The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0955-534X.htm

IMS approach
An integrated management to corporate
systems approach to corporate sustainability
sustainability
353
Muhammad Asif
School of Management and Governance, Received May 2010
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands Revised June 2010
Accepted July 2010
Cory Searcy
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
Ambika Zutshi
School of Management and Marketing,
Deakin University, Burwood, Australia, and
Niaz Ahmad
National Textile University, Faisalabad, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to describe an integrated management systems (IMS) approach for the
integration of corporate sustainability into business processes.
Design/methodology/approach – An extensive review of published literature was conducted.
Building on existing research, the paper presents an original framework for structuring the integration
of corporate sustainability with existing business infrastructure. The framework is supported by a
detailed set of diagnostic questions to help guide the process. Both the framework and the diagnostic
questions are based on the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” cycle of continuous improvement.
Findings – The paper highlights the need for a systematic means to integrate sustainability into
business processes. Building on that point, the paper illustrates how an IMS approach can be used to
structure the entire process of managing, measuring, and assessing progress towards corporate
sustainability.
Practical implications – The paper should be of interest to both practitioners and researchers. The
framework and diagnostic questions will help guide decision makers through the process of building
sustainability into their core business infrastructure. Since the framework and diagnostic questions
provide the flexibility to accommodate specific organizational contexts, it is anticipated that they will
have wide applicability.
Originality/value – The paper makes several contributions. The framework provides a systematic
approach to corporate sustainability that has not been elaborated on in previous publications. The
unique set of diagnostic questions provides a means to evaluate the extent to which corporate
sustainability has been integrated into an organization.
Keywords Integrated management systems, Management systems, Corporate sustainability,
Stakeholders, Corporate strategy
Paper type Conceptual paper
European Business Review
Vol. 23 No. 4, 2011
pp. 353-367
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The authors’ thanks are due to the Editor and reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier 0955-534X
drafts of this article. DOI 10.1108/09555341111145744
EBR 1. Corporate sustainability
23,4 Managers in many corporations are under increasing pressure to address the issue of
sustainability. From a corporate perspective, sustainability encompasses economic,
environmental and social issues that have business implications. Corporate
sustainability has its theoretical roots in stakeholder theory. Stakeholder theory
recognizes that organizations have obligations not only to shareholders, but also to other
354 interest groups such as customers, suppliers, employees and the wider community,
amongst many others (Freeman, 1984). Meeting the demands of these stakeholders is
necessary for a variety of reasons, including sustaining a continued supply of resources
and for legitimation reasons (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Suchman, 1995). Any
approach to corporate sustainability must, therefore, have an explicit focus on
stakeholder requirements.
As Seuring and Muller (2008) highlight, early conceptualizations of sustainability
had a relatively narrow focus on environmental protection. In recent years, however,
there has been growing recognition that environmental protection is only a sub-set of
corporate sustainability. As Hart (1997, p. 133) explains:
Those who think that sustainability is only a matter of pollution control, are missing the big
picture [. . .] focusing on sustainability requires putting business strategies to a new test,
taking the entire planet as the context in which they do business.
Similarly, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) pointed out that a myopic interpretation of the
term “sustainability” misses several important criteria which organizations have to
fulfill in order to be sustainable. Corporate sustainability is now widely conceptualized
in terms of the “triple bottom line” (TBL) (Elkington, 1999). In short, this means that
organizations need to explicitly consider the environmental, economic and social
impacts (positive and negative) of their activities (Edgeman, 1998; Edgeman and
Hensler, 2001; Hediger, 1999). This concept is also symbolized in literature by “triple P
(planet, people, and profit)” which implies that a company creates more value over the
long run and encounters fewer risks if it takes into consideration the environmental
(planet), social (people), and financial issues (profit) as compared to a company that
focuses merely on the profit (Asif et al., 2008; Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002; Holliday, 2001;
Salzmann et al., 2005; Shrivastava, 1995). Moreover, the outcomes from the various
impacts need to be addressed simultaneously and in an integrated manner for a
sustainable competitive advantage. This concept of sustainability is shown in Figure 1.
The figure illustrates three key concepts. First, it shows that earlier conceptualizations
of sustainability had environmental connotations and thus presented a narrow view of
the concept. Second, the figure highlights that sustainability is frequently discussed in
the literature using the terms “triple P” and “TBL”. These are essentially two different
perspectives on the same concept. Finally, Figure 1 shows that sustainability is a critical
aspect of overall business continuity. Corporate sustainability heavily emphasizes the
need to meet key stakeholder requirements in a systematic manner. This in turn
provides the organization with legitimacy and a license to continue its business. The
stakeholder perspective is further discussed later in the paper.
Corporate sustainability is a dynamic concept and the specific environmental,
economic, and social aspects and priorities that an organization focuses on will
continually change. This can be attributed to three main reasons. The first is the
influence of internal and external environmental factors on the organization’s resources.
 IMS approach
Environmental
considerations to corporate
(the old concept) sustainability

Triple P
Corporate
Triple bottom line
(economic, social, and
355
(people, planet, and
sustainability
profit) environmental)

Stakeholder Stakeholder
Business continuity feedback Figure 1.
feedback
(legitimacy / license The concept
to operate) of sustainability

These could include changes in government regulations, the political environment, the
emergence of a new competitor or even a change in the senior management team. Second,
the legitimacy, urgency, and power of the organization’s key stakeholders are
continuously changing (Mitchell et al., 1997). Third, the complexity of business
operations has dramatically increased over time. Organizations now face diverse
challenges, both anticipated and unanticipated, such as rapidly changing market
conditions, coordination of operations at a global level, and an increased reliance on
outsourcing. Addressing the challenges of corporate sustainability, therefore, requires a
flexible approach in which organizations continuously scan their environment to
proactively identify priority issues so that their business strategies can be adapted
accordingly. In other words, the dynamic concept of sustainability requires
organizations to develop the capacity to continuously address emerging issues.
In recognition of these challenges, a number of management systems (MSs) have
emerged to help managers systematically address an organization’s key stakeholder
requirements. Examples include MSs for environment, corporate social responsibility,
quality, and occupational health and safety. Given their focus on methodically
addressing stakeholder requirements, these MSs provide interesting leverage points for
integrating sustainability issues into mainstream business processes. There is,
nevertheless, a need to explore how organizations can capitalize on their experience with
standardized MSs to more systematically integrate sustainability issues throughout the
organization, and to assess the success or failure of the integration efforts.
This paper contributes towards filling this gap by presenting an integrated
management systems (IMS) approach to corporate sustainability. The paper adopts an
explicitly multidisciplinary approach to sustainability integration and contributes to
theory and practice in two ways. First, it presents a framework to integrate
sustainability with business processes. The framework is based on the PDCA cycle of
continuous improvement. Second, the paper presents a structured set of diagnostic
questions to evaluate the extent of integration. Together, the framework and diagnostic
questions promote the vertical and horizontal integration of sustainability into
mainstream business infrastructure. The remainder of the paper is organized into three
sections. Section 2 presents an overview of the literature on corporate sustainability and
the integration of MSs. Section 3 presents the conceptual framework, which provides
EBR the basis for structuring management, measurement, and assessment efforts associated
23,4 with corporate sustainability and its integration with corporate infrastructure. The
paper concludes with a brief summary and a discussion of areas for future research.

2. Snapshot of corporate sustainability literature

The literature on sustainability is widely dispersed. As a starting point, Glavic and
356 Lukman (2007) present a useful overview of terms and definitions related to
sustainability. Many publications have explored the notion of corporate sustainability
such as Bansal (2005), Bansal and Roth (2000), Bhattacharyya (2010), Isaksson (2006),
Pojasek (2007), Shrivastava (1995), Silberhorn and Warren (2007) and Stainer and
Stainer (1997). The business case for corporate sustainability has also been widely
discussed by a number authors, including Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), Seuring and
Muller (2008), Salzmann et al. (2005) and Weber (2008).
Beyond the above-mentioned publications, several authors have focused on
addressing specific aspects of corporate sustainability. For example, in discussing the
strategic and stakeholder-oriented management of sustainability, Huff et al. (2009) and
Solomon (2010) emphasized the need for strong corporate governance and
accountability infrastructure to institutionalize the concept. Other representative
examples from the literature include operationalization of the concept of corporate
sustainability (Bansal, 2005), Du Pont’s model of sustainability (Holliday, 2001),
integrating sustainability with existing business processes (Garvare and Isaksson,
2001), integrating sustainability into the supply chain (Linton et al., 2007) and a
description of tools to facilitate the achievement of sustainability goals (Pojasek, 2007).
The literature has provided an enhanced understanding of approaches to sustainability
and a foundation on which future research needs to be based. However, work remains in
several areas, particularly in determining how to go beyond tools and techniques to
develop organization-wide sustainability. Sustainability must become a critical aspect
of mainstream business MS.
The measurement of corporate sustainability has been the focus of numerous
papers, including Adams and Frost (2006), Isaksson and Garvare (2003), Keeble et al.
(2003), Labuschagne et al. (2005), Searcy et al. (2007) and Searcy (2009). The Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2006) also provides a recommended framework for
organizations interested in reporting on their sustainability performance. However,
despite the wide-ranging measures and tools available for organizations and their
stakeholders to understand, implement and maintain elements of sustainability, the
question remains on how to integrate sustainability into the day-to-day operations of
organizations through their integration with mainstream business MSs.
Smith and Lenssen (2009) and Searcy et al. (2006) have suggested that the case for
sustainability is strong when it is integrated with mainstream business processes. While
the existing literature on sustainability does provide a theoretical foundation, it does not
provide the guidance needed to integrate the sustainability concept into business
processes (Rocha et al., 2007). Work, thus, is required to develop a framework to facilitate
the integration of sustainability with core business strategies and processes.
For insights into how such a framework may be approached, research on IMS is
instructive. To cater to the needs of different stakeholders, organizations employ
individual MSs such as those covering the areas of environment, corporate
social responsibility, quality, and occupational health and safety. As the number
of independent MSs grow within an organization, there is a need to integrate them into an IMS approach
overall business MS to facilitate understanding, improve usability, and minimize to corporate
redundancies. An IMS gives rise to the structures and processes that facilitate the
integration of MSs and their associated stakeholder expectations and requirements into sustainability
business processes. With that in mind, an IMS is conceptualized as a set of inter-connected
processes that share the same human, material, information, infrastructural, and financial
resources in order to achieve a composite set of goals (Karapetrovic, 2003). An important 357
feature of an IMS is the development of an infrastructure for integrated continuous
improvement along various dimensions of strategy and operations. For a further
discussion of IMS, the interested reader is referred to Asif et al. (2009), Rocha et al. (2007),
Karapetrovic (2003), Wilkinson and Dale (1999) and Zutshi and Sohal (2005).
The integration of MSs and corporate sustainability decisions are driven by
stakeholder pressure and requirements. An essential feature of both is to design
business processes in a way that yields value for the stakeholders and balances it with
the organizational vision, goals, strategies, and resources. Given the inherent similarities
in terms of focus, organizations ideally should be able to address both in a synergistic
manner. This is particularly important because the focus of sustainability is on the
design of business processes that yield value along social, ecological, and economic
dimensions. An IMS could provide the necessary governance mechanism and
infrastructure for sustainable processes, continuous improvement of those processes,
and could also embed sustainable processes in the social, technical, and behavioral side
of the enterprise. However, the literature on the integration of sustainability into
business processes through IMS is limited. The key reason is because the research on
IMS is emerging (Karapetrovic, 2002; Karapetrovic and Jonker, 2003). Furthermore, the
concept of corporate sustainability (Shrivastava, 1995; Welford and Gouldson, 1993;
Wood and Logsdon, 2001) is also emerging. The relatively limited literature on
sustainability through integration of MSs is summarized in Table I. The publications
listed in the table describe the essentials of integrating sustainability into business
processes. However, work in this area is in its embryonic stages and additional research
is required. There is a need to extend the existing research and to develop a framework
to support the integration of sustainability throughout the entire organization.
The following section contributes to this need.

Author Main theme

Rocha et al. (2007) Integration of MSs could provide a framework for integrating
corporate sustainable development into business processes
Integration of sustainable development needs to be considered
from both a micro and macro perspective in order to ensure its
effectiveness
Jørgensen (2008) Integration of MSs could pave the way for sustainable development
Organizations need to carry out integration at three levels –
correspondence, generic, and integration
Oskarsson and Malmborg (2005) Integration of MSs provides a necessary roadmap for sustainable Table I.
development A summary of the
Fresner and Engelhardt (2004) Corporate sustainability could be achieved in a stepwise approach literature on corporate
consisting of cleaner production followed by integration of MSs and sustainability through
sustainable product service design integration of MSs
EBR 3. The conceptual framework
23,4 The integration of sustainability into business processes can be facilitated through an
IMS approach. Such an approach provides both the flexibility and clarity needed to
address the many issues associated with the management, measurement, and
assessment of corporate sustainability. Building on that premise, a conceptual
framework for corporate sustainability through the integration of MSs is shown in
358 Figure 2. The framework builds on previous research conducted by:
.
Mitchell et al. (1997) who described a typology of stakeholders in relation to their
requirements;
.
Choo (1996), Daft and Weick (1984) and Weick (1987) who elaborated on
environmental scanning to provide an informed understanding of the
environment in which an organization operates; and
.
Asif et al. (2009), Jørgensen (2008) and Zeng et al. (2007) who highlighted various
levels of integration and how integration alters activities at each organizational
level.
The framework also builds upon the research of:
.
Rocha et al. (2007) by considering various perspectives on corporate
sustainability integration; and
.
Fresner and Engelhardt (2004) and Oskarsson and Malmborg (2005) by
providing an integrated use of MSs to address key stakeholder requirements.

As Figure 2 shows, the process of integrating sustainability starts with the identification
of key stakeholders and their requirements. Unarguably, organizations are under
pressure from a wide variety of primary and secondary stakeholders. A detailed
environmental scan, including an assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats and a stakeholder analysis, can assist a manager in determining what

Plan Do Check

Stakeholder
requirements MSs to address
(To determine the urgency, legitimacy, and

stakeholder Integrated MS
Economic
Quality
power of stakeholder requirements)

requirements • Corporate governance

Sustainable business processes

and strategy
Environmental scanning

Environment
QMS • Integrated objectives
Enacting • Integrated manuals
responsibly EMS Systemization of • Integrated procedures
Ecological

Employees stakeholder • Structures (integrated

health & safety OH & S demands functions, audits, and
(integration of MSs) trainings)
Financial
• Integrated processes
probity SA
• CI infrastructure
Transparency • Routines
Social

Others • Integrated reviews

Figure 2. Other
The framework for requirements
Act (innovation and learning)
corporate sustainable
development through
an IMS approach Notes: MS, management system(s); QMS, quality MS; EMS, environmental MS; OH&S, occupational health and
safety; SA, social accountability; CI, continuous improvement
is important, what is not, and the level of urgency and priority to be given to various IMS approach
issues. It is particularly noteworthy to identify the legitimacy and urgency of to corporate
stakeholder demands, as well as the relative power (and potential conflict) of the
different stakeholders to influence the business, given that they (the legitimacy, urgency, sustainability
and power of stakeholders) change over time. Environmental scanning is, thus,
a mechanism for identifying key stakeholder demands and prioritizing them within a
framework of constrained resources. Building on the environmental scan, organizations 359
make sense of their surroundings and also develop the appropriate context for
adaptation and response (Choo, 1996).
Figure 2 also shows that organizations may deploy a number of different MSs to meet
key stakeholder requirements. These MSs guide the behavior of a system and thus
provide a systematic way to execute a function consistently over a period of time.
Among the most prominent of the standardized MSs are the ISO standards for quality
management (ISO 9001), environmental management (ISO 14001), customer satisfaction
and complaints systems (ISO 10001, 10002, 10003), and quality and environmental
auditing (ISO 19011). Managers could choose implementation and external, independent
certification of internal MSs depending upon stakeholder demands. However, one
potential consequence of implementing a number of individual MSs is that it could give
rise to competing priorities, confusion, and mutual incompatibilities (McDonald et al.,
2003; Salomone, 2008; Wilkinson and Dale, 2001; Zeng et al., 2007). This highlights the
need and benefit of integration to bring the disparate MSs into mainstream business
processes. The essential feature of an IMS is that it develops an integrated system to
address stakeholder demands in a systematic manner. This is labeled as “systemization
of stakeholder demands” in Figure 2.
Integration transforms the organization through a number of fundamental changes
at the strategic, tactical, and operational levels. For instance, at the strategic level,
it provides a mechanism for increased interaction with stakeholders and, thus, a
pathway to address their demands through channeling organizational resources. At the
tactical level, it focuses on the design of an integrated management manual, procedures,
and processes, and on developing the criteria and norms by which integration could be
evaluated. At the operational level, the work instructions and work activities are
integrated. Supporting activities such as auditing and general administration are also
designed accordingly in order to promote efficiency, save resources, and reduce
confusion amongst employees at the operational level.
Figure 2 also shows that learning and innovation along the various dimensions of
sustainability is required for continuous improvement. At its core, there is a need to
consolidate sustainability experiences into organizational processes. New knowledge
needs to be integrated with both the explicit and tacit knowledge of the corporation.
Integration with explicit knowledge will focus on manuals, procedures, databases,
work instructions, and other key documents. Integration with tacit knowledge will
focus on employees’ experiences and skills. The integration of new knowledge and
novel experiences will help better prepare the organization to address the anticipated
and unanticipated challenges associated with corporate sustainability.
Figure 2 shows that the integration of MSs provides the structures and routines for
sustainable business processes. In order to bring and maintain continuous
improvement, the process is designed around the PDCA cycle (Deming, 1994) which,
essentially, provides a meta-routine for continuous improvement along the various
EBR dimensions of corporate sustainability. The integrated management reviews provided
23,4 by an IMS are an important means of facilitating a broader focus on the environmental,
social, and economic aspects – which lie at the core of corporate sustainability.
Integration of MSs helps build a strong case for corporate sustainability.
The framework in Figure 2 shows an overview of how to integrate sustainability
into business processes. Its main purpose is to structure thinking about how to
360 organize the integration of sustainability within the specific context of an organization.
It focuses attention on the essentials of corporate sustainability and provides a starting
point for integrating sustainability with other organizational imperatives. Further
details on the management, measurement, and assessment of sustainability integration
are provided in the next two sub-sections.

3.1 Management of sustainability integration

Identifying stakeholder demands and then incorporating them into business processes
requires a systematic approach characterized by planning, managing resources,
designing processes, and continuous improvement. This requires a meta-management
approach to corporate sustainable development. Meta-management implies
management of the whole enterprise (Foley, 2005). While some authors have
advocated the use of a systems approach in the integration of MSs (Jonker and
Karapetrovic, 2004; Karapetrovic, 2003; Karapetrovic and Jonker, 2003; Rocha et al.,
2007), a meta-management approach is advocated here for two reasons. First, it avoids
the vocabulary connotations associated with the use of the term “systems” (as in
“systems approach” or “systems” for management of quality, environment, etc.).
Second, it explicitly refers to the management of the whole enterprise rather than
management of individual sub-systems, which are normally labeled as (standardized)
MSs. Meta-management is, thus, the management of various sub-systems at a higher
level of abstraction, logic, and inquiry.
Meta-management adopts a stakeholder-oriented approach to management of the
enterprise. This is consistent with the approach required by corporate sustainability.
Meta-management starts by scanning the environment in which the organization
operates so that managers can get an understanding of the challenges and opportunities
their organization faces. This, in turn, allows managers to make more informed
decisions as they set the business direction and formulate a sustainability strategy. Once
the organizational vision and strategies are set, it is important to ensure that integration
takes place at all organizational levels, horizontally and vertically. As previously
indicated, integration focuses on different sets of activities at different organizational
levels. At the strategic level, it is about “stakeholder dialogue” – considering their
requirements and also communicating how the organization addresses their
expectations. At the tactical level, integration deals with designing organizational
structures, policies, and processes, as per stakeholder requirements, as well as a system
for their evaluation. At the operational level, it is about the execution of tasks in an
integrated manner, followed by evaluation of the implemented processes and systems.
The integration of sustainability with key organizational activities is required at all
the levels, both vertically and horizontally. Vertical integration is required to make
sure that the elements of organizational strategy cascade down to all levels and, thus,
create a fit among organizational objectives, targets, and processes. Horizontal
integration relates to the management efforts intended to integrate various processes,
chains, departments, and positions; and also includes structures and competencies IMS approach
(Hardjono et al., 1996). The fit among organizational objectives and activities at the to corporate
tactical and operational level is necessary, since the alternative is unintegrated
stand-alone processes that create confusion for employees and, invariably, ineffective sustainability
and inefficient use of resources. Such processes then run the risk of being rolled back
soon after their implementation – thus making the whole program a failure (Hayes and
Upton, 1998; Porter, 1996). 361
The integration of sustainability into business processes requires continuous
interaction with stakeholders, and innovative ways of designing, reviewing and
updating business processes. Its very dynamic nature requires development of internal
competencies and the institutional knowledge to deal with emerging issues and their
impacts on the organization. The framework for corporate sustainability is erected upon
the PDCA cycle which provides the basis for the meta-management of sustainability
integration. To summarize, the meta-management approach to sustainability:
.
starts from stakeholder dialogue to ensure effective communication with
stakeholders;
.
promotes vertical and horizontal integration to ensure fit among various
processes at different organizational levels;
.
develops the competencies and institutional knowledge for sustainability; and
.
provides meta-routines for continuous improvement.

It is suggested that organizations need to develop a shared interpretation of knowledge

to effectively deal with emerging problems and to understand their organization and
their surroundings better (Daft and Weick, 1984; Weick, 1987). Nijhof et al. (2005) cite a
need of representation, contribution, and subordination in order to develop a collective
mind that results in individual actions converging in joint actions aimed at meeting the
overall interests, that is, corporate sustainability. Based on the joint actions, shared
history, and other interrelations, a shared image develops which results in better
understanding of the organizational social system.

3.2 Measurement and assessment of corporate sustainability integration

Evaluation of the extent to which sustainable development has been integrated is a
central point conveyed by the framework. This builds on the well-known axiom, “what
gets measured, gets managed”. It is, therefore, important to determine how corporate
sustainability initiatives would be evaluated. To develop the measurement and
assessment of sustainability, it is helpful to revisit the earlier discussion on the general
framework of integration (Figure 2). As the framework implies, the evaluation of
sustainability can be based on the dynamic interaction with stakeholders and the extent
of integration at various organizational levels. Building on this point, a set of key
questions could be used to structure the evaluation of the extent to which corporate
sustainability has been integrated. A representative set of questions is provided in
Table II. It is important to note that Table II is intended to support the conceptual
framework shown in Figure 2. While Figure 2 is intended as an overview of how to
integrate sustainability into business processes, Table II provides additional detail on
each element of the PDCA cycle and, thus, provides explicit and practical insight into
how this may be accomplished. In other words, Figure 2 shows insight into what
EBR
Key questions to evaluate the extent of integration of corporate sustainability
23,4
Plan
Strategic management Stakeholder dialogue process
of corporate Does the organization employ some mechanism to identify stakeholder
sustainability requirements?
362 Does the organization employ some mechanism to meet stakeholder
requirements?
Does top management put economic, ecological, and social issues on its
agenda?
Are the implications of economic, ecological, and social aspects, in the specific
context of the organization and its business processes, understood by
individuals?
Is there a mechanism to identify sustainability indicators and to reach
mutually acceptable outcomes?
Is there any mechanism to address conflicting stakeholder views?
Setting values and objectives
Does the organization define the business case for sustainability?
Does the organization define the norms and values for corporate
sustainability?
Do organizational objectives relate to effective management of environmental,
economic, and social aspects?
Do the sustainability indicators measure progress to achieve corporate
goals?
Is the integration addressed in the organization’s strategic plans?
Securing top management commitment
How has top management demonstrated its commitment to corporate
sustainability?
Are the resources for integration (human, financial, material, informational,
and infrastructural) planned upfront?
Do
Integration Is the integration addressed at the tactical and operational levels (horizontal
and vertical integration)?
Do management manuals address social, ecological, and economic aspects in
an integrated manner?
Do the procedures address social, ecological, and economic aspects in an
integrated manner?
Are the organization’s strategic plans aligned with the tactical and
operational processes and activities (vertical integration)?
Are the organizational processes (horizontally) integrated with each other?
Do the organization’s business processes create value for economic,
environmental, and social welfare?
Do employees have sufficient knowledge to achieve sustainable business
processes?
Developing Does the organization manage its internal knowledge of sustainability?
competencies Does the organization promote “heterogeneous sustainability knowledge”
development (i.e. explicit knowledge in organizational repositories and
databases, and tacit knowledge of employees) to promote its greater buy-in by
employees and to make it more sustainable?
Table II. Does the organization update its knowledge of sustainability?
List of key questions Does the organization develop collective knowledge and a shared image of
to evaluate the extent sustainability?
of integration (continued)
Key questions to evaluate the extent of integration of corporate sustainability
IMS approach
to corporate
Check
Evaluation Does the organization employ some mechanism to evaluate the outcomes of
sustainability
integration of sustainable development?
Are the objectives related to social, economic, and environmental aspects
realized?
Do the assessment teams have required competencies?
363
Do employees have the time and resources to carry out an assessment,
including data collection and analysis?
Are the management reviews carried out regularly to evaluate the stakeholder
requirements and the extent of integration of sustainability in business
processes?
Does management remain alert to new issues?
How is management informed of emerging or urgent issues?
Are sustainability results communicated to key stakeholders?
Do the stakeholders have a medium to provide feedback to the organization?
Is there any mechanism for reporting the sustainability outcomes?
Does management promote learning from old experiences and responses?
Act
Learning and Does the organization employ some mechanism for continuous improvement
innovation along various dimensions of business?
Are the previous experiences incorporated into organizational business
process?
How have previous organizational experiences been incorporated into various
knowledge repositories?
How does the organization ensure that learning to be sustainable and
responsible remains an essential strategic imperative and not an ad hoc
process or a one-time activity? Table II.

constitutes an IMS approach to corporate sustainability while Table II provides insight

into how to execute that approach.
The assessment of integration should be based on data collected during the
integration process. The data obtained could be compared with the past internal data
of the company, industry norms, regulator specifications, or voluntary initiatives. It is
important to emphasize that the measurement and assessment are valuable only when
they are used for review and improvement.
The results of the assessment need to be communicated to the key stakeholders
(both internal and external). This may occur formally through sustainability reporting
frameworks such as GRI, via company annual reports or websites, or informally
through personal/organizational stories/experiences in order to strengthen employees’
pride and commitment (Nijhof et al., 2005). The communication with stakeholders is
also important for legitimacy reasons.

4. Conclusions and future research directions

Corporate sustainability seeks the development of organizational processes and systems
that will position organizations to anticipate and meet the demands of present and future
generations of stakeholders. This, in turn, puts an emphasis on the need to address
economic, ecological, and social aspects simultaneously and in an integrated manner.
While corporate sustainability has gained significant attention in both academia
EBR and industry, there are difficulties in building it into core business infrastructure and
23,4 there is a clear need for a framework to guide its systematic integration.
The integration of MSs provides a needed reference point. The integration of MSs,
like corporate sustainability, is a stakeholder-driven initiative and, thus, provides a
mechanism for determining and then addressing stakeholder demands. Existing MSs,
therefore, provide an important leverage point for integrating sustainability with
364 existing business infrastructure. An IMS approach to corporate sustainability provides
a basis for:
.
developing needed governance mechanisms and organizational structures;
.
continuous improvement of corporate sustainability initiatives through
integrated management reviews; and
.
creating routines to integrate corporate sustainability into business processes.

This paper provides an original process for the integration of sustainability into
mainstream business processes. The integration process consists of identifying
stakeholder requirements, systemization of their demands, and then addressing those
demands in an integrated manner. Integration also builds social and technical structures
to ensure that business processes meet not only the economic concerns of the enterprise
but also the ecological and social concerns of broader society. As the paper emphasizes,
the integration of sustainability could be organized using a meta-management
approach. It focuses on integration at the strategic level, thus minimizing the chances of
conflicting stakeholder demands. It also promotes integration throughout the
organization from both a vertical and horizontal perspective.
This paper also develops a set of original questions to structure thinking about how
to evaluate an integration process. As the questions highlights, top management
commitment is required throughout the entire process of integrating corporate
sustainability with existing business infrastructure. As the paper further notes,
sustainability integration needs to become a regular feature of organizational strategy
and the decision-making process in order to consistently cater to the emerging needs of
stakeholders. Measurement and assessment provide a means for monitoring the success
of these efforts and provide the impetus for triggering continuous improvement.
The paper concludes that integration of MSs provides an important means for
corporate sustainability when carried out in a systematic manner. It also corroborates
the finding of Rocha et al. (2007) that an IMS facilitates the integration of sustainability
into business processes and, thus, a separate ISO standard is not required for corporate
sustainability. Further research could focus on how the meta-management of
integration of sustainability unfolds in practice, and whether the diagnostic questions
mentioned in this paper provide a basis for structuring the integration of sustainability
into business processes.

References
Adams, C. and Frost, G. (2006), “Accessibility and functionality of the corporate web site:
implications for sustainability reporting”, Business Strategy and Environment, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 275-87.
Asif, M., DeBruijn, E.J., Fisscher, O.A.M. and Steenhuis, H.-J. (2008), “Achieving sustainability
three dimensionally”, paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Management
of Innovation and Technology (2008-ICMIT), Bangkok.
Asif, M., DeBruijn, E.J., Fisscher, O.A.M., Searcy, C. and Steenhuis, H.-J. (2009), “Process IMS approach
embedded design of integrated management systems”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 261-82. to corporate
Bansal, P. (2005), “Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable sustainability
development”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 197-218.
Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000), “Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 717-36. 365
Bhattacharyya, S. (2010), “Exploring the concept of strategic corporate social responsibility for
an integrated perspective”, European Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 82-101.
Choo, C.W. (1996), “The knowing organization: how organizations use information to construct
meaning, create knowledge and make decisions”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 329-40.
Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), “Towards a model of organizations as interpretation systems”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 284-95.
Deming, W.E. (1994), The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, April,
pp. 147-60.
Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002), “Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 11, pp. 130-41.
Edgeman, R.L. (1998), “Principle-centered leadership and core value deployment”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 190-3.
Edgeman, R.L. and Hensler, D.A. (2001), “The AO chronicle: earth@omega or
sustainability@alpha?”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 83-90.
Elkington, J. (1999), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business,
Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
Foley, K.J. (2005), Meta Management: A Stakeholder/Quality Management Approach to
Whole-of-enterprise Management, Standards Australia Ltd, Sydney.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
Fresner, J. and Engelhardt, G. (2004), “Experiences with integrated management systems for two
small companies in Austria”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 623-31.
Garvare, R. and Isaksson, R. (2001), “Sustainable development: extending the scope of business
excellence models”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 11-15.
Glavic, P. and Lukman, R. (2007), “Review of sustainability terms and their definitions”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15 No. 18, pp. 1875-85.
GRI (2006), Sustainability Reporting Guidelines: Version 3.0, Global Reporting Initiative,
Amsterdam.
Hardjono, T.W., ten Have, S. and ten Have, W.D. (1996), The European Way to Excellence,
European Quality Publications, London.
Hart, S.L. (1997), “Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 75, pp. 67-76.
Hayes, R.H. and Upton, D.M. (1998), “Operations-based strategy”, California Management
Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 8-25.
Hediger, W. (1999), “Reconciling ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ sustainability”, International Journal of
Social Economics, Vol. 26 Nos 7-9, pp. 1120-44.
EBR Holliday, C. (2001), “Sustainable growth, the DuPont way”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79,
pp. 129-34.
23,4
Huff, A.S., Floyd, S.W., Sherman, H.D. and Terjesen, S. (2009), Strategic Management: Logic and
Action, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Isaksson, R. (2006), “Total quality management for sustainable development”, Businesss Process
Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 632-45.
366 Isaksson, R. and Garvare, R. (2003), “Measuring sustainable devleopment using process models”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 649-56.
Jonker, J. and Karapetrovic, S. (2004), “Systems thinking for integration of management
systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 608-15.
Jørgensen, T.H. (2008), “Towards more sustainable management systems: through life-cycle
management and integration”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 10, pp. 1071-80.
Karapetrovic, S. (2002), “Strategies for the integration of management systems and standards”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 61-7.
Karapetrovic, S. (2003), “Musings on integrated management systems”, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Karapetrovic, S. and Jonker, J. (2003), “Integration of standardized management systems:
searching for a recipe and ingredients”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 451-9.
Keeble, J., Topiol, S. and Berkeley, S. (2003), “Using indicators to measure sustainability performance
at a corporate and project level”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44, pp. 149-58.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C. and Van Erck, R.P.G. (2005), “Assessing the sustainability
performances of industries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13, pp. 373-85.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-82.
McDonald, M., Mors, T.A. and Phillips, A. (2003), “Management system integration: can it be
done?”, Quality Progress, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 67-74.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997), “Towards a theory of stakeholder identification
and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 853-86.
Nijhof, A., DeBruijn, T., Fisscher, O.A.M., Jonker, J., Karssing, E. and Schoemaker, M. (2005),
“Learning to be responsible: developing competencies for organisation-wide CSR”,
in Jonker, J. and Cramer, J. (Eds), Making a Difference: Dutch National Research Program
on Corporate Social Responsibilities, Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague.
Oskarsson, K. and Malmborg, F.V. (2005), “Integrated management systems as a corporate
response to sustainable development”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 121-8.
Pojasek, R.B. (2007), “A framework for business sustainability”, Environmental Quality
Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 81-8.
Porter, M.E. (1996), “What is strategy?”, Harvard Business Review, November-December, pp. 61-78.
Rocha, M., Searcy, C. and Karapetrovic, S. (2007), “Integrating sustainable development into
existing management systems”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 83-92.
Salomone, R. (2008), “Integrated management systems: experiences in Italian organizations”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 16, pp. 1786-806.
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. and Steger, U. (2005), “The business case for sustainability:
literature review and research options”, European Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 27-36.
Searcy, C. (2009), “Setting a course in corporate sustainability performance measurement”, IMS approach
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 49-57.
Searcy, C., Karapetrovic, S. and McCartney, D. (2006), “Integrating sustainable development
to corporate
indicators with existing business infrastructure”, International Journal of Innovation and sustainability
Sustainable Development, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 389-411.
Searcy, C., McCartney, D. and Karapetrovic, S. (2007), “Sustainable development indicators for
the transmission system of an electric utility”, Corporate Social Responsibility and 367
Environmental Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 135-51.
Seuring, S. and Muller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,
pp. 1699-710.
Shrivastava, P. (1995), “The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 936-60.
Silberhorn, D. and Warren, R.C. (2007), “Defining corporate social responsibility: a view from big
companies in Germany and the UK”, European Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 352-72.
Smith, N.C. and Lenssen, G. (2009), “Mainstreaming corporate responsibility: an introduction”, in
Smith, N.C. and Lenssen, G. (Eds), Mainstreaming Corporate Responsibility, Wiley, Chichester.
Solomon, J. (2010), Corporate Governance and Accountability, Wiley, Chichester.
Stainer, A. and Stainer, L. (1997), “Ethical dimensions of environmental management”, European
Business Review, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 224-30.
Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610.
Weber, M. (2008), “The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company-level
measurement approach for CSR”, European Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 247-61.
Weick, K.E. (1987), “Organizational culture and high reliability”, California Management Review,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 112-27.
Welford, R. and Gouldson, A. (1993), Environmental Management & Business Strategy, Pitman,
Boston, MA.
Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B.G. (1999), “Integrated management systems: an examination of the
concept and theory”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 95-104.
Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B.G. (2001), “Integrated management system: a model based on total
quality approach”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 318-30.
Wood, D.J. and Logsdon, J.M. (Eds) (2001), Theorizing Business Citizenship, Greenleaf Publishing,
Sheffield.
Zeng, S.X., Shi, J.J. and Lou, G.X. (2007), “A synergetic model for implementing an integrated
management system: an empirical study in China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15
No. 18, pp. 1760-7.
Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A.S. (2005), “Integrated management system: the experiences of three
Australian organisations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 211-32.

Corresponding author
Muhammad Asif can be contacted at: m.asif@utwente.nl

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints