 242 in September 2008 in Washington with participation
by delegates from 25 countries from all regions of the world, as well as representation
from UNIDO, which acted as liaises. The goal of ISO PC 242 is to develop the new
management system ISO 50001 on an accelerated schedule. Between the first meeting
in September 2008 and the second meeting in March 2009 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
ISO PC 242 produced two working drafts for experts’ review and comment by member
countries. In March 2009 meeting, a decision was made to escalate the version as a
Committee Draft (CD) in June 2009, following additional experts’ review and input.
Eventually, this allows the release of ISO 50001 on track for publication in early
2011(McKane et al., 2010). Additional EnMS guidance requirements were also
released by ISO since year 2014. Table 2.5 Summarizes ISO 50001 EnMS families
and its evolutions.
Table 2.5: The ISO 50000- EnMS Families and its Evolutions (Rossiter & Jones,
2015)
Standard Description 2011 2014 2019 Remarks
ISO Energy management systems- Release Auditable &
50001: Requirements with guidance for Released of Certifiable
2011 use revision standard
24
Non-auditable
ISO
Energy audits- Requirements & Non-
50002: Released
with guidance for use certifiable
2014
standard
Non-
Energy management systems-
ISO auditable &
Requirements for bodies
50003: Released Non-
providing audit and certification
2014 certifiable
of energy management systems
standard
Energy management systems- Non-
ISO Guidance for the auditable &
50004: implementation, maintenance Released Non-
2014 and improvement of an energy certifiable
management system standard
Measuring energy performance auditable &
ISO
using energy baselines (EnB) Non-
50006: Released
and energy performance certifiable
2014
indicators (EnPI) -- General standard
principles and guidance
ISO Measurement and verification of auditable &
50015: energy performance of Released Non-
2014 organizations -- General certifiable
principles and guidance standard
The purpose of ISO 50001 Energy Management System (EnMS) standard is to

enable organizations to establish the systems and processes necessary to improve
energy performance, including energy efficiency, use, and consumption.
Implementation of this International Standard is intended to lead to a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions and other related environmental impacts and energy cost
through systematic management of energy(Project Committee ISO/PC 242 Energy
Management, 2011).
By practicing the EnMS, companies are enabled to achieve major savings
potentials of 40 to 45% of energy use and consumption of energy (United Nations
Industrial Development Organization, 2011), improve energy efficiency (20% or
more) and reduce GHG emissions worldwide (McKane et al., 2010).
The EnMS implementation model applies PDCA cycle too, similar to ISO
14001 and OHSAS 18001 (Project Committee ISO/PC 242 Energy Management,
2011). The EnMS model is described in Figure 2.4. This consists of seven (7) auditable
sub-clauses that can also be summarized in the similar form as ISO 14001 and OHSAS
18001. Those are:
a) formulation and documentation of “EnMS policy”,
b) “Energy Planning” by
25
i. developing a methodology to conduct the energy review

ii. establish the baseline, energy performance indicators,
iii. determining the control methods
iv. identification of relevant legal and other requirements and its’
evaluation of compliance.
v. set the EnMS objectives and targets
Based on the objectives and targets set, plan the action plans necessary to
deliver results in accordance with the opportunities to improve energy
performance and the organization's energy policy.
c) EnMS “Implementation and operation” is to allocate resources available as per
the requirement in order to set-up an adequate EnMS to the organizations’
capacity and capability, as well as setting operational control and the internal
and external communication channels. This also includes design and
procurement control.
d) “Checking” allows monitoring and measurement of the processes and the key
characteristics of its operations that determine energy performance against the
energy policy and objectives and report the results.
e) “Management review” phase is to review the result of the four phases by the
top management, managers and key personnel’s to obtain feedback in order to
proceed with continual improvement of energy performance and the EnMS
(Project Committee ISO/PC 242 Energy Management, 2011).
26
Energy Policy
Planning
Managemen Implementati
t Review on and
Internal Checking Monitoring

Audit and
Corrective and
Preventiv
Figure 2.4: EnMS Model (Project Committee ISO/PC 242 Energy Management,
2011)
2.3. Trend of MSSs Certifications
A good trend of certification to MSSs is observed worldwide. Figure 2.5 shares the
worldwide ISO certification trend of the seven most commonly certified MSSs as of
the year 2014. A number of 1, 138, 155 certificates have been issued on ISO 9001
QMS; 324, 148certificates have been issued on ISO 14001 EMS, and 6, 914
certificates have been issued on ISO 50001 EnMS worldwide (ISO Survey, 2015;
OHSAS Project Group, 2012). Based on email communication with the OHSAS
secretariat, OHSAS Survey 2011 is the latest version to-date (Corie, 2015).
In addition, as shown in Table 2.1, product specific standards are also common.
The ISO/ TS16949 QMS for Automotive product have been issued with 53, 723
certificates, ISO13485 QMS for Medical Devices have been issued with 25, 666
certificates, and ISO22000 Food Safety Management System have been issued with
26, 847 certificates. At the same time, in the category of sector-specific standard,
ISO27001 Information Security Management System have been issued with 22, 293
certificates (ISO Survey, 2013).
27
MSSs certification is also well accepted in Malaysia. Figure 2.5 shows the trend
of certification of various MSSs. A number of 11, 487 certificates have been issued
for QMS, a number of 2, 284 certificates issued on EMS, a number of 19 certificates
have been issued on ISO 50001 EnMS, a number of 496 certificates on ISO/ TS16949
QMS for Automotive product, a number of 387 certificates have been issued on
ISO13485 QMS for Medical Devices, a number of 311 certificates had been issued on
ISO22000 Food Safety Management System and a number of 233 certificate had been
issued on ISO27001 Information Security Management System (ISO Survey, 2014).
1,200,000 14,000
12,000
1,000,000
10,000
800,000
8,000
600,000
6,000
400,000
4,000
200,000
2,000
- ISO OHSAS ISO ISO ISO ISO ISO/

-
ISO 9001
14001 18001 50001 22000 27001 13485 TS16949
2014-World 1,138,155 324,148 - 6,914 30,500 23,972 27,791 57,950
2014- Malaysia 11,487 2,284 - 19 311 233 387 496
Figure 2.5: Trend Chart of MSS Certification Worldwide(ISO Survey, 2014)
However, the number of certificates issued for the certification of general

standards are also much higher compared to product specific standard and sector-
specific standard. This is because the companies are facing the demand from customers
and stakeholders to implement multiple MSs (Bernardo et al., 2010a; Karapetrovic,
2003).
The ISO 9001 for QMS and ISO 14001 for EMS are the two standards of ISO
series that have obtained most impact at international level and marks the highest
28
number worldwide (Asif et al., 2010a; ISO Survey, 2015). The registration to these
MSSs are due to the need to establish, document and maintain their MSs in a structured
manner (Asif et al., 2010a; Karapetrovic et al., 2013). The demand is seen through the
trend of certifications to MSSs recorded in ISO Survey 2014 and OHSAS Survey 2012
which illustrates its significance in the present business world (ISO Survey, 2015;
OHSAS Project Group, 2012).
2.4. Integrated Management System (IMS)
International and national standards are introduced to the public individually, where
the release of the standard was according to the appropriate needs. This is obviously
seen from the time lag in the introduction of the MSSs that is ISO 9000 which came
in 1987, ISO 14001 in 1996, OHSAS 18001 in 1999 (Karapetrovic, 2003;
Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003) and ISO 50001 in 2011 (Casadesus et al., 2009; Ranky,
2012). With the present trends of mushrooming MSSs, it is also foreseen that much
more new MS would keep appearing frequently (Asif et al., 2008; Karapetrovic, 2003;
Karapetrovic et al., 2013). Therefore, most companies that began operation before the
1990s had no choice but to adopt the “one-at-a-time” approach to the implementation
of the standardized MS (Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003). This resulted in many
companies to establish separate MSs according to the resources availability and the
stakeholder requirements.
Generally, IMS is a blend of two or more MSSs arising from the organizational
interactions (Sampaio et al., 2012). Implementation of multiple MS in organizations
are increasing due to the changing institutional requirements as well as the
encouragement by the industry association, to improve the perception of their industry
among the regulators and community (Barnett & King, 2008; Bernardo et al., 2010a;
Simpson et al., 2012; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005) and also the lack of resources(Simon et
al., 2011) .
The evolution of the IMS transpired as a result of the users understanding of

the logic and practicality in putting the systems together (Karapetrovic, 2003;
Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003; Karapetrovic & Willborn, 1998a; Simon et al., 2012).
Moreover, the intention of IMS was to avoid the non-integrated MSs from pulling
away the organizations’ processes in different directions, to ease the handling of the
29
MSSs for the implementing organization and to improve organizational performance

(Asif et al., 2010b). Hence, organizations begin adopting IMS as they find it more
reasonable to integrate their MSs than managing them individually (Bernardo et al.,
2009; Douglas & Glen, 2000; Karapetrovic & Willborn, 1998a; Zeng et al., 2007a) in
order to have a common architecture for the multiple MSs adapted (Kirkby, 2002). In
addition, the proliferation of MSSs in the first decade of this century has opened new
possibilities for the IMS applications (Bernardo et al., 2010b). Scholars have discussed
various definitions of IMS in literature (Bernardo et al., 2008). Some of the IMS terms
defined in literature are as shown in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Literature Reported Organizational Integration Definitions
Source & Year Definition

Asif, M. et al. (2008b) Integration of MSs is known as a complete harmony and alignment of
strategy and operations of an organization
Beckmerhagen, I. A. et al. IMS is a process of putting together different function-specific
(2003) management system into a single and more effective IMS
Bernardo, M. et al. (2008) IMS is a process of linking different MS into a unique system with
common resources aiming to improve stakeholders’ satisfaction
Farahani, S. M. & Chitsaz, An IMS is a management system which integrates all components of a
G. (2010 ) business into one coherent system so as to enable the achievement of
its purpose and mission
Karapetrovic, S. & Jonker, IMS is a set of interconnected process that shares a unique pool of
J. ( 2003) human, information, material, infrastructure, and financial resources in
order to achieve a composite of goals related to the satisfaction of a
variety of stakeholders.
Summarizing these definitions listed in Table 2.6, IMS is an idea to instigate a

unique, single and fully integrated system for the organization to follow, which consist
and accommodates all sub-systems that the organization prescribes or wish to
prescribe, which is also known as true IMS (Asif et al., 2008; Karapetrovic, 2003;
Rocha et al., 2007) . The IMS illustration is as shown in Figure 2.6.
30
QMS Convergence of
Function
individual
specific EMS
standard management
systems into
one
Generic
OHSMS IMS
Future
MSSs
EnMS
Figure 2.6: An illustration of single and fully integrated system (Asif et al., 2008;
Karapetrovic, 2003; Rocha et al., 2007)
Despite the absence of the IMS standard, many companies have obtained
multiple MSSs with positive performance results reported (Casadesus et al., 2011;
Domingues et al., 2011). A study by Mohammad (2005) shows that in Malaysia,
46.9% of the respondents have implemented IMS (Mohammad et al., 2007). On the
other hand, a study in Spain which resulted with 84% of the respondents practicing
IMS (Karapetrovic et al., 2013). The results of these surveys portray the preference
towards IMS. However, the processes of integration of MSSs are not standardized and
rather dependent on creativity, logic and practical thinking of the user organization
(Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003; Karapetrovic & Willborn, 1998a).
The non-existent of integrated standard or guide has its own reason. Pondering
the early days, as mentioned by Karapetrovic (2002), “if we take into account that
standardization bodies may be resistant to the development of an integrated MSS, as
well as the amount of time and bureaucracy it would take to approve such a standard
at an international level, the integrated standard option appears totally uncalled for”
(Karapetrovic, 2002). There were also claims that “a written IMS standard would only
benefit standard writers, since its scope will be limited” (Karapetrovic, 2003). But,
considering the rising interest on IMS, ISO has published a handbook on Integrated
Use of Management System Standards, which provides related methodology and are
supported with a variety of case studies (Casadesus et al., 2011).
With the time, paradoxical opinions begin to arise. Researchers began to claim
that, though there exist handbooks and national guidelines, the process of integration
31
of MSs is not itself “standardized” by an international standard that addresses the best
way to carry it out (Bernardo et al., 2010a). Through a recent survey, the majority of
the respondents replied that they “would like to have a single standard for all MSSs
implemented” (Karapetrovic et al., 2013). This reflects the “voice of users” on the
need for an IMS standard.
Although the international standard on IMS is yet to be considered by ISO,
many countries have taken the initiative to publish IMS guide at the national level,
though with limited scope. Examples are Norwegian standard NTS:1996, Australia
and New Zealand standard AS/NZS4581:1999 (Jonker & Karapetrovic, 2004)
Denmark standard DS8001:2005, Spain standard UNE66177:200 and Britain standard
PAS99:2006 (Bernardo et al., 2009).
The fully integrated international standard is not to be expected anytime soon.
With the increasing number of MSSs being released, an attempt for publishing an
international “integrated standard” only allow to cover limited functions, which
consequently would require redundant revision and expansion. Therefore, ISO has
proven their commitment to IMS by introducing a harmonized structure of the existing
and emerging MSSs through the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, Rules for the Structure
and Drafting of International Standards (ISO/IEC, 2011). With this structure, the
integration of MSs would be easier to handle. However, the success of integration will
depend on the cross-training of managers and the skilled support groups formed to
maintain the systems (Hamid et al., 2004).
2.5. Organizational Theories and Management Fashion
Organizational theories are a management insight that can help to explain or describe
organizational behaviours, designs and structures (Sarkis et al., 2010). This theory has
existed for more than 100 years now (Laegaard & Bindslev, 2006) and serves as the
foundation for more effective management practice (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972).
The chronology of the organizational theories development and the events

towards the progress of TQM shown in Table 2.7 reflects the management fashion in
the market. Undeniably, this progress reflects the awareness and needs of the
organizations’ too. Despite the financial capacity, the organization must also be
equipped with good management practices in order to achieve effective processes
32
(Laegaard & Bindslev, 2006). This is because management is considered as the hub of
any organization, and knowledge of managing it is essential to build and sustain an
organization with successful management and leadership (Mahmood et al., 2012).
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
Table 2.7: Important events in the development of TQM and the development of Management and Organization Theory. (Anderson et al., 1994;
Besterfield et al., 1995; Martinez et al., 1998)
Event of Management
Time Who Event of TQM Development Year Who and Organization Theory Remarks
Development
1911 Taylor Scientific Management Established
1922 Weber Bureaucracy Model theories of
1
1924 Shewhart Shewhart developed statistical Classical
process control. Management
1925 Fayol Administrative Theory Theory
1926 Bell Telephone The Bell Telephone began to apply
statistical control methods.
1933 Mayo Hawthorne Studies
Mid American Army The American army pushed the use
1940s of sampling methods during World
War II.
1950s A large number of attempts at work
improvement were undertaken (e.g.
job enrichment, work redesign,
participative management, quality of
work life and worker involvement).
1950 Deming First visit of Deming to Japan. 1954 Maslow Hierarchy of Needs
1951 Japanese Union Creation of “Deming Application 1957 McGregor Theory X Theory Y
of Scientist and Prize” in Japan.
Engineers
(JUSE)
Juran First edition of Juran’s “Quality

Control Handbook”.
33
Table 2.7 (Continued)
Event of Management and

Time Who Event of TQM Development Year Who Organization Theory Remarks
Development
1954 Juran First visit of Juran to Japan. 1957 Tannenbaum Continuum of Leader
Maslow Maslow’s theories about human Schmidt Behavior
2
needs
1961 Feigenbaum First edition of Feigenbaum’s “Total 1961 Burns & Stalker Management of Innovation
Quality Control” (TQC).
1962 The idea of quality circles appeared
in the first issue of the Japanese
journal “Quality Control for the
Foreman”.
Late The pressure of Japanese companies 1964 Blake- Mouton Managerial Grid
1960s began to be felt in American 1965 Woodward Industrial Organization
and early companies. 1965 McClelland Achievement Theory
1970s 1966 Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene
1967 Likert System 1-4
1967 Fiedler Contingency Model
1968 Olsson Management by
Objectives
1969 Hersey- Situational Leadership
Blanchard
1972 Mitsubishi QFD was developed at Mitsubishi’s 1972 Aldelfer Existence, Relationship and
Kobe shipyard site. Growth
1973 After the 1973 oil crisis the JIT
system was adopted by a vast
number of Japanese companies.
34
Time Who Event of TQM Development Year Who Event of Management Remarks
and Organization Theory
Development
1973 A small number of American and
European companies began to
apply this system in the 1980s
Mid Quality circles began to be widely 1974 House-Mitchell Path-Goal
3
1970s introduced in the USA and UK.
1974, launched in Lockheed
1979, introduced by Rolls Royce 1976 Vroom Expectancy Theory
1979 Crosby First edition of Crosby’s “Quality is
Free”.
Xerox Corporation started to apply
the benchmarking concept to
processes.
British Standard Publication of the BS5750 quality
Institute management series.
1980 A NBC television documentary 1980 Kackman & Jobdesign

about the “Japanese miracle” Oldham
proposed Deming as a key element
in this miracle.
1981 William Ouchi Ouchi’s Z theory introduced which 1981 Mintzberg Organizational Design
is adapted from Deming’s 14 points.
1982 Deming First edition of Deming’s “Quality,

productivity and competitive
position”.
35
Development
1983 Garvin “Quality on the line”, published by
Garvin in Harvard Business Review
analyzed the differences between
Taguchi A paper about Taguchi’s design of
experiments is published in Harvard
Business Review (Taguchi and
Clausing, 1983).
1983 Garvin “Quality on the line”, published by
4
Garvin in Harvard Business Review
analyzed the differences between
Taguchi A paper about Taguchi’s design of
experiments is published in Harvard
Business Review (Taguchi and
Clausing, 1983).
1984 Freeman Stakeholder Theory
1985 Naval Air The Naval Air Systems Command 1985 Schein Organizational Culture
Systems named its Japanese-style
Command management approach “total quality
management”.
1986 Deming First edition of Deming’s “Out of
the crisis”. It became a best seller.
1987 ISO First edition of ISO 9000 quality
management system series.
36
Development
5
1987 Publication of the Malcolm
Baldridge National Quality Award.
1990 Senge The Learning Organization
1991 Toyota Lean

1992 Martin Culture in Organizations
1995 Weick Sensemaking in
Organizations
1997 Kotter Leading Change
1998 Fairholm Values-Based Relationship
Scott Rational, Natural and

Open Systems
2001 Kolind Knowledge Society
37
38
As seen from Table 2.7, among the Gurus that influenced organizations’ with the
quality management philosophies are Deming, Crosby, Juran, Taguchi, Feigenbaum
and Imai (Burt et al., 2004; Martinez et al., 1998). There are also many others who
contribute and influence for the betterment of the quality management philosophies
which give rise to the management fashion phenomenon. This process of management
fashion setting is defined as the process by which fashion-setters continuously redefine
both parties (the fashion setters and fashion users) belief about which management
techniques are the forefront of the rational management progress (Abrahamson, 1996;
Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999; Thawesaengskulthai & Tannock, 2008). The change
is mainly influenced by the changing stakeholder requirements (Abrahamson, 1996).
The phenomenon of management fashion consists of two facets, supply (by fashion
setters or producers) and demand (by fashion-users or consumers) (Abrahamson, 1996;
Thawesaengskulthai & Tannock, 2008). The Table 2.7 also shows that the
development of organizational theories and the quality management philosophies
between the years 1900 to 2000 are parallel. A variety of approaches of management
fashion has been applied in organizations, aiming for an end result that had been very
much the same (Burt et al., 2004), which is a better quality output. This is because,
management fashion creation involves the invention of management innovation,
which can also be called as an improvement over the state of the art of the management
or reinvention of the old management technique (Abrahamson, 1996).
With these management fads and fashions diffusions, and the development of
various techniques and organizational theories/ concept as shown in Table 2.7, it is
obvious that these techniques expands with the increasing demand, mainly raised by
the stakeholders. The desire to adapt to management fashion by the fashion user is to
learn about new techniques that would help organization and managers to address
performance gap due to technical and environmental changes (Abrahamson, 1991).
Abrahamson (1996) stated that W. E. Deming is among the inventors credited for the
TQM approach invention. TQM concept which provides a framework for meeting the
challenge in the changing business environment (Baulch-Jones I, 1994) is a good
example of management fashion improvement. TQM emphasis includes performing
good quality work in producing good quality product/ service to achieve customer
satisfaction and inculcate continual improvement. In another word, it integrates the
management of resources and processes towards arriving at a satisfactory result in
terms of human resources, product/ services, stakeholder requirements, profit and
39
enhancing reputation of the organization (Besterfield et al., 1995). However, the

proliferation of TQM does not have any measures to evaluate its achievement. Thus,
though the concept was successfully adapted in Japan, it was perceived to require
further enhancement for Europe and the US to adopt the TQM concept due to the
difference in the country’s and company’s social background (Martinez et al., 1998).
Hence, the fashion setters evolved the quality award models from the TQM
to include guidelines to evaluate organizations’ quality programs and improvement
efforts by the introduction of the assessment and scoring method (Burt et al., 2004)
However, by the end of the 20th century and the first decade of 21st century, a plethora
of techniques and tools are available for ensuring excellence in product and service
quality that helps to comply with stakeholder requirements such as TQM, Six sigma,
Benchmarking, Just-In-Time (JIT), ISO standards ( ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS
18001 and ISO 50001), Balance Scorecard and Lean Management
(Thawesaengskulthai & Tannock, 2008).
2.5.1 Classical Management Theory
Among the organization theories, Classical Management Theory (CMT)

provides the basis for all other theories of organization (Mahmood et al., 2012). With
the comparison between the management functions of CMT, namely the
Administrative Theory and the MSSs, it is obvious that the MSSs models development
applies CMT (Tang, 2003). The comparison is as shown in Table 2.8. From this
comparison, the similarity of CMT and the MSSs is that both apply the approach of
PDCA cycle. ‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
40
Table 2.8: Functions of CMT vs MS Standards Model

Management
2.6. Function Stages of MS Standards
No. CMT ISO 9001 ISO 14001 ISO 50001 OHSAS 18001
1 Forecasting Planning Planning Planning Planning
2 Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning
3 Organizing Planning Planning Planning Planning
4 Commanding Do Do Do Do
5 Coordinating Do Do Do Do
Checking Checking Checking Checking and
6 Monitoring
and Acting and Acting and Acting Acting
Further to the comparison of the MS functions, the compatibility of CMT

principles with MSSs is also compared. The result of the comparison is as shown in
Table 2.9. Three established theories of CMT is compared, namely Scientific
Management Theory, Administrative Theory and Bureaucratic Theory (Mahmood et
al., 2012). The comparison in Table 2.9 shows the direct linkages of CMT with the
ISO standards clauses. This has evident that CMT is used as the basis for the
development of the models of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO 50001
(Tang, 2003).
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
Table 2.9: Compatibility of CMT principles with MS standards and TQM
Principles of Principles of MS Standards Principles of MS Standards Clauses* Principles of MS Standards TQM
Classical Scientific Clauses* Administrative Bureaucratic Clauses*
Management Management Theory Theory
Theory Theory
A) Hierarchy of Tasks and Management i) Unity of Management Hierarchy of Management Leadership
Management responsibilities are Responsibility command Responsibility authority Responsibility
equally divided
between workers
and management Roles and ii) Scalar chain Roles and Responsibility Roles and
Responsibility Responsibility
B) Simplification “Science of work” Product i) Unity of Management i) System of Product Continuous
of Complex used to study and Realization direction Responsibility task and Realization Process
Tasks improve ways of Operational Roles and Responsibility relationship Operational Improvement
doing job. Control Control
ii) Division of Management ii) Paper work Control of
work Responsibility Documents
Roles and Responsibility Control of
records
iii) Order Product Realization
Operational Control
MS Standard Clauses* includes compatibility with ISO9001, ISO141001, OHSAS18001 and ISO50001.
41
Theory Theory
C) Top-down i) Workers Provision of i) Centralization Management Responsibility i) Specialized Provision of Employee
Communication selected to resources training resources Involvement
match the
Roles and Roles and Responsibility Roles and
new rules.
Responsibility Responsibility
ii) Rewards for ii) Encourage Provision of resources ii) Clearly
jobs are harmony and identified
linked to good relation duties.
productivity. of workers to Roles and Responsibility
increase
productivity
D) Predicted Development of Monitoring and Initiative Monitoring and Written Control of Employee
behavior of expertise of Measurement Measurement/ Checking rules Documents Involvement
employee employees on and records
particular areas Checking Continuous
of work. Process
Improvement
Performance
Measurement
42
Theory Theory
D) Adapts Tasks and Management i) Authority Management Responsibility i) Fair Management Leadership
autocratic responsibilities Responsibility evaluation Responsibility/
management are equally Roles and Roles and Responsibility and Roles and
style divided Responsibility rewards. Responsibility
between ii) Organization Management Responsibility ii) Maintenanc Management
workers and interest above e of ideal Responsibility/
management individual bureaucracy Roles and
Roles and Responsibility Responsibility
iii) Remuneration Management Responsibility
Roles and Responsibility

iv) Equity Management Responsibility

v) Stability of Management Responsibility
tenure of
personnel’s Roles and Responsibility
vi) Discipline Provision of resources/
43
44
Based on Table 2.8 and Table 2.9, conceptually, the CMT involves creating
multiple levels of workers to improve productivity. In pursuing this, employees at each
level find their tasks are overseen by their superiors who, in turn, are overseen by their
higher authorities. As to standardize the practice at every level, employees are
expected to perform tasks according to specific procedures which are designed to
maximize productivity. Through the designing of procedures for completing a task,
personal issues are kept out of business; the organizations can stay focus on the job at
hand.
2.5.2 Theories Discussed in Previous IMS Literatures
In the development of MSSs, both national and International standards, CMT is

applied (Tang, 2003). Yet, a number of theories were discussed in the literature of IMS
read by the researcher. It is summarized in the Table 2.10. Those are namely
stakeholder theory, institutional theory, socio-technical system theory, system theory,
resource-based-view theory and contingency theory (Asif et al., 2010b; Asif et al.,
2010c; Bernardo et al., 2008; Kirkby, 2002; Rocha et al., 2007; Romero, 2006;
Wilkinson & Dale, 1999b). Only system theory was found repeatedly discussed by
various authors followed by stakeholder theory and contingency theory. However,
other theory does apply occasionally.
Table 2.10: Summary of Theories Discussed in some of the Literatures of IMS

No. Author Theory Discussed
• System
1 • Institutional
Asif et al. (2010b)
• Socio-technical system
• Resource-based view
2 • System
Romero (2006)
• Stakeholder
3 Rocha et al. (2007) • System
4 Bernardo et al. (2008) • System
5 • System
Kirkby, A. (2002)
• Contingency
6 Wilkinson, G. & Dale, B. G. (1999b) • System
7 Asif, et al. (2010c) • Stakeholder
45
2.5.2.1 System Approach for IMS
The system is defined by various authors in many kinds of literatures. It differs

according to the intended application. Backlund (2000) in his research defined system
as “a whole that cannot be divided into independent parts.”
On the other hand, Johnson, Kast and Rosenzweig (1954) summarized “system
as an organized or complex whole, an assemblage or combination of things or parts
forming a complex or unitary whole” (Johnson et al., 1954). Whilst, Asif et al., (2010)
and Jonker & Karapetrovic (2004) defined system as “a composite of interlinked
processes that function harmoniously, share the same human, material, information,
infrastructure and financial resources, and are all directed towards the achievement of
the set goals” (Asif et al., 2010b; Jonker & Karapetrovic, 2004). Therefore, with these
definitions, a system can be described as a composition of multiple dependent elements
that interacts with each other and produces an outcome in totality. In a system,
Backlund (2000) summarizes that the relationships of the system elements include
interaction and behaviour (Backlund, 2000).
Looking into the system theory, generally, it was proposed for the purpose of
unification (Backlund, 2000). As described by Johnson et al. (1954), the System
Theory is concerned with developing a systematic, theoretical framework for
describing general relationships of the empirical world which ultimately draws a
“system of system” framework. This eventually, ties all the disciplines together in a
meaningful relationship (Johnson et al., 1954). However, issues such as familiarity and
competency in dealing with the subsystems in a total system are identified as among
the factors that cause the lack of totality in the application of system theory (Kast &
Rosenzweig, 1972). On the other hand, for a system to function in its totality, the scope
and boundaries of the theory must be clearly defined too (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972).
Generally, Table 2.10 shows that System Theory is widely used when
discussing about IMS. The application of system theory allows harmonization between
the multiple MSSs adapted by the organization through the clause numbers that is by
referring to the correspondence table of the International Standards annexed within the
standard document (ISO/ TC207 Environmental Management, 2004; OHSAS Project
Group, 2007; Project Committee ISO/PC 242 Energy Management, 2011; Technical
Committee ISO/ TC176, 2008). Thus, allows simpler cross-referencing to users,
including novice. Through the cross-referencing, organization should be able to
46
develop a unique system for it to adapt, which is customized based on their stakeholder
requirements, available resources, profitability, and applicability.
2.5.2.2 Stakeholder Theory for IMS
A stakeholder is defined as “any group or individual who is affected by or can affect

the achievement of an organization’s objectives” (Freeman & McVea, 2001). The
stakeholder is also defined as “groups and individuals who benefit from or are harmed
by, and whose rights are violated or respected by, corporate actions” (Freeman, 2001).
Stakeholders are those groups who have a stake in or claim on the firm; which includes
suppliers, customers, employees, stockholders, and the local community, as well as
management in its role as agent for these groups (Freeman, 2001).
Stakeholder theory focuses on meeting the organizations’ financial
performance parallel with its social performance (Phillips, 2003). The majority of
studies on stakeholder theory adopt the definition idealized by Freeman (1984)
(Mainardes et al., 2011). This is originated from the transformation of the stockholder
theory (Freeman, 2001). A recent debate in stakeholder theory has been over moral
and ethical obligations of managers (Miles, 2012) which are part of the compliance
requirement for the corporate social responsibility (ISO 26000) standard.
Critics of the stakeholder theory have condemned the notion that corporate
profits must be sacrificed in order to meet various stakeholder needs (Miles, 2012).
However, other researchers reported positive performance result as compliance to
stakeholder requirements is achieved through the IMS adaptation (Casadesus et al.,
2011; Domingues et al., 2011). In addition, the stakeholder theory is unable to make a
distinction between who is and who is not a stakeholder (Miles, 2012). Indeed, it
requires the organization to define its stakeholders according to its products, activities,
and services. Although stakeholders are always being highlighted as the parties
involved and influencing the IMS, it is observed that stakeholders are more extensively
discussed by Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) authors (Branco & Rodrigues,
2007) than the IMS authors.
Nevertheless, stakeholder theory is an important theory for IMS because the
input and output of the IMS are strongly influenced by the stakeholder requirements.
The IMS model discussed in Chapter 5 will elaborate the relationship between the
stakeholders and the IMS in detail.
47
2.5.2.3 Contingency Theory
Contingency approach began in the 1960s, due to the emphasis of the importance on
situational influences on the management of the organization, to answer the questions
on the single best way to manage and organize organizations (Tosi & Slocum, 1984;
Zeithaml et al., 1988). Research findings by Zeithaml et al (1988) summarized
Contingency Theory as had been rooted from the General System Theory with open
system perspective (Zeithaml et al., 1988). Whilst Tosi & Slocum (1984), regards
contingency theory as a move away from the universalist which claims that there was
only one way to organize any organizations (Miles, 2012; Tosi & Slocum, 1984). With
these statements, contingency theory can be defined as a theory where unique
organization structure is designed according to the contingency factors of the adapting
organization.
Although the International Standards as well the IMS document drafted in this
research are written as a universal document to suit all types and sizes of organization,
the implementation of the IMS have to consider the situational approach. This is
because the appropriateness of organizational structure and management style that
depends on a set of contingency factors (Zeithaml et al., 1988) within the organization.
It may differ according to various criterions such as the type, size, culture and
complexity (Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003; Karapetrovic & Willborn, 1998a). In
addition, the contingency theory also holds that an effective organizational structure
design is where the structure fits the contingencies (Donaldson, 2006). This approach
is classified as a mid-range theory which states between two extreme views, either as
“universal principles” of organization and management exist” or as “each organization
is unique and each situation must be analyzed separately”.
2.6 Benefits of IMS Implementation
IMS, if properly implemented, is obviously a value-adding activity for organizations’.

The benefits that it brings vary in terms of organizational culture, reputation,
documentations, operational and financial. Many researchers have discussed widely
48
and frequently among the researchers and scholars, and reported the benefits of IMS
such as Casadesus M., Karapetrovic S., Heras I., Idris A., Jorgensen T.H., Simon A.,
Wilkinson G., Dale G., Zutshi A. and Sohal A.S (Casadesus et al., 2009; Idris et al.,
2012; Jorgensen et al., 2006; Karapetrovic, 2003; Simon et al., 2011; Wilkinson &
Dale, 1999a; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005).
The benefits in this research are categorized as follows:

a) Cultural change, more specifically: integrated training and audits (Zutshi &
Sohal, 2005);holistic views (Zutshi & Sohal, 2005); better employee morale
(Simon et al., 2011; Wilkinson & Dale, 1999a); and less bureaucracy
(Casadesus et al., 2009; Jorgensen et al., 2006; Karapetrovic, 2003)
b) Enhanced reputation, more specifically: better organizational image (Simon et
al., 2011; Wilkinson & Dale, 1999a; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005); and improved
customer satisfaction (Idris et al., 2012; Simon et al., 2011)
c) Improved documentation , more specifically: minimization of documents and
records, and reduction of paperwork; combined documentation (Casadesus et
al., 2009; Jorgensen et al., 2006; Karapetrovic, 2003; Rasmussen, 2007);
Effective/ optimized operation (reduced reworks and scrap activities)
(Sampaio et al., 2012); combined process control and increased consistency
(Rasmussen, 2007); reduced waste (Wilkinson & Dale, 1999a); reduction of
environmental risk such as optimization of raw material and energy
consumption, which also reduce residues from production (Sampaio et al.,
2012); the reduction of health and safety risk that is as processes are better
understood the accidents probability decrease (Sampaio et al., 2012, lower
energy costs (Wilkinson & Dale, 1999a); better resources utilization; effective
strategic planning (Idris et al., 2012; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005); enhanced
communication (Zutshi & Sohal, 2005); and simplification of internal and
external audits (Casadesus et al., 2011; Jorgensen et al., 2006; Karapetrovic,
2003).
d) Cost savings, more specifically: savings by optimization of time and resources
(Idris et al., 2012; Jorgensen et al., 2006; Karapetrovic, 2003; Simon et al.,
2011; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005); profitability (Idris et al., 2012); and integrated
audits (Rasmussen, 2007; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005)
e) Combined objectives (Rasmussen, 2007)
49
2.7. Strategies to Develop the IMS
The strategy is essential in developing an effective MS for an organization. In order to

strategize the moves towards IMS, considering the,
a) ways of integrating MSSs,
b) types of MSSs integration and
c) approaches applied in the development of IMS.
Section 2.7.1, 2.7.2 and 2.7.3 provides detail the explanation of the mentioned.
2.7.1 Ways of Integrating the MSs
Based on the discussion by various scholars that have been published such as
Karapetrovic & Willborn (1998); Karapetrovic (2002); Karapetrovic & Jonker (2003);
Labodova (2004); Mohammad et al. (2005), Griffith & Bhutto (2008) and Mohammad
et al. (2013), there are two ways for integrating MSs namely sequential
implementation and simultaneous implementation.
a) Sequential implementation
In organizations’ applying sequential implementation, the individual MSS is

implemented as a single system and then, integrated sequentially as more MSSs
are adapted. For example, QMS is implemented, followed by EMS, then
OHSMS or vice versa (Karapetrovic S, 2002; Karapetrovic & Willborn, 1998a;
Mohammad et al., 2005, 2006). During the MSSs implementation, the system
is reviewed to synergize and integrate them.
Referring to Table 2.11, QMS is mainly the IMS genesis as
management sub-system and, prior to integration, the sole management system
ruling the organization (Domingues et al., 2011). Therefore, the priorities are
obviously given to QMS. Similarly, based on the results of the empirical
analysis carried out by Douglas & Glen (2000), Karapetrovic et al (2006) and
Salomone R (2008), organizations adopts QMS first followed by others.
However, these studies represent only a limited sampled population.
b) Simultaneous implementation
50
In the simultaneous implementation, the organization integrates the MSs

simultaneously from the beginning. For example, when more than two (2) MSs
need to be implemented concurrently -such as subsets of QMS and EMS, EMS
and OHSMS, QMS and OHSMS, QMS and EnMS, EnMS and EMS- the MSS
shall be studied and aligned to the organizations’ need prior to the
implementation (Karapetrovic S, 2002; Mohammad et al., 2005, 2006;
Mohammad et al., 2013; Roughton, 1993). Table 2.11 also shares research
where simultaneous integration is applied.
Many literatures have been reviewed to understand the acceptance of sequential and
simultaneous implementation of MSs among the authors and also the type of MSs
that is prioritized in applying the IMS techniques. The findings are summarized in
Table 2.11.
Based on Table 2.11, further to generalizing the types of integration into the
sequential and simultaneous method, it is also observed that the types of integration in
terms of sequence of MS implementation) differs according to the organization needs.
Regardless of the type of MSS intended to be achieved, sequential implementation are
chosen by those companies that implements the MSS due to the business pressure or
for legal reasons (Mohammad et al., 2005), as well the time lag in the MSSs release
(Casadesus et al., 2009; Karapetrovic, 2003; Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003; Ranky,
2012). However, Mohammad (2005) added that, the simultaneous implementations are
chosen by the companies that does not have a formal management system in place at
the point of MS implementation (Mohammad et al., 2005). Thus, they integrate the
MSSs requirement prior to the implementation and continue with other MSSs. The
ways of integration of MS and the sequence have been discussed by authors as
summarized in Table 2.11 (Douglas & Glen, 2000; Griffith & Bhutto, 2008;
Karapetrovic, 2002; Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003; Karapetrovic & Willborn, 1998a;
Labodova, 2004; Mohammad et al., 2005; Wilkinson & Dale, 1999a).
Table 2.11: Ways of Integrating MSSs in IMS literatures (Bernardo et al., 2008,
2009; Douglas & Glen, 2000; Griffith & Bhutto, 2008; Karapetrovic & Casadesus,
2008; Labodova, 2004; Salomone, 2008; Zeng et al., 2007a)
Ways of Sequence of MSS
Authors Integration implementation Notes
Applied Sequence MSS
1st QMS
51
Sequential
2nd EMS
1st EMS Advantageous for organization
Karapetrovic &
with activities that harms the
Willborn
Sequential environment because it is exposed
(1998) 2nd QMS
to the risk of public and
regulatory bodies
Simultaneous 1st QMS and EMS
Douglas & 1st QMS
Sequential
Glen (2000) 2nd EMS
1st QMS
Sequential
2nd EMS
1st EMS
Sequential
2nd QMS
1st QMS and EMS
Simultaneous
Karapetrovic 2nd Others An extension of Karapetrovic &
(2002) Fundamental Willborn (1998)
element of IMS
first, then other
Simultaneous 1st
function-
specific
subsystem
1st QMS Integrate based on “process
Sequential
2nd EMS approach”
Karapetrovic &
1st EMS Integrate based on “process
Jonker (2003) Sequential
2nd QMS approach”
Simultaneous 1st QMS and EMS Join, align and integrate the MSs
1st EMS
2nd OHSMS
Labodova Sequential Non-
(2004) 3rd standardized
MS
Simultaneous 1st IMS directly
Bernardo et al 1st QMS
Sequential
(2008) 2nd EMS
Zeng et al 1st QMS
Sequential
(2007a) 2nd EMS
Griffith & 1st QMS
Sequential Merged
Bhutto (2008) 2nd EMS
Salomone 1st QMS
Sequential
(2008) 2nd EMS
52
Ways of Sequence of MSS

Authors Integration implementation Notes
Applied Sequence MSS
1st QMS
QMS and EMS is not integrated
Sequential 2nd EMS
with OHSMS
3rd OHSMS
Bernardo et al
1st EMS
(2009)
2nd QMS
Sequential
3rd OHSMS
4th CSRMS
In addition to the ways of integration, the authors also discussed on the degree
-level- of implementation of IMS. There are different types and level of integration
being applied, whereby each level consists of a different phase of integration (Douglas
& Glen, 2000; Wilkinson & Dale, 1999a). The ways of integration are further
narrowed down by the degree of IMS implementation in order to measure the extent
of implementations. However, the management must determine the phases to allow
integration to happen (Douglas & Glen, 2000). Bernado et al. (2009) have summarized
the degree of integration as per Figure 2.7.
..........................
53
Authors Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Seghezzi (1997) Addition Merger Integration
Individual
Integration Integration of
MS Combina-
of selected of certificated
Wilkinson & Dale integrated tion
parts and
(1999) into every based on
without uncertificated
function linkages
linkages MS
and activity
Kirkby (2002) Separate Aligned Integrated

Alignment of
Complete Integration
"All-in-
Karapetrovic Documentation core processes,
one"
(2002) integration objectives and
system
resources
Karapetrovic
Partial integration Full integration
(2003)
Beckmerhagen, et Harmoni-
Cooperation Amalgamation
al (2003) zation
Pojasek (2006) Combined Integrating Integrated
Jorgensen et al Corresp
(2006) and on- Generic Integration
Jorgensen (2008) dence
Figure 2.7: Degree of Integration according to some authors (Bernardo et al., 2009)
Obviously, based on Figure 2.7 phases of integration differ by the organization

and the practitioners. Since the process of integration of MSs are not standardized by
the guidance of an International Standard (Bernardo et al., 2010a; Labodova, 2004),
the starting and ending points are not identical (Karapetrovic, 2003). The order may
vary, depending on the situation of each organization (Bernardo et al., 2009). Hence,
the implementation phases of the IMS shall be set by the organization according to its
culture, needs and resources availability as reflected in several case studies (Asif et al.,
2010b; Fabio et al., 2001).’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
54
2.7.2 Types of MSs Integration
Multiple MSSs implementation has become a trend in the present business world
(Sampaio et al., 2012). However, in the existing organizations’, Kirkby (2002) have
described the presence of three models of MSs that is separate MS, aligned MS and
IMS (Kirkby, 2002). The diagrams below represent each MS described.
A separate MS is a system whereby company has multiple MS implemented
and operated individually. Thus, all the decision makings will also be done
respectively. Figure 2.8 describes the separate MSs. Although separate MSs are
smoother to handle, it will also cause each MS to be seen as islands in the organization
(Wilkinson & Dale, 1999a), which causes duplication of job of employees (Kirkby,
2002).
Quality Environment Health and safety Energy
Reviews Reviews Reviews Reviews
Multiple audit and separate process
Figure 2.8: Separate Management System- modified (Kirkby, 2002)
On the other hand, an aligned system approach is an approach whereby

common areas with common procedures from the two or more MSs are integrated.
Examples of those common areas are namely control of documents, control of records,
internal audits, management review, corrective and preventive actions, training,
resources, management policies, and handling of non-conformities.
The above mentioned areas are integrated (Jorgensen et al., 2004; Kirkby,
2002; Mohammad et al., 2006). Thus, it allows common problems to be identified and
rectified. The uncommon areas are managed individually with separate procedures.
This is also known as partial integration (Jorgensen et al., 2004; Jorgensen et al., 2006;
Mohammad et al., 2006; Salomone, 2008). Figure 2.9 represent a diagram describing
the aligned system approach or partial integration.
55
Quality Environment Health and safety Energy
Common clauses
Process Process Process Process

Clauses Clauses Clauses Clauses
Two-tier system-aligned approach

- Single and multi-audits and processes
Figure 2.9: Aligned System Approach/ Partial Integration-modified (Kirkby, 2002)
The other type of integration is “an integrated approach” or also known as full
integration. It is an attempt to create a single management system which is built base
on interrelationships among the various MSs with a focus on effectively satisfying the
needs of interest groups (Hamidi et al., 2012). This is also described as an effort to
combine all the MSs within an organization in order to inculcate it as a business
management approach (Jorgensen et al., 2004; Jorgensen et al., 2006; Kirkby, 2002;
Mohammad et al., 2006). This forms a system that is defined by Karapetrovic and
Willborn (1998) as “a system of systems, a single system with a complete loss of the
unique identities of function-specific subsystems” (Bernardo et al., 2008; Karapetrovic
& Willborn, 1998a). It allows the management team to create one structure that can
help to effectively and efficiently deliver organizations’ objectives (Farahani &
Chitsaz, 2010). Figure 2.10 represents a diagram describing the “integrated approach”
or full integration.
Integrated system
Single executive review
Quality, Health and Safety, Environmental and Energy
Single Audit
Single Process
Figure 2.10: An Integrated Approach/ Full Integration (Kirkby, 2002)

56
2.7.3 Approaches and Proposed Frameworks for Integrating the MSs
Various approaches had been applied in integrating the MSs and proposed with the
differing framework of MS implementation. Among those are
a) MS structured approach (Fabio et al., 2001; Mohamad et al., 2014b;
Mohammad, 2006; Mohammad et al., 2005, 2006; Zeng et al., 2005)
MS structured approach is based on the established standards like ISO 9001,

ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO 50001 that is relevant to the organization
business process and towards meeting the stakeholder requirements. Since the
standards are compatible (Beckmerhagen et al., 2003; Karapetrovic &
Willborn, 1998b; Labodova, 2004), it is easily attainable.
However, as explained in subsection 2.7.1, the sequence of integration

may have difference according to the business process and stakeholder
requirements that the organization chose to prioritize its compliance. The
various sequence discussed by researchers are summarized as per Table 2.12.
It can be concluded that two major practices based on previous research are (a)
QMS, followed by EMS and OHSMS, and others (b) EMS, followed by
OHSMS, and others. This approach seems useful for organizations seeking for
certification since the implementation are to be done by integrating the
common requirements and adding-on with the standard specific requirements
using the recommended model by the International/ National Standard. This
helps to clearly demonstrate the compliance to the standards when properly
documented.
57
Table 2.12: Sequence of MSS Implementation(Bernardo et al., 2008, 2009; Douglas

& Glen, 2000; Griffith & Bhutto, 2008; Karapetrovic & Casadesus, 2008; Labodova,
2004; Salomone, 2008; Zeng et al., 2007a)
Authors Sequence of MSS implementation
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Karapetrovic & QMS EMS
Willborn (1998) EMS QMS
QMS and EMS
Douglas & Glen (2000) QMS EMS

Karapetrovic (2002) QMS EMS
EMS QMS
QMS and EMS Others
Fundamental element of IMS first, then other function-

specific subsystems
Karapetrovic & Jonker QMS EMS
(2003) EMS QMS
QMS and EMS
Labodova (2004) EMS OHSMS Non-

standardized
MS
IMS directly
Bernardo et. al (2006) QMS EMS
Zeng et al (2007) QMS EMS
Griffith & Bhutto (2008) QMS EMS
Salomone (2008) QMS EMS
Bernardo et al., (2009) QMS EMS OHSMS
QMS EMS OHSMS CSRMS
b) System approach (Beckmerhagen et al., 2003; Karapetrovic & Willborn,

1998b)
System thinking is necessary for a successful implementation of any quality
related project. A “system” can be defined as a unified whole of interdependent
processes, that function harmoniously, using various resources, to achieve an
objective (Karapetrovic & Willborn, 1998b). As shown in Figure 2.2, Figure
2.3 and Figure 2.4, model of EMS, OHSMS and EnMS applied the PDCA
model. Whilst, Figure 2.1 shows the ISO 9001 QMS applied the process-
approach model. The PDCA model and process-approach model are
compatible (Eccleston et al., 2012; Jorgensen et al., 2006) and can be
integrated seamlessly (Beckmerhagen et al., 2003) using systems approach
58
(Karapetrovic, 2002). Therefore, the ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and OHSAS 18001
are integrated using system framework which is a combination of these models.
Figure 2.11 is an example of a model for the integration ISO 9001 and
ISO 14001 by system approach as suggested by Karapetrovic and Jonker
(Jonker & Karapetrovic, 2004; Karapetrovic, 2002). It shows that all clauses
in ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 can be aligned in implementing IMS. In fact, it is
obvious that the flow of the system in meeting the objectives of the
management is through the processes and resources available within the
organization with consideration of all the clauses of both the standard. This
approach suits companies that have implemented multiple MSSs separately
and would like to integrate two or more implemented standards to develop an
IMS.
GOALS PROCESSES RESOURCES
S Design Planning Allocation

T 7.3 5.4- 5.5; 7.1-7.2 6.1; 4.1-4.2; 7.4
A 4.3.1 4.3.2, 4.3.4, 4.4.1 4.1; 4.4.4-4.4.5; 4.5.3
K Policy, Targets &
E Objectives Control & Improvement
H
5.3, 5.4.1 5.1; 5.6; 7.6; 8.1-8.5
O
L 4.2; 4.3.3 4.4.6-4.4.7; 4.5.1-4.5.3; 4.6
D
E Implementation Deployment
R 7; 7.5 6.2-6.4
S
4.4; 4.4.6 4.4.2-4.4.3
Legend: Bold- ISO 9001:2000 Non-bold with underline- ISO 14001:1996
Figure 2.11: Alignment of ISO 9001: 2000 and ISO 14001:1996 using the system
approach (Jonker & Karapetrovic, 2004; Karapetrovic, 2002)
59
c) PDCA approach
PDCA Cycle is an improved version of Deming Cycle introduced by Japanese

Executives during Japanese Union of Scientist and Engineers (JUSE) Seminar
in 1950 (Moen & Norman). The ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO 50001
are suggested to use PDCA approach, with the purpose of preventing the
recurrence of nonconformities as well emphasizing the Continual
Improvement (Moen & Norman). PDCA is suggested as an approach for IMS
by many researchers (Asif et al., 2010c; Beckmerhagen et al., 2003; Mohamad
et al., 2014b; Mohammad, 2006; Mohammad et al., 2005, 2006).
Figure 2.12 shows PDCA Model on IMS proposed by Beckmerhagen
et al., 2003. This model requires a policy to be formulated. The policy
demonstrates the commitment of top management in the implementation of the
MSSs and towards supporting continual improvement. The policy that has been
communicated and understood at all level of the organization is a good driver
to manage the organizational behaviour. With the policy, Plan the activities to
assess the performance and identify relevant legal and other requirements
applicable to the organization. Consequently, identify opportunities for
improvement and action plans towards achieving them. This activity helps in
determining the relevance of the available resources and action plans that
necessitates additional resources.
In order to implement the planned activity, the organizations have to
decide the organization structure that suits their needs and dictate the roles and
responsibilities respectively. Training should be provided to enhance
knowledge of those assigned with responsibilities. In addition, internal and
external communications pertaining to matters relating to IMS have to be
clearly communicated to develop mutual understanding within the
organization. Besides, all the activities have to be effectively documented to
demonstrate that the IMS performance is current and accurate. As well, the
operational control associated with the IMS objectives and targets, and action
plans are ensured as resourced and carried out consistently. Despite the
common core elements that are integrated as IMS, the MS specific
requirements are established as sub-module (Beckmerhagen et al., 2003). The
60
number of sub-modules increases with the number MSSs being integrated by

an organization.
Upon completion of the implementation, check the performance of the
system set through monitoring and measurement activities. Impose corrective
and preventive actions appropriately to rectify the non-conformities detected
and to prevent recurrence. Further to this activity, an internal audit is helpful
as an indicator of the level of compliance to the implemented IMS as well the
MSSs. Any deviation or nonconformities detected have to be rectified.
As to complete the cycle, the performances of the IMS have to be
reviewed by the top management to ensure its continuing suitability and
adequacy. The MSSs spells out clearly the agendas required to be reviewed by
the organization. At the end of the management review session, the output will
consist of decisions or actions related to changes on IMS performance,
resources allocation, policy, objectives and targets and action plan consistent
with commitment to continual improvement (ISO/ TC207 Environmental
Management, 2004; OHSAS Project Group, 2007; Project Committee ISO/PC
242 Energy Management, 2011; Technical Committee ISO/ TC176, 2008).
61
Policy
Act Plan
- Management - Objectives
Review - Processes &
- Business Programs
Planning - Resources
Specific Requirements
Check Product -Related Do

- Corrective & - Structural
Preventive Environmental Organization
Actions - Responsibility &
- Inspection & Health & Safety- Related Authority
Testing - Training
- Internal & Social - Communication
External Audit - Documentation
- Self-assessment Employee- Related - Operational
Control
Product Related
Financial
Figure 2.12: PDCA Model on IMS (Beckmerhagen et al., 2003)
Another PDCA model which were suggested by Hamid et al., 2004 is

a model for the integrated Safety, Health, Environmental and Quality
Management System (SHEQMS) (Hamid et al., 2004). The model is as shown
Figure 2.13. The SHEQMS Model is derived from the PDCA Model. It begins
with the documentation and formulation of the SHEQ Policy. It is followed by
SHEQMS Planning which fulfils its SHEQ policy. This includes the formation
of the cross-functional team and identification of significant SHEQ impacts of
activities, products, and services along with legal and other standards to which
the organization subscribes. Eventually, the SHEQMS objectives and targets
are set. The planning activities will lead to SHEQMS “Implementation and
Operation”. At this stage, organizations’ identifies and provides necessary
resources, establishes training procedures and implements the internal and
external communications procedures. In order to verify the effectiveness and
efficiency of the SHEQMS “Checking and Corrective Action”, the
organization measures, monitors, and evaluates its performances against its
objectives and targets. It monitors and measures processes on a regular basis
62
and tracks performance and conformance with objectives and targets. The
organization conducts audits of the SHEQ management system to identify
areas that require improvement and non-conformance that must be corrected.
Management Review is the final step to review and continually improve the
SHEQMS, with the objective of improving its overall SHEQ performance by
comparing actual performance with its objectives and targets, then identifies
and corrects the root causes of deficiencies. It also identifies further
opportunities for improvement. Upon Management Review, decisions shall be
made to ensure continual improvement process for enhancing the SHEQMS
performances improvement, in line with the organization’s SHEQ policy.
SHEQ Policy
Continual
Planning
Improvement
Implementation
Management
&
Review
Operation
Checking
& Corrective
Action
Figure 2.13: SHEQMS Model (Hamid et al., 2004)
d) Risk-based approach (Labodova, 2004; Mohamad et al., 2014b; Sampaio et

al., 2012)
The risk-based approach was originally developed for OHSMS ((Labodova,

2004) and are compatible with ISO 14001. The phases in this model include
OHS Policy, Planning, Implementation and Operation, Audit and Corrective
Actions, Management Review and Continual Improvement. Figure 2.14 shows
the combination of risk analysis (“seven steps”) and OHS management spiral.
From the Planning stage to the Implementation and Operation Stage, the risk
63
has to be assessed, evaluated, controlled and managed with the seven

recommended steps. The Planning Stage recommended inclusion of the
description of the production system installations and the surrounding
environment, the identification of the source of hazard and possible target
system, the scenarios of the surrounding which is a combination of sources,
targets and identification of possible action and evaluation of risks. Whilst at
the Implementation and Operation Stage includes setting-up objectives based
on the risk assessment, the definition of means of prevention and projection
which is the action plan to achieve objectives and targets and the management
of risk based on the resources provision and availability. This risk-based
approach is useful for companies that begin their implementation of
management system with OHSMS and EMS (Labodova, 2004; Sampaio et al.,
2012).
OH&S Planning
Policy
Continual
Production
Improvement
System
Hazard
Description Implementation and Operation
Identification
Scenarios
Risk
Evaluation Management
Goals Setting- Review
up Definition of
barriers
(Prevention
Audit &
and
Corrective
protection) Risk
Actions
Management
Commitment Tools, Method,

Initial Review, Background For Planning Specification of Goals and Goals OH&S
of Top Responsibilities,
Policy (Acceptability of Risk) quantification Programme
Management Resources
Figure 2.14 The combination of risk analysis (“seven steps”) and OHS management spiral (Labodova, 2004).
64
65
e) Process-oriented approach (Asif et al., 2008; Jonker & Karapetrovic, 2004;

Mohamad et al., 2014b; Rentzsch & Ameli, 2000),
The process is defined as “an activity or a set of activities using resources and
managed in order to enable the transformation of input into output” (Technical
Committee ISO/ TC176, 2008). The process is controlled by measuring key
process parameters that have been determined, by which visualizes the degree
of achievement of process targets (Douglas & Glen, 2000) with less
coordination within the organization(Rentzsch & Ameli, 2000). Since process
approach fosters running an organization as a set of interdependent process
(Technical Committee ISO/ TC176, 2008), it is necessary to review the process
metrics in order to control the processes within a system to ensure desired
output is achieved (Sanongpong, 2009a, 2009b). This approach is promoted in
the International Standard, ISO 9001 QMS with the purpose of developing,
implementing and improving the effectiveness of the QMS in order to enhance
the customer satisfaction by meeting the customer requirements (Technical
Committee ISO/ TC176, 2008). Figure 2.1 is an example of process –oriented
approach which is recommended by ISO 9001 QMS.
This similar approach has also been adapted in ISO19011:2011, The

Guidelines for Auditing the MSs through the introduction of process based
auditing for both the ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 standards. The process approach
focuses on the sequence of the business processes and their interaction with
and to the supporting process and other process elements (Ramly et al., 2007).
This means that various linked process are to be properly managed.
As to support an effective process analysis, turtle diagram is a useful

tool that focuses on the six components linked to the process -What, Who,
How, How Much, Input and Output- which measures the process performance
by checking the performance indicator (Sanongpong, 2009a, 2009b). However,
efforts must be taken by the organizations’ key personnel in determining the
correct process flow and support processes (Sanongpong, 2009a, 2009b) so
that the MS with process approach are established and beneficial to the
organization. In order to adapt the process approach in IMS, comprehensive
thinking, planning and active participation of all the members of the
66
organization from the beginning of IMS implementation is required (Douglas

& Glen, 2000).
f) Total Quality Approach and Business Excellence Approach (Bobrek et al.,

2006; Mohammad, 2006)
Theories analyzed and discussed in section 2.5 have indicated the relationship
between TQM and the MSSs. TQM is rather a good philosophy to be blended
in with the MSSs which serves as a general guideline for the IMS
implementation IMS. The framework shared in Figure 2.15 were introduced
by Wilkinson and Dale (2001) and also discussed by Mohammad (2006). This
model combined the MSSs (QMS, EMS and OHSMS) to the extent that it
creates a unique system of its combination. Its procedures, processes and
resources interacts through the structure and culture in order to carry out
planning, controlling, implementing, measuring, improving, auditing and the
transforming of input to outputs (Mohammad, 2006; Wilkinson & Dale, 2001).
The sequence indicates that every parameter has an input and output. Each
output has to be measured as a performance indicator. This measurement leads
to improvement of each sub-system in the system continuously. Therefore,
supports the continual improvement of the implemented IMS. The
management is dealt as leadership, while the scope of resources is extended to
the culture development and involvement of people which shows blending of
the TQM approach.
67
The
Integrated Management System
POLICY Continuous Improvement S
T
Aims & Integrated Processes; A
Objectives Common Scope K
(Focus & Range of Activities) E
Goals H
Integrated Planning, Controlling, Implementing, Actual O
Resources Measuring, Improving & Auditing Outputs L
D
E
LEADERSHIP Integrated Organisational Structure R
& Integrated (Strong) Culture
S
promoting the Involvement of People
Figure 2.15: A model of an integrated quality, environment, and health and safety
management system using TQM approach (Mohammad, 2006; Wilkinson & Dale,
2001)
Many countries and regions have introduced Business Excellence (BE) Model
throughout the world, which is claimed as a transformed version of TQM
philosophy that included an assessment methodology to gauge the extent of
implementation and achievement of BE. In Europe, the European Foundation
for Quality Management (EFQM) BE Model is widely recognized as a
representative theory to improve traditional TQM by expanding the narrow
quality-oriented concept into a holistic management concept (Kim et al., 2009).
In line with this, Bobrek 2006 has recommended an IMS towards BE using the
EFQM model (Bobrek et al., 2006).
The existing structure of EFQM model for evaluation of the efficiency and
effectiveness of organization requires integration of various MSSs such as ISO
9000 QMS, ISO 14001 EMS, OHSAS 18001 OHSMS, SA 8000 and other
operation parameters that are important for the organization (Bobrek et al.,
2006). The stages of development and implementation of this model can be
classified into six (6) stages.
68
Bobrek 2006 explained the model as:
a) The first stage is the development of unique IMS policy that defines quality,
ecology, safety and security of employees. This policy should be
formulated considering it from the perspective of the organizations’
strategy, vision and mission and from the perspective of IMS requirements.
b) The second stage is the planning of IMS element for the implementation,
in-line with the policy.
c) The third stage is the implementation of the IMS project including the
definition of the model and documentation, their common elements,
documentation management, process management, and employees
training.
d) The fourth stage Checking, Confirmation and Corrective Action. At this
stage, it shall consist of checking of processes and equipment, monitoring
and measurement, non-harmonized elements, corrective/ preventive
actions, notes/ documents and integrated audit.
e) The fifth stage is the re-confirmation of the IMS. However, the
methodology should be determined by the organization in which the IMS
are being implemented.
f) Lastly, the sixth stage is continuous improvement activities which are
meant to further enhance the established IMS
In summarizing the IMS framework for BE, the suggested framework is as per
the Figure 2.16. The organization should design and implement and IMS that
satisfy the requirement of all the MSSs being integrated in line with
organizations’ stakeholder requirements, establish a method for assessing and
quantifying the performance of an activity or processes and continually launch
and review the projects for improvement on the IMS through the
implementation of relevant management method and techniques.
69
MANAGEMENT
INTEGRATION
Does
NO orga niza tion YES
ha ve certified
QMS
IMS DESIGN REDESIGN

(QEOH&S) QMS into IMS
PLANNING
CERTIFICATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
QMS a ccording to TOWARDS BUSINESS
ISO9001 EXCELLENCE
(roa d to TQM)
(PDCA, Reenginerring,
Brea kthrough)
* Project Ma na gement
* EMS & OHSAS
* Product Certifica tion (CE, HACCP, CoC...)
* SPC & 6 Sigma
* Ba la nced Scoreca rd (BSC)
* Process Ca pa bility (Cp, Cpk)
* ON LINE voice of customer
* ONE STOP SHOP
* Mea surement of customer a nd employee sa tisfa ction
* Document Ma na gement
*
*
BUSINESS EXCELLENCE
Figure 2.16: An IMS Model using the basis of Business Excellence framework
(Bobrek et al., 2006)
70
2.8. Conclusion
In this chapter, QMS, EMS and OHSMS are obviously an interest of every party.
Based on ISO Survey 2014 result, it is obviously picturing the significance of multiple
MSSs certification. Besides, the rising concern about energy as described in section
2.2.4 requires significant consideration from organizations. Besides, the globalisation
and localisation activities are also the drivers that have brought emphasis towards the
IMS implementation, in order to penetrate and sustain within a supply chain nationally
and internationally. The gap in the literature is showing that EnMS have not been
addressed in the integration. Thus, this research is significant in order to develop an
IMS that addresses ISO 9001 QMS, ISO 14001 EMS, ISO 50001 EnMS and OHSAS
18001 OHSMS simultaneously. Regardless of the approaches applied, in order to put
IMS into practice, comprehensive thinking and planning, active participation from the
very beginning by all level of people involved is required to achieve lasting
improvements in the processes (Rentzsch & Ameli, 2000).
71
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter describes the research methodology applied in order to complete the
researched topic. It begins with the research objectives and research questions that
have been summarized in Table 3.1. This is followed by the research design, research
approach and research instrumentation that leads to a conclusion.
Table 3.1: Research Objectives and Research Questions
No Research Objectives Research Questions

To study the status of IMS What are the profiles of the companies that have
implementation in the Malaysian implemented IMS?
1
manufacturing sector What is the degree of IMS practice among the
companies that have implemented IMS
To investigate the strategies for
What are the strategies that have been used by
implementing IMS and its
2 the Malaysian manufacturing sector in order to
implementation in the Malaysian
implement IMS at their companies?
To develop guidelines for What is recommended as a solution for
3 implementing IMS in the Malaysian implementing IMS in the Malaysian
manufacturing sector manufacturing sector?
3.1 Research Approach
The research approach is the strategy taken towards data collection and analysis (Tobi,
2013). Since this is a mixed-method research, both objective and subjective measures
are being sought after in answering the research questions.
72
3.2 Research Design and Research Method
A research design provides a framework for the collection and analysis of data in line
with the research activities (Bryman & Bell, 2007). It also means that the researcher
has to decide the type of research that is embarked on (Holmes et al., 2005). Creswell
(2009) explained research design as plans and procedures for research in order to study
a topic from a broad assumption to “zoom in” into detailed methods of data collection
and analysis (Cresswell, 2009). The research design guides the researcher to prioritize
the research methods in the research process. Three types of research designs are
qualitative, quantitative and mixed method.
The mixed method is a combination of the qualitative and quantitative research
in the same study. Mixed methods approach is the general term whereby both
quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques and analysis procedures are used
in a research design either at the same time (parallel) or one after the other (sequential)
(Saunders et al., 2009).
In this research, based on the research objectives and the research questions
formulated as per Table 3.2, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is
selected. The quantitative method is applied to seek the answer to research question 1
and 2 where as the qualitative method is applied to seek the answer for question 3. The
collection of both quantitative and qualitative data is also known as mixed methods
approach. The results are then compared using concurrent embedded design.
73
Table 3.2: Research Design
Research
No Research Objectives Research Questions Method Instrument
design
What are the profiles of
the companies that
Quantitative Survey Questionnaire
To study the status have implemented
of IMS IMS?
1 implementation in What is the degree of
the manufacturing IMS practice among
sector the companies that Quantitative Survey Questionnaire
have implemented
IMS?
To investigate the What are the strategies
strategies for that have been used by
implementing IMS the Malaysian
2 and its manufacturing sector in Quantitative Survey Questionnaire
implementation in order to implement
the manufacturing IMS at their
sector companies?
To develop What is the
Delphi
guidelines for recommended system
Method
3 implementing IMS for implementing IMS Qualitative Questionnaire
Expert
in the Malaysian in the Malaysian
Opinion
manufacturing sector manufacturing sector?
In the following subsection 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, an overview of the method chosen
to seek answers to the research questions and the reason for choosing the method is
discussed in detail.
3.2.1 Quantitative
The quantitative research is a means for testing hypothesis by investigating the

relationship among the variables which can be measured and analyzed statistically.
Kothari (2004) describes the quantitative research as the measurement of quantity or
amount, where the resultant can be expressed in terms of quantity. In this research, the
quantitative data collection is initiated through a survey instrument using
questionnaire. The elaboration of this data collection is as summarized in Figure 3.1
and further detailed in the following paragraphs.
74
Sampling frame prepared
Obtained permission to survey
Distributed the survey instrument- Questionnaire
Data Collection
Data clearing
Performing analysis
Figure 3.1: Quantitative Research Flow
3.2.1.1 Survey Instrument
In this part of the research, “a survey design provides a quantitative or numeric

description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of
that population” (Cresswell, 2009). The survey is classified into two categories,
namely cross-sectional and longitudinal research (Holmes et al., 2005). In this
research, the survey comprises a cross-sectional design in relation to which data are
collected predominantly by questionnaire at a single point of time in order to collect a
quantitative data, which are then examined to detect the pattern of relationship
(Bryman & Bell, 2007). The cross-sectional study represents collecting data at one
point in time only, which is suitable for short term research including educational
research (Holmes et al., 2005). The detail of design of survey is as shown in Figure
3.2.
To proceed with a survey, in addition to choosing the survey instrument, the
researcher queries about the sample and population (Cresswell, 2009). In line with
Research Objective 1 and 2, descriptive research using survey method (Kothari, 2004)
were selected.
The population is the full set of cases from which a sample is taken (Saunders
et al., 2009). In this research, the population is referred to subsection 1.5 which
75
specified the scope of this research as manufacturing industries in Malaysia. The

sampling technique chosen is purposive sampling as “a method of sampling where the
researcher deliberately chooses who to include in the study based on their ability to
provide necessary data”.
This research selected organizations with certification to any of the three or
more MSSs -namely QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS-. The company with three or
more certified standards should have a better awareness level and stronger motivation
to pursue with IMS implementation in their organization (Rasmussen, 2007). Although
many companies are certified to multiple MSSs in Malaysia (Idris et al., 2012), there
is no database available for companies applying IMS since the certificates issued are
for individual MSSs (SIRIM QAS). Due to the absence of the database of IMS, the list
of the organizations are manually compiled based on FMM Directory 2013, SIRIM’s
Malaysian Certified website and United Nations Industrial Development
Organizations’ Energy Management Program participants. The number of sample
companies is further zoom-in to look into states in Malaysia with the highest number
of organizations with multiple certifications which are namely Selangor, Johor,
Penang and Melaka.
The representatives of the sample are the Management Representatives (MR)
or its equivalent. This selection is made because usually the MR is the champion of
the MSS of the companies. In all the MSSs being discussed in this research topic, the
appointment of MR is compulsory as per the requirement of the International
Standards, to be more precise, within ISO 9001:2008 QMS, ISO 14001:2004 EMS,
OHSAS 18001:2007 OHSMS and ISO 50001:2011 EnMS. The rationale for choosing
this approach is that the researcher is seeking knowledge about the opinion of the
organizations implementing multiple MSSs, which the participants would provide
responses by virtue of their knowledge and experience.
With the decided population, sample and sample representative, an instrument
for the survey is selected. Questionnaire is the instrument chosen in this survey. The
Questionnaire is a term that includes all techniques of data collection in which
respondents are asked to respond to the same set of questions in a predetermined order
(Saunders et al., 2009). Saunders et al. (2009) also mentioned that questionnaire is the
most widely used data collection techniques and efficient when collecting data from
the large population due to its consistency (Holmes et al., 2005). The questionnaire
also caters for limited budget works for the academic research.
76
Sample
Population • FMM members with 3
Survey Instrument • Manufacturing or more MSS
• Validated Industry certification
questionnaire • Selangor, Johor, • UNIDO EnMS
Penang and Melaka program 1st batch
participants
Pilot Test Representative of

Distibution of Sample
• Manufacturer
Questionnaire • MR of the
• Academicians organizations'
Data Analysis
Survey Response • Microsoft Excel
2010
Figure 3.2:Design of Survey
The questionnaire applied for this research is adopted and adapted from the
research carried out by Mohammad (2006). The reason for using the same
questionnaire is because the first and second research objectives in this research are
the same as shown in Table 3.3. The expectation from this comparison is to compare
the result in order to view current trend of IMS in the manufacturing industry.
Table 3.3: Research Objective (Previous vs Current Research)
Research Previous research by Mohammad

This research
Objective (2006)
To assess the status of IMS To study the status of IMS implementation
1 implementation in the Malaysian in the Malaysian manufacturing sector
manufacturing companies;
To investigate the strategies for To investigate the strategies for
implementing IMS and its implementing IMS and its implementation
2
implementation in the Malaysian in the Malaysian manufacturing sector
manufacturing companies;
However, due to the additional scope of EnMS in current research, the

questionnaire has been edited to include the EnMS in the scope. Prior to release of the
questionnaire to the respondent, researcher must ensure the reliability and the validity
of the questionnaire. The research adopted and adapted a validated questionnaire based
77
on the study by Mohammad (2006), since the research topic is an extension to that
research. However, the questionnaire were reviewed and revised to include the
extension of the research topic, as well to accommodate with present situation
(Appendix B).
3.2.1.2 Pilot Test
In order to conduct content validity, as a pilot test, the questionnaire was presented to
two companies who are not certified to any MSSs and two companies who are certified
with multiple management system standards. All the parties are able to understand and
answer the questionnaire. Then, the content validities were done by presenting the
questionnaire to academicians and practitioners who are knowledgeable of the subject
matter. The content is accepted and approved.
3.2.1.3 Questionnaire Distribution
The questionnaires were distributed to the identified respondents described in Section

3.2.1.1 through the online survey using the Survey Monkey tool as well in hardcopies.
For distribution through the Survey Monkey, the questionnaire was prepared using the
online survey tool service purchased and posted to the e-mail addresses of the intended
recipients for seeking responses. Meanwhile, for the hardcopy distribution, the
recipients are contacted to set the appointment for the questionnaire distribution
purpose. During this Questionnaire distribution, an official letter to notify the purpose
of data collection to the respondents was attached. The sample of the letter is as per
Appendix A.
3.2.1.4 Survey Response
Responses to questionnaire survey are analyzed by monitoring the rate of return using
the master list of respondent prepared before the distribution. The researcher is
required to track and update every response received on timely basis.
3.2.1.5 Descriptive Analysis

78
The responses were received and compiled into the Microsoft Excel worksheets for
the data analysis purpose. The responses are then filtered to verify the eligibility of the
respondents as well to update replies provided. Using the replies, profiles of the
respondents and pictorial analysis were performed. Data were converted to various
charts to reflect the finding from the survey conducted. The detailed result of the data
analysis is presented in Chapter 4.
3.2.2 Qualitative
The qualitative research is a mean for exploring and understanding the meaning of
individuals or groups attributes to a social or human problem which involves data
collection and data analysis to interpret the meaning of the non-statistical data. Kothari
(2004) describes qualitative research as concerned with phenomenon, such as,
phenomena relating to or involving quality or its kind, for example human behaviour
and organizational behaviour.
3.2.2.1 Delphi Technique Expert Opinion
Delphi method is an iterative process to collect the anonymous judgments of experts

using a series of data collection and analysis techniques interspersed with feedback
(Skulmoski et al., 2007). This technique is used to obtain the most reliable consensus
of opinion of a group of experts anonymously (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). Delphi
method is a stronger methodology for a more rigorous query of experts and
stakeholders (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004) since the approach requires to maintain
anonymity throughout the process. Linstone (1978) argued that Delphi is particularly
suitable for a situation where the opinions and judgments of experts and practitioners
are needed but time, distance, and other factors make it unlikely or impossible for the
panel to work together in the same physical location (Linstone & Turoff, 2002;
Yousuf, 2007). There is also a concern of equality, freedom of expression and
participation among various experts of the topic in sharing their opinion and judgments
(Linstone & Turoff, 2002) as well avoiding the influence of the dominant participant
within the team of the expert selected (Inaki et al., 2006).
79
As the qualitative part of this research, the researcher selected the Delphi
method in order to seek for opinions and judgments of experts in the form of a group
decision making (Skulmoski et al., 2007) about the IMS guidance document prepared.
Skulmoski et al. (2007) describes the typical Delphi process as per Figure 3.3. The
steps include:
a) Development of Research Question
b) Research design
c) Research sample
d) Develop delphi round one questionnaire
e) Delphi pilot study
f) Release and analyse round one questionnaire
g) Develop delphi round two questionnaire
h) Release and analyse round two questionnaire
i) Develop delphi round three questionnaire
j) Release and analyse round three questionnaire
k) Verify, generalize and document research result
Experience
Delphi R1
Literature Research Research Research Delphi R1
Survey &
Review Question design Sample Pilot
Analysis
Pilot Studies
Delphi R2
Delphi R2
Survey &
Design
Analysis
Research
Delphi R3
Delphi R3 Documentation,
Survey &
Design Verification &
Analysis
Generalization
Figure 3.3: Typical Three Round Delphi (Skulmoski et al., 2007)
80
81
With the intention to fulfil the third research objective and research question
as shown in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2, a draft of IMS guidance document was prepared
by the researcher based on her knowledge and experience in the MSSs.
Simultaneously, questionnaires were also prepared. The questionnaires were
distributed during 1st and 2nd stage of Delphi process for the purpose of data collection
from the expert panels. The process is planned as Three Rounds Delphi Process as per
Figure 3.4.
Nominate expert panelss
Notify the nominated panels
List the agreed panels
Delphi R1-Questionnaire on demographic study about the panels
Receive Response R1
Analyse and shortlist eligible respondents
Delphi R2-Questionnaire on the "Evaluation of Proposed Framework and Guidance Document for
integrating QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS"
Receive Response R2
Review and revise the Proposed Framework and Guidance Document for integrating QMS, EMS,
OHSMS and EnMS"
Delphi R3-Distribute revised version of "Proposed Framework and Guidance Document for integrating
QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS"
"Finalised Framework and Guidance Document for integrating QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS"
Figure 3.4: Three Rounds Delphi Process
The four(4) research samples are the experts panels which consist of
academicians, practitioners, government officials and NGOs, whose profession relates
to MSS development and implementation (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). The research
design is as described in Figure 3.5. The Delphi Round One Questionnaire was
prepared and sent to selected experts for collecting the background information of the
respondents. Upon received the responses, the criteria were compiled and reviewed
82
which is the academic qualification, the profession, the years of experience in dealing
with MSSs and the years of experience in dealing with IMS. The expert panels were
shortlisted based on the findings from Round One. Then, the questionnaire prepared
for Delphi Round Two was distributed. With the consensus during Round Two, the
findings were compiled and the guidance document was revised. The revised guidance
document was then distributed to proceed with Delphi Round Three. In Delphi Round
Three, consensus on all the changes, reviews and revisions are achieved.
Research
• Delphi Method Expert Opinion
Instrument
• MSSs professionals and experts

•Minimum education level of bachelor degree
Population •Minimum 5 years of experience dealing with multiple
MSSs
•Minimum 5 years of experience dealing with multiple
IMS
• Academicians
• Department of Standard Malaysia
Sample
• Practitioners
• NGOs
• Lecturer/ Professor
• Government Official
Representative
• Consultants
of Sample
• Auditors
• Malaysian Association of Standards Users
Data Analysis • Microsoft Excel 2010
Figure 3.5: Design of Delphi Method Expert Opinion Research Design
3.2.2.2 Delphi Process
Experts are selected for the purpose of gathering the opinions and improvement ideas.
The expert consist of academicians, practitioners and government officials (Okoli &
Pawlowski, 2004) whose function relates to MSSs development and implementation.
83
A number of MS professionals and experts were nominated as the potential

candidates for Delphi Technique Expert Opinion. The categories of expert panels are
as per Table 3.4. The experts listed were contacted through e-mails and telephone calls
to gain their consent for participation in the research. Three academicians, four
government officials, practitioners consist of three consultants and four auditors and
two NGO representatives were contacted.
Table 3.4: Nominated Expert Panels
Panel Job Title & Organisation Expert Panel

No. Name
Job Title Organisation Category
1 SMY Professor UTM Academician
2 AMS Senior Lecturer UUM Academician
3 RAW Senior Lecturer UiTM Academician
Senior Director General of
4 NHA DSM Government Official
Accreditation Division
Senior Assistant Director of
5 NFMA DSM Government Official
Standardization Division
Assistant Director of
6 FB DSM Government Official
7 NR DSM Government Official
Managing Director/ Management Neville Clarke (M)
8 PCY Consultant
System Consultant Sdn. Bhd.
Managing Director/ Management P
9 WHS QES Impact Consultant
System Consultant r
Senior Consultant (Management SIRIM Training a
10 SO Consultant
System) Services Sdn. Bhd. c
SIRIM QAS t
Senior General Manager/ Lead
11 PS International Sdn. i Auditor
Auditor
Bhd. t
Worldwide Quality i
12 RK Country Manager/ Lead Auditor Auditor
(M) Sdn. Bhd. o
Kiwa International n
13 CTK Managing Director/ Lead Auditor Certification Sdn. e Auditor
Bhd. r
BVC Certification (M)
14 NAW Lead Auditor Auditor
Sdn. Bhd.
Malaysian
15 RDN Chief Executive Officer Association of NGO
Standards Users
Research and Policy Executive of Malaysian
16 SS Product Safety and Compliance Association of NGO
Division Standards Users
3.2.2.3 Qualitative Analysis

84
Data analysis for the survey and Delphi Technique Expert Opinion were done using
Microsoft Excel 2010. The experts’ opinions obtained through the survey manuscripts
were compiled. Thematic analyses were carried out to identify recurring concerns and
issues on the proper MSs. The results are presented in Chapter 4.
3.3 Conclusion
In this research, mixed method research methodology has been applied. Both
quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently and analyzed. The
content of this chapter can be summarized as per Table 3.5. The results of the analysis
are discussed in Chapter 4.
Table 3.5: Summary of Research Methodology

Item Quantitative Qualitative
Research Objective 1 and 2 3
Research Question 1 and 2 3
Type of data seek out Present market experience Treatment to address the issue
Research Design Mixed Method
Research Philosophy Pragmatism
Research Strategy Concurrent Embedded Strategy
• Survey
Research Approach Delphi Method Expert Opinion
o Questionnaire
Large, Medium and Small Academic, Government, Public,
Sample
Industries NGOs
Population Manufacturing MSSs Experts
Data Analysis software Microsoft Excel 10 Microsoft Excel 10
85
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter analyzes and discusses the findings from the quantitative and qualitative
data collected and compiled.
4.1 Quantitative Result
The survey results are elaborated in the following sub-section. It covers the status of
IMS implementation, which consists of the background information of the
respondents, the IMS practices that have been implemented within the responding
companies. Other results of the survey which include strategies for integrating the MSs
are discussed in Section 4.1.3 and the reason for not implementing IMS are discussed
in Section 4.1.2.2.
4.1.1. Profiles of the Survey
4.1.1.1. Response Rate
There were only 100 companies that agreed to receive the questionnaire. Out of 164
companies selected, 61 companies were not reachable due to unable to make contact,
two companies restrict information sharing, and one company declared that they have
withdrawn their MSSs certifications. The details are shown in Table 4.1.
86
Table 4.1: Samples
Status of responses No. of companies Remarks

Respondent located but unable to make
Not reachable 61
contact.
Restrict information sharing 2 Refusal to respond
Ineligibility of respondent
Certificate withdrawn 1 - Disqualified due to no more valid
certification in place
Agreed to receive
100 Reached respondents
questionnaire
Total 164
Referring to Saunders et al. (2009), that questionnaires are likely to have non-
responses due to four interrelated problems like refusal to respond, ineligibility to
respond, inability to locate respondent and respondent located but unable to make
contact. Alternatively, some of the selected respondents may not meet the research
requirements and so will be ineligible to respond. Of the 100 companies that agreed to
receive questionnaire, 64 companies responded to the questionnaire which were
distributed through the online survey tool applied to ease the questionnaire
distribution, namely, the Survey Monkey (44 responses) and also in the hardcopies (20
responses) of the questionnaire. However, out of 64 respondents, only 40 respondents
are eligible. The remaining 24 respondents are classified as ineligible due to
incomplete company background information (10 respondents), non-manufacturing
industry (14 respondents), certified to one standard only (7 respondents) and not
certified to any MSSs (3 respondents).
Table 4.2: Responses, Responding Medium, Eligible and Ineligible Respondents

being ineligible
Total Response
questionnaire
Respondents
Responding
No respond
Reason for
Agreed to
Ineligible
Medium
received
received
Eligible
receive
No. of
Incomplete company
Survey 10
44 background information
monkey
100 64 36 40 24 14 From service industry
Hard 7 Certified to 1 standard only
20
copy 3 No certification achieved
Percentage 64% Total 64 36% 62.5% 37.5%
87
4.1.1.2 Profile of the Respondent (Sizes and Types)
The latest scale of the Small and Medium category of the manufacturing and services
in Malaysia is as sourced in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: SME Definition in Malaysia (SME Corporation Malaysia, 2013)
Business Criteria
Category Manufacturing Services
Not exceeding 5 employees; or Not exceeding 5 employees; or
Micro
Sales < RM 300, 000 Sales < RM 300, 000
5- 75 employees; or 5- 30 employees; or
Small
Sales: RM 300, 000- RM15million Sales: RM 300, 000- RM 3million
75- 200 employees; or 30-75 employees; or
Medium
Sales: RM 15million- RM 50million Sales: RM 3million- RM 20million
Exceeding 200 employees; or >75 employees; or
Large
Sales: > RM 50million Sales: >RM 20million
Based on the SME categorization seen in the Table 4.3, the breakdown of the survey
respondents according to the size of companies are summarized as per Table 4.4.
.
Table 4.4: Survey Response
Category Eligibility Responses Manufacturing Services
Eligible 7 0
No. of Responses
Ineligible 1 1
Small
Eligible 17.5% 0
Percentage
Ineligible 2.5% 2.5%
Eligible 5 0
No. of Responses
Ineligible 3 1
Medium
Eligible 12.5% 0
Percentage
Eligible 28 0
No. of Responses
Ineligible 6 12
Large
Eligible 70.0 % 0
Percentage
Eligible 40
Overall Total No. of Responses
Ineligible 24
Overall Eligible 62.5%
Percentage
Percentage Ineligible 37.5%
88
Both the size and types of the companies responding to the survey were
analyzed. The recent survey result shows vast extension and diversification in the
industry as shown in Table 4.5. The survey replies show that 30% of the responses are
from “Manufacturing not Classified Elsewhere” industries which were represented by
12 companies. This is followed by 17.5% from Basic Metals and Fabricated Metal
Products industry which were represented by 7 companies; 15% from Rubber and
Plastic Products industries which consist of 6 companies; 12.5% from Food Products
Beverages and Tobacco industries which were represented by 5 companies; 7.5% from
Electrical and Optical Equipment industries which were represented by 3 companies;
7.5% from multiple trades within one organization ( Basic Metals and Fabricated
Metal Products and Shipbuilding, Pulp Paper and Paper Products and Manufacturing
not Classified Elsewhere and Food Products Beverages and Tobacco, Chemicals
Chemical Products and Fibers, and Non-metallic mineral products) industries which
were represented by three companies; and 2.5% each by Wood and Wood Products,
Printing Companies, Machinery and Equipment and Chemicals Chemical Products
and Fibers which is represented by one company each.
A contrary and significant difference that must be noted in this recent survey
findings are the expansion of more than one type of trade within one business
organization. The difference is seen in similar research by Mohammad (2006) that did
not report any multiple trade in business organization surveyed (Mohammad, 2006).
This reflects the movement towards value stream approach (Davies, 2004) acceptance
in Malaysian industry.
89
Table 4.5: Type of Industries
No. of Percentage
No Types of Industry
companies (%)
1 Manufacturing not Classified Elsewhere 12 30.00
2 Basic Metals and Fabricated Metal Products 7 17.5
3 Rubber and Plastic Products 6 15.00
4 Food Products Beverages and Tobacco 5 12.50
5 Electrical and Optical Equipment 3 7.50
Multiple industries within 1 organization
• Basic Metals and Fabricated Metal Products and Shipbuilding
• Pulp paper and paper products, and Manufacturing not
6 classified elsewhere 3 7.50
• Food products, beverages and tobacco, Chemicals and
Chemical products and Fibers, and non-metallic mineral
products
7 Wood and Wood Products 1 2.50
8 Printing Companies 1 2.50
9 Machinery and Equipment 1 2.50
10 Chemicals Chemical Products and Fibers 1 2.50
Total 40
In addition to the types of industries, the matrices shown in Table 4.6 illustrate
the achievements of standards certification by the respondents companies. These
respondents are at a minimum certified to three MSSs of QMS, EMS, OHSMS or
EnMS. Multiple MSSs certification is obviously a trend in Malaysia (Idris et al., 2012)
based on the result shown in Table 4.6. The most common standard is the ISO 9001
QMS, ISO 14001 EMS and OHSAS 18001 OHSMS which are recognized standard in
24 respondents’ companies which account for 58.82%. In addition to achieving QMS
certification with general ISO 9001 standard, some of the companies does venture into
product specific standards such as ISO/TS 16949 QMS for automotive and ISO13485
QMS for Medical Devices.
Table 4.6: Matrix of Certification of MSSs Achieved by the Respondents
Certified Standards
Percentage
ISO ISO/TS ISO ISO OHSAS MS ISO No. of Companies
(%)
9001 16949 13485 14001 18001 1722 50001
x x x 24 60.00
x x x x 5 12.50
x x 3 7.50
x x x x 2 5.00
x x x x x 1 2.50
x x x x x 1 2.50
x x x x 1 2.50
x x x 1 2.50
x x x 1 2.50
90
x x x 1 2.50
Total 40
4.1.2 Status of IMS Implementation
The first objective of this research is to study the status of IMS implementation in the
Malaysian manufacturing sector. In order to review this, the profiles of the IMS
implementing companies and the degree of its IMS practice have been analyzed based
on the responses received. The result is as shared in 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.2.3. The Section
4.1.2.2 explains the reasons the respondents raised for not implementing IMS,
supporting the information in Section 4.1.2.1.
4.1.2.1 Profile of the IMS practicing companies
Although multiple MSSs are implemented, not all companies are implementing IMS.
Figure 4.1 denotes only 19 companies (47.50%) is practicing the IMS. Another 13
companies (32.50%) plan to implement IMS within the next 3 years. Meanwhile, the
remaining 8 companies (20.00%) do not implement IMS and do not have any plan
towards implementation of IMS.
Does not
implement IMS,
and do not plan to
implement it,
8 companies,
20%
Implemented IMS,
19 companies,
47%
Does not
implement IMS,
but have plan to
implement it
within the next 3
years,
13 companies,
33%
Figure 4.1: Current Status of IMS Practice

91
Looking into the profile of the IMS companies in this survey, Figure 4.2 shares
the types of the MSSs integrated. A number of 14 respondents (73.68%) have
integrated QMS, EMS and OHSMS, three companies (15.79%) integrated EMS and
OHSMS, one company integrated the QMS and EMS (5.26%) and one company
integrated the EnMS, EMS and OHSMS (5.26%). Of all these companies, there is only
one company certified to ISO 50001 and it is integrated into the existing OHSMS and
EMS.
QMS and EMS EMS, EnMS and

1 OHSMS
5.26% 1
5.26%
EMS and OHSMS

3
15.79%
QMS, EMS and

OHSMS
14
73.68%
Figure 4.2: Types of MSSs Integrated
In addition to the status of IMS practice reported in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2,
the details of the companies, including the type of industries, scale of the companies
and the types of MSSs integrated are compiled as a matrix in Table 4.7.
92
Table 4.7: Profile of the IMS Companies
Scale of the Company Total

Types of MSSs
according to
Type of Industries integrated by the
Small Medium Large the IMS
company
established
- 1 - 1 EMS and OHSMS
Basic Metals and Fabricated
QMS, EMS and
Metal Products - 1 - 1
OHSMS
Chemicals Chemical Products QMS, EMS and
- - 1 1
and Fibers OHSMS
Electrical and Optical QMS, EMS and
- - 2 2
Equipment OHSMS
Food Products Beverages and QMS, EMS and
3 - - 3
Tobacco OHSMS
Machinery and Equipment - - 1 1 EMS and OHSMS
QMS, EMS and
Manufacturing not Classified - 1 5 6
OHSMS
Elsewhere
- - 1 1 QMS and EMS
Food Products Beverages and
Tobacco
+ Chemicals Chemical Products - - 1 1 EMS and OHSMS
and Fibers + Non-metallic
mineral products
*Pulp Paper and Paper Products
EMS, OHSMS and
+ Manufacturing not Classified 1 - - 1
EnMS
Elsewhere
QMS, EMS and
Rubber and Plastic Products - - 1 1
OHSMS
Sub-total of companies
4 3 12
according to the size
Total No. of IMS companies 19
*This company is also certified to ISO 50001
4.1.2.2 Reasons for Not Integrating the MSs
The reasons for choosing not to implement the IMS are as shown in Figure 4.3.
Majority of the companies, 50% (4 companies) responded that the existing MSs are
sufficient for their organization and its MS should remain separate. The other 25% (2
companies) claimed they were not aware about IMS implementation. Another 12.50%
(1 company) claimed that they doubt about the benefits and added-value of
implementing IMS. Further 12.50% (1 company) did not implement IMS due to the
belief that it requires long process until concrete results are achieved.
93
It requires long
process until
concrete results are
achieved, 1, 13%
Existing
management
system are
Doubt about the sufficient and
benefits and added- should remain
value of separate, 4, 50%
implementing IMS,
1, 12%
Not aware about
IMS
implementation, 2,
25%
Figure 4.3: Reasons for Not Implementing IMS
4.1.2.3 Extent of Practice Adapted among the IMS Companies
The responses collected in this survey reflect that the adaptation and implementation
of IMS have begun since year 2000. Based on Figure 4.4, the IMS have been
implemented for a range two to 12 years. However, it is lacking of information from
seven companies. Therefore, Figure 4.4 shows an intermittent plot, yet, since 2009 a
steady increase is observed whereby companies continuously chose to implement IMS.
Based on this trend, four small companies, one medium company and seven large
companies practices IMS. This shows that IMS practice is being adapted regardless of
the size of the company.
94
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Large 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
Medium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Small 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 3
Figure 4.4: Trend of IMS practicing companies among the respondents

95
Further to the trend of implementing IMS in the practicing companies, Figure 4.5
shows that 10 respondents (53%) started with implementing QMS, EMS, OHSMS and/
or EnMS individually. Then, they integrate the MSs using the standard requirements/
model”. Meanwhile, another 7 respondents integrate QMS, EMS and/ or OHSMS from
the beginning using standard requirements/ model. Two respondents did not respond
to the method the company used to integrate the MSs.
Nil
(No respond);
2; 11%
Implement QMS,
EMS, OHSMS
and/ or EnMS
Integrate QMS, individually. Then,
EMS and/ or integrate the MSs
OHSMS from the using the standard
beginning using requirements/
standard model; 10; 53%
requirements/
model.; 7; 37%
Figure 4.5: Ways the respondents integrated their MSs
Beside the implementation of IMS, the duration taken by the respondents in

developing the IMS differs. Figure 4.6 shows the duration of time spent. The time scale
varies between less than 6 months up to 3 years to develop IMS successfully in their
companies. Majority of the companies spent 6 to 12 months for successful IMS
implementation. Figure 4.6 also shows that most of the companies that have chosen
the direction of developing IMS are from the category of large industry. However,
medium and small industry also adapts to IMS.
96
0
0 to 6 6 to 12 12 to 18 1.5 to 2 More than
2 to 3 years No respond
months months months years 3 years
Large 2 5 2 1 0 1 1
Medium 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
Small 1 2 0 1 0 0 0
Figure 4.6: Duration of IMS Development from Start to Successful Integration
4.1.3 Strategies for Implementing IMS
During this survey, the strategies for integrating the MSs are queried in terms of the
ways of integrating MSs which includes the types and sequence of integration of the
MSs adapted, the method applied to determine the areas that should be integrated and
the approach used as the basis for integration. This is for the purpose of fulfilling the
second research objective which is to investigate strategies of implementing IMS and
its implementation in the manufacturing sector. The result is as shared in 4.1.3.1,
4.1.3.2 and 4.1.3.3.
4.1.3.1 Ways of Integrating MSs
The ways of integrating are analyzed based on the types of integration and the
sequence of integration adapted by the responding companies. Figure 4.7 shows that,
among these respondents, 11 (57.89%) chose to practice partial/ aligned/ harmonized/
sequential integration while 7 (36.84%) chose to practice full integration (combining
into one common system) whilst another one company (5.26%) chose not to respond.
97
No response,
5.26%
Partial/ aligned/
harmonized/
sequential
integration,
57.89%
Full integration,
36.84%
Figure 4.7 Ways of Integration
As the sequence of management system integration, nine options were given in the
questionnaire. Of these choices, Figure 4.8 shows that majority of the respondents, 15
companies (78.95%), have chosen the sequence of integration of the MSs as “First
QMS, then integrate with EMS and followed by OHSMS”. One company (5.26%)
chooses to integrate “First QMS then integrate with EMS and followed by OHSMS
and then EnMS”. Another one company (5.26%) chose to “First EMS, then integrate
with QMS and followed by OHSMS”. One company (5.26%) chose an unspecified
other as their choice, whilst another one company (5.26%) chose not to respond.
98
Others No response, 1,
First EMS, then (Unspecified), 1, 5.26%
integrate with 5.26%
QMS, followed by
OHSMS, 1, 5.26%
First QMS, then

integrate with
EMS, followed by First QMS, then
OHSMS then integrate with
EnMS, 1, 5.26% EMS, followed by
OHSMS, 15,
78.95%
Figure 4.8: Sequence of MSs Integration
4.1.3.2 Approaches Used for Integration
Several approaches were suggested as the basis for integrating the MSs such as the
MSSs (for example ISO 9001:2008, ISO 140012004, OHSAS 180001:2007 or ISO
50001:2011), Total Quality Management (TQM)/ Business Excellence (BE) Model,
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) Cycle, Combination of ISO 9000 and TQM and Systems
Approach.
Based on the survey, Figure 4.9 indicated that 13 respondents (68.42%) used
ISO 9001:2008 as the basis for the IMS. Another three respondents (15.79%) uses
system approach, two respondents (10.52%) uses Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) Cycle.
99
No respond
1 company
5%
PDCA Cycle
3 companies
16%
Systems Approach ISO9001:2008

2 companies 13 companies
11% 68%
Figure 4.9 : Frequently used Approaches in IMS
4.1.3.3 Methods of Determining Processes/Area for Integration of MSs
Since the launch of the ISO 9001:1994, there are requirements that have been formed
with the basis to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of the MSSs implementation. The
compulsory requirements are in terms of documents control, records control, control
of non-conformances, corrective and preventive action, internal audit and management
review Among other areas being emphasized to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of the MSSs are employees training, equipment maintenance, measuring
and monitoring device control, purchasing, suppliers’ assessment, production and
service provision and many others as desired according to the nature of operation of
the organization. Design and development control is only applicable when the
organization involves in end-product designing activity.
The responses collected from the respondents are summarized in Figure 4.10.
Based on the survey responses received from the IMS practicing companies, there are
more than 10 requirements integrated. Those are Document Control (89.47%),
Employees Training (84.21%), Records Control (78.95%), Management Review
(73.68%), Equipment Maintenance, Measuring and Monitoring Device Control, and
Corrective and Preventive Actions (63.16% each respectively), Purchasing (57.89%)
and the Suppliers’ Assessment (52.83%).
100
....................................................................................
18 100%
16 90%
14 80%
Response Percentage
70%
12
60%
10
50%
8
40%
6
30%
4 20%
2 10%
0 0%
Purchasing
Internal Audit
Documents Control
Employees Training
Suppliers' assessment
Management Review
Equipment Maintenance
Production and service provision

Records Control
Corrective and preventive actions
Design and Development Control

Measuring and monitoring device
control
Respondents (Yes) Percentage (Yes)
Figure 4.10: Integration Areas
4.2. Delphi Technique Expert Opinion
In order to answer the third research objective, which is to propose a framework and
draft guide for implementing IMS in manufacturing sector, Delphi Technique Expert
Opinion were applied. Opinions regarding the draft IMS Guidance document were
gathered from the experts. The document were then reviewed and revised.
4.2.1 Draft of IMS Guidance Document
In developing an integrated approach to the design and assessment of MSs, the separate
MSSs need to have a common architecture or structure (Kirkby, 2002). Therefore,
prior to approaching the experts for the data collection, the researcher has collated and
drafted an IMS Guidance Document. It was prepared by cross-referencing to the
International Standards by ISO as well OHSAS. The standards are mainly the ISO
101
9001:2008 QMS, ISO 14001:2004 EMS, OHSAS 18001:2007 OHSMS and ISO
50001:2011 EnMS; TQM (Besterfield et al., 1995) and Annex SL (ISO/IEC, 2011). A
cross-reference table was plotted to clearly recognize the equivalent requirements.
These were then written with the outline using Annex SL since this is the standardized
outline for any new or revised standard by ISO (ISO/IEC, 2011). The IMS guidance
document is written with the intention to share researcher’s idea to seek further opinion
and judgments from the expert panels as well to obtain the improvement ideas from
the experts too. The first draft of the “IMS Guidance” document is as per the Appendix
F attached.
4.2.2 Responses in Round 1
Questionnaires for Round 1 were distributed in order to gather background information

of the identified expert panels (Appendix D). It was distributed through e-mail to the
selected expert panels. The agreed expert panels are as shown in Table 4.8. Those were
two academicians, one government officials, three consultants, three auditors and one
NGO member. The respond from the government official represents the same
organization, Department of Standards Malaysia (DSM). The responses received from
the government official were explained as collective respond from their team. Dalkey,
2002 explained that an individual expert as a stand-in for a group is acceptable as long
as the expert is able to demonstrate their knowledge and competency in the field being
studied (Linstone & Turoff, 2002).
From the NGO members contacted, only one respondent answered. Even
though none of the respondents replied as they “did not agree” to participate in this
Delphi Technique Expert Opinion, the respondents remained silent. Therefore, those
were categorized as “No Response” received.
102
Table 4.8: List of Nominated Expert Panels

Panel Job Title & Organisation Expert Panel Dis- No
No. Name Agreed
Job Title Organisation Category agreed Response
1 SMY Professor UTM Academician x
2 AMS Senior Lecturer UUM Academician x
3 RAW Senior Lecturer UiTM Academician x
Senior Director General
4 NHA of Accreditation DSM Government Official x
Division
Senior Assistant
Director of
5 NFMA DSM Government Official x
Standardization
Division
6 FB Standardization DSM Government Official x
Division
7 NR Standardization DSM Government Official x
Division
Managing Director/
Neville Clarke (M) Sdn.
8 PCY Management System Consultant x
Bhd.
Consultant
Managing Director/ P
9 WHS Management System QES Impact r Consultant x
Consultant a
Senior Consultant SIRIM Training c
10 SO Consultant x
(Management System) Services Sdn. Bhd. t
i
Senior General SIRIM QAS
11 PS t Auditor x
Manager/ Lead Auditor International Sdn. Bhd.
i
Country Manager/ Worldwide Quality o
12 RK Auditor x
Lead Auditor (M) Sdn. Bhd. n
e
Managing Director/ Kiwa International
13 CTK r Auditor x
Lead Auditor Certification Sdn. Bhd.
BVC Certification (M)
14 NAW Lead Auditor Auditor x
Sdn. Bhd.
Malaysian
15 RDN CEO Association of NGO x
Standards Users
Research and Policy
Malaysian
Executive of Product
16 SS Association of NGO x
Safety and Compliance
Standards Users
Division
The demographic study of the panels includes the highest educational

qualifications achieved, the position held by the panel in their organization, and the
years of experience in dealing with MS and IMS. Based on the information
summarized in Table 4.9, the NGO member has to be eliminated from the expert list
due to lack of experience and knowledge relating to MSSs. Therefore, during this
103
study, nine experts are grouped into three categories of expert panels, namely,
academician, government officials and practitioners. ..............................
Table 4.9: The Demographic Study of the Expert Panels
Panel Job Title & Organisation Years of experience MSSs dealt with Years of IMS dealt with
Highest experien
Expert Panel 11 16 26 36 ISO ISO OHSAS ISO 11 ISO ISO OHSAS ISO
No Name Educational 5 to 5 to
Category Job Title Organisation <5 to to to to 9001: 14001: 18001: 50001: Others to 9001: 14001: 18001: 50001: Others
Qualification 10 10
15 20 30 40 2008 2004 2007 2011 15 2008 2004 2007 2011
• ISO/TS
1 SMY PhD Professor UTM x x x x x x x x
16949
Academician
Senior
2 AMS DBA UUM x x x x x x x x
Lecturer
• ISO • ISO
17021 22000
Senior
• ISO • ISO
Director
Government 17024 22003
3 NHA Bachelor General of DSM x x x x x x
Official • ISO • ISO
Accreditation
17025 27001
Division
• ISO • ISO
17065 27006
Managing
P Director/
Neville Clarke • ISO/ TS
4 PCY r Master Management x x x x x x x
(M) Sdn. Bhd. 16949
a System
c Consultant
t Managing • ISO
i Director/ 22000
Consultant
5 WHS t Master Management QES Impact x x x x x x x x
i System • HACCP
o Consultant
n Senior SIRIM
e Consultant Training
6 SO r Master x x x x x x x x x x
(Management Services Sdn.
System) Bhd.
105
Table 4.9: (Continued)
Panel Job Title & Organisation Years of experience MSSs dealt with Years of IMS dealt with
Highest experien
Expert Panel 11 16 26 36 ISO ISO OHSA ISO 11 ISO ISO OHS ISO
No Name Educational 5 to 5 to
Category Job Title Organisation <5 to to to to 9001: 14001: S 50001: Others to 9001: 14001: AS 50001: Others
Qualification 10 10
15 20 30 40 2008 2004 18001: 2011 15 2008 2004 18001: 2011
• ISO
27000
• ISO
20000-1
P • ISO
r Senior General SIRIM QAS 22000
7 PS a Master Manager/ International x x x x x • ISO x x x x
c Lead Auditor Sdn. Bhd. 22301
t • ISO
i 28000
Auditor • ISO/TS
t
i 16949
o • ISO
n 13485
e Country Worldwide
8 RK r Bachelor Manager/ Quality (M) x x x x x x x x
Lead Auditor Sdn. Bhd.
Kiwa • ISO/ TS • ISO/
Managing
International 16949 TS 16949
9 CTK PhD Director/ Lead x x x x x x x x x x
Certification • ISO • ISO
Auditor
Sdn. Bhd. 22000 22000
Research and
Policy
Malaysian
Executive of
Association
10 SS NGO Bachelor Product x Nil Nil
of Standards
Safety and
Users
Compliance
Division
106
106
4.2.3 Responses in Round 2
With the result of the demographic analysis during Round 1, the nine shortlisted
experts were contacted again. The aim of Round 2 was to evaluate the content of the
Draft IMS guidance document and framework prepared by the researcher. The draft of
the IMS Guidance document and the questionnaire were distributed. The questionnaire
were based on a Likert Scale method whereby a scale provided as “Strongly Agree”,
“Agree”, “Neutral”, “Disagree”, “Strongly Disagree” and “Unsure”. The questionnaire
for Round 2 is per the Appendix E.
After Delphi Round 2, the responses were compiled and summarized as per
Figure 4.11. It depicts that an average of 2 experts “strongly agreed” with the IMS
Guidance document whilst 5 “Agree” and 2 stays “neutral”. Only 1 of the expert
“Disagree” with Question 2.11 of the questionnaire. However, comment was provided
in order to further improve the quality of the “disagreed” content. This is further
elaborated in sub-section 4.2.3.11. There were no questions that were responded as
“Strongly Disagree” or “Unsure”.
2.1 Is the framework and guidance for
integrating QEEnHSMS written clearly and
easy to understand?
2.11 Do you agree that this QEEnHSMS 7
2.2 Is the QEEnHSMS model presented clearly
integration guide will be useful for 6 and easy to understand?
organizations?
5
4
2.10 Do you agree that this QEEnHSMS 2.3 Do you agree with the content of Clause 4-
framework will be useful for organizations? 3 Context of the Organization?
2
1
0
2.9 Do you agree with the content of Clause 2.4 Do you agree with the content of Clause 5-
10- Improvement? Leadership?
2.8 Do you agree with the content of Clause 9- 2.5 Do you agree with the content of Clause 6-
Performance Evaluation? Planning?
2.7 Do you agree with the content of Clause 8- 2.6Do you agree with the content of Clause 7-
Operation? Support?
Strongly Agree Agree Neutra l Disa gree Strongly Disa gree Don't know/ Unsure
Figure 4.11: Experts Opinion on the Draft IMS Guidance Document content
108
108
Detailed explanation of the responses received in Round 2 is as described in sub-

section 4.2.3.1 to sub-section 4.2.3.9.
4.2.3.1 Clarity of the Content of IMS Guidance Document
Of all the experts, 7 of them agreed with the framework and guidance document for
integrating QEEnHSMS (IMS) are clearly written and easily understood whilst 2 of
them remained neutral. However, all the experts did not provide any comments with
regards to the clarity of the framework and guidance document for integrating
QEEnHSMS (IMS). Table 4.10 summarizes the responses.
Table 4. 10: Clarity of IMS framework and guidance document

Respondents Response Comments
SMY Agree Nil
Question 2.1: AMS Agree Nil
Is the framework and NHA Neutral Nil
guidance for integrating PCY Agree Nil
QEEnHSMS written WHS Agree Nil
clearly and easy to SO Agree Nil
understand? RK Agree Nil
CTK Agree Nil
PS Neutral Nil
4.2.3.2 Clarity of the IMS Model
Again, out of the 9 experts, 7 of them agreed with the model presented clearly and easy
to understand whilst 2 of them remained neutral. The comment raised by the expert on
incorporating the statutory and regulatory requirement in Figure 1 are addressed
graphically in the model as Stakeholder (Government) requirements though it is not
mentioned specifically as statutory and regulatory requirement. However, the related
clause is made clear by revising the Clause 4.2 of the IMS guidance document. Table
4.11 summarizes the responses.
109
Table 4. 11: Clarity of IMS Model

Respondents Response Comment
SMY Agree Nil
AMS Agree Nil
NHA Neutral Nil
PCY Agree Nil
• Considering incorporating
Question 2.2:
applicable statutory and
Is the QEEnHSMS
regulatory requirement in
model presented clearly WHS Agree
Figure 1
and easy to understand?
• Consider to insert or link to
subsequent clause
SO Agree Nil
RK Agree Nil
CTK Agree Nil
PS Agree Nil
4.2.3.3 Clarity of the Content of Clause 4 -Context of the Organization
The content of Clause 4 is “Strongly Agreed” by one expert, “Agreed” by five

experts whilst 3 experts remained neutral. However, none of the experts commented
on the content of this clause. Table 4.12 summarizes the responses.
Table 4. 12: Clarity of Clause 4

SMY Strongly Nil
Agree
AMS Agree Nil
Question 2.3: NHA Neutral Nil
Do you agree with the PCY Neutral Nil
content of Clause 4- WHS Neutral Nil
Context of the SO Agree Nil
Organization? RK Agree Nil
CTK Agree Nil
This is an adoption from Annex SL
PS Agree of the ISO/IEC Directives, hence
acceptable.
4.2.3.4 Clarity of Clause 5 -Leadership
Although two experts “Strongly Agree” and four experts “Agree” with the content
whilst three experts remained neutral, the comments which are mainly raised by the
practitioners are vital since without clear information, the effectiveness of the IMS
implementation will be affected. This is indeed crucial in small and medium industries
110
since their resources are limited and the competency/ knowledge level of their
employee may not be as good. Table 4.13 summarizes the responses.
Table 4.13: Clarity of Clause 5

SMY Strongly Agree Nil
AMS Strongly Agree Nil
NHA Neutral Nil
PCY Neutral Nil
Define / determine hierarchy of risk
control, significant aspect control
WHS Agree i.e. who determine control for
Question 2.4: elimination, substitution,
Do you agree with the engineering control in 5.1
content of Clause 5 SO Agree Nil
-Leadership? Definition of the leader may be
vague to be mentioned as anyone in
RK Neutral the management role. This
requirement may clash with the
legal requirement
CTK Agree Nil
This is an adoption from Annex SL
PS Agree of the ISO/IEC Directives, hence
acceptable.
“Suggestions for practice” are provided within the guidance document for
reference. Its’ emphasis is to clearly determine and document the Clause 5 related
contents in the company level document -IMS Manual and Procedures- clearly. This
is because; management of IMS differs between organizations. Thus, the guidance
document should not specify any functions.
4.2.3.5 Clarity of Clause 6 -Planning
This clause received a response whereby two experts “Strongly Agree” with the
content, five experts “Agreed” with it whilst two experts remained neutral. The
comments on the incorrect clauses have been reviewed and corrected on the matrix in
the IMS guidance document. Meanwhile, the legal and other requirement have been
clearly addressed in Clause 4.2 and 6.1 respectively. Table 4.14 summarizes the
responses.
111

Respondents Response Response
NHA Neutral Nil
➢ Incorrect of clauses in the matrix:
• Evaluation of compliance with
legal & other requirements
should fall under “Checking”
instead of “Planning”.
• Energy Performance Indicator
(EnPI) and Energy Baseline
PCY Neutral should be the output of energy
planning and not the action to
Question 2.5: address the risks.
Do you agree with • Energy review, energy
the content of Clause performance indicator and energy
5- Leadership? baseline of ISO 50001 are left
out from the text wordings and
only shown in the matrix.
In 6.2( c), Make clear of the requirement
WHS Agree
meant. Is it legal?
SO Agree Nil
Definition of the leader may be vague to
be mentioned as anyone in the
RK Agree
management role. This requirement may
clash with the legal requirement
CTK Agree Nil
This is an adoption from Annex SL of
PS Agree the ISO/IEC Directives, hence
acceptable.
4.2.3.6 Clarity of Clause 7 -Support
This Clause are “Strongly Agreed” by two experts, “Agreed” by five experts whilst 3
experts remained “Neutral”. However, there were no comments provided relating to
this clause. Table 4.15 summarizes the responses.

Question 2.6: NHA Neutral Nil
Do you agree PCY Neutral Nil
with the content WHS Agree Nil
of Clause 7 SO Agree Nil
-Support? RK Strongly Agree Nil
CTK Agree Nil
This is an adoption from Annex SL of the
PS Agree
ISO/IEC Directives, hence acceptable.
112
4.2.3.7 Clarity of Clause 8 -Operation
The clause content are “Strongly Agreed” by three experts, “Agreed” by three experts
whilst the remaining three experts stood “Neutral”. The comment has been addressed
by the revision of IMS guidance document whereby the “Suggestions for Practice” on
clause 8 elaborated with the information to document all process that involves in the
operational control. Table 4.16 summarizes the responses.

NHA Neutral Nil
ISO 9001 requirements such as
Question 2.7: purchasing/design & development have
PCY Neutral
Do you agree been left out from the text wordings but
with the content only shown in the matrix in Table 1.
of Clause 8 WHS Neutral Nil
-Operation? SO Agree Nil
RK Strongly Agree Nil
CTK Agree Nil
acceptable.
4.2.3.8 Clarity of Clause 9 -Performance Evaluation
The clause 9 content are “Strongly Agreed” by two experts, “Agreed” by five experts
whilst the remaining two experts remained “Neutral”. The comment has been
addressed by the revision of IMS guidance document whereby the “Suggestions for
Practice” on clause 9 clearly guides the activities described in this clause. Table 4.17
summarizes the responses.

Question 2.8: Respondents Response Comments
Do you agree SMY Agree Nil
with the content AMS Strongly Agree Nil
of Clause 9 NHA Neutral Nil
-Performance
Evaluation? PCY Neutral Nil
113
Table 4. 17 (Continued)
Consider to include information to
cover requirements relating to Energy
Question 2.8: WHS Agree conservation, preservation of
Do you agree with the resource, safe and healthy work
content of Clause environment
9 -Performance SO Agree Nil
Evaluation? RK Strongly Agree Nil
(Continued) CTK Agree Nil
acceptable.
4.2.3.9 Clarity of Clause 10 -Improvement
The clause 10 received a response “Strongly Agreed” by one expert, “Agreed” by five
experts and “Neutral” by three experts. The comment regarding the emphasis on
Continual Improvement is addressed by the “Suggestions for Practice” included at the
end of this clause in the guidance document. Another expert commented on the
initiative to change the structure by consolidating the nonconformities and corrective
action together in the same clause is a good idea. This is since users are seen to be
facing some issues when addressing using the existing standards since the relationship
between the clauses is not directly seen. Therefore, with this new structure, especially
as described in 10.1, the overall understanding is believed to improve. Table 4.18
summarizes the responses.

May need emphasis on Continual
SMY Agree
improvement
NHA Neutral Nil
PCY Neutral Nil
WHS Agree Nil
Question 2.9
SO Agree Should include preventive action
Do you agree
with the content Users do have issues on consolidation of
of 10- nonconformities and Corrective actions
Improvement? and recording of customer feedbacks and
RK Strongly Agree addressing them during Management
Review Meeting. The overall
understanding will improve when
addressed as 10.1.
CTK Agree Nil
This is an adoption from Annex SL of the
PS Agree
ISO/IEC Directives, hence acceptable.
114
However, inclusion of preventive action is not considered since Annex SL has clearly
mentioned the reason for omission of this clause. It explained that formal Management
system itself is a preventive tool. In addition, clause 4.1 and clause 6.1 is required to
address requirements within the context of the organization and also in the Planning
stage, that is in addressing the risk and opportunities (ISO/IEC, 2014).
4.2.3.10 Significance of the IMS framework in organization
Among the experts, seven of them agreed that the IMS framework will be useful for
organizations whilst 3 remained neutral. Table 4.19 summarizes the responses.
Table 4. 19: Significance of the IMS framework

Respondents Response
SMY It has not been tested yet
AMS Nil
NHA Nil
PAS 99:2012 was used as the framework instead
of Annex SL. Once more MSS release in 2015,
PCY this guide will be outdated. Suggest using Annex
SL as the framework and using PAS 99 as
reference.
Question 2.10
WHS Nil
Do you agree that this
SO Should include preventive action
QEEnHSMS framework
will be useful for Users do have issues on consolidation of
organizations? nonconformities and Corrective actions and
recording of customer feedbacks and addressing
RK
them during Management Review Meeting. The
overall understanding will improve when
addressed as 10.1.
CTK Nil
It is a useful framework for the integration of any
combination of ISO published management
PS
system standards, not just the four mentioned
here.
Though agreed with the content, one expert commented that it has not been tested as
yet. Thus the effectiveness is yet to be evaluated.
The comment by PCY mentioned “PAS 99:2012 was used as the framework instead
of Annex SL. Once more MSS release in 2015, this guide will be outdated. Suggest
using Annex SL as the framework and using PAS 99 as reference” This comment is
contradicting with the other experts’ (PS) opinion.
115
In clarifying this, PAS 99:2012 and Annex SL were compared. PAS 992012 do present
a framework whilst Annex SL does not. However the content outlines of the PAS
99:2012 contains very slight difference compared to Annex SL. Therefore the
framework presented in the IMS guidance document is in line with both PAS 992012
and Annex SL. Thus, the researcher chose to remain with the framework. This also has
a support of another expert (PS) who mentioned that the model will be useful not only
for this IMS guidance document only, but will also be applicable for integration of any
combination of ISO published MSSs.
4.2.3.11 Significance of the IMS Guidance Document in organizations
The usefulness of this integration guide for organizations are “Strongly Agreed” by
three experts and “Agreed” by three experts. Two experts rated it as neutral whilst one
expert “Disagreed”. Table 4.20 summarizes the responses.
Table 4. 20: Significance of the IMS Guidance Document

Respondents Response
SMY It has not been tested yet
AMS Nil
NHA Nil
PAS 99:2012 was used as the framework instead
of Annex SL. Once more MSS release in 2015,
Question 2.11 PCY this guide will be outdated. Suggest using Annex
Do you agree that this SL as the framework and using PAS 99 as
QEEnHSMS integration reference.
guide will be useful for WHS Nil
organizations? SO Should include preventive action
RK Nil
CTK Nil
As explained below, it lacks sufficient details of
the core requirements of the four standards
PS
referred to and how these will be established and
implemented within an organization.
The comment to “Disagree” is mentioned as lack of sufficient details of the

core requirements of the four standards referred to and how these will be established
and implemented within an organization. Addressing the comment, the IMS guidance
document were revised to include “suggestion for practice” to provide suggestions that
can be adapted for the purpose of ease of implementation.
116
4.2.3.12 Strength of the IMS Guidance Document
Reviewing the strength of the IMS guidance document and framework commented by
the experts, it can be summarized that all the experts find it as a useful document for
the implementation of IMS in organizations’. The opinions shared are that the
document is well-structured, easy to interpret, easily understood and minimizes the
documentation and record keeping. This IMS guidance document provides a good
guide to the practitioners and users in implementing the IMS within the organization.
It also harmonizes the common elements of the IMS which helps in the formation of a
unified management system for organizations.
This IMS guidance document adapts Annex SL format which is seen to be

useful since ISO 9001:2015, ISO 14001:2015 and all other upcoming new or revised
MSSs will be published in the same format. Thus, the content will not conflict with
the newly published document. However, additional input can be expected from the
actual published MSSs. It is also highlighted that the MS planning using Annex SL
format which require organizations’ to apply risk assessment allows more thorough
assessment during MSSs implementation.
4.2.3.13 Weakness of the IMS Guidance Document
The IMS guidance document and framework do have its weaknesses as per the
concerns raised by the experts. SMY commented the content as complicated to
implement the IMS since it covers a number of areas namely quality, environment,
OHS and energy MS. The timeline required for the implementation and certification
may also be extended according to the organizations’ size and ability to commit for
IMS implementation. In line with the assumption that the IMS is complicated, RK also
commented about the effectiveness of the implementation in future. Thus, it is
necessary to consider that the IMS for the organization to be designed in such a manner
that it is not a human dependant tool. For these reasons, the implementation of clause
5 and clause 6 have to be carefully done with the necessary considerations on clear
roles and responsibilities as well proper planning in assessing risk and opportunities.
Another important area that have not been clearly specified is that the legal and
other requirement and the evaluation of compliance which were raised by NHA and
117
CTK. The writer overlooked the legal and other requirement and the evaluation of
compliance component during the text write-up. Therefore, with the comments
received, the IMS guidance document has been revised to clearly specify these
requirements in Clause 4.2, 6.1 and 9.1 respectively.
Besides, PCY commented that the wordings used as the terms of the sub-titles
during the preparation of the IMS guidance document were not exactly the terms used
in Annex SL. The purpose was to make it distinct with Annex SL. However, PCY also
comment that it may mislead the practitioner and create confusion to the user. Hence,
the terms in the IMS guidance document were changed according to the Annex SL.
In addition to these, a comment by PS causes a major change in the guidance

document. PS commented that this document does not provide specific guidance on
the implementation of the requirements of each of the four standards and also the
guidance to the users on how the non-common core requirements are to be
implemented to facilitate the establishment, maintenance, and improvement of the
integrated system and recommended to include needs with respect to how the planning,
establishing, monitoring and improving of the IMS. Therefore, “Suggestions for
Practice” were added on each clause to hint the recommendation by the author/
researcher.
4.2.3.14 Suggestion for Improving the IMS Guidance Document
The experts have also provided suggestion for improving the content of the IMS
guidance document. Some of the points are a repeat from the comments given during
the check on clarity of each clause such as lack of guidance to apply the clauses.
As to begin with, in the initial draft of the Proposed Framework and Guidance
for the Integration of QEEnHSMS, the term “requirement”, “standard” and “guide”
are applied inconsistently. Therefore, it was suggested by NHA to stipulate the type of
document clearly. Hence, the draft is revised to address this suggestion by specifying
the document type as a ‘guidance document’. In addition, a relook on the
abbreviation QEEnHSMS were also suggested by PS, in line with the purpose of
developing this document. Since the guidance document for the portion of OHSMS is
referring to OHSAS 18001:2007, it is more appropriate to use OHSMS than Health
118
and Safety Management System (HSMS) because the OHSAS 18001:2007 specifies
requirements for an OHSMS to enable organization to develop and implement a policy
and objectives and other necessary requirements as required by the standards for
compliance and certification (OHSAS Project Group, 2007). Consequently, with the
review of the document type and the abbreviation of QEEnHSMS, the document is
revised as Proposed Framework and Guidance Document for the Integrated
Management System (IMS) of Quality, Environmental, Energy and Occupational
Health and Safety Management System.
Besides, NHA raised the rule in creating a document, stating that only
document that belongs to the category of certifiable standard should use the term
“shall”. But, since this is a guidance document, the term “shall” have to be replaced
with the term “should”. This is explained clearly in Annex H: Verbal forms for the
expression of provisions (ISO/IEC, 2011). Alongside with this comment by NHA, the
terms “shall” were replaced with the term “should” throughout the IMS guidance
document.
Another expert, PCY, raised suggestion of improvement about the key text
wording that have been left out in the text and only shown in matrix. However, the key
text wordings were intentionally left out for the purpose of generalization. Yet, it is in
compliance with Annex SL.
Additionally, PS suggested that the intent of the document may be rephrased.

Considering the suggested statement which is more suitable, the suggestion is accepted
and the guidance document were amended by rephrasing the intent statement of the
Introduction section as “the expectation of this guidance standard is to enable process
management that ensures product is produced and service is delivered at the required
quality level in a safe and ecologically sustainable manner”.
In addition to these, there is also Suggestion for Improvement mentioned for

Clause 5 Leadership, Clause 8 Operation and Clause 10 Improvement. On Clause 5,
RK suggested to define clearly the role of the leader. “Suggestion to practice” has been
appended to these clauses to add clarity and additional information to the clauses.
Expert also suggested using ISO/TS16949 as the basis of integration instead of

ISO 9001. The ISO/TS16949 is a product specific standard (QMS for Automotive
119
Production) that contains various specific requirements relating to the automotive

production). Whilst in this guidance documents, all the standards referred are the
general standards including ISO 9001. Since the requirements in the product specific
standards are stringent and may not be applicable for all type of products and services,
therefore this suggestion is not incorporated into the guidance document.
4.2.3.15 Finalized IMS Guidance Document
After reviewing and revising the IMS Guidance Document appropriate to the opinions
shared by the experts, emails were sent to the experts individually. However, no further
comments were received from any of the experts. Therefore, the IMS Guidance
Document is finalized as per Appendix G attached.
4.3. Concurrent Embedded Design
The Quantitative and Qualitative data collection in this research were performed
concurrently. The concurrent embedded strategy was chosen because the research
questions one and two and the research question three addresses different outcomes.
The research questions and results are briefly summarized in Table 4.21.
Table 4.21: Summary of Results in-line with Research Objectives
No Research Objectives Research Questions Result

Small, medium and large
What are the profiles of
companies have implemented IMS;
the companies that have
begun with IMS since year 2000
implemented IMS?
onwards.
To study the status of Majority of 14 out of 19 (73.68%)
1 IMS implementation in integrated QMS, EMS and
What is the degree of
the manufacturing sector OHSMS. Others are integrating
IMS practice among the
either EMS and OHSMS or EMS,
companies that have
EnMS and OHSMS or QMS and
implemented IMS?
EMS depending on the organization
needs.
No Research Objectives Research Questions Result

To investigate the Majority have implemented partial
What are the strategies
strategies for integration 11 out of 19(57.8%)
that have been used by
2 implementing IMS and with the sequence of QMS followed
the Malaysian
its implementation in the by EHMS, then OHSMS equivalent
manufacturing sector in
manufacturing sector to 15 out of 19 (78.95%). using the
120
order to implement IMS ISO 9001:2008 approach mainly.

at their companies? Common areas are integrated in
IMS.
To develop a draft of What is recommended as
guidance document for a solution for
A draft of IMS guidance document
3 implementing IMS in the implementing IMS in the
finalized.
Malaysian manufacturing Malaysian manufacturing
sector sector?
The Research Objective One and Two are seeking the knowledge and experiences of
the users about their companies IMS. In another word, it is explaining the present
situation for IMS practice and implementation. At the same time, through Research
Objective Three, an IMS guidance document is developed to aid the IMS
implementation which can be a solution to many problems that the IMS adapting
companies or initiating companies are facing.
4.4. Conclusion
This chapter has presented the analysis and findings of both the qualitative and
quantitative data in relation to the objectives of the research. The discussions,
conclusions and recommendations of this research will be explained in Chapter 5.
121
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This chapter discusses the findings compiled in chapter 4, concludes the findings,
suggests recommendation for the IMS implementation using the IMS guidance
document and suggests the recommendation for future research activities.
5.1 Review of Achievement of the Research Objectives
At the beginning of this research, there were three objectives aimed to be fulfilled.
Data have been gathered and analyzed. The discussion is as follows.
5.1.1 The status of IMS implementation in Malaysian manufacturing sector
The findings about the status of IMS implementation in Malaysian manufacturing

sector have been reported in chapter 4 in terms of
a) the profiles of the companies that have implemented IMS and

b) the degree of IMS practice among the companies that have implemented IMS
Responses received in this recent survey as shown in Figure 4.2 shows 40

responses which is equivalent to 62.5% of the companies which have implemented
IMS. In Malaysia, during a similar research undertaken by Mohammad (2006), the
response received was 32 responses that is equivalent to 36.8%. Hence, the survey in
122
Malaysia is showing a higher response by 25.7% compared to the previous survey.

The recent survey result supports that Malaysian companies are also keen of IMS
implementation as reported by Idris et. al (2013). Nevertheless, in a similar survey in
Denmark, by Rasmussen (2007), 31 responses equivalent to 91% are companies that
have implemented IMS. Meanwhile, a survey by Salomone (2008) received 103
responses equivalent to 64% are companies that have implemented IMS. In general,
each of the surveys differs in the number of sample companies chosen for the
questionnaire distribution and the response varies.
Further analysis on the size and types of industries reported in this recent
survey is analyzed. As discussed in Table 4.4, large scale companies contributed
70.0% (28 out of 40) of the responses, followed by 12.5% (5 out of 40) from medium
scale companies and 17.5% (7 out of 40) from small scale companies. Comparing with
Mohammad (2006) findings, on the large manufacturing industry, the numbers of
respondent have increased from 26 to 28. Nevertheless, when viewed in percentages,
a reduction in the response rate is observed as the percentages have reduced from 81.2
% to 70.0%, which is a sum of percentage decrease by 11.2% due to the increase in
the small and medium sized companies IMS undertakings. The number of respondents
has doubled to 12 respondents instead of 6 respondents in the previous research that
made up a 23.0% compared to 18.7% previously. This reflects an increase of 4.2% in
total.
The type of companies also varies in each of the surveys conducted. Table 4.5
reported that “Manufacturing Not Classified Elsewhere” contributed 30% of the
responses, followed by “Basic Metals and Fabricated Metal Products” as 17.5%,
rubber and plastic as 15%, Food Products, beverages and Tobacco as 12.5%, Electrical
and Optical Equipment as 7.5% and multiple industry type within same companies as
7.50%. A contrary and significantly different result is observed when compared to
Mohammad (2006) whereby electrical and electronics contribute to 46.7% of the
responses followed by Chemicals as 13.3 % and non-metallic mineral products as 13.3
% followed by others. Since the sample companies were chosen from the same source
which is the FMM Directory and SIRIM QAS International certified companies, it can
be said that the industry in Malaysia is diversifying. In addition, multiple industries in
the same organization is a new developing trend seen too. This reflects the movement
towards value stream approach (Davies, 2004) acceptance in Malaysian industry.
123
Despite the size and types of the companies, the extent of IMS implementation
is analyzed. Mohammad (2006) has reported that in Malaysia, majority of the
respondents (53.3%) integrated two MSSs integration and 46.7% have three MSSs
integrated. However, in this research, the finding reported a change of trend whereby
a majority of 73.68% (14 out of 19) integrated QMS, EMS and OHSMS. Others are
integrating EMS and OHSMS or EMS, EnMS and OHSMS or QMS and EMS
depending on the organization needs. In a similar study in Denmark, 31 companies
declared that they have implemented IMS. The responses shows that IMS on Quality,
Environment and OH&S is 71%, followed by Quality, Environment and Energy MSs
as 16%, Quality, Environment and Food Safety MSs as 6%, Environment, OH&S and
Energy MS as 3% and Quality, Environment, OHS, Energy as 3% (Rasmussen, 2007).
In fact the study in Denmark by Rasmussen (2007), reported 31 companies (91%) have
implemented IMS. Out of 31 companies, 30 companies have implemented three MSSs
and one company has four MSSs. Another study in Romania revealed 96% of
integration out of 173 samples (Olaru et al., 2014). Thus, in the Malaysian context, the
recent findings shows enhancement in IMS adaptation and implementation compared
to the activity in 2006 which is also similar to the trend in Denmark and Italy reported
by Rasmussen (2007) and Salomone (2008) respectively.
Besides, based on the data compiled in Figure 4.4, the IMS implementations
have begun in Malaysia since the year 2000. Companies have a range two to twelve
years in implementing IMS. This information is in-line with the finding reported by
Mohammad (2006) whereby there are companies who have implemented IMS for
more than 3 years back then.
In conclusion, the status of IMS and the extent of implementation show the
rising interest of the companies in implementing the IMS. The shorter period of time
for implementation is also observed.
124
5.1.2 The strategies for implementing IMS and its implementation in Malaysian
The findings of the strategies for implementing IMS and its implementation in
Malaysian manufacturing sector have been reported in chapter 4 in terms of the ways
of integrating MSs, the method applied to determine the areas that should be integrated
and the approach used as the basis for integration.
Figure 4.7 summarizes the ways of integrating MSs based the types of
integration and the sequence of integration adapted by the responding companies. The
recent finding shows that a majority of 57.89% have implemented partial integration.
Meanwhile 36.84% have implemented full integration. Similar result is reported by
Mohammad (2006). Therefore, the trend of integration in Malaysia remained the same
since 2006, with partial integration dominating in the IMS implementing companies.
Karapetrovic (2002), Rasmussen (2007), Domingues et al., (2011 & 2012) did not
collect the information regarding ways of integrating the MSs. Meanwhile Salomone
(2008) reported a finding in Italy that 73% have achieved full integration, followed by
26% which achieved partial integration and 1% is waiting for an IMS guideline release.
The sequence of implementation reported in the recent findings presented in

Figure 4.8 shows a majority of 78.95% implementing “First QMS, then integrate with
EMS followed by OHSMS”. This is similar to the finding by Mohammad (2006)
whereby 70.8% is using the same sequence of implementation. However a difference
is seen in the remaining percentages. In a recent finding, the companies have chosen
to implement the MS sequentially in different sequences either by “First QMS, then
integrate with EMS followed by OHSMS then EnMS” or “First EMS, and then
integrate with QMS followed by OHSMS”. On the other hand, the finding by
Mohammad (2006) reported simultaneous sequence of integration by either
“simultaneously integrate QMS, EMS and OHSMS from the beginning”,
“simultaneously integrate QMS and EMS at the beginning, and then integrate with
OHSMS” or “simultaneously integrate OHSMS and EMS at the beginning, and then
integrate with QMS”. Hence, the sequence of implementation varies in different
companies. However, the sequential implementation is made easy through the cross-
reference table provided by ISO in the International Standards, as well suitable for
those implementing the MSs, including novice, during the time lag period of MSSs
125
release. The sequential implementation allows self-execution. Thus, a lower cost of

the consultation for IMS implementation can be presumed by the management.
Meanwhile the simultaneous implementation is more complicated and has a higher
necessity to engage expert consultants’ to advice on the MS design and
implementation. However, simultaneous IMS implementation allows “unique” system
built.
With the launch of ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 14001:2015, simultaneous

implementation is made easier. In addition, the OHSAS 18001:2007 is also rebranded
as ISO 45001 and have reached the Final Draft of International Standard (FDIS) stage.
The QMS, EMS and OHSMS standards use the same format of MSS, Annex SL as its
format, allowing all the MSSs to have common denominators. For those companies
that have not established any formal system, these new releases are value-added and
advantageous for simultaneous IMS implementation and integrated audits.
In addition to ways of integrating MSs, approaches used for IMS were also
reviewed. The findings reported in Figure 4.5 indicate 68% as using the ISO
9001:2008 as the basis for the IMS. Another 16% uses PDCA Cycle for the IMS
implementation and 11% uses System Approach. This is similar to the finding from
the survey result by Mohammad (2006) whereby the majority of the respondent, 41.7%
uses ISO 9001 approach followed by 29.2% each uses PDCA Cycle and system
approach. With these responses received, it can be concluded that majority of the
companies in Malaysia are using ISO 9001 as the basis for forming its IMS since year
2000s. On the other hand, Ramussen (2007) reported that 60% of the companies
surveyed in Denmark, did not base their IMS on a specific model, followed by 24%
have based on the Process Model, 13% have based on both the Process Model and the
PDCA Model, one company have used a Total Quality Management approach and
none of the companies used the PDCA Model. Ramussen (2007) further explained that
the companies which have not based their IMS on a specific model have likely based
on a practical approach to integrating their different MSs using elements from different
models which fit their organizations’ best.
In the Malaysian context, majority of the companies are using ISO 9001 as the
basis for integration probably due to ISO 9001 is the first certification achieved by the
companies. This is supported by the data, based on ISO Survey 2014 which shows that
ISO 9001 certification is the most popular standard in Malaysia. On the use of PDCA
126
Cycle for IMS purpose, this is probably due to the companies are certified to ISO
14001 first probably due to the nature of business that are harmful to environment such
as chemical industry. Meanwhile, the use of system approach is a more holistic
approach which is suitable for companies that do not have any formal system in-place
and therefore, simultaneously integrate the requirements to set an integrated guideline
in setting the system that the company intends to set up. The system approach is more
appropriate for businesses established since 2010 onwards.
However, in future IMS development, with the High Level Structure
introduced through the Annex SL initiated by ISO Directives, MSS based approach as
per the finding by Mohammad (2006) is more practical and easy to adapt for any
organization that plans to implement IMS.
Further to discussing various approaches of integrating MSs, the areas to be
integrated were also investigated. The result is reported in Figure 4.10. Comparing the
areas of integration in other literatures by Mohammad (2006), the suggested
integration areas are similar, although the response percentages are lower. A
significant difference is the area of internal audit whereby much lower percentage has
been reported. The setback for the integration of internal audit is the lack of auditors
that is well-versed in multiple MSS that has the capacity to work independently.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen (2007) reported limited areas, specifically document control,
employee training, management review, corrective and preventive action and internal
audit as the area of integration. These are also known as mandatory requirements of
ISO 9001. In addition, Rasmussen (2007) also surveyed about other integration areas
namely procedures, management handbook, policies, goal and targets, organization,
internal communications, external audits, external communication, decision making
process and prioritizing of resources.
Table 5.1: Comparison of integration areas
Integration Area Mohammad Rasmussen

This research
(2006) (2007)
Document Control 89.47% 100% 100%
Employees Training 84.21% 100% 80.0%
127
Integration Area Mohammad Rasmussen

This research
(2006) (2007)
Records Control 78.95% 100% -
Management Review 73.68% 96% 96.7%
Equipment Maintenance 63.61% 71% -
Measuring and Monitoring
63.61% 84% -
device Control
Corrective action 92%
63.61% 93.3%
Preventive action 87%
Purchasing 57.89% 75% -
Internal Audit 57.89% 100% 100%
Suppliers’ Assessment 52.63% 79% -
Production and service
36.84% 38% -
provision
Design and development
15.79% 38% -
control
Procedures - - 96.7%
Management Handbook - - 93.3%
Policies - - 93.3%
Goal and Targets - - 90.0%
Organization - - 80.0%
Internal Communication - - 76.7%
External audits - - 73.3%
External Communication - - 63.3%
Decision making process - - 56.7%
Prioritizing of resources - - 40.0%
In conclusion, the strategies of implementation are appropriate and are

significant in addressing IMS implementation. However, control of non-conformity
which is also a mandatory clause in the standards was not included as integration area.
5.1.3 The proposed framework and draft of IMS guidance document for
implementing IMS in the manufacturing sector
128
The IMS guidance document drafted at the earlier stage of this research were refined
as per the opinions gathered during the Delphi Technique Expert Opinion. Hence, an
improved IMS guidance document has been developed. It comprises guidance to IMS
implementation which assists the MS practicing companies to integrate the non-
integrated MSS or assists companies without formal management system to establish
a unified system. It is prepared in the format of Annex SL which consists of ten clauses.
The content summary is as follows:
a) Scope of IMS
b) Normative reference
c) Terms and Definitions
d) Context of the Organization
e) Leadership
f) Planning
g) Support
h) Operation
i) Performance Evaluation
j) Improvement
The finalized IMS Guidance Document is as per the Appendix G attached. It has been
accepted the panels participated in the Delphi Technique Expert Opinion. The
consensus depicts that an average of 2 experts “strongly agreed” with the IMS
Guidance document whilst 5 “Agree” and 2 stays “neutral”. With this the third research
objective has been fulfilled.
5.2 Summary
The IMS implementation is indeed an activity to sustain the business survival threat
(Spencer, 1994) to satisfy the stakeholder requirements (Bernardo et al., 2010a; ISO
Survey, 2012; OHSAS Project Group, 2012) as well to reassure the exaggerated
meaning of quality these days (Asif et al., 2010b). Thus, the idea to look into the
organizations’ compliance on Quality, environmental, occupational health and safety
and energy management system as the four components to be integrated make sense
because these are the general standards (Romero, 2006) that is the most seek out
certification these days (ISO Survey, 2012, 2013, 2014).
129
The four MSSs which is selected in this research for integration were released
with a time lag such that ISO 9001 since 1987, ISO 14001since 1996, OHSAS 18001
since 1999 and the latest ISO 50001 launched in 2011. Each of these standards has its
own history for being documented and published. Obviously, these quartets have one
ultimate goal which is to instil a strategic management in its own area and improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the organization in order to fulfil the stakeholder
requirements.
Throughout this research, it is understood that there is no International

Standard available on the topic of IMS. However, at national level some countries –
Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand- did publish guidance
document for IMS implementation. However, Malaysia is yet to proceed with this
initiative of publishing an IMS guidance document at national level, though there are
workshops and trainings being provided by various parties in enhancing the knowledge
of IMS as well to promote the implementation in organizations that have subscribed
to various International MSSs certification.
5.3 Recommended Flow of IMS Implementation
In general, “conceptual framework is a network, or “a plane,” of interlinked concepts

that together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon or phenomena,
and the concepts that constitute a conceptual framework support one another, articulate
their respective phenomena, and establish a framework-specific philosophy”
(Jabareen, 2009).
Jabareen (2009) also proposed a methodology for conceptual framework analysis as

follows:
Phase 1: Mapping selected data sources
Phase 2: Extensive reading and categorizing of selected data
Phase 3: Identifying and naming concepts
Phase 4: Deconstructing and categorizing the concepts
Phase 5: Integrating concepts

130
Phase 6: Synthesis, resynthesis, and making it all make sense
Phase 7: Validating the conceptual framework
Phase 8: Rethinking the conceptual framework
Similarly, in the case of IMS, authors have described and discussed various models of
conceptual frameworks which have been discussed earlier in subsection 2.8.3.
For the realization of this IMS research, it has to be viewed with System Theory
as a whole and supported with stakeholder theory and contingency theory. A generic
policy shall be formulated by the management on all the four MSS proposed as to
demonstrate Management Commitment. Also at this stage, the scope and boundaries
of IMS and the roles and responsibilities shall be decided by the top management. At
the same time, top management shall also consider resources allocation for the IMS
implementation in the organization in due course with the stakeholder requirements
that have to be complied with. Therefore, beside the system theory, the stakeholder
theory must also be observed at this stage.
Then, at Plan stage, an initial assessment shall be carried-out individually.

Based on the result, compile the findings of the assessments. Simultaneously, evaluate
the findings against the compliance to Legal and Other Requirement (LOR) required
by the stakeholders. This will help to identify the gap, determine the legitimacy and
seriousness of the assessed factors. Hence, the prioritization in action taking on the
assessed findings can be planned. Therefore, the contingency theory becomes an
important factor at this stage. This can also be converted into a roadmap towards the
IMS implementation.
At the Do stage, proceed with necessary actions and integrate the documents
adequately and appropriately. It will be a blend of System theory, Stakeholder theory
and Contingency Theory. This will also include documentations works -manual,
procedures, forms, LOR- and on-site implementation. Upon completion of the
documentation, IMS walkthrough shall be carried out using the documents established.
Training and communication will be essential at this stage, to develop the
understanding of the IMS established. This shall also include operational level
documentation which are the Work Instructions, Standard Operating Procedures and
Forms (Muhammad Asif et al., 2011).
131
An Internal Audit shall then be planned, within a realistic time frame, to review
the adequacy of the new system implemented. With the findings during Internal Audit,
the organization will be able to undertake continuous improvement in a MS because it
mainly identifies non-conformances and highlights opportunities for improvement
(Searcy et al., 2011). This escalates the organization to Act stage. Findings shall be
recorded and directed to the responsible parties. Corrective and Preventive Actions
shall be imposed to improvise the condition and preferably eliminate the issues.
Upon completion, data shall be gathered to report to the top management on

the status of the IMS implementation in the organization through the Management
Review meeting. Resources, training and other necessary requirements shall be
highlighted to the management through this meeting. Continual improvement must be
the goal of this meeting. The meeting minutes shall be documented and communicated
to all relevant parties. For the realization of this IMS research, the IMS implementation
flow can be planned as per Figure 5.1.
Management
MSS Plan Do
Commitment
Evaluation of
Assessment Documentation & Implementation
Compliance
objectives
Legal and Other
Q Quality Plan Requirement Manual
(LORR)
Environmental Legal and Other
E Aspect & Impact Requirement procedures
Integrated
Assessment (LORR) integration
assessment
Policy Hazard of all the
methodology- Legal and Other Work Instruction/
Identification, Risk components
OHS QEEnHSMS Requirement Standard Operating
Assessment &
(LORR) Procedures
Control
Legal and Other
Significant Energy
En Requirement Forms
User
(LORR)
LORR
Others (if any)
Act Check
Acting Checking
Q
Integrated
E Integrated
Management
OHS Internal Audit
Review
En
Figure 5.1: Flow of Implementation of the IMS Legal and Other Requirement (LORR)
133
133
However, for any MSs to function effectively, the system has to be utilized by all
employees. In order to enable and promote employee participations, the management
framework has to be set in a manner that each system that the organizations subscribes
to need to be incorporated into the daily activities of all employees” (Farahani &
Chitsaz, 2010).
5.4 Recommendation for Future Research
For the purpose of future research, it is suggested that this IMS guidance document be
applied in the manufacturing sector and to further research as a case study. Since the
ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 14001:2015 have been officially released, further
improvement to the IMS guidance document has to be taken-up from the latest
standard as departure points. As seen from the survey, many companies have also
certified to product specific standard such as ISO/TS 16949 and ISO13485. The
extension of future research into product specific standard will be advantageous too.
It will also be a great encounter to further enhance the present integration scope to
include Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) concept with the initiative to develop
a business excellence model. The “control of non-conformity” was not included as
integration areas in the recent research as well the research by Mohammad (2006) and
Rasmussen (2007). It is strongly suggested to be included in a similar survey in future
since it is also an important clause in the standards.
134
REFERENCES
Ab. Wahid, R., & Corner, J. (2009). Critical Success Factors and Problem in ISO9000
Maintenance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
26(9), 881-893. DOI: 10.1108/02656710910995073.
Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection
of Innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586-612. DOI:
10.5465/AMR.1991.4279484.
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management Fashion. Academy of Management Review,
21(1), 254-285. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1996.9602161572.
Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. (1999). Management Fashion: Lifecycles, Triggers
and Collective Learning Processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4),
708-740. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1991.4279484.
Affisco, J.F., Nasri, F., & Paknejad, M.J. (1997). Environmental versus quality
standards – an overview and comparison. International Journal of Quality
Science, 2(1), 5-23. DOI: 10.1108/13598539710159059.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R.G. (1994). A Theory of Quality
Management Underlying the Deming Management Method. Academy of
Management Review, 19(3), 472-509. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1994.9412271808.
Asif, M., Bruijn, E.J.d., & Fisscher, O.A. (2008). Corporate Motivation for Integrated
Management System Implementation. High Technology Small Firms
Conference, 21.
Asif, M., Bruijn, E.J.d., Fisscher, O.A., & Searcy, C. (2010a). Meta-management of
Integration of Management Systems. The TQM Journal, 22(6), 570-582. DOI:
10.1108/17542731011085285.
Asif, M., Fisscher, O.A., deBrujin, E.J., & Pagell, M. (2010b). Integration of
Management System: A Methodology for Operational Excellence and
135
Strategic Flexibility. Operations Management Research, 3(3-4), 146-160.

DOI: 10.1007/s12063-010-0037-z.
Asif, M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A., & Ahmad, N. (2010c). An Integrated Management
System Approach to Corporate Sustainability. European Business Review,
23(4), 353-367. DOI: 10.1108/09555341111145744.
Backlund, A. (2000). The Definition of System. Kybernetes, 29(4), 444-451. DOI:
10.1108/03684920010322055.
Bansal, P., & Hunter, T. (2003). Strategic Explanations for the Early Adoption of
ISO14001. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 289-299. DOI:
10.1023/A:1025536731830.
Barnett, M.L., & King, A.A. (2008). Good Fences Make Good Neighbors: A
Longitudinal Analysis of an Industry Self-regulatory Institution. Academy of
Management Journal, 51(6), 1150-1170. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732609.
Baulch-Jones I. (1994). Total Quality Management and BS5750- The Souring Taste
of This Flavour of the Month? . Engineering Management Journal - Institution
of Electrical Engineers, 4(2). DOI: 10.1049/em:19940202.
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 & Reliability Management, 20(2), 210-228.
DOI: 10.1108/02656710310456626.
Bell, J., & Shaw, G. (2005). Ecological Lessons from the Chernobyl Accident. Science
Direct- Environment International, 31(6), 771-777. DOI:
10.1016/j.envint.2005.05.026.
Bendell, T., & Boulter, L. (2004). ISO9001:2000: A Survey of Attitudes of
Certificated Firms. International Small Business Journal, 22(3), 295-316.
DOI: 10.1177/0266242604042381.
Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Heras, I. (2008, 20-22 August;
2008). Management Systems: Integration Degrees- Empirical Studies. Paper
presented at the 11th Quality Management and Organizational
Development(QMOD), Helsingborg; Sweden.
Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Heras, I. (2009). How integrated are
environmental, quality and other standardized management systems? An
136
empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(8), 742-750. DOI:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.003.
Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Heras, I. (2010a). Integration of
Standardized Management Systems: Does the Implementation Order Matter?
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(3), 291-
307.
Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Heras, I. (2010b). Relationships
between the integration of audits and management systems. The TQM Journal,
23(6), 669-672. DOI: 10.1108/17542731111175266.
Besterfield, D.H., Besterfield, C., Besterfield, G.H., & Besterfield, M. (1995). Total
Quality Management: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Bobrek, M., Majstorovic, V., & Sokovic, M. (2006). Design approach in management
toward to business excellence. Journal of Achievements in Material and
Manufacturing Engineering, 16(1-2), 184-189.
Branco, M.C., & Rodrigues, L.L. (2007). Positioning Stakeholder Theory within the
Debate on Corporate Social Responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business
Ethics and Organization Studies, 12(1), 5-15.
Broughton, E. (2005). The Bhopal Disaster and its Aftermath: A Review.
Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 200, 4(6). DOI:
10.1186/1476-069X-4-6.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods. In Business Research
Methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
BSI & ISO (Writer) (2013). New Work Item Proposal- OHSMS.
Burt, D.N., Dobler, D.W., & Starling, S.L. (2004). World Class Supply Chain
Management: The Key to Supply Chain Management (7th ed.): McGraw-Hill.
Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Heras, I. (2009). Synergies in standardized
management systems: Some empirical evidence. TQM Journal, 23(1), 73-86.
DOI: 10.1108/17542731111097506.
Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Heras, I. (2011). Synergies in standardized
management systems: Some empirical evidence. TQM Journal, 23(1), 73-86.
DOI: 10.1108/17542731111097506.
Chavan, M. (2005). An Appraisal of Environment Management Systems: A

competitive advantage for small businesses. Management of Environmental
137
Quality: An International Journal, 16(5), 444-463. DOI:

10.1108/14777830510614321.
Corie, C. (2015). OHSAS Survey 2013 or Latest. In F. Mohamad (Ed.).
Cresswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Mode
Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). USA: Sage Publications Inc.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method
to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3). DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458.
Davies, A. (2004). Moving base into high-value integrated solutions: a value stream
approach. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(5), 727-756. DOI:
10.1093/icc/dth029.
Domingues, J.P.T., Sampaio, P., & Arezes, P. (2011). Management Systems
Integration: Should Quality be Redefined? European Organization for Quality
Congress, 55.
Donaldson, L. (2006). The Contingency Theory of Organizational Design: Challenges
and Opportunities. Organization Design, 19-40. DOI: 10.1007/0-387-34173-
0_2.
Douglas, A., & Glen, D. (2000). Integrated management systems in small and medium
enterprises. Total Quality Management, 11(4/5), S686-S690. DOI:
10.1080/09544120050008075.
Eccleston, C.H., March, F., & Cohen, T. (2012). Developing and Managing an
ISO50001 Energy Management System. USA: CRC Press.
Economic Planning Unit. (2014). The Malaysian Economy in Figures 2013. Retrieved
21/11/2016. from http://www.epu.gov.my/sites/default/files/2013.pdf.
Fabio, B., Wilken, L.S., & Antonio, D.F. (2001). Samarco integrated management
system. Quality Congress. ASQ's ... Annual Quality Congress Proceedings,
726-738.
Fan, D., & Lo, C.K. (2012). A tough pill to swallow? The impact of voluntary OHSMS
on firms' financial performance in fashion and textile industries. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(2), 128-140. DOI:
10.1108/13612021211222798.
Farahani, S.M., & Chitsaz, G. (2010). Continual Improvement with Integrated
Management System. International Journal of Social, Behavioral,
Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, , 4(6).
138
Fiedler, T., & Mircea, P.M. (2012, 25-27 Oct. 2012). Energy Management Systems
According to the ISO50001 Standard- Challenges and Benefits Paper presented
at the International Conference on Applied and Theoretical Electricity
(ICATE), Craiova DOI: 10.1109/ICATE.2012.6403411
FMM. (2013). FMM Directory 2013.
Freeman, R.E. (2001). A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation. Perspectives
in Business Ethics Sie, 3(144).
Freeman, R.E., & McVea, J. (2001). A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic
Management: Darden Business School.
Giancarlo, B. (2005). Matching environmental performance and quality performance.
Total Quality Management, 17(6). DOI: 10.1108/09544780510627606.
Grant, R.M., Shani, R., & Krishnan, R. (1994). TQM's Challenge to Management
Theory and Practice. Sloan Management Review(Winter 1994), 25.
Griffith, A., & Bhutto, K. (2008). Improving environmental performance through
integrated management systems (IMS) in the UK. Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 19(5), 555-578. DOI:
10.1108/14777830810894247.
Gudbjerg, E., Persson, A., & O'Sullivan, J. (2009). EMS as a Policy Instrument for
Energy Efficiency in Ireland, Sweden and Denmark. Paper presented at the 6th
International Conference eemods '09:Energy Efficiency in Motor Driven
Systems, Nantes, France. DOI: 10.2788/58759.
Hamid, A.R.A., Singh, B., Yusof, W.Z.W., & Yang, A.K.T. (2004). Integration of
Safety, Health, Environment and Quality (SHEQ) management system in
construction: a review. Jurnal Kejuruteraan Awam, 16(1), 24-37.
Hamidi, N., Omidvari, M., & Meftahi, M. (2012). The effect of integrated management
system on safety and productivity indices: Case study; Iranian cement
industries. Science Direct, 50, 1180-1189. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.01.004.
Hele, J. (2003). The Eight Quality Management Principles- A Practical Approach. ISO
Management Systems.
Heras, I., Arana, G., & Miguel, E.S. (2010). An Analysis of the Main Drivers for
ISO9001 and other Isomorphic Metastandards. Review of International
Comparative Management, 11(4), 562-574.
Holmes, R., Dahan, H.M., & Ashari, H. (2005). A Guide to Research in the Social
Sciences. In (1st ed.). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Prentice Hall.
139
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OHSAS_18001. OHSAS18001. from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OHSAS_18001
http://www.bhopal.com/. (2014). Bhopal Information Center. Retrieved 10Jul2014,
2014, from http://www.bhopal.com/
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm.
Idris, M.A., Aziz, N.F.A., & Zailee, S. (2012). The Adoption of Management Systems
Standards & Best Practices in Malaysia (Current and Future Trend). Nan Yang
Business Journal, 1(1), 105-112. DOI: 10.2478/nybj-2014-0015.
ILO. (2013). Fact Sheet. from http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/media-
centre/issue-briefs/WCMS_206117/lang--en/index.htm
Inaki, H.S., Landin, G.A., & Fa, M.C. (2006). A Delphi Study on motivation for ISO
9000 and EFQM. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
23(7), 807-827. DOI: 10.1108/02656710610679824.
International Energy Agency. (2013). Key World Energy Statistics. Retrieved. from
http://www.iea-industry.org/menulinksapublications/70-
ieakeyworldenergystatistics2013.html.
International Labour Organization. (2001). Guidelines on occupational safety and
health management systems (ILO-OSH 2001). Retrieved. from
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---
safework/documents/publication/wcms_110496.pdf.
International Labour Organization. (2011). OSH Management System: A Tool for
Continual Improvement.
Islam, R. (2011). Prioritizing the nine challenges of Malaysian Vision 2020. from
http://irep.iium.edu.my/1763/
ISO. (2009). Environmental Management: The ISO14000 family of International
Standards.
ISO Survey. (2012). The ISO Survey of Certifications 2011 (e-product)o. Document
Number)
ISO Survey. (2013). The ISO Survey of Certifications 2012 o. Document Number)
ISO/ TC207 Environmental Management. (2004). Environmental Management
System- General Guidelines on Principles, Systems and Support Techniques.
140
ISO/IEC. (2011). ISO/ IEC Directives, Part 2 [Electronic Version]. Rules for the
Structure and Drafting of the International Standard,
ISO/IEC. (2014). ISO/ IEC Directives, Part 1 [Electronic Version]. Consolidated ISO
Supplement- Procedures specific to ISO,
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions and
Procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.
Johnson, R.A., Kast, F.E., & Rosenzweig, J.E. (1954). Systems Theory and
Management. Management Science, 10(2), 367-384.
Jonker, J., & Karapetrovic, S. (2004). Systems thinking for the integration of
management systems. Business Process Management Journal, 10(6), 608-615.
DOI: 10.1108/14637150410567839.
Jorgensen, T.H., Mellado, M.D., & Remmen, A. (2004). Integrated management
systems.
Jorgensen, T.H., Remmen, A., & Mellado, M.D. (2006). Integrated management
systems - three different levels of integration. Journal of Cleaner Production,
14(8), 713-722. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.04.005.
Jorgensen, T.H., & Simonsen, G. (2002). Prospects of a unified management system.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, 91-98.
DOI: 10.1002/csr.11.
Karapetrovic, S. (2002). Strategies for the integration of management systems and
standards. TQM Magazine, 14(1), 61-67. DOI: 10.1108/09544780210414254.
Karapetrovic, S. (2003). Musings on Integrated Management Systems. Measuring
Business Excellence, 7(1), 4-13. DOI: 10.1108/13683040310466681.
Karapetrovic S. (2002). Strategies for the integration of management systems and
standards. TQM Magazine, 14(1), 61-67.
Karapetrovic, S., & Casadesus, M. (2008). Implementing environmental with other
standardized management systems: Scope, sequence, time and integration.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 533-540. DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.09.006.
Karapetrovic, S., Fa, M.C., & Saizarbitoria, I.H. (2010). What happened to the ISO
9000 lustre? An eight-year study. Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, 21(3), 245-267. DOI: 10.1080/14783360903553149.
Karapetrovic, S., & Jonker, J. (2003). Integration of standardized management
systems: Searching for a recipe and ingredients. Total Quality Management
141
and Business Excellence, 14(4), 451-459. DOI:

10.1080/1478336032000047264.
Karapetrovic, S., Simon, A., & Casadesus, M. (2013). Innovative Options for
Management Systems Standards: Does the Integration Level Matter? Nang Yan
Business Journal, 15-23.
Karapetrovic, S., & Willborn, W. (1998a). Integration of quality and environmental
management systems. TQM Magazine, 10(3), 204-213. DOI:
10.1108/09544789810214800.
Karapetrovic, S., & Willborn, W. (1998b). The system's view for clarification of
quality vocabulary. International Journal for Quality & Reliability
Management, 15(1), 99-120. DOI: 10.1108/02656719810198601.
Kartha, C.P. (2004). A comparison of ISO9000:2000 quality system standards,
QS9000, ISO/TS 16949 and Balridge criteria. TQM Magazine, 16(5), 331-340.
DOI: 10.1108/09544780410551269.
Kast, F.E., & Rosenzweig, J.E. (1972). General System Theory: Applications for
Organization and Management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447-
465. DOI: 10.2307/255141.
Kim, D.Y., Kumar, V., & Murphy, S.A. (2009). European Foundation for Quality
Management Business Excellence Model. Emerald, 27(6), 684-701. DOI:
10.1108/02656711011054551.
Kirkby, A. (2002). The one-stop shop. Quality World, January, 2-4.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods & Techniques. New Delhi:
New Age International (P) Ltd.
Labodova, A. (2004). Implementing integrated management systems using a risk
analysis based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 571–580.
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.08.008.
Laegaard, J., & Bindslev, M. (2006). Organizational Theory.
Linstone, H.A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi Method: Techniques and
Applications.
Lourenco, L., Fonseca, L., & Mendes, L. (2012, 24-27 June 2012). ISO9001
Certification: Motivations, Benefits and Impact on Organizational
Performance. Paper presented at the Third Annual European Decision Science
Institute Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.
142
Mahmood, Z., Basharat, M., & Bashir, Z. (2012). Review of Classical Management
Theories. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 2(1 January
2012), 512-522.
Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). Stakeholder Theory: Issues to
Resolve. Management Decision, 49(2), 226-252. DOI:
10.1108/00251741111109133.
Martinez, A.R., Dewhurst, F., & Dale, B.G. (1998). Total quality management: origins
and evolution of the term. The TQM Magazine, 10(5), 378 - 386. DOI:
10.1108/09544789810231261.
McKane, A., Desai, D., Matteini, M., Meffert, W., Williams, R., & Risser, R. (2010).
Thinking Globally: How ISO 50001 - Energy Management can make industrial
energy efficiency standard practice. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Miles, J.A. (2012). Management and Organization Theory (1st ed.): Wiley.
Mishra, P.K., Samarth, R.m., Pathak, N., Jain, S.K., Banerjee, S., & Maudar, K.K.
(2009). Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Review of Clinical and Experimental Findings
After 25 years. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and
Environmental Health, 22(3), 193-203. DOI: 10.2478/v10001-009-0028-1.
Moen, R., & Norman, C. Evolution of PDCA cycle.
Mohamad, F., Abdullah, N.H., Mohammad, M., & Kamaruddin, N.K. (2014a).
Implementation of ISO50001 Energy Management System. Paper presented at
the 2014 International Symposium on Technology Management and Emerging
Technologies, Bandung Indonesia. DOI: 10.1109/ISTMET.2014.6936518.
Mohamad, F., Abdullah, N.H., Mohammad, M., & Kamaruddin, N.K. (2014b).
Management Systems Integration for Organizational Sustainability Quality,
Environmental, Occupational Health and Safety, and Energy. Applied
Mechanics and Materials, 465, 1155-1159. DOI:
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.465-466.1155.
Mohammad, M. (2006). Strategies for Implementing Integrated Management System
in the Malaysian Manufacturing Companies. Unpublished Master Thesis.
Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Mohammad, M., Osman, M.R., Yusuff, R.M., & Ismail, N. (2005). Strategies and
critical success factors for integrated management systems implementation. In
M. B. Durmusoglu & C. Kahraman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th
143
International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering (Vol. 2,

pp. 1391-1396). Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University.
Mohammad, M., Osman, M.R., Yusuff, R.M., & Ismail, N. (2006). Strategies for
implementing Integrated Management System (IMS): The experiences of three
Malaysian manufacturing companies. Paper presented at the 11th World
Congress for Total Quality Management.
Mohammad, M., Osman, M.R., Yusuff, R.M., & Ismail, N. (2007). Integrated
Management System implementation in Malaysian manufacturing companies:
Survey results. In Proceedings of the International Engineering Convention
(pp. 554-566). Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: FEICC.
Mohammad, M., Osman, M.R., Yusuff, R.M., Masood, I., Yahya, M.S., & Jalil,
M.A.S.M. (2013). Strategies for Integrating Quality, Environmental, Safety
and Health Management Systems. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 315,
894-898. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.315.894.
Muhammad Asif, Searcy, C., Zutshi, A., & Ahmad, N. (2011). An Integrated
Management System Approach to Corporate Sustainability. Emerald, 23(4),
353-367.
Murillo-Luna, J.L., & Ramon-Solans-Prat, J.C. (2008). Which competetive advantage
can firms really obtain from ISO14001 certification? Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management, 01(02), 104-118. DOI:
10.3926/jiem.2008.v1n2.p104-118.
National SME Development Council. (2012). Detail SME Master Plan 2012-2020.
Retrieved. from.
OHSAS Project Group. (2007). Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series.
OHSAS Project Group. (2012). Results of the OHSAS Survey 2011.
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S.D. (2004). The Delphi Method as a Research Tool: An
Example, Design Considerations and Applications. Information &
Management, 42(1), 15-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002.
Olaru, M., Pirnea, I.C., Hohan, A., & Maftei, M. (2014). Performance indicators used
by SMEs in Romania, related to Integrated Management Systems. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 949-953. DOI:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.570.
Omran, A., Bakar, A.H.A., & Sen, T.H. (2008). The Implementation of OHSAS 18001
in Construction Industry in Malaysia. Journal of Engineering, 157-162.
144
Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers Inc.
Piskar, F., & Dolinsek, S. (2006). Implementation of the ISO9001: from QMS to
business model. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 106(9), 1333-1343.
DOI: 10.1108/02635570610712609.
Project Committee ISO/PC 242 Energy Management. (2011). Energy Management
Systems- Requirements with Guidance for Use.
Ramly, E.F., Ramly, E.S., & Yusof, S.r.M. (2007). Effectiveness of Quality
Management System Audit to Improve Quality Performance- A Conceptual
Framework. In Proceedings- Conference of Quality and Reliability. Chieng
Mai.
Ranky, P.G. (2012). Sustainable Energy Management and Quality Process Models
Based on ISO50001: 2011 The International Energy Management Standard.
Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems
and Technology(ISSST). DOI: 10.1109/ISSST.2012.6227995.
Rasmussen, J.M. (2007). Integrated Management System- An Analysis of Best Practice
in Danish Companies. Aalborg University, Aalborg.
Rentzsch, M., & Ameli, H.R. (2000). Integrated Management System(IMS) in Small
and Medium Enterprises. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. DOI:
10.1177/154193120004401037.
Rocha, M., Searcy, C., & Karapetrovic, S. (2007). Integrating Sustainable
Development into Existing Management Systems. Total Quality Management,
18(18), 1/2. DOI: 10.1080/14783360601051594.
Romero, M.R. (2006). Integrating standardized management systems - A generic
model and supporting methodologies for implementation and auditing.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Alberta.
Rory Sullivan. (2005). Code Integration: Alignment or Conflict? Springer- Journal of
Business Ethics, 59, 9-25. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-005-3401-4.
Rossiter, A.P., & Jones, B.P. (2015). Energy Management and Efficiency for the
Process Industries. from www.wiley.com
Roughton, J. (1993). Integrating Quality Into Safety and Health Management.
Industrial Engineering, 25(7), 32.
145
Salomone, R. (2008). Integrated management systems: experiences in Italian

organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(16), 1786-1806. DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.003.
Sampaio, P., Saraiva, P., & Domingues, P. (2012). Management System: Integration
or Addition? International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
29(4), 402-424. DOI: 10.1108/02656711211224857.
Sanongpong, K. (2009a). Automotive Process-based New Product Development: A
Review of Key Performance Metrics Paper presented at the World Congress on
Engineering, London. DOI: 10.1.1.149.439.
Sanongpong, K. (2009b, 18-20 March 2009). Automotive Product Realization; A
Process-Based Management. Paper presented at the International
MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Hong Kong. DOI:
10.1.1.158.4551.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K.H. (2010). An Organizational Theoritic Review of Green
Supply Chain Management Literature. Science Direct- International Journal
of Production Economics, 130, 1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.11.010.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business
Students.
Scipioni, A., Arena, F., Villa, M., & Saccarola, G. (2001). Integration of management
systems. Environmental Management and Health, 12(2), 134-145. DOI:
10.1108/09566160110389906.
Searcy, C., Morali, O., & Karapetrovic, S. (2012). An Analysis of ISO14001 and
Suggested Improvements. Journal of Global Responsibility, 3(2), 278-293.
DOI: 10.1108/2041256121126056.
Searcy, C., Morali, O., Karapetrovic, S., Wichuk, K., McCartney, D., McLeod, S., et
al. (2011). Challenges in implementing a functional ISO 14001 environmental
management system. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, 29(7), 779-796. DOI: 10.1108/02656711211258526.
Serebriakova, T.N. (2005). Mapping Radiation from the External and Internal Sources
In Belarus After the Chernobyl Disaster: Implications for Epidemiological
Analysis. University of Connecticut, Connecticut.
146
Setti, L., & Balzani, V. (2011). Road Map Towards an Integrated Energy Management
System in Italy. Springer link, 22, 55-64. DOI: 10.1007/s12210-010-0110-4.
Simon, A., Casadesus, M., & Karapetrovic, S. (2011). Difficulties and benefits of
integrated management systems. Industrial Management and Data Systems,
112(5), 828-846. DOI: 10.1108/02635571211232406.
Simon, A., Casadesus, M., & Karapetrovic, S. (2012). Evolution of Integrated
Management Systems in Spanish firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 23(1),
8-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.025.
Simpson, D., Power, D., & Klassen, R. (2012). When One Size Does Not Fit All: A
Problem of Fit Rather than Failure for Voluntary Management Standards.
Journal of Business Ethics, 110(1), 85-95. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-1149-6.
SIRIM QAS. MALAYSIAN CERTIFIED. Retrieved 26-Sept-2013, from
http://www.malaysiancertified.com.my/
Skulmoski, G.J., Hartman, F.T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi Method for Graduate
Research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6.
Spencer, B.A. (1994). Models of Organization and Total Quality Management: A
Comparison and Critical Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 19(3),
446-471. DOI: 10.2307/258935.
Tambunan, T.T.H. (2009). SMEs in Asian Developing Countries. In. United Kingdom:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Tang, J. (2003). Corporate Culture and Integrated Management Systems: A case study
of the UK Construction Industry. Unpublished Master thesis, University of
East Anglia, Norwich.
Technical Committee ISO/ TC176. (2008). ISO9001:2008 Quality Management
Systems- Requirements.
Technical Committee ISO/ TC176. (2015). Quality Management Systems-
Requirements. Switzerland.
Thawesaengskulthai, N., & Tannock, J. (2008). Fashion Setting in Quality
Management and Continuous Improvement. International Studies of
Management and Organization, 38(2), 5-24. DOI: 10.2753/IMO0020-
8825380201.
Tobi, S.U.M. (2013). Research Methodological Cage: Understanding the Qualitative
Viewpoint. Kuala Lumpur: Aras Publisher.
147
Tosi, H.L., & Slocum, J.W. (1984). Contingency Theory: Some Suggested Direction.
Journal of Management, 10, 9-26. DOI: 10.1177/014920638401000103.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization. (2011). Industrial Development
Report 2011 o. Document Number)
Wilkinson, G., & Dale, B.G. (1999a). Integration of quality, environmental and health
and safety management systems: an examination of the key issues.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B-Journal of
Engineering Manufacture, 213(3), 275-283. DOI:
10.1243/0954405991516750.
Wilkinson, G., & Dale, B.G. (1999b). Models of management system standards: a
review of the integration issues. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 1(3), 279-298. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2370.00016.
Wilkinson, G., & Dale, B.G. (2001). Integrated management systems: a model based
on a total quality approach. Managing Service Quality, 11(5), 318-330. DOI:
10.1108/09604520110404040.
WM To; Peter KC Lee; Billy TW Yu. (2012). Benefits of implementing management
system standards: A case study of certified companies in the Pearl River Delta,
China. Emerald, 24(1), 17-28.
Yousuf, M.I. (2007). Using Experts' Opinion Through Delphi Technique. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(4), 1-8.
Zeithaml, V.A., Varadarajan, P.R., & Zethaml, C.P. (1988). The Contingency
Approach: Its Foundations and Relevance to Theory Building and Research in
Marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 22(7), 1988. DOI:
10.1108/EUM0000000005291.
Zeng, S.X., Shi, J.J., & Lou, G.X. (2007a). A synergetic model for implementing an
integrated management system: An empirical study in China. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 15(18), 1760-1767. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.03.007.
Zeng, S.X., Tian, P., & Shi, J.J. (2005). Implementing Integration of ISO9001 and
ISO14001 for Construction. Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(4), 394-407.
DOI: 10.1108/02686900510592070.
Zeng, S.X., Tian, P., & Tam, C.M. (2007b). Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable
Implementation of the ISO9001 System. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(3),
244-254. DOI: 10.1108/02686900710733125.
148
Zutshi, A., & Sohal, A.S. (2003). Integrated management system: The experiences of
three Australian organisations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 16(2), 211-232. DOI: 10.1108/17410380510576840
Zutshi, A., & Sohal, A.S. (2005). Integrated management system: The experiences of
three Australian organisations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 16(2), 211-232.
149
Appendix A
150
151
Appendix B
SURVEY ON INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Introduction:
The objectives of the survey are to assess the status of Management System (MS) implementation and
investigate the strategies for management systems integration in the Malaysian companies. This
research will be focusing only on the Quality Management System (QMS), Environmental
Management System (EMS), Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) and/ or
Energy Management System (EnMS). The results will be used solely for research purposes and no
attempt will be made to identify any individual involved in any publication by the researcher.
Instruction: This questionnaire consists of five (5) main sections. Please read the questions carefully
before answering them. For further understanding about IMS, kindly refer to Appendix 1.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND OF THE COMPANY

This section seeks general information about your company. Where appropriate, please click on
the box and/or complete the answer in the space provided.
1. The company was established since: .................................

2. Type of industry the company involved in:
Agriculture, Fishing Rubber and Plastic Products Water Supply
Mining and Quarrying Non-metallic Mineral Construction
Products
Food Products, Beverages Concrete, Cement, Lime, Wholesale and Retail Trade;
and Tobacco Plaster, etc Repair of Motor Vehicles,
Motorcycles and Personal and
Household Goods
Textiles and Textile Basic Metals and Fabricated Hotels and Restaurants
Products Metal Products
Leather and Leather Machinery and Equipment Transport, Storage and
Products Communication
Wood and Wood Products Electrical and Optical Financial Intermediation; Real
Equipment Estate; Renting
Pulp, Paper and Paper Shipbuilding Information Technology
Products
Publishing Companies Aerospace Engineering Services
Printing Companies Other Transport Equipment Other Services
…………………………(Pls specify)
Manufacture of Coke and Manufacturing not Public Administration
Refined Petroleum Classified Elsewhere
Products
Nuclear Fuel Recycling Education
Chemicals, Chemical Electricity Supply Health and Social Work
Products and Fibers
Pharmaceuticals Gas Supply Other Social Services
………………………(Pls specify)
152
3. The number of full time employees in the company:

Not exceeding 5
Not exceeding 75
Not exceeding 200
More than 200
4. Annual sales turnover of the company:
4.1. Manufacturing and its related services

Less than RM 300, 000
Less than RM15 million
Less than RM50 million
More than RM50 million
4.2 Service Sectors

Not exceeding RM300, 000
RM200, 000 to less than RM3 million
RM1 million to RM20 million
More than RM20 million
5. Which of the following Quality Management System (QMS) standard(s) has/have the company
implemented and what was/were the year of certification? Please tick where applicable and you
may tick more than one item.
Certification Implemented with Self-
QMS Standard
Year consultant’s assistance implementation
ISO9002:1994 Yes / No Yes / No
ISO/TS16949:2002 Yes / No Yes / No
ISO/ TS16949:2009 Yes / No Yes / No
AS9100 Yes / No Yes / No
( Rev A/ B/ C)
If QMS have not been implemented, do you have any plan for QMS implementation and
certification?
Yes / No
6. Which of the following Environmental Management System (EMS) has/have the company
implemented and what was/were the year of certification? Please tick where applicable and you
EMS Standard
EMAS Yes / No Yes / No
If EMS has not been implemented, do you have any plan for EMS implementation and certification?
Yes / No
153
7. Which of the following Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) has/have
the company implemented and what was/were the year of certification? Please tick where
applicable and you may tick more than one item.
OHSMS Standard
OHSAS 18001:1999 Yes / No Yes / No
OHSAS 18001:2007 Yes / No Yes / No
MS1722:2005 Yes / No Yes / No
If OHSMS have not been implemented, do you have any plan for OHSMS implementation and
certification?
Yes / No
8. Has the company implemented Energy Management System (EnMS) and what was/were the year
of certification?
EnMS Standard
If EnMS has not been implemented, do you have any plan for EnMS implementation and
certification?
Yes / No
9. Is there any other uncertified standard adapted by the company? If Yes, please tick in the box/
specify:
RoHS (Restriction of Use of Hazardous Substances)

REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals)
Others: ..................................................................................................................(Pls Specify)
10. Is the company currently implementing Integrated Management System (IMS) or integrating the
QMS, EMS and/or OHSMS and/or EnMS?
Yes (Please precede to Section 2, 3 and 5)

No, but have plan to implement it within the next 3 years (Please proceed to Section 3 and 5)
No, and do not plan to implement it (Please proceed to Section 4 and 5)
SECTION 2: INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PRACTICE
Section 2 asks about the IMS practice at your company. Where appropriate, please tick (✓) in the
box and/or complete the answer in the space provided.
11. Type of management systems the company has integrated:

QMS and EMS OHSMS and EnMS
QMS and OHSMS QMS, EMS and OHSMS
QMS and EnMS QMS, EMS and EnMS
EMS and OHSMS EMS, EnMS and OHSMS
EMS and EnMS QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS
154
12. In which year did the company start implementing IMS?
13. How did the company integrate the management systems?
Start with implementing the QMS, EMS, OHSMS and/or EnMS individually. Then, integrate
the management systems using standard requirements / model (e.g. ISO9000, ISO14000,
OHSAS18000 and/or ISO50001).
the management systems using PDCA cycle.
the management systems using Total Quality Management / Business Excellence model.
Integrate QMS, EMS and/or OHSMS from the beginning using standard requirements / model
(e.g. ISO9000, ISO14000 and/or OHSAS18000).
Integrate QMS, EMS and/or OHSMS from the beginning using PDCA cycle.
Other (please specify/describe):
.............................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
(If the space provided is not enough, kindly use the back page)
14. Duration for the company to develop the Integrated Management System (From planning stage
until successfully integrates the management systems):
Less than 6 months 1.5 to 2 years

6 to 12 months 2 to 3 years
12 to 18 months More than 3 years
For those answering this section, kindly proceed to Section 3.
SECTION 3: STRATEGIES FOR INTEGRATING THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
This section asks for your opinions on what should be the strategies for integrating the management
systems. Where appropriate, please tick (✓) in the box and/or complete the answer in the space
provided.
15. What should be the sequence of management systems integration?
First QMS, then integrate with EMS and followed by OHSMS

First QMS, then integrate with EMS and followed by OHSMS and then EnMS
First EMS, then integrate with QMS and followed by OHSMS
First EMS, then integrate with QMS and followed by OHSMS and then EnMS
Simultaneously integrate QMS and EMS at the beginning, and then integrate with OHSMS
Simultaneously integrate QMS, EMS and OHSMS at the beginning, and then integrate with EnMS
Simultaneously integrate OHSMS and EMS at the beginning, and then integrate with QMS
Simultaneously integrate EMS and EnMS at the beginning, then integrate with OHSMS and then
integrate with QMS
Simultaneously integrate QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS from the beginning
Other (please specify): .................................................................................................................
155
16. Should the management systems be aligned (partial integration) or should they be combining into
one common management system (full integration)?
(Refer to Appendix 1 for explanation on the types of integration)
Aligned (partial integration) Combine into one common system (full integration)
17. What approach should be the basis for integrating the management systems?
(Refer to Appendix 1 for explanation on the integration approaches)
ISO9001:2008 Total Quality Management (TQM)/ Business Excellence Model

ISO14001:2004 Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle
OHSAS18001:2007 Combination of ISO9000 and TQM
ISO50001:2011 Systems approach
Other (please specify): .................................................................................................................
18. Which of the following processes/areas should be integrated? Please tick where applicable and you
Documents control ❑ Records control

Employees training ❑ Design and development control
Purchasing ❑ Suppliers’ assessment
Operational control ❑ Production and service provision
Equipment maintenance ❑ Measuring and monitoring device control
Control of Non-conformity ❑ Corrective and Prevention actions
Management review ❑ Internal audits
Other (please specify): ..........................................................................................................
SECTION 4: REASONS FOR NOT IMPLEMENTING IMS
This section asks about what is/are the reason(s) for NOT implementing the IMS. Please tick where
applicable and you may tick more than one item.
Not aware about IMS implementation

Doubts about the benefits and added-value of implementing IMS
Existing management systems are sufficient and should remain separate
Lack of pressure from customers or competitors to implement an IMS
It requires long process until concrete results are achieved
High expenses in terms of personnel and costs during the introduction and maintenance of system
Past bad experience with failed quality programs or other management models
Other (please
specify):................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................

156
SECTION 5: BARRIERS TOWARDS IMPLEMENTING IMS

This section asks for your opinions/experiences on the barriers towards implementing IMS in your
organization. Please circle the degree of agreement using the following scale:
0 = unsure, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
Barriers towards IMS Degree of Agreement

implementation
0 1 2 3 4 5
1. People resist to change
2. Lack of leadership and
commitment from top
management
3. Lack of trained and
experience staff to
implement IMS
4. Lack of information and
guidance on how to
implement IMS
5. Lack of budget for
conducting IMS activities
6. Lack of time to devote to
IMS initiatives
7. Lack of employees
awareness and
understanding on IMS
implementation
8. Poor internal
communication
9. Lack of involvement and
motivation from the
employees
10. Difficulties in finding
common denominators
for diverse business
functions
11. Lack of strategic planning
12. Work culture problems
• Would you like to receive a short summary of this research? Yes* No

• If we would like to conduct a case study on IMS implementation, would your company like to
participate in it?
•
Yes* No Will consider
*If yes, please attach your business card/ contact detail so that we can contact you.
*Thank you for your time and assistance*

157
Appendix C
158
159
Appendix D
EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK AND GUIDANCE FOR

INTEGRATING QUALITY, ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND HEALTH
AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ROUND 1)
Name:………………………………………………………………………………………
…….
Introduction:
The objective of this questionnaire is to obtain experts opinion to evaluate the proposed
framework and guidance for integrating Quality, Environment, Energy and Health and
Safety Management System (QEEnHSMS). This is to support the data collection
activity using Delphi Method Expert Opinion. This research is focusing only on the
Quality Management System (QMS), Environmental Management System (EMS),
Energy Management System (EnMS) and/or Occupational Health and Safety
Management System (OHSMS). The results will be used solely for research purposes
and no attempt will be made to identify any individual involved in any publication by
the researcher.
Instruction:
This questionnaire consists of three (3) sections. Please read “Proposed Framework and
Guidance for the Integration of (QEEnHSMS)” attached in Appendix 1 carefully
before answering the questions.
SECTION 1: PROFILE OF RESPONDENT
This section seeks general information about you. Where appropriate, please click on the
box and/or complete the answer in the space provided.
19. What is your education background?

Secondary
Tertiary
Bachelor degree
Master Degree
PhD
20. Have you received any accreditation or title as a certification of your skill?
Yes (If Yes, pls specify: D………………………..………….)
No
21. What is your job title and role in your organization?

Academician ………………………………..……..…….(Pls specify)
Government official ……………………………………..(Pls specify)
Practitioners- Consultant …………….…………...…..…(Pls specify)
Practitioners- Auditor ………………..……………….…(Pls specify)
Practitioners- User …………………….................……(Pls specify)
Other functions: ……………………….................……(Pls specify)
22. How long have you been experienced in dealing with management system standards?
160
5 to 10 years 26 to 30 years
23.
24. What are the management system standards that you have been dealing with?
ISO9001 Quality Management System (QMS)
ISO14001 Environmental Management System (EMS)
ISO50001 Energy Management System (EMS)
OHSAS18001 Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS)
Other Management Systems:……………………………………(Pls specify)
25. How long have you been experienced in dealing with integrated management system
standards?
26. What are the integrated management system standards that you have been dealing with
or dealt with? ( Tick more than one standard)
Other Management Systems:…………………………………(Pls specify)
27. Have you received any extended training relating to management system standards?
Management System related trainings
Other Management Systems:………………………………(Pls specify)
Lead Auditor trainings
Other Management Systems: ………………………………(Pls specify)
161
Appendix E
EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK AND GUIDANCE FOR INTEGRATING QEEnHSMS (ROUND 2)
Name:…………………………………………………………………………………………….
SECTION 2: EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK AND GUIDANCE FOR INTEGRATING THE QEEnHSMS
This section deals with the evaluation of the proposed framework and guidance for integrating the QEEnHSMS. Referring to Appendix 1, “Proposed Framework and Guide for
the Integration of (QEEnHSMS)”, please tick (✓) in the box that indicate degree of agreement and comments (if any) for each question listed below:
Degree of agreement to the following questions If you indicated “disagree” or “strongly
disagree” (*) for any of the following
*Strongly Don’t
Description Strongly * statements/ questions, please explain why
Agree Neutral Disagree know/
Agree Disagree and suggest improvement to the framework
unsure
and/ or standard.
1. Is the framework for integrating QEEnHSMS written
clearly and easy to understand?
2. Is the QEEnHSMS model presented clearly and easy
to understand?
3. Do you agree with the content of Clause 4- Context
of the Organization?
4. Do you agree with the content of Clause 5-
Leadership?
5. Do you agree with the content of Clause 6- Planning?
6. Do you agree with the content of Clause 7- Support?
Operation?
Performance Evaluation?
Improvement?
10. Do you agree that this QEEnHSMS framework will
be useful for organizations?
11. Do you agree that this QEEnHSMS integration guide
will be useful for organizations?
162
162
SECTION 3: COMMENTS AND/ OR SUGGESTIONS

In this section, we would like to obtain your comments and/ or suggestions with regards to “Proposed
Framework and Guide for the Integration of (QEEnHSMS)”
3.1. Strengths of the guide and framework:
3.2. Weaknesses of the guide and framework:
3.3. Suggestions for improvement:
A summarized data will be compiled and distributed to all respondents upon completion of
Round 2 Data Collection.
* Thank you for your time and assistance*
163
APPENDIX F
Proposed Framework and Guidance for the Integration of Quality, Environment,

Energy and Health and Safety Management System
Version: Initial Draft
May 2014
164
Contents
1. Extent of Management System Standard…………………………..........6
2. Normative references……………………………………………………7
3. Terms and definitions…………………………………………………....8
4. Background of the Organization………………………………………12
4.1. Understanding the organization and its background… ….. ............12
4.2. Understanding the Needs and Expectations of Interested

Parties…………………………………………………....….............12
4.3. Determining the extent of application of the QEEnHS Management

System………………………………………………………............15
4.4. QEEnHS Management system ……………………….……...........15
5. Leadership………………………… …………………….…………..15
5.1. Leadership and Commitment……………………......…… ….....15
5.2. Policy………………………………………………….........…….16
5.3. Organizational Roles, Responsibilities, Accountabilities and

Authorities……………………………………………………….17
6. Preparation for QEEnHSMS Implementation………………………..17
6.1. Actions to address risk and opportunities of QEEnHSMS…...17
6.2. QEEnHSMS Objectives and planning to achieve them……...18
7. Operational Support for QEEnHSMS Implementation………………19
7.1. Resources………………………………………………..……19
7.2. Competence………………………………………………..…20
7.3. Awareness…………………………………………………....20
7.4. Communication…………………………………………...….21
7.5. Documentation of QEEnHSMS…………………………...…21
7.5.1. General…………………………………………………….....21
7.5.2. Creating and updating ………………………………………...22
7.5.3. Control of documented information…………………………22

165
8. Operational Control of QEEnHSMS…………………….……………23
8.1. Planning and Controlling of the Process……………………...23
9. Evaluation of Results of QEEnHSMS………………………………..24
9.1. Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation………….24
9.2. Internal Audit of QEEnHSMS………………………………..25
9.3. Management Review of QEEnHSMS……………………….26
10. Improvement…………………………………………………………27
10.1. Nonconformity and corrective action……………………….27
10.2. Continual Improvement………………………………………27
Bibliography………………………………………………………....……48
166
Figure 1: Framework for the integration of QEEnHSMS……………………………..6
Table 1: Correlation of the Proposed Integrated QEEnHSMS Guide with QMS,

EMS, EnMS and OHSMS…………………………………………………....29
167
1. Extent of Management System Standard
This specification specifies a common management system requirement and is

intended to be used as a framework and guidance for implementing Integrated
Quality, Environment, Energy and Health and Safety Management System
(QEEnHSMS). It draws together the common requirements in the mentioned
management system standards (MSS)s.
Figure 1: Framework for the integration of QEEnHSMS.
Since this guide is intended to be used in the integration of

QEEnHSMS, the compliance to this framework and guidance shall ensure
compliance with QEEnHSMS. The framework of the integration of
QEEnHSMS is as shown in Figure 1. It follows the Plan-Do-Check-Act
(PDCA) continual improvement framework and incorporates QEEnHSMS into
the organizational practices.
In the context of the QEEnHSMS, PDCA approach can be outlined as

follows
• PLAN
- Conduct assessment to identify risks and opportunities, objectives,
targets and action plans necessary to improve the integrated
QEEnHSMS according to the policy.
• DO
- Implement the integrated QEEnHSMS within the organization.
168
• CHECK
- Monitor and measure processes and key characteristics of
operation that determine QEEnHSMS performance against the
policy and objectives, and report the results;
• ACT
- Take actions to continually improve QEEnHSMS.
This framework and guidance of integrated QEEnHSMS assists organizations in

reducing duplication and complexity of management system. It is applicable to all
size, types and functions of organizations. The expectation of this guidance standard
is to enable process management that produces product and services at required
quality level and yet safe and ecologically sustainable.
This guide does not replicate or replace the existing management system standard
and its requirements. With this guide, the users will have a guidance for the
combination of the non-integrated MSSs implemented in an organization (within
the QEEnHSMS), and implementation of QEEnHSMS for organization newly
implementing the MSSs as a package.
2. Normative references
These standards are included for this integrated QEEnHSMS guidance

subscription:
i) ISO 9001:2008, Quality Management System -Requirements

ii) ISO 14001:2004, Environmental Management System –Requirements with
Guidance for Use
iii) OHSAS 18001:2007, Occupational Health and Safety Management System -
Requirements
iv) ISO 50001:2011, Energy Management Systems- Requirements with
Guidance for Use
3. Terms and definitions

A management system that integrates all of an organization’s systems and
processes into one complete framework, enabling an organization to work
as a single unit with unified objectives. In this standard it is integration of
four (4) standards namely Quality Management System (QMS),
169
Environmental Management System (EMS), Energy Management System

(EnMS) and Occupational Health and Safety Management System
(OHSMS).
3.2. Organization
Person or group of people that has its own functions with responsibilities,
authorities and relationships to achieve its objectives
3.3. Interested party/ stakeholder
Person or organization that can affect (input), be affected by (process), or

perceive themselves to be affected (output) by a decision or activity. E.g.
customers, employees, owners, suppliers, community and government.
3.4. Requirement
Need or expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory
3.5. Management system
Set of interrelated or interacting elements of an organization to establish

policies and objectives and processes to achieve those objectives
NOTE:
In the context of this standard, it includes Quality, Environmental, Energy
and Health and Safety Management System (QEEnHSMS)
3.6. Top management

A person or group of people who directs and controls an organization at
the highest level. The Top management has the power to delegate
authority and provide resources within the organization.
3.7. Effectiveness
Extent to which planned activities are realized and planned results

achieved
3.8. Policy
Intentions and direction of an organization as formally expressed by its top

management.
3.9. Objective
Result to be achieved through a strategic, tactical or operational

statement for the organization
170
3.10. Risk
Effect of uncertainty
- An effect is a deviation from the expected- positive or negative

- Uncertainty is the state, even partial, of efficiency of information
related to, understanding or knowledge of, an event, its
consequence, or likelihood.
- Risk is often characterized by reference to potential events and
consequences, or a combination of these.
- Risk is often expressed in terms of a combination of the
consequences of an event (including changes in circumstances)
and the associated likelihood of occurrence.
1.0
3.11. Competence
Ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results
3.12. Documented information
Information are required to be controlled and maintained by an

organization and the medium on which it is contained
- Documented information can be in any format and media and

from any source.
- Documented information can refer to:
• the management system, including related processes;
• information created in order for the organization to operate
(documentation);
• evident of results achieved (records).
3.13. Process
A set of interrelated or interacting activities which transform inputs into
outputs.
3.14. Performance
Measurable result
- Performance can relate either to quantitative or qualitative

findings.
171
- Performance can relate to the management of activities,

processes, products (including services), systems or
organizations.
3.15. Outsource (verb)
Make an arrangement where an external organization performs part of an

organization’s function or process
- An external organization is outside the scope of the management

system, although the outsourced function or process is within the
scope.
3.16. Monitoring
Determining the status of a system, a process or an activity
- To determine the status there may be a need to check, supervise or

critically observe.
3.17. Measurement
Process to determine a value
3.18. Audit
Systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit

evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the
audit criteria are fulfilled
- An audit can be an internal audit (first party) or an external audit

(second party or third party),
- and it can be a combined audit (combining two or more disciplines).
“Audit evidence” and “audit criteria” are defined in ISO 19011.
3.19. Conformity
Fulfillment of a requirement
3.20. Nonconformity
172
Non-fulfillment of a requirement
3.21. Correction
Action to eliminate a detected nonconformity
3.22. Corrective action
Action to eliminate the cause of nonconformity and to prevent recurrence
3.23. continual improvement
Recurring activity to enhance performance
4. Background of the Organization
4.1. Understanding the organization and its background
The organization shall establish, implement and maintain an integrated

management system (IMS) of Quality, Environmental, Energy and Health and
Safety Management System (QEEnHSMS) and continually improve its
effectiveness in accordance to this standard.
The organization shall:
a) determine the processes needed for the integration of QEEnHSMS and

their application throughout the organization
b) determine the sequence of interaction of these processes
c) determine criteria and methods needed to ensure both the operation and
control of these processes are effective
d) ensure the availability of resources and information necessary to
support the operation and monitoring of these processes
e) assess, monitor, measure where applicable and analyze these processes
f) implement actions necessary to achieve planned results
These processes shall be managed by the organization in accordance with the

requirements of this integrated QEEnHSMS guide.
When organization chooses to outsource any process that affects product/

process conformity to requirements, the organization shall ensure control over
such processes/ activities. The type and extent of control to be applied to
outsourced processes shall be defined within the integrated QEEnHSMS guide.
173
4.2. Understanding the Needs and Expectations of Interested Parties
The organization shall determine:
a) the interested parties that are relevant to the integrated QEEnHSMS; and
b) the requirements of these interested parties.
In view of the stakeholder expectations, considerations shall be taken according

to organizations’ nature of business, processes, activities and services, such as:
i) Customer-
- Feasibility study shall be carried out by the
relevant functions within the organization, in
order to understand the gap between product or
service required against the organizations’
capacity and capability.
ii) Employee
- Motivation and empowerment of employees
shall be enhanced through the employee
involvement at relevant function and level of the
organization.
iii) Owners
- Owner shall set clear policy and objectives
towards the future direction of the business
organization.
iv) Suppliers
- The organization shall develop strategic
partnership with the suppliers by establishing
valuable supply chain management in-line with
the clear policy and objectives set by the
organization.
v) Community
- The organization shall develop concerns of the
public regarding the matters relating to
integrated QEEnHSMS risk.
vi) Government
174
- The organization shall perform evaluation of

compliance periodically and made the
information available to all employees.
This shall include identification and assessment of risk / potential risk of

integrated QEEnHSMS. This activity shall be documented. The assessment result
shall be applied as a basis of establishing, implementing and maintaining the
integrated QEEnHSMS.
The integrated QEEnHSMS risk assessment shall take into account:
a) routine and non-routine activities;

b) activities of all persons having access to the workplace (including
contractors and visitors);
c) human behavior, capabilities and other human factors;
d) identified risk originating outside the workplace capable of adversely
affecting the integrated QEEnHSMS of the organization;
e) risk created by work-related activities under the control of the
organization;
f) infrastructure, equipment and materials, whether provided by the
organization or others;
g) changes or proposed changes in the organization, its activities,
products or services;
h) modifications to the integrated QEEnHSMS, including temporary
changes, and their impacts on its activities, products or services;
i) any applicable legal obligations relating to risk assessment and
implementation of necessary controls
j) the design of work areas, processes, installations,
machinery/equipment, operating procedures and work organization,
including their adaptation to human capabilities.
It shall also be consistent with the integrated QEEnHSMS policy established

by the organization and shall lead to activities that continually improve the
organization’s performance.
175
4.3. Determining the extent of application of the QEEnHS Management

System
The organization shall determine the needs, boundaries and applicability of the
integrated QEEnHSMS to establish its scope.
When determining this scope, the organization shall consider conducting an
initial review which consist of but not limited to:
a) the processes referred to in 4.1; and
b) the requirements referred to in 4.2.
The scope shall be made available as documented information.
4.4. QEEnHS Management system
The organization shall establish, implement, maintain and continually improve

the management system, including the processes needed and their interactions,
in accordance with the requirements of this integrated QEEnHSMS and the
management system standards/specifications to which it subscribes as defined in
the 4.3.
5. Leadership
5.1. Leadership and Commitment
Person(s) in top management and other relevant management roles throughout

the organization shall demonstrate leadership with respect to the integrated
QEEnHSMS. The organization shall ensure that the management system
performance achieves the intended outcome(s).
Effective leadership requires
a) Ownership, demonstrated by commitment, understanding and

involvement;
b) Planning of tasks and resources within the framework of policy and
objectives;
c) Resource allocation ( including setting budgets);
d) Assignment of responsibilities, authority and accountability;
e) Support for innovation
f) Coordination of planning across the organization and agreed
delegation of duties
g) Ensuring that decisions are followed through and performance
assessed against predetermined criteria
176
h) Determining the effectiveness of the organization’s current

management system
i) Identifying, planning and implementing opportunities for
improvement
j) Communication of the organization’s values and policies
unambiguously throughout the organization and ensuring
understanding and acceptance of these.
NOTE:
This can also be shown, for example, by motivating and empowering persons to
contribute to the effectiveness of the integrated QEEnHSMS.
5.2. Policy
Top management shall establish an integrated QEEnHSMS policy. The policy

shall:
a) be appropriate to the purpose of the organization,

b) provide the framework for setting and reviewing of the integrated
QEEnHSMS objectives;
c) include a commitment to satisfy applicable requirements including
legal, customer and other requirements
d) include a commitment to continual improvement of the integrated
QEEnHSMS
e) be communicated within the organization
f) be available to interested parties and public, as appropriate
g) is regularly reviewed, and updated as necessary
The organization shall retain documented information on the integrated

QEEnHSMS policy and the cross-references to its objectives and target set.
5.3. Organizational Roles, Responsibilities, Accountabilities and Authorities
Top management shall ensure that the responsibilities, accountabilities and

authorities for relevant roles are assigned and communicated within the
organization.
Therefore, a structure of organization shall be decided by the Top Management.
Top management shall assign the responsibility, accountability and authority for
177
a) ensuring that the integrated QEEnHSMS conforms to the

requirements of this standard
b) reporting on the performance of the integrated QEEnHSMS to top

management
The responsibilities, accountabilities and authorities shall be clearly defined and

documented, as which should promote towards the organization’s achievement
of the policy and objectives.
NOTE:
i) Since the management roles throughout the organization shall
demonstrate leadership (as per 5.1) to the integrated QEEnHSMS,
assigning of Management Representative is optional to the organization)
ii) The exercise of clause 5.3 shall be accounted in line with the
requirements of clause 6.
6. Preparation for QEEnHSMS Implementation
6.1. Actions to address risk and opportunities of QEEnHSMS
The organization shall consider the issues referred to in 4.1 and the requirements
referred to in 4.2 and determine the risks and opportunities that need to be
addressed, through initial review, to
a) assure the management system can achieve its intended outcome(s)

b) prevent or reduce, undesired effects
c) realize opportunities for improvement.
a) evaluate the need to plan actions to address these risks and

opportunities, and
b) determine where applicable, on how to
i) integrate and implement these actions into its QEEnHSMS

processes (see 8.1)
ii) ensure information will be available to evaluate if the actions
have been effective (see 9.1)
178
6.2. QEEnHSMS Objectives and planning to achieve them
Top management shall ensure that integrated QEEnHSMS objectives are

established and communicated for relevant functions and levels within the
organization.
The integrated QEEnHSMS objectives shall:
a) be consistent with the integrated QEEnHSMS policy

b) be measurable
c) take into account applicable requirements
d) be monitored and updated as appropriate
The organization shall retain documented information on the integrated

QEEnHSMS objectives.
To achieve its integrated QEEnHSMS objectives, the organization shall

determine:
a) who will be responsible

b) what will be done
c) what resources will be required
d) when it will be completed
e) how the results will be evaluated
This involves considerations such as
a) analysis of what the organization needs for an effective management

system
b) identification of required components and activities
c) establishing the current situation including, identification of processes
and activities
d) establishing of an implementation plan
e) documentation of procedures
f) ensuring relevant resources are available
g) training of management personnel
h) training of employees
In order to achieve maximum effectiveness and to satisfy customer and

stakeholder expectations, it is essential that the management system be
179
appropriate to the type of activity, products and services being offered and to the
expectation of interested parties.
7. Operational Support for QEEnHSMS Implementation
7.1. Resources
The organization shall determine and provide the resources needed for the
integrated QEEnHSMS for the organizational support for MS implementation.
This shall be carried out during the initial review. Management should identify,
prioritize and provide the appropriate human, information, infrastructure, work
environment and financial resources essential to the implementation of an
organization’s policies and the achievement of all its objectives. To provide
these resources, it may be necessary to:
a) Train or retrain personnel to acquire the necessary skills

b) Seek additional personnel, either on a temporary or permanent basis to
acquire the necessary skills
c) Develop new processes or new working method
d) Obtain additional equipment, which could be rented, leased or
purchased
e) Develop or improve the working environment for all employees
Resources acquiring may include outsourcing.
In addition, for a better human resource management, the organization shall

define the areas of accountability and responsibility of those personnel involved
in the system’s operation.
7.2. Competence
a) determine the necessary competence of person(s) doing work under its

control that affects its integrated QEEnHSMS performance
b) ensure these persons are competent on the basis of appropriate
education, training, or experience,
c) where applicable, take actions to acquire the necessary competence,
and evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken
d) retain appropriate documented information as evidence of competence.
180
These shall be considered as appropriate during personnel selection, recruitment,

training, skill development and ongoing education.
NOTE:
Applicable actions may include, for example: the provision of training to, the
mentoring of, or the re-assignment of current employees; or the hiring or
contracting of competent persons.
7.3. Awareness
Person(s) doing work under the organization’s control shall be aware of:
a) the integrated QEEnHSMS policy

b) their contribution to the effectiveness of the integrated QEEnHSMS,
including the benefits of improved performance
c) the implications of not conforming with the integrated QEEnHSMS
requirements
Improving the performance of an organization requires the involvement and

cooperation of all employees and the development of a supportive organizational
culture. It also requires an environment where employees have the opportunity and
are motivated to effectively contribute as part of the team.
7.4. Communication
The organization shall determine the need of communications relevant to the

integrated QEEnHSMS including during abnormal and emergency conditions
with a number of parties, for example:
a) External parties such as

i) Regulatory or statutory authorities;
ii) The community
iii) The media
b) Internal parties such as
i) Key holders;
ii) Safety and security personnel;
iii) Relevant management personnel
Abnormal condition arises from an activity which does not occur on a routine
basis. But, it causes impact to organization’s integrated QEEnHSMS activities or
management system.
181
Emergency condition arises from activities which cause serious impact to

organization’s integrated QEEnHSMS activities or management system.
The communication activity shall consider what, when and to whom the
organization should communicate.
7.5. Documentation of QEEnHSMS
7.5.1. General
The organization’s integrated QEEnHSMS shall include:
a) documented information required by this standard

b) documented information determined by the organization as
being required for the effectiveness of the integrated
QEEnHSMS which include operational processes and
procedures.
7.5.2. Creating and updating
The process for creating and updating documented information shall

ensure appropriate:
a) Description and document index (e.g. a title, date, author,

number, revision status )
b) format (e.g. language, software version, graphics) and media
(e.g. paper, electronic)
c) review and approval for adequacy
NOTE
The extent of documented information for an integrated QEEnHSMS can differ
from one organization to another due to:
i) the size of organization and its type of activities, processes,
products and services,
ii) the complexity of processes and their interactions, and
iii) the competence of persons
7.5.3. Control of documented information
Documented information required by the organization’s integrated

QEEnHSMS and by this standard shall be controlled.
Control of documented information shall include the following, as
applicable:
a) Access
182
b) Identification
c) Distribution
d) Storage and preservation
e) Retrieval and use
f) Control of changes (e.g. version control)
g) Preservation of legibility (i.e. clear enough to read)
h) Prevention of the unintended use of obsolete information
i) Retention and disposition
Documented information of external origin determined by the
organization to be necessary for the planning and operation of the
integrated QEEnHSMS shall be identified as appropriate, and
controlled. When establishing control of documented information, the
organization shall ensure that there is adequate protection for the
documented information (e.g. protection against compromise,
unauthorized modification or deletion).
NOTE:
Access implies a decision regarding the permission to view the documented
information only, or the permission and authority to view and change the
documented information, etc.
8. Operational Control of QEEnHSMS
8.1. Planning and Controlling of the Process
The organization shall determine, plan, implement and control those processes of
the integrated QEEnHSMS needed to address the risks and opportunities
determined in 6.1 and to meet requirements, by:
a) establishing criteria for those processes

b) implementing the control of these processes in accordance with the
criteria
c) keeping documented information to demonstrate that the processes
have been carried out as planned.
Processes which are important to product or service quality, safety or

environmental impact including significant energy use should be planned,
approved, monitored and controlled. Particular consideration should be given to
product or service characteristics which cannot be easily or economically
measured, and those requiring special skills.
183
The organization shall control planned changes and review the consequences of
unintended changes, taking action to mitigate any adverse effects, as necessary.
When process change is required, management should identify those who are
responsible for authorizing the change, ensuring the implementation of the change
and ensuring the effectiveness of the outcomes is monitored.
Relevant external parties approval shall be sought (such as customer and

regulatory authority), as appropriate.
Also, the organization shall control processes that are contracted-out or

outsourced.
9. Evaluation of Results of QEEnHSMS
9.1. Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation
The organization shall determine:
a) what needs to be measured and monitored;

b) the methods for monitoring, measurement, analysis and
evaluation, as applicable, to ensure valid results.
c) when the monitoring and measuring shall be performed;
d) when the analysis and evaluation of monitoring and
measurement results shall be performed.
The organization shall evaluate the integrated QEEnHS performance and the
effectiveness of the integrated QEEnHSMS in determining its success as well
identifying potential improvement areas.
Also, the organization should establish criteria and associated verification/

validation procedures which will demonstrate that specified requirements have been
met. This is not confined just to products and services, but all aspects of the
organization’s activities such as:
a) provision of products and services;
b) preservation and protection of the environment;
c) provision of a safe working environment;
d) compliance with relevant legislation and regulations;
e) achievement of the organization’s targets and goals.
Additionally, the organization shall:

184
i) take action when necessary to address adverse trends

or results before nonconformity occurs.
ii) retain relevant documented information as evidence
of the results.
NOTE:
Measurement is applicable for factors that directly impact the integrated QEEnHS
element’s performance
9.2. Internal Audit of QEEnHSMS
The organization shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide

information to assist in the determination of whether the integrated QEEnHSMS
a) conforms to
i) the organization’s own requirements for its integrated
QEEnHSMS
ii) the requirements of this integration guide.
b) is effectively implemented and maintained.
The organization shall
a) plan, establish, implement and maintain an audit program(s), including

the frequency, methods, responsibilities, planning requirements and
reporting, while taking into consideration the importance of the
b) processes concerned and the results of previous audits.
c) define the audit criteria and scope for each audit
d) select auditors and conduct audits to ensure objectivity and the
impartiality of the audit process.
e) ensure that the results of the audits are reported to the top management
and other relevant management levels
f) retain documented information as evidence of the results.
9.3. Management Review of QEEnHSMS
Top management shall review the organization's integrated QEEnHSMS, at

planned intervals, to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness.
The management review shall include consideration of:
a) the status of actions from previous management reviews;

185
b) Review of the integrated QEEnHSMS policy

c) information on the integrated QEEnHS performance, including trends
in:
i) monitoring and measurement evaluation results
including
• objectives and targets
• evaluation of compliance to legal and other
requirements,
ii) nonconformities and corrective actions and
iii) audit results
iv) relevant communication with internal and external
parties including complaints
d) changes in external and internal issues that are relevant to the integrated
QEEnHSMS,
e) opportunities for continual improvement
f) projected performance for the following period
The outputs of the management review shall include decisions related to continual
improvement opportunities and the possible need for changes to the integrated
QEEnHSMS.
The organization shall retain documented information as evidence of the results

of management reviews.
10. Improvement
10.1. Nonconformity and corrective action
a) identify nonconformities,
b) react to the nonconformities, and as applicable
i) take action to control, contain and correct them,
ii) deal with the consequences
c) The organization shall also evaluate the need for action to eliminate the
causes of nonconformities, including:
d) reviewing nonconformities
186
e) determining the causes of nonconformities,

f) identifying if potential similar nonconformities exist elsewhere in the
integrated QEEnHSMS
g) Evaluating the need for action to ensure that nonconformities do not
recur or occur elsewhere
h) determining and implementing action needed, and
i) reviewing the effectiveness of any corrective action taken.
j) making changes to the integrated QEEnHSMS, if necessary
Corrective actions shall be appropriate to the effects of the nonconformities

encountered.
The organization shall retain documented information as evidence of the nature

of the nonconformities and any subsequent actions taken, and the results of any
corrective action.
10.2. Continual Improvement
Top management needs to ensure that the implementation of the management

system include provision for continual improvement on a sustainable basis.
Continual improvement refers to the actions taken throughout the organization

to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of activities and processes to
provide added benefits to both the organization and its customers.
NOTE:
The organization can use the processes of the integrated QEEnHSMS such as
leadership, planning and performance evaluation, to achieve improvement.
187
Table 1: Correlation of the Proposed Integrated QEEnHSMS Guide with QMS,

EMS, EnMS and OHSMS
Note: Also added on TQM and Annex SL as additional information
Proposed T QM Annex SL
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
ISO ISO ISO 50001: OHSAS
QEEnHSMS (Besterfiled (previously ISO
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Guidance et, al. , 1995) Guide 83)
0
0
Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction - Introduction
(title only)
1
1
Extent of Scope (title Scope Scope Scope - Scope
M anagement only)
System
Standard
2
2
Normative Normative Normative Normative Normative - Normative
references references references references references references
3
3
Terms and Terms and Terms and Terms and Terms and - Terms and
definitions definitions definitions definitions definitions definitions
4
4
Background Quality Environmental Energy OH&S - Context of the
of the management management management management organization
Organization system (title system system system
only) requirements requirements elements (title
(title only) only)
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
Understandin General General General General - Understanding
g the requirements requirements Requirement requirements the
organization s organization
and its and its context
background
4.2
5.2
4.3.1
4.4.3 4.4.3
4.3.1
4.2
Understandin Customer Environmental Energy Hazard Leadership Understanding
g the needs focus aspects review identification, the needs and
7.2.1
and Determinatio Energy risk expectations of

expectations n of review assessment interested
of interested requirements and parties
parties related to the determining
product controls
7.2.2
4.4.3
Review of Energy
requirements review
related to the
product
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.3
Determining General General General General - Determining

the extent of requirements requirements Requirement requirements the scope of
application of s the xxx
the QEEnHS management
management system
system
4.4
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.4
QEEnHS General General General General - xxx

M anagement requirements requirements Requirement requirements M anagement
system s system
5
4.2
Leadership M anagement - M anagement - Leadership Leadership

responsibility responsibilit
(Title only) y(Title
Only)
5.5
Responsibilit Nil Nil Nil

y, authority,
and
communicatio
n (title only)
188
Clause 5.1
Clause 5.1
Clause 4.2
Clause 4.3
Clause 4.2
Clause 1
Clause 5.1
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Leadership & M anagement Environmental Energy OH&S policy Leadership Leadership &
5.2 Commitment commitment policy policy Commitment
5.1
4.2
4.3
4.2
5.2
Policy M anagement Environmental Energy OH&S policy Leadership Policy
commitment policy policy
5.3
Quality
policy
8.5.1
4
Continual Continuous
improvement Process
Improvement
5.3
5.1
4.4.1
4.2.1
4.4.1
5.3
Organizationa M anagement Resources, Top Resources, Leadership Organizational
l roles, commitment roles, M anagement roles, roles,
responsibilitie responsibility, responsibility responsibilities
s, and authority , and authorities
Accountabiliti accountability
es and and authority
authorities
5.5.2
4.2.2
4.4.1
1
M anagement Resources, M anagement Resources, Leadership
representativ roles, representativ roles,
e responsibility, e responsibility
and authority ,
accountability
and authority
5.5.2
4.2.2
4.4.1
-
M anagement Resources, M anagement Resources, -
representativ roles, representativ roles,
e responsibility, e responsibility
and authority ,
accountability
and authority
6.1
4.2.1
4.4.1
1
Provision of Resources, Top Resources, Leadership
resources roles, M anagement roles,
responsibility, responsibility
and authority ,
accountability
and authority
6.2
Human Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Employee

resources Involvement
(title only)
6
5.4
4.3
4.4
4.3
Preparation Planning Planning Planning Planning Strategic Planning

for Planning
7
4.3.3
4.5
4.4
QEEnHSM S Product Implementatio Implementat Implementati Leadership

Implementati realization n and ion and on and
on operation operation Operation
189
Clause 6.1
Clause 5.2
Clause 4.3.2
Clause 4.4.2
Clause 4.3.2
Clause 1
Clause 6.1
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Actions to Customer Legal and other Legal Legal and Leadership Actions to
address risks focus requirements requirements other address risks
and and other requirements and
opportunities requirements opportunities
of
5.2
4.3.2
4.4.2
4.3.2
3
QEEnHSM S Customer Legal and other Legal Legal and Customer
focus requirements requirements other satisfaction
and other requirements
requirements
5.4.2
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
2
Quality Objectives, Energy Objectives Strategic
management targets and objectives, and Planning
system programme(s) targets and programme(s)
planning energy
management
action plans
6.4
1
Work Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Leadership
environment
7.1
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
Planning of Objectives, Energy Objectives
product targets and objectives, and
realization programme(s) targets and programme(s)
energy
management
action plans
7.2.1
4.3.2
4.4.2
Determinatio Legal and other Legal 4.3.2 Legal and

n of requirements requirements other
requirements and other requirements
related to the requirements
product
7.2.1
4.3.3
4.4.3
4.4.6
Determinatio Operational Energy Operational

n of control review Control
requirements
related to the
product
7.2.2
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
Review of Operational Operational Operational

requirements control Control Control
related to the
product
8.2.3
4.5.2
4.6.2
4.5.2
M onitoring Evaluation of Evaluation Evaluation of

and compliance of compliance
measurement compliance
of processes with legal
requirements
and other
requirements
8.2.4
4.5.2
4.6.2
4.5.2

of product with legal
requirements
and other
requirements
4.4.4 4.4.5
Nil Nil Energy Nil -

baseline
-

performance
indicators
190
Clause 6.2
Clause 5.4.1
Clause 4.3.3
Clause 4.4.6
Clause 4.3.3
Clause 2
Clause 6.2
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
QEEnHSM S Quality Objectives, Energy Objectives Strategic xxx Objectives
Objectives objectives targets and objectives, and Planning and planning to
and planning programme(s) targets and programme(s) achieve them
to achieve energy
them management
action plans
5.4.1
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
Quality Objectives, Energy Objectives
objectives targets and objectives, and
programme(s) targets and programme(s)
energy
management
action plans
5.4.2
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
management targets and objectives, and
planning energy
management
action plans
5.4.2
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
1
Quality Objectives, Energy Objectives Leadership
planning energy
management
action plans
7.2
Customer- Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell

related
process (title
only)
7.3
4.5.6
Design and Empty cell Design Empty cell

development
(title only)
7.3
4.5.6

development
(title only)
8.2.3
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
M onitoring M onitoring M onitoring, Performance

and and measurement measurement
measurement measurement and analysis and
of processes monitoring
8.2.3
4.5.2
4.6.2
4.5.2

of processes with legal
requirements
and other
requirements
8.2.4
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
M onitoring M onitoring M onitoring, Performance

of product monitoring
8.2.4
4.5.2
4.6.2
4.5.2

of product with legal
requirements
and other
requirements
191
Clause 7
Clause 6
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause 1
Clause 7
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Operational Resource Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Leadership Support
Support for management
QEEnHSM S (title only)
Implementati
on
7.1
6.1
4.2.2
7.1
Resources Provision of M anagement - Resources
resources representativ
e
6.2
3
Human Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Employee
(title only)
6.3
4.4.1
4.2.2
4.4.1
1
Infrastructure Resources, M anagement Resources, Leadership
roles, representativ roles,
responsibility, e responsibility
and authority ,
accountability
and authority
7.2
6.2
7.2
Competence Human Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Employee Competence
(title only)
6.2.1
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.4.2
General Competence, Competence, Competence,
training and training and training and
awareness awareness awareness
6.2.2
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.4.2
Competence, Competence, Competence, Competence,

training and training and training and training and
awareness awareness awareness awareness
7.3
6.2
7.3
Awareness Human Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Employee Awareness
(title only)
6.2.1
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.4.2
General Competence, Competence, Competence,

training and training and training and
6.2.2
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.4.2

6.2.2
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.4.2

192
Clause 7.4
Clause 5.5.1
Clause 4.4.1
Clause 4.2.2
Clause 4.4.1
Clause 1
Clause 7.4
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Communicati Responsibilit Resources, M anagement Resources, Leadership Communicatio
on y and roles, representativ roles, n
authority responsibility, e responsibility
and authority ,
accountability
and authority
5.5.1
4.4.1
4.2.2
4.4.1
-
Responsibilit Resources, M anagement Resources, -
y and roles, representativ roles,
and authority ,
accountability
and authority
5.5.1
4.4.1
4.2.2
4.4.1
-
Responsibilit Resources, M anagement Resources, -
y and roles, representativ roles,
and authority ,
accountability
and authority
5.5.3
4.4.3
4.5.3
4.4.3
1/ 2/ 3/ 5
Internal Communicatio Communicat Communicati Leadership/
communicatio n ion on, Customer
n participation Satisfaction/
and Employee
consultation Involvement/
Supplier
Partnership
7.2.3
4.4.3
4.5.3
4.4.3
1
Customer Communicatio Communicat Communicati Leadership
communicatio n ion on,
n participation
and
consultation
7.2.3
4.4.3
4.5.3
4.4.3
Customer Communicatio Communicat Communicati -

communicatio n ion on,
n participation
and
consultation
193
Clause 7.5
Clause 4.2
Clause
Clause 4.5.4
Clause
Clause -
Clause 7.5
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Documented Documentati Nil Documentati Nil - Documented
information on on information
requirements
(title only)
4.2.3
4.4.5
4.5.4.2 4.6.5 4.6.4
4.4.5
-
Control of Control of Control of Control of -
document document documents documents
4.2.4 8.3
4.5.4 4.4.7
4.5.4 4.4.7
-
records records records records
6
Control of Emergency Nonconform Emergency Performance
nonconformin preparedness ities, preparedness M easures
g product and response correction, and response
corrective
action and
preventive
action
8.4
4.5.3
4.6.1
4.5.1
Analysis of Nonconformit M onitoring, Performance Peformance
data y, corrective measurement measurement M easures
action and and analysis and
preventive monitoring
action
8.5.2
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
4
Corrective Nonconformit Nonconform Nonconformit Continuous
action y, corrective ities, y, corrective Process
action and correction, action and Improvement
preventive corrective preventive
action action and action
preventive
action
8.5.3
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
4
Preventive Nonconformit Nonconform Nonconformit Continuous
preventive
action
7.5.1
4.2.1
4.4.4
4.5.4.1
4.4.4
7.5.1
General General Documentation Documentati Documentatio - General
on n
Requirement
s
7.5.2
4.2.2 8.2.2
7.5.2
Creating and Quality - - - - Creating and

updating manual updating
4.5.5
4.6.3
4.5.5
Internal audit Internal audit Internal Internal audit

audit of the
EnM S
7.5.3
4.2.3
4.4.5
4.5.4.2 4.6.5
4.4.5
7.5.3
Control of Control of Control of Control of Control of - Control of

documented document document documents documents documented
information information
4.2.4
4.5.4
4.5.4
Control of Control of Control of Control of

194
Clause 8
Clause 7
Clause 4.3.3
Clause 4.5
Clause 4.4
Clause 1
Clause 8
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Operational Product Implementatio Implementat Implementati Leadership Operation
Control of realization n and ion and on and
QEEnHSM S operation operation Operation
8.1
7.1
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
8.1
Planning and Planning of Objectives, Energy Objectives Leadership Operational
controlling of product targets and objectives, and planning and
the Process realization programme(s) targets and programme(s) control
energy
management
action plans
7.3.1
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
Design and Operational Operational Operational Leadership
development control Control Control
planning
7.3.1
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
-
Design and Operational Operational Operational -
planning
7.3.2
4.4.6
4.4.2
4.4.6
1
Design and Operational Legal Operational Leadership
development control requirements Control
inputs and other
requirements
7.3.2
4.4.6
4.4.2
4.4.6
-
Design and Operational Legal Operational -
development control requirements Control
inputs and other
requirements
7.3.3
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6

outputs
7.3.3
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6

outputs
7.3.4
4.4.6
4.6.2
4.4.6
Design and Operational Evaluation Operational Leadership

development control of Control
review compliance
with legal
requirements
and other
requirements
195
Clause 8.1
Clause 7.3.4
Clause 4.4.6
Clause 4.6.2
Clause 4.4.6
Clause -
Clause 8.1
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Planning and Design and Operational Evaluation Operational - Operational
controlling of development control of Control planning and
the Process review compliance control
(Continued) with legal (Continued)
requirements
and other
requirements
7.3.5
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
verification
7.3.5
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
-
verification
7.3.6
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
validation
7.3.6
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
-
validation
7.3.7
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
Control of Operational Operational Operational Leadership
design and control Control Control
development
changes
7.3.7
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
-
Control of Operational Operational Operational -
development
changes
7.4
4.4.6
4.5.7
4.4.6
1
Purchasing Operational Procurement Operational Leadership
control of energy Control
services,
products,
equipment
and energy
7.4
4.4.6
4.5.7
4.4.6
Purchasing Operational Procurement Operational -

control of energy Control
services,
products,
equipment
and energy
7.4.1
4.4.0
4.5.7
4.4.6
Purchasing Operational Procurement Operational Leadership

process control of energy Control
services,
products,
equipment
and energy
196
Clause 8.1
Clause 7.4.1
Clause 4.4.6
Clause 4.5.7
Clause 4.4.6
Clause -
Clause 8.1
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Planning and Purchasing Operational Procurement Operational - Operational
controlling of process control of energy Control planning and
the Process services, control
(Continued) products, (Continued)
equipment
and energy
7.4.2 7.4.2 7.4.3
4.4.6 4.4.6 4.4.6
4.5.5 4.5.5 4.5.5
4.4.6 4.4.6 4.4.6
1
Purchasing Operational Operational Operational Leadership
information control Control Control
-
Purchasing Operational Operational Operational -
5
Verification Operational Operational Operational Supplier
of purchased control Control Control Partnership
product
7.4.3
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
-
Verification Operational Operational Operational -
of purchased control Control Control
product
7.5
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
Production Empty cell Operational Operational Leadership
and service Control Control
provision
(title only)
7.5.1
4.4.6
4.5.1
4.4.6
1
Control of Operational General Operational Leadership
production control Control
and service
provision
7.5.1
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
Control of Operational Operational Operational Leadership
production control Control Control
and service
provision
7.5.2
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
Validation of Operational Operational Operational Leadership
processes for control Control Control
production
and service
provision
7.5.3
Identification Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Leadership

and
traceability
7.5.4 7.5.5
Customer Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Leadership

property
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
Preservation Operational Operational Operational Leadership

of product control Control Control
197
Clause 9
Clause 8
Clause 4.5
Clause 4.6
Clause 4.5
Clause 6
Clause 9
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Evaluation of M easurement Checking Checking Checking Performance Performance
Results of , analysis and M easures evaluation
QEEnHSM S improvement
9.1
7.6
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
9.1
M onitoring, Control of M onitoring M onitoring, Performance Leadership M onitoring,
measurement, monitoring and measurement measurement measurement,
analysis and and measurement and analysis and analysis and
evaluation measuring monitoring evaluation
equipment
8.1
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
6
General M onitoring M onitoring, Performance Performance
and measurement measurement M easures
measurement and analysis and
monitoring
8.2
6
M onitoring Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Performance
and M easures
measurement
(title only)
8.2.1 8.2.3
2
Customer Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Customer
satisfaction satisfaction
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
-
M onitoring M onitoring M onitoring, Performance -
of processes monitoring
8.2.4
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
1
M onitoring M onitoring M onitoring, Performance Leadership
of product monitoring
8.3
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
6
Control of Nonconformit Nonconform Nonconformit Performance
nonconformin y, corrective ities, y, corrective M easures
g product action and correction, action and
preventive
action
8.3
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
Control of Nonconformit Nonconform Nonconformit Performance

nonconformin y, corrective ities, y, corrective M easures
g product action and correction, action and
preventive
action
8.4
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
Analysis of M onitoring M onitoring, Performance Performance

data and measurement measurement M easures
monitoring
8.4
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
Analysis of M onitoring M onitoring, Performance Performance

data and measurement measurement M easures
monitoring
198
Clause 9.2
Clause 8.2.2
Clause 4.5.5
Clause 4.6.3
Clause 4.5.5
Clause -
Clause 9.2
9001:2008 14001:2004 2011 18001:2007
Internal audit Internal audit Internal audit Internal Internal audit - Internal audit
of audit of the
QEEnHSM S EnM S
9.3
5.1
4.6
4.7
4.6
9.3
M anagement M anagement M anagement M anagement M anagement Leadership M anagement
review of commitment review Review Review review
5.6
4.6
4.7
4.6
6
QEEnHSM S M anagement M anagement M anagement M anagement Performance
review (title review Review Review M easures
only)
5.6.1 5.6.2
4.6
4.7.1 4.7.2
4.6
6
General M anagement General M anagement Performance
review Review M easures
4.6
4.6
6
Review input M anagement Input to M anagement Performance
review M anagement Review M easures
Review
5.6.3
4.6
4.7.3
4.6
6
Review M anagement Output from M anagement Performance
output review M anagement Review M easures
Review
10
8.5
10
Improvement Improvement Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Continuous Improvement
(title only) Process
Improvement
10.1
8.5.2
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
10.1
Nonconformit Corrective Nonconformit Nonconform Nonconformit Continuous Nonconformit
y and action y, corrective ities, y, corrective Process y and
corrective action and correction, action and Improvement corrective
action preventive corrective preventive action
preventive
action
8.5.3
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
4
Preventive Nonconformit Nonconform Nonconformit Continuous
preventive
action
4.5.3
Nil Nil Nil Incident -

investigation,
nonconformit
y, corrective
action and
preventive
action
4.5.3.1 4.3.3

investigation
10.2
8.5.1
4.3.3
4.4.6
10.2
Continual Continual Objectives, Energy Objectives Continuous Continual

improvement improvement targets and objectives, and Process improvement
programme(s) targets and programme(s) Improvement
energy
management
action plans
8.5.1
4.6
4.7
4.6
Continual M anagement M anagement M anagement Continuous

improvement review Review Review Process
Improvement
199
Bibliography
1) ISO9001:2008, Quality Management System -Requirements

2) ISO 14001:2004, Environmental Management System –Requirements with
Guidance for Use
3) OHSAS 18001:2007, Occupational Health and Safety Management System -
Requirements
4) ISO 50001:2011, Energy Management Systems- Requirements with
Guidance for Use
5) PAS99:2012 , Specification of Common Management System requirement as
a framework for integration
6) AS/ NZS4581:1999, Management System Integration- Guidance to business,
government and community organizations
7) M.G. Brown; 2008; Balridge Award Winning Quality; CRC Press; 1st
Edition.
8) Malaysia Productivity Corporation; Business Excellence Programme:
Journey Towards Enhancing Productivity and Competitiveness;
www.mpc.gov.my/mpc/images/file/BE%20Guidebook%2023%20Ogos%202
011.pdf
9) D.H. Besterfield, C.B. Michna, G.H. Besterfield, M. Besterfield; 1995; Total
Quality Management; Prentice Hall Inc.,
200
APPENDIX G
Proposed Framework and Guidance Document for the Integrated Management

System (IMS) of Quality, Environment, Energy and Occupational Health and
Safety Management Systems
Version: Revised based on Expert Opinion (Round 1 ) comments
Nov 2014
201
Table of Content
Clause Description of Content Page No.

No.
Introduction 4
1 Scope 5
2 Normative references 6
3 Terms and definitions 6
4 Context of the Organization 10
4.1 Understanding the organization and its Context 10
4.2 Understanding the Needs and Expectations of Interested Parties 11
4.3 Determining the Scope of the IMS 13
4.4 IMS 14
5 Leadership 14
5.1 Leadership and Commitment 14
5.2 Policy 15
5.3 Organizational Roles, Responsibilities and Authorities 16
6 Planning 17
6.1 Actions to address risk and opportunities 17
6.2 IMS Objectives and planning to achieve them 18
7 Support 19
7.1 Resources 19
7.2 Competence 19
7.3 Awareness 20
7.4 Communication 20
7.5 Documented Information 20
7.5.1 General 20
7.5.2 Creating and updating 21
7.5.3 Control of documented information 21
8 Operation 22
8.1 Operational Planning and Control 22
9 Performance Evaluation 23
9.1 Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation 23
9.2 Internal Audit 24
9.3 Management Review 25
10 Improvement 26
10.1 Nonconformity and corrective action 26
10.2 Continual Improvement 27
Bibliography 47
202
Introduction
This guidance document is intended to be used as a framework and guidance for

implementing Integrated Management System (IMS) that comprise of Quality
Management System (QMS), Environmental Management System (EMS),
Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) and Energy
Management System (EnMS). It draws together the common requirements in the
mentioned management system standards (MSS)s.
Context of the Organization
Leadersh
ip
Improveme
nt Planning
1
CONTI
NU
Performan AL
Support
ce IM
Evaluation
PR
Requir OV
Operatio Satisfa
e n EM ct
EN
T
I O
p u
r t
o p
Clause c
u
nume
t
bers
s
Figure 2: Framework for the IMS
Since this document is intended to be used in the integration of QMS,

EMS, OHSMS and EnMS, the compliance to this framework and guidance
document should ensure compliance with the mentioned MSSs. The
framework of the IMS is as shown in Figure 1. It follows the Plan-Do-Check-
Act (PDCA) continual improvement framework and incorporates IMS into the
organizational practices.
203
In the context of the IMS, PDCA approach can be outlined as follows
• PLAN
- Conduct assessment to identify risks and opportunities, objectives,
targets and action plans necessary to improve the IMS according to
the policy.
• DO
- Implement the IMS within the organization.
• CHECK
- Monitor and measure processes and key characteristics of
operation that determine the IMS performance against the policy
and objectives, and report the results;
• ACT
- Take actions to continually improve the IMS.
This framework and guidance document of IMS is intended to assists the

organizations in reducing duplication and complexity of management system. The
expectation of this guidance document is to enable process management that
ensures product is produced and service is delivered at the required quality level
in a safe and ecologically sustainable manner.
1. Scope
This IMS guidance documents includes ISO 9001:2008 QMS, ISO 14001:2004 EMS,
ISO 50001:2011 EnMS and OHSAS 18001:2007 OHSMS. This guide does not
replicate or replace the existing management system standard and its requirements. It
is applicable to all size, types and functions of organizations.
With this guide, the users will have assistance for the
a) combination of the non-integrated MSSs implemented in an organization

(within the IMS), and
b) implementation of the IMS for organization who is newly implementing it
towards a unified standard.
204
2. Normative references
These standards are included in this integration guidance document subscription:
i) ISO 9001:2008, Quality Management System -Requirements

ii) ISO 14001:2004, Environmental Management System –Requirements with
Guidance for Use
iii) OHSAS 18001:2007, Occupational Health and Safety Management System -
Requirements
iv) ISO 50001:2011, Energy Management Systems- Requirements with
Guidance for Use
3. Terms and definitions

A management system that integrates all of an organization’s systems and
processes into one complete framework, enabling an organization to work
as a single unit with unified objectives. In this guidance document, it is
integration of four (4) standards namely Quality Management System
(QMS), Environmental Management System (EMS), Energy Management
System (EnMS) and Occupational Health and Safety Management System
(OHSMS).
3.2. Organization
Person or group of people that has its own functions with responsibilities,
authorities and relationships to achieve its objectives.
3.3. Interested party/ stakeholder
Person or organization or group of people that has its own functions with
responsibilities, authorities and relationships to achieve its objectives. E.g.
customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, government,
environmentalist, consumer defense, Special Interest Group (SIG), media
and public.
3.4. Requirement
Need or expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory.
3.5. Management system

205
Set of interrelated or interacting elements of an organization to establish

policies and objectives and processes to achieve those objectives.
NOTE:
In the context of this guidance document, it includes QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS.
3.6. Top management

A person or group of people who directs and controls an organization at
the highest level. This includes power to delegate authority and provide
resources within the organization.
3.7. Effectiveness
Extent to which planned activities are realized and planned results

achieved.
3.8. Policy
Intentions and direction of an organization as formally expressed by its top

management.
3.9. Objective
Result to be achieved through a strategic, tactical or operational statement for

the organization.
3.10. Risk
Effect of uncertainty
NOTE:
- An effect is a deviation from the expected- positive or negative
- Uncertainty is the state, even partial, of efficiency of information related to,
understanding or knowledge of, an event, its consequence, or likelihood.
- Risk is often characterized by reference to potential events and consequences,
or a combination of these.
- Risk is often expressed in terms of a combination of the consequences of an
event (including changes in circumstances) and the associated likelihood of
occurrence.
3.11. Competence
Ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results
3.12. Documented information

206
Information are required to be controlled and maintained by an organization

and the medium on which it is contained
NOTE:
- Documented information can be in any format and media, and from any source.
- Documented information can refer to:
• the management system, including related processes;
• information created in order for the organization to operate
(documentation);
• evident of results achieved (records).
3.13. Process
Set of interrelated or interacting activities which transform inputs into
outputs.
3.14. Performance
Measurable result
NOTE:
- Performance can relate either to quantitative or qualitative findings.
- Performance can relate to the management of activities, processes, products
(including services), systems or organizations.
3.15. Outsource (verb)

Make an arrangement where an external organization performs part of an
organization’s function or process
NOTE:
- An external organization is outside the scope of the management system,
although the outsourced function or process is within the scope.
3.16. Monitoring
Determining the status of a system, a process or an activity
NOTE:
- To determine the status there may be a need to check, supervise or critically observe.
3.17. Measurement
Process to determine a value
3.18. Audit
207
Systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence

and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit
criteria are fulfilled
NOTE:
- An audit can be an internal audit (first party) or an external audit
(second party or third party),
- and it can be a combined audit (combining two or more disciplines).
“Audit evidence” and “audit criteria” are defined in ISO 19011.
3.19. Conformity
Fulfillment of a requirement
3.20. Nonconformity
Non-fulfillment of a requirement
3.21. Correction
Action to eliminate a detected nonconformity
3.22. Corrective action
Action to eliminate the cause of nonconformity and to prevent recurrence
3.23. Continual improvement
Recurring activity to enhance performance
4. Context of the Organization
4.1. Understanding the organization and its context
The organization should determine its internal and external issues that are relevant
to the purpose of its IMS and that affect its ability to achieve the intended
outcome of its IMS.
The organization should:
a) determine the processes needed for the integration of QMS, EMS,

OHSMS and EnMS i.e. the IMS and their application throughout the
organization.
208
b) determine the sequence of interaction of these processes within the

IMS.
c) determine criteria and methods needed to ensure both internal and
external issues the operation and control of these processes are effective
and aligned with its IMS.
d) ensure the availability of resources and information necessary to
support the operation and monitoring of these processes within the
IMS.
e) assess, monitor, measure where applicable and analyze that these
processes are aligned with its IMS and
f) implement actions necessary to achieve planned results of the IMS
These processes should be managed by the organization in accordance with the

requirements of this guidance document.
When organization chooses to outsource any process that affects product/ process
conformity to requirements, the organization should ensure control over such
processes/ activities. The type and extent of control to be applied to outsourced
processes should be defined within the IMS.
Suggestions for Practice:
A detailed Quality Plan that aligns QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS requirements in
parallel.
E.g. Incoming goods receiving
Process QMS EMS OHSMS EnMS
Receiving Product • RoHS compliance • Potential • Energy use rate

compliant to • Potential pollution harm to the • Potential of saving
quality threat user
requirements • Potential by • Potential
product and its harm to the
threat end user
4.2. Understanding the Needs and Expectations of Interested Parties
The organization should determine:
a) the interested parties that are relevant to the IMS and
b) the relevant requirements of these interested parties.
The organization should identify, document, implement, and have access to the
applicable requirements, including legal and other requirements to which the
209
organization subscribes related to its QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS as

applicable and appropriate.
In view of the stakeholder expectations, considerations should be taken according

to organizations’ nature of business, processes, activities and services, such as:
i) Customer-
- Feasibility study should be carried out by the
relevant functions within the organization, in
order to understand the gap between product or
service required against the organizations’
capacity and capability.
ii) Employee
- Motivation and empowerment of employees
should be enhanced through the employee
involvement at relevant function and level of the
organization.
iii) Owners
- Owner should set clear policy and objectives
towards the future direction of the business
organization.
iv) Suppliers
- The organization should develop strategic
partnership with the suppliers by establishing
valuable supply chain management in-line with
the clear policy and objectives set by the
organization.
v) Community
- The organization should develop concerns of the
public regarding the matters relating to IMS risk.
vi) Government
- The organization should identify applicable
regulatory and statutory requirement and
perform evaluation of compliance periodically
and made the information available to all
employees.
210
This should include identification and assessment of risk / potential risk of IMS.
This activity should be documented. The assessment result should be applied
as a basis of establishing, implementing and maintaining the IMS.
The IMS risk assessment should take into account:
a) routine and non-routine activities;

b) activities of all persons having access to the workplace (including
contractors and visitors);
c) human behavior, capabilities and other human factors;
d) identified risk originating outside the workplace capable of adversely
affecting the IMS of the organization;
e) risk created by work-related activities under the control of the
organization;
f) infrastructure, equipment and materials, whether provided by the
organization or others;
g) changes or proposed changes in the organization, its activities,
products or services;
h) modifications to the IMS, including temporary changes, and their
impacts on its activities, products or services;
i) any applicable legal obligations relating to risk assessment relating to
IMS and implementation of necessary controls
j) the design of work areas, processes, installations,
machinery/equipment, operating procedures and work organization,
including their adaptation to human capabilities.
It should also be consistent with the IMS policy established by the organization
and should lead to activities that continually improve the organization’s
performance.
A register of legal and other requirements should be established. Beside the act and
regulations stated below, others as relevant to activities, product and services,
Act QMS EMS OHSMS EnMS

• Customer Requirements x x x x
• EHS X
• EQA X
• OSHA X
• FMA X X
• FSA X X
211
• EMEER X
• ESA X
• Others
The requirements have to be summarized into a register that explains the compliance
activity by the organization including the person-in-charge and the timeline. This
eventually becomes the Legal and Other Requirement Register of the company.
4.3. Determining the Scope of the IMS
The organization should determine the needs, boundaries and applicability of the
IMS to establish its scope of QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS.
When determining this scope, the organization should consider conducting an
initial review which consist of but not limited to:
a) the processes referred to in 4.1; and
b) the requirements referred to in 4.2.
The scope should be made available as documented information.
Describe the scope and boundaries of each system. Then, synchronize and summarize
it as IMS scope and boundaries. It is important to establish an individual “scope
and boundaries” since some organization do not apply all the MSS throughout the
company or exclude some areas of the business process from MSSs due to the
management decisions.
Process QMS EMS OHSMS EnMS IMS
Scope
Boundary
2.0
4.4. IMS
The organization should establish, implement, maintain and continually improve

the management system, including the processes needed and their interactions,
in accordance with the requirements of this IMS guidance document and the
management system standards/specifications to which it subscribes as defined in
the 4.3 and Clause 2.0 Normative Reference.
This is an emphasis to ensure systems are implemented, monitored and maintained

with the intention of improving the system and achieving the continual
improvement and ensuring a “live” system practice within the organization.
212
5. Leadership
5.1. Leadership and Commitment
Top management and other relevant management roles throughout the

organization should demonstrate leadership with respect to the IMS by:
i) ensuring that the IMS policy and IMS objectives are established are
established and are compatible with the strategic direction of the
organization;
ii) ensuring the integration of the IMS into the organization’s business
process;
iii) ensuring that the resources needed for the IMS are available
iv) communicating the importance of effective IMS and of conforming to the
IMS requirements
v) ensuring that the IMS achieves its intended outcome(s);
vi) directing and supporting the persons to contribute to the effectiveness of
the IMS
vii) promoting continual improvement
viii) supporting other relevant management roles to demonstrate their
leadership as it applies to their areas of responsibility.
i) This can also be shown, for example, by motivating and empowering persons to
contribute to the effectiveness of the IMS.
ii) The leaders serve as the representative of the management of the organization.
Therefore, the roles and responsibilities of each leader should be clearly defined to
ensure effective job function and task delegation.
iii) It can also be reflected through a matrix of roles and responsibilities against the clauses
which should be developed during the IMS implementation stage to make clear of
individuals and departments roles and responsibities.
5.2. Policy
Top management should establish an IMS policy. The policy should:
a) is appropriate to the purpose of the organization,

b) provide a framework for setting and reviewing of the IMS
objectives;
213
c) include a commitment to satisfy applicable requirements including

legal, customer and other requirements
d) include a commitment to continual improvement of the IMS
The IMS policy should
a) be made available as a documented information

b) be communicated within the organization
c) be available to interested parties and public, as appropriate
d) is regularly reviewed, and updated as necessary
The organization should retain documented information on the IMS policy and
the cross-references to its objectives and target set.
The policy should consider
i) mission, vision, core values and beliefs of the organization,

ii) the harmony with the IMS components spelled out within this
guidance document
iii) achieving stakeholder requirements
iv) commitment towards minimizing the IMS risks and continual
improvement
5.3. Organizational Roles, Responsibilities and Authorities
Top management should ensure that the responsibilities and authorities for
relevant roles are assigned and communicated within the organization.
Top management should assign the responsibility and authority for
a) ensuring that the IMS conforms to the requirements of this guidance

document
b) reporting on the performance of the IMS to top management
The responsibilities and authorities should be clearly defined and documented, as

which should promote towards the organization’s achievement of the policy
and objectives.
i) Since the management roles throughout the organization should demonstrate

leadership (as per 5.1) to the IMS, the leaders should not be limited to only
214
the “Management Representatives” of the organization. The appointed

administrator of each area of IMS should take the lead together i.e. the
leading role in quality and environmental managements, the OHS officer and
the Energy Manager and the equivalent positions.
ii) In addition to the leaders, the roles, responsibilities and authorities of the
people working for and on behalf of the company should also be made clear
by the organization
iii) The exercise of clause 5.3 should be accounted in line with the requirements
of clause 6.
6. Planning
6.1. Actions to address risk and opportunities
The organization should consider the issues referred to in 4.1 and the
requirements referred to in 4.2 and determine the risks and opportunities that
need to be addressed, through initial review, to
a) assure the management system can achieve its intended

outcome(s)
b) extent of legal and other requirements applicability pertaining to
the identified risks
c) prevent or reduce, undesired effects
d) realize opportunities for improvement.
a) evaluate the need to plan actions to address these risks and opportunities, and
b) determine where applicable, on how to
i) integrate and implement these actions into its IMS processes

(see 8.1)
ii) ensure information will be available to evaluate if the actions
have been effective (see 9.1)
i) For the initial review purpose, develop a matrix of activities, product/ services against
the risk related to QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS simultaneously based on (but not
limited to)
- Interview with the people working for or on behalf of the company
- Evaluating the internal and external communication that have taken place
- Gathering info relating the risks in terms of IMS relating to the existing activities,
products, and services i.e. Purchasing, design, emergency preparedness and
215
response, allocation of resources, IMS related trainings, operational control

procedures of the existing process, monitoring and measurement records data
retrieval etc.
ii) Further proceed with assessment of the risk and develop the Significant Risk List.
iii) A method of assessment need to be developed and documented.
6.2. IMS Objectives and planning to achieve them
Top management should ensure that IMS objectives are established and
communicated for relevant functions and levels within the organization based
on the results of 6.1.
The IMS objectives should:
a) be consistent with the IMS policy

b) be measurable
c) take into account applicable requirements including legal and other
requirements
d) be monitored and updated as appropriate
The organization should retain documented information on the IMS objectives.
To achieve its IMS objectives, the organization should determine:
a) who will be responsible

b) what will be done
c) what resources will be required
d) when it will be completed
e) how the results will be evaluated
This involves considerations such as
a) analysis of what the organization needs for an effective management

system based on the risk assessment activities
b) identification of required components and activities
c) establishing the current situation including, identification of processes
and activities
d) establishing of an implementation plan
e) documentation of procedures
f) ensuring relevant resources are available
g) training of management personnel
h) training of employees
216
In order to achieve maximum effectiveness and to satisfy customer and stakeholder

expectations, it is essential that the management system be appropriate to the type
of activity, products and services being offered and to the expectation of interested
parties.
7. Support
7.1. Resources
The organization should determine and provide the resources needed for the
establishment, implementation, maintenance and continual improvement of
the IMS. In addition, for a better human resource management, the
organization should define the areas of responsibilities and authorities of
those personnel involved in the system’s operation as required in Clause 5.3.
i) This should be carried out during the initial review. Management

should identify, prioritize and provide the appropriate human,
information, infrastructure, work environment and financial resources
essential to the implementation of an organization’s policies and the
achievement of all its objectives.
ii) To provide these resources, it may be necessary to:
- Train or retrain personnel to acquire the necessary skills

- Seek additional personnel, either on a temporary or permanent basis to
acquire the necessary skills
- Develop new processes or new working method
- Obtain additional equipment, which could be rented, leased or
purchased
- Develop or improve the working environment for all employees
The resources acquiring may include outsourcing.
7.2. Competence
a) determine the necessary competence of person(s) doing work under its

control that affects its IMS performance
b) ensure these persons are competent on the basis of appropriate
education, training, or experience,
217
c) where applicable, take actions to acquire the necessary competence,

and evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken
d) retain appropriate documented information as evidence of competence.
i) These should be considered as appropriate during personnel selection, recruitment,

training, skill development and ongoing education.
ii) Applicable actions may include, for example: the provision of training to, the
mentoring of, or the re-assignment of current employees; or the hiring or
contracting of competent persons.
7.3. Awareness
Person(s) doing work under the organization’s control should be aware of:
a) the IMS policy

b) their contribution to the effectiveness of the IMS, including the benefits
of improved IMS performance
c) the implications of not conforming with the IMS requirements
Improving the performance of an organization requires the involvement and

cooperation of all employees and the development of a supportive organizational
culture. It also requires an environment where employees have the opportunity and
are motivated to effectively contribute as part of the team.
7.4. Communication
The organization should determine the need (internal and external) of

communications relevant to the IMS including what, when, how and to whom
the organization should communicate.
a) This include communication during abnormal and emergency conditions with

a number of parties, for example:
i) External parties such as
- Regulatory or statutory authorities;
- The community
- The media
ii) Internal parties such as
- Key holders;
218
- Safety and security personnel;

- Relevant management personnel
b) Abnormal condition arises from an activity which does not occur on a routine
basis. But, it causes impact to organization’s IMS activities or management
system.
c) Emergency condition arises from activities which cause serious impact to
organization’s IMS activities or management system.
7.5. Documented Information
7.5.1. General
The organization’s IMS should include:
c) documented information required by this IMS guidance

document
d) documented information determined by the organization as
being necessary for the effectiveness of the IMS.
This includes operational processes and procedures.
The extent of documented information for an IMS can differ from one organization to
another due to:
iv) the size of organization and its type of activities, processes,

products and services,
v) the complexity of processes and their interactions,
vi) the complexity of its IMS and
vii) the competence of persons
7.5.2. Creating and updating
The process for creating and updating documented information should

ensure appropriate:
a) Description and document index (e.g. a title, date, author,

number, revision status )
b) format (e.g. language, software version, graphics) and media
(e.g. paper, electronic)
c) review and approval for adequacy
219
7.5.3. Control of documented information
Documented information required by the organization’s IMS guidance

document should be controlled to ensure:
a) it is available and suitable for use, where and when it is needed;
b) it is adequately protected (e.g. from loss of confidentiality,
improper use, or loss of integrity).
For the control of documented information should include the
following, as applicable:
j) Access
k) Identification
l) Distribution
m) Storage and preservation
n) Retrieval and use
o) Control of changes (e.g. version control)
p) Storage and preservation, including preservation of legibility
(i.e. clear enough to read)
q) Prevention of the unintended use of obsolete information
r) Retention and disposition
Documented information of external origin determined by the
organization to be necessary for the planning and operation of the IMS
should be identified as appropriate, and controlled. When establishing
control of documented information, the organization should ensure that
there is adequate protection for the documented information (e.g.
protection against compromise, unauthorized modification or deletion).
Access implies a decision regarding the permission to view the documented information
only, or the permission and authority to view and change the documented information, etc
8. Operation
8.1. Operational Planning and Control
The organization should determine, plan, document, implement and control those
processes of the IMS needed to address the risks and opportunities determined
in 6.1 and to meet requirements by:
220
a) establishing criteria for those processes

b) implementing the control of these processes in accordance with the
criteria
c) keeping documented information to demonstrate that the processes
have been carried out as planned.
The organization should control planned changes and review the consequences of
unintended changes, taking action to mitigate any adverse effects, as necessary.
Also, the organization should ensure that outsourced processes are controlled.
Records relating to operational control, changes applied and outsourcing should be

maintained, as appropriate.
i) Based on the risk and opportunities identified during the activities in clause 6,
determine the operational control procedures required for the IMS. This should
include process control, purchasing, design, facilities and infrastructure
management and others as relevant to the operation.
ii) The Processes should be prioritized by the product or service quality expectation
and safety or environmental impact including significant energy use. It should be
planned, documented, approved, monitored and controlled.
iii) Particular consideration should be given to product or service characteristics which
cannot be easily or economically measured, and those requiring special skills.
iv) When process change is required, management should identify those who are
responsible for authorizing the change, ensuring the implementation of the change
and ensuring the effectiveness of the outcomes are monitored.
v) Relevant external parties approval should be sought (such as customer and
regulatory authority), as appropriate.
9. Performance Evaluation
9.1. Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation
The organization should determine:
a) what needs to be measured and monitored;

b) the methods for monitoring, measurement, analysis and
evaluation, as applicable, to ensure valid results.
c) when the monitoring and measuring should be performed;
d) when the analysis and evaluation of monitoring and
measurement results should be performed.
221
The organization should retain appropriate documented information as evidence of the

results.
The organization should evaluate the IMS performance and the effectiveness of the IMS
in determining its success as well identifying potential improvement areas.
i) The organization should establish criteria and associated verification/ validation

procedures which will demonstrate that specified requirements have been met.
This is not confined just to products and services, but all aspects of the
organization’s activities such as:
f) provision of products and services;
g) preservation and protection of the environment;
h) provision of a safe working environment;
i) compliance with relevant legislation and regulations;
j) achievement of the organization’s targets and goals.
ii) The organization should take action when necessary to address adverse trends or
results before nonconformity occurs and retain relevant documented information
as evidence of the results.
iii) Measurement is applicable for factors that directly impact the IMS element’s
performance
9.2. Internal Audit
9.2.1. The organization should conduct internal audits at planned intervals to

provide information to assist in the determination of whether the IMS
a) conforms to
i) the organization’s own requirements for its IMS
ii) the requirements of this guidance document.
b) is effectively implemented and maintained.
9.2.2. The organization should

a) plan, establish, implement and maintain an audit program(s), including
the frequency, methods, responsibilities, planning requirements and
reporting, while taking into consideration the importance of the
processes concerned and the results of previous audits.
b) define the audit criteria and scope for each audit
c) select auditors and conduct audits to ensure objectivity and the
impartiality of the audit process.
222
d) ensure that the results of the audits are reported to the top management
and other relevant management levels
e) retain documented information as evidence of the implementation of
the audit programs and the audit results.
i) Internal audit should be conducted at planned intervals to determine and provide

information to management conformance of the audited area towards its planned
arrangements or identifying opportunities for improvements.
ii) Each internal audit may not have to cover to entire system. However, the audit program
should ensure all the organization’s units and functions, system elements and full scope of
the IMS are audited periodically.
9.3. Management Review
Top management should review the organization's IMS, at planned intervals, to

ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness.
The management review should include consideration of:
a) the status of actions from previous management reviews;

b) Review of the IMS policy
c) information on the IMS performance, including trends in:
i) monitoring and measurement results including
• objectives and targets
• evaluation of compliance to legal and other
requirements,
ii) nonconformities and corrective actions and
iii) audit results
iv) relevant communication with internal and external
parties including complaints
d) changes in external and internal issues that are relevant to the IMS,
e) opportunities for continual improvement
f) projected performance for the following period
223
The outputs of the management review should include decisions related to

continual improvement opportunities and the possible need for changes to the
IMS.
The organization should retain documented information as evidence of the results

of management reviews.
i) Records of management review includes meeting agenda, list of attendees,

handouts or presentation material and management decision recorded in any form
of medium such as memo to file, reports, minutes or tracking system.
ii) Organization should decide on who should be the participant of the Management
Review activity.
10. Improvement
10.1. Nonconformity and corrective action
When nonconformity occurs, the organization should:
a) identify nonconformities,
b) react to the nonconformities, and as applicable
i) take action to control, contain and correct them,
ii) deal with the consequences
c) evaluate the need for action to eliminate the causes of nonconformities
in order that it does not recur or occur elsewhere by :
i) Reviewing the nonconformities
ii) determining the causes of nonconformities,
iii) determining if potential similar nonconformities exist
elsewhere in the IMS
d) determining and implementing action needed, and
e) reviewing the effectiveness of any corrective action taken.
f) making changes to the IMS, if necessary
Corrective actions should be appropriate to the effects of the nonconformities

encountered.
The organization should retain documented information as evidence of

224
i) the nature of the nonconformities and any

subsequent actions taken, and
ii) the results of any corrective action.
The emergency response and preparedness should also be addressed as non-

conformity and should be dealt with by applying relevant corrective action to
mitigate severity of the consequences of the occurrence.

Failure modes should be identified, rectified and documented at planning stage together with the
suggestion of perceived action plans. This minimizes the risk of potential non-conformities.
Should the action plans are not applicable for any reason; it should also be documented for
future reference of any similar product/ process/ service.
10.2. Continual Improvement
Top management needs to ensure that the implementation of the IMS including the
provision for continual improvement on a sustainable basis through delivery of
goods or services within the required quality level in a safe and ecologically
sustainable manner.
Continual improvement refers to the actions taken throughout the organization to

increase the effectiveness and efficiency of activities and processes to provide
added benefits to both the organization and its customers.
i) Top management should involve directly in the in the evaluation of continual

improvement process through the management review process.
ii) Some useful information for the continual improvement are
- Experienced gained from nonconformities and corrective action taken to
address them
- Benchmarking against the best practices
- Results of first, second and third party audits
- Process monitoring and measurement results
- Results of progress towards achieving objectives and targets
- Views of interested parties and stakeholders
iii) When opportunities for improvement are identified, determine actions that should
be taken.
iv) The actions for improvement should be planned and the changed to the IMS should
be implemented according to the plan.
225
Table 2: Correlation of the Proposed Integrated Management System Guide for the
integration of QMS, EMS, EnMS and OHSMS
Note: Also added on TQM, Annex SL, Malaysian BE and Balridge Excellence
Framework 2015-2016
ISO 14001:
Proposed Balridge Annex SL
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
IMS ISO 9001: ISO 50001: Malaysian Excellence (previously
18001:
Guidance 2008 2011 BE Framework ISO Guide
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
0
0
Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction - Introduction
(title only)
1
1
Scope Scope(title Scope Scope Scope - Scope
only)
2
2
Normative Normative Normative Normative Normative - Normative
references references references references references references
3
3
T erms and T erms and T erms and T erms and T erms and - T erms and
definitions definitions definitions definitions definitions definitions
4
4
Context of Quality Environmen Energy OH&S - Context of
the management tal managemen management the
Organization system (title management t system system organization
only) system requirement elements
requirements s (title only)
(title only)
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
Understandin General General General General - Understandin
g the requirements requirements Requirement requirements g the
organization s organization
and its and its
background context
4.2
5.2
4.3.1
4.4.3
4.3.1
4.2
Understandin Customer Environmen Energy Hazard Leadership Leadership Understandin
g the needs focus tal aspects review identificatio g the needs
and n, risk and
expectations assessment expectations
of interested and of interested
parties determining parties
controls
5.2
4.3.2
4.4.2
4.3.2
Customer Legal and Legal and Legal and

focus other other other
requirements requirement requirements
s
7.2.1
4.4.3
Determinati Energy
on of review
requirements
related to
the product
2.2
4.4.3
Review of Energy
requirements review
related to
the product
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.3
Determining General General General General - Determining

the Scope of requirements requirements Requirement requirements the scope of
the IMS s the xxx
management
system
4.4
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.4
IMS General General General General - xxx

requirements requirements Requirement requirements Management
s system
5
4.2
Leadership Management - Managemen - Leadership Leadership Leadership

responsibilit t
y (T itle responsibilit
only) y(T itle
Only)
5.5
Responsibilit Nil Nil Nil

y, authority,
and
communicati
on (title
only)
226
ISO 14001:
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
18001:
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
5.1
5.1
4.2
4.3
4.2
5.1
Leadership & Management Environmen Energy OH&S Leadership Leadership Leadership &
Commitment commitment tal policy policy policy Commitment
5.2
5.1
4.2
4.3
4.2
5.2
Policy Management Environmen Energy OH&S Leadership Leadership Policy
commitment tal policy policy policy
5.3
Quality
policy
.5.1
6
Continual Process Operations
improvemen
t
5.3
5.1
4.4.1
4.2.1
4.4.1
5.3
Organization Management Resources, T op Resources, Leadership Leadership Organization
al roles, commitment roles, Managemen roles, al roles,
responsibiliti responsibilit t responsibilit responsibiliti
es and y, and y, es and
authorities authority accountabilit authorities
y and
authority
5.5.2
4.4.1
4.2.2
4.4.1
1
Management Resources, Managemen Resources, Leadership Leadership
representati roles, t roles,
ve responsibilit representati responsibilit
y, and ve y,
authority accountabilit
y and
authority
5.5.2
4.4.1
4.2.2
4.4.1
1
Management Resources, Managemen Resources, - Leadership
representati roles, t roles,
ve responsibilit representati responsibilit
y, and ve y,
y and
authority
6.1
4.4.1
4.2.1
4.4.1
1
Provision of Resources, T op Resources, Leadership Leadership
resources roles, Managemen roles,
responsibilit t responsibilit
y, and y,
y and
authority
6.2
Human Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell People Workforce

resources
(title only)
6
Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning Strategy Planning

7
4.3.3
4.5
4.4
Product Implementa Implementa Implementa Leadership Leadership

realization tion and tion and tion and
operation operation Operation
6.1
5.2
4.3.2
4.4.2
4.3.2
6.1
Actions to Customer Legal and Legal Legal and Leadership Leadership Actions to
address risks focus other requirement other address risks
and requirements s and other requirements and
opportunities requirement opportunities
s
5.2
4.3.2
4.4.2
4.3.2
Customer Legal and Legal Legal and Customer Customers

focus other requirement other
requirements s and other requirements
requirement
s
5.4.2
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
Quality Objectives, Energy Objectives Planning Strategy

system programme( targets and programme(
planning s) energy s)
managemen
t action
plans
227
ISO 14001:
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
18001:
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
6.1
6.4
6.1
Actions to Work Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Leadership Leadership Actions to
address risks environment address risks
and and
opportunities opportunities
(Continued) (Continued)
7.1
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
Planning of Objectives, Energy Objectives
product targets and objectives, and
realization programme( targets and programme(
s) energy s)
managemen
t action
plans
7.2.1
4.3.2
4.4.2
4.3.2
Determinati Legal and Legal Legal and
on of other requirement other
requirements requirements s and other requirements
related to requirement
the product s
7.2.1
4.3.3
4.4.3
4.4.6
Determinati Operational Energy Operational
on of control review Control
requirements
related to
the product
7.2.2
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
Review of Operational Operational Operational
requirements control Control Control
related to
the product
8.2.3
4.5.2
4.6.2
4.5.2
Monitoring Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation

and of of of
measuremen compliance compliance compliance
t of with legal
processes requirement
s and other
requirement
s
8.2.4
4.5.2
4.6.2
4.5.2

and of of of
t of product with legal
requirement
s and other
requirement
s
4.4.4 4.4.5

baseline
-

performanc
e indicators
228
ISO 14001:
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
18001:
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
6.2
5.4.1
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
6.2
IMS Quality Objectives, Energy Objectives Planning Strategy xxx
Objectives objectives targets and objectives, and Objectives
and planning programme( targets and programme( and planning
to achieve s) energy s) to achieve
them managemen them
t action
5.4.1 plans
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
objectives targets and objectives, and
programme( targets and programme(
s) energy s)
managemen
t action
plans
5.4.2
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
managemen
t action
plans
5.4.2
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
1
Quality Objectives, Energy Objectives Leadership Leadership
managemen
t action
plans
7.2
Customer- Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell

related
process (title
only)
7.3
4.5.6

development
(title only)
4.7.3
4.5.6

development
(title only)
8.2.3
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring, Performanc

and and measuremen e
measuremen measuremen t and measuremen
t of t analysis t and
processes monitoring
8.2.3
4.5.2
4.6.2
4.5.2

and of of of
t of with legal
processes requirement
s and other
requirement
s
229
ISO 14001:
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
18001:
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
6.2
8.2.4
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
6.2
IMS Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring, Performanc Leadership Leadership xxx
Objectives and and measuremen e (Continue) (Continue) Objectives
and planning measuremen measuremen t and measuremen and planning
to achieve t of product t analysis t and to achieve
them monitoring them
8.2.4
4.5.2
4.6.2
4.5.2
and of of of
t of product with legal
requirement
s and other
requirement
s
7
7
Operational Resource Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Leadership Leadership Support
Support for management
IMS (title only)
Implementat
ion
7.1
6.1
4.2.2
---
7.1
Resources Provision of Managemen - - Resources
resources t
representati
ve
6.2
5
Human Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell People Workforce
resources
(title only)
6.3
4.4.1
4.2.2
4.4.1
1
Infrastructur Resources, Managemen Resources, Leadership Leadership
e roles, t roles,
responsibilit representati responsibilit
y, and ve y,
y and
authority
7.2
6.2
7.2
Competence Human Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell People Workforce Competence
resources
(title only)
6.2.1
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.4.2
General Competence Competence Competence

, training , training , training
and and and
6.2.2
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.4.2
Competence Competence Competence Competence

, training , training , training , training
and and and and
7.3
6.2
7.3
Awareness Human Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell People Workforce Awareness
resources
(title only)
6.2.1
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.4.2
General Competence Competence Competence

, training , training , training
and and and
6.2.2
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.4.2

and and and and
6.2.2
4.4.2
4.5.2
4.4.2

and and and and
230
ISO 14001:
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
18001:
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
7.4
5.5.1
4.4.1
4.2.2
4.4.1
7.4
Communicati Responsibilit Resources, Managemen Resources, Leadership Leadership Communicati
on y and roles, t roles, on
authority responsibilit representati responsibilit
y, and ve y,
y and
5.5.1 authority
4.4.1
4.2.2
4.4.1
-
Responsibilit Resources, Managemen Resources, - -
y and roles, t roles,
y, and ve y,
y and
authority
5.5.1
4.4.1
4.2.2
4.4.1
-
Responsibilit Resources, Managemen Resources, - -
y and roles, t roles,
y, and ve y,
y and
authority
5.5.3
4.4.3
4.5.3
4.4.3
1/ 2/ 4/ 5
2/4/2005
Internal Communicat Communica Communicat Leadership/ Leadership/
communicati ion tion ion, Planning Strategy/
on participatio Customer / Customers/
n and People Workforce
consultation
7.2.3
4.4.3
4.5.3
4.4.3
1
Customer Communicat Communica Communicat Leadership Leadership
communicati ion tion ion,
on participatio
n and
consultation
7.2.3
4.4.3
4.5.3
4.4.3
-
Customer Communicat Communica Communicat -
communicati ion tion ion,
on participatio
n and
consultation
7.5
4.2
4.5.4
7.5
Documented Documentati Nil Documentat Nil - Documented
information on ion information
requirements
(title only)
4.2.3
4.4.5
4.5.4.2 4.6.5 4.6.4
4.4.5

document document documents documents
4.2.4 8.3
4.5.4 4.4.7
4.5.4 4.4.7

7
Control of Emergency Nonconfor Emergency Result Results

nonconform preparedness mities, preparedness
ing product and response correction, and response
corrective
action and
preventive
action
8.4
4.5.3
4.6.1
4.5.1
Analysis of Nonconfor Monitoring, Performanc Result Results

data mity, measuremen e
corrective t and measuremen
action and analysis t and
preventive monitoring
action
231
ISO 14001:
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
18001:
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
7.5
8.5.2
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
7.5
Documented Corrective Nonconfor Nonconfor Nonconfor Process Operations Documented
information action mity, mities, mity, information
(Continued) corrective correction, corrective (Continued)
action and corrective action and
preventive action and preventive
action preventive action
8.5.3 action
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
6
Preventive Nonconfor Nonconfor Nonconfor Process Operations
action mity, mities, mity,
corrective correction, corrective
action
7.5.1
4.2.1
4.4.4
4.5.4.1
4.4.4
.5.1
General General Documentat Documentat Documentat - General
ion ion ion
Requirement
s
7.5.2
4.2.2 8.2.2
5.2
Creating and Quality - - - - Creating and
updating manual updating
4.5.5
4.6.3
4.5.5
Internal Internal Internal Internal
audit audit audit of the audit
EnMS
7.5.3
4.2.3
4.4.5
4.5.4.2 4.6.5 4.5
4.4.5
.5.3
Control of Control of Control of Control of Control of - Control of
documented document document documents documents documented
information information
4.2.4 7
4.5.4 4.3.3
4.5.4 4.4
Control of Control of Control of Control of

8
8
Operational Product Implementa Implementa Implementa Leadership Leadership Operation
Control of realization tion and tion and tion and
IMS operation operation Operation
8.1
7.1
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
8.1
Planning and Planning of Objectives, Energy Objectives Leadership Leadership Operational
controlling product targets and objectives, and planning and
of the realization programme( targets and programme( control
Process s) energy s)
managemen
t action
plans
7.3.1
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
Design and Operational Operational Operational Leadership Leadership

planning
7.3.1
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6

planning
7.3.2
4.4.6
4.4.2
4.4.6
Design and Operational Legal Operational Leadership Leadership

development control requirement Control
inputs s and other
requirement
s
7.3.2
4.4.6
4.4.2
4.4.6
Design and Operational Legal Operational -

development control requirement Control
inputs s and other
requirement
s
7.3.3
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6

outputs
232
ISO 14001:
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
18001:
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
8.1
7.3.3
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
8.1
Planning and Design and Operational Operational Operational Leadership Leadership Operational
controlling development control Control Control (Continue) (Continue) planning and
of the outputs control
Process (Continued)
(Continued)
7.3.4
4.4.6
4.6.2
4.4.6
1
Design and Operational Evaluation Operational Leadership Leadership
review compliance
with legal
requirement
s and other
requirement
s
7.3.4
4.4.6
4.6.2
4.4.6
-
Design and Operational Evaluation Operational -
review compliance
with legal
requirement
s and other
requirement
s
7.3.5
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
verification
7.3.5
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
-
verification
7.3.6
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
validation
7.3.6
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6

validation
7.3.7
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
Control of Operational Operational Operational Leadership 1 Leadership

development
changes
7.3.7
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
Control of Operational Operational Operational -

development
changes
7.4
4.4.6
4.5.7
4.4.6
Purchasing Operational Procuremen Operational Leadership Leadership

control t of energy Control
services,
products,
equipment
and energy
7.4
4.4.6
4.5.7
4.4.6
Purchasing Operational Procuremen Operational -

control t of energy Control
services,
products,
equipment
and energy
233
ISO 14001:
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
18001:
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
8.1
7.4.1
4.4.0
4.5.7
4.4.6
8.1
Planning and Purchasing Operational Procuremen Operational Leadership Leadership Operational
controlling process control t of energy Control planning and
of the services, control
Process products, (Continued)
(Continued) equipment
and energy
7.4.1
4.4.6
4.5.7
4.4.6
-
Purchasing Operational Procuremen Operational -
process control t of energy Control
services,
products,
equipment
and energy
7.4.2 7.4.2 7.4.3
4.4.6 4.4.6 4.4.6
4.5.5 4.5.5 4.5.5
4.4.6 4.4.6 4.4.6
1
Purchasing Operational Operational Operational Leadership Leadership
-
Purchasing Operational Operational Operational -
2
Verification Operational Operational Operational Planning
product
7.4.3
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
-
Verification Operational Operational Operational -
product
7.5
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
Production Empty cell Operational Operational Leadership Leadership
and service Control Control
provision
(title only)
7.5.1
4.4.6
4.5.1
4.4.6
1
Control of Operational General Operational Leadership Leadership
production control Control
and service
provision
7.5.1
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
Control of Operational Operational Operational Leadership Leadership
production control Control Control
and service
provision
7.5.2
4.4.6
4.5.5
4.4.6
1
Validation of Operational Operational Operational Leadership Leadership
processes for control Control Control
production
and service
provision
7.5.3
Identificatio Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Leadership Leadership

n and
traceability
7.5.4 7.5.5 8
Customer Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Leadership Leadership

property
4.4.6 4.5
4.5.5 4.6
4.4.6 4.5
Preservation Operational Operational Operational Leadership Leadership

of product control Control Control
9
Evaluation Measuremen Checking Checking Checking Process Performance

of Results of t, analysis evaluation
IMS and
improvemen
t
234
ISO 14001:
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
18001:
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
9.1
7.6
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
9.1
Monitoring, Control of Monitoring Monitoring, Performanc Leadership Leadership Monitoring,
measurement monitoring and measuremen e measurement
, analysis and and measuremen t and measuremen , analysis and
evaluation measuring t analysis t and evaluation
equipment monitoring
8.1
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
6
General Monitoring Monitoring, Performanc Process
and measuremen e
measuremen t and measuremen
t analysis t and
monitoring
9.1
8.2
9.1
Monitoring, Monitoring Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Process Operations Monitoring,
measurement and measurement
, analysis and measuremen , analysis and
evaluation t (title only) evaluation
8.2.1 8.2.3
3
Customer Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Customer Customers
satisfaction
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
-
Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring, Performanc -
t of t analysis t and
processes monitoring
8.2.4
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
1
Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring, Performanc Leadership Leadership
t of product t analysis t and
monitoring
8.3
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
6
Control of Nonconfor Nonconfor Nonconfor Process Operations
nonconform mity, mities, mity,
ing product corrective correction, corrective
action
8.3
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
6
Control of Nonconfor Nonconfor Nonconfor Process Operations
nonconform mity, mities, mity,
ing product corrective correction, corrective
action
8.4
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
Analysis of Monitoring Monitoring, Performanc Process Operations

data and measuremen e
t analysis t and
monitoring
8.4
4.5.1
4.6.1
4.5.1
Analysis of Monitoring Monitoring, Performanc Process Operations

data and measuremen e
t analysis t and
monitoring
235
ISO 14001:
OHSAS
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
Clause
2004
18001:
2007
Document 2015-2016 83)
9.2
8.2.2
4.5.5
4.6.3
4.5.5
9.2
Internal audit Internal Internal Internal Internal - Internal audit
of IMS audit audit audit of the audit
EnMS
9.3
5.1
4.6
4.7
4.6
9.3
Management Management Managemen Managemen Managemen Leadership Leadership Management
review of commitment t review t Review t Review review
IMS
5.6
4.6
4.7
4.6
6
Management Managemen Managemen Managemen Process Operations
review (title t review t Review t Review
only)
5.6.1 5.6.2
4.6
4.7.1 4.7.2
4.6
6
General Managemen General Managemen Process Operations
t review t Review
4.6
4.6
6
Review input Managemen Input to Managemen Process Operations
t review Managemen t Review
t Review
5.6.3
4.6
4.7.3
4.6
6
Review Managemen Output from Managemen Process Operations
output t review Managemen t Review
t Review
10
8.5
10
Improvemen Improvemen Empty cell Empty cell Empty cell Informatio Measureme Improvemen
t t (title only) n nt, t
Analysis
and
knowledge
manageme
nt
10.1
8.5.2
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
10.1
Nonconform Corrective Nonconfor Nonconfor Nonconfor Infromatio Measureme Nonconform
ity and action mity, mities, mity, n nt, ity and
corrective corrective correction, corrective Analysis corrective
action action and corrective action and and action
preventive action and preventive knowledge
action preventive action manageme
action nt
8.5.3
4.5.3
4.6.4
4.5.3.2
4
Preventive Nonconfor Nonconfor Nonconfor Informatio Measureme
action mity, mities, mity, n nt,
corrective correction, corrective Analysis
action and corrective action and and
preventive action and preventive knowledge
action preventive action manageme
action nt
4.5.3

investigatio
n,
nonconform
ity,
corrective
action and
preventive
action
4.5.3.1

investigatio
n
10.2
8.5.1
4.3.3
4.4.6
4.3.3
10.2
Continual Continual Objectives, Energy Objectives Informatio Measureme Continionual

improvemen improvemen targets and objectives, and n nt, improvemen
t t programme( targets and programme( Analysis t
s) energy s) and
managemen knowledge
t action manageme
plans nt
8.5.1
4.6
4.7
4.6
Continual Managemen Managemen Managemen Informatio Measureme

improvemen t review t Review t Review n nt,
t Analysis
and
knowledge
manageme
nt
236
Bibliography
1) MS ISO 9001:2008, Quality Management System -Requirements

2) MS ISO 14001:2004, Environmental Management System –Requirements
with Guidance for Use
3) MS ISO 140042004, Environmental Management System –General
Guidelines on Principles, Systems and Support Techniques
4) OHSAS 18001:2007, Occupational Health and Safety Management System -
Requirements
5) MS ISO 50001:2011, Energy Management Systems- Requirements with
Guidance for Use
6) PAS99:2012 , Specification of Common Management System requirement as
a framework for integration
7) AS/ NZS4581:1999, Management System Integration- Guidance to business,
government and community organizations
8) M.G. Brown; 2008; Balridge Award Winning Quality; CRC Press; 1st
Edition.
9) Malaysia Productivity Corporation; Business Excellence Programme:
Journey Towards Enhancing Productivity and Competitiveness;
www.mpc.gov.my/mpc/images/file/BE%20Guidebook%2023%20Ogos%202
011.pdf
10) D.H. Besterfield, C.B. Michna, G.H. Besterfield, M. Besterfield; 1995; Total
Quality Management; Prentice Hall Inc.,
11) Balridge Excellence Framework 2015-2016
VITA
The author was born in June 27, 1976, in Johor, Malaysia. She attended her primary
and secondary school in Sekolah Kebangsaan Ulu Tiram, Johor and Sekolah
Menengah Ulu Tiram, Johor Bahru. She then pursued her BTEC Higher National
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, a twinning program between Middlesex
University, United Kingdom and INPENS College, Selangor (currently known as
UNISEL). Upon graduation, she worked in construction and various manufacturing
companies. Later, she pursued for her Bachelor in Business Administration through a
twinning program between Malaysian Institute of Purchasing and Material
Management (MIPMM) with Irvine University, California and graduated in 2008. She
then enrolled at Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, in 2013, where she began to
pursue for her Master of Science in Technology Management. She have also published
peer-reviewed articles and presented in international conferences. Since 2011, while
pursuing her Master degree, she is also providing management system related training,
consultation and auditing services on free-lance basis. She has also participated in
UNIDO projects and certified “National Energy Management System Expert”.
View publication stats

Fad MScThesis HideAppendixGContent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fad MScThesis HideAppendixGContent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

DEVELOPING A GUIDELINE FOR AN INTEGRATED QMS, EMS, OHSMS AND

Thesis · August 2019

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

FADZILAH BINTI MOHAMAD

UNIVERSITI TUN HUSSEIN ONN MALAYSIA

STATUS CONFIRMATION FOR MASTER’S THESIS

DEVELOPING A GUIDELINE FOR AN INTEGRATED QUALITY,

ACADEMIC SESSION: 2016/2017

✓ RESTRICTED (Contains restricted information as determined by the

Permanent Address : ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR. NOR

Dr. Rozlin Zainal

Associate Professor Dr. Roslina Abdul Wahid

Dr. Ng Kim Soon

FADZILAH BINTI MOHAMAD

Faculty of Technology Management and Business

FADZILAH BINTI MOHAMAD

2.2.3 Occupational Health and Safety Management

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 85

4.2.3.10 Significance of the IMS Framework in

2.1 Examples of MSSs 10

4.7 Profile of the IMS Companies 93

2.1 ISO 9001 Model 14

4.3 Reasons for Not Implementing IMS 94

MSSs Management System Standards

IMS Integrated Management System

QMS Quality Management System

EMS Environmental Management System

OHSMS Occupational Health and Safety Management System

EnMS Energy Management System

QEEnHSMS Quality, Environmental, Occupational Safety and Health and

OHSAS Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series

ISO International Organization for Standardization

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

UTHM Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

DSM Department of Standard Malaysia

SIRIM Scientific and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Memohon Kebenaran Mendapatkan Maklumat 153

1.2. Background of the Research

The adoptions to standard-based management system standards (MSSs) are voluntary.

(OHSMS), ISO27001 Information Security Management System (ISMS), ISO/ TS

1.3. Problem Statements

1.4. Objective of the Research

In this research, in addition to exploring the status of IMS implementation in

1.5. Scope of Research

This study focuses on developing an IMS guideline for the implementation in

1.6. Importance of the Research

The percentage of companies reporting better performance result is higher in

1.7. Limitations of the Research

A consolidated database of companies that have implemented multiple MSSs

2.1. Evolution of Management System Standards (MSSs)

operations at a global level and an increased reliance on outsourcing, a number of

progressively developed for environmental management as ISO 14001, occupational

Table 2.1: Examples of MSSs (Romero, 2006)

2.2. Brief Introduction of QMS, EMS, OHSMS and EnMS

2.2.1 Quality Management System (QMS)

money, streamlining operations, reduction of wastages, improving product and service

the quality management system

However, the latest version, the ISO9001:2015 released in September 2015

format is restructured to adapt to Annex SL format that consist of seven auditable

2.2.2 Environmental Management System (EMS)

The Chernobyl accident is one of the “worst technogenic environmental disaster”