implementing integrated management systems using a risk analysis based approach

Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 571580www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Implementing integrated management systems using a risk analysisbased approachAlena Labodova

The Institute of Environmental Engineering, VSBTechnical University of Ostrava, 17.listopadu 15, 708 33 Ostrava-Poruba, Czech RepublicReceived 8 October 2001; accepted 28 August 2003

Abstract

The survey made within companies in the frame of the Leonardo da Vinci project Technological Training for SMEs (Leonardoda Vinci project CZ/98/1/82530/PI/III.1.a/FPI Technological Training for SMEs (19982001)[1]), English version. Ostrava: b.n.,2001 (coordinator A. Labodova)) documented the need for effective ways of integrating currently separate management systemsfor quality management, environmental management and health and safety. According to the evolution of such management systems,it is increasingly desirable and feasible to integrate these systems into one complex system for each company. Different approachesfor integrating and gaining advantages from this integration are reviewed in this paper. Two ways of integration are discussedfirstly the introduction of individual systems followed by the integration of the originally separate systems, and secondly the develop-ment and implementation of an integrated management system, integrated from the very beginning. The procedure of a detailedmethodology for the implementation of an occupational health and safety system, which was developed within research for Ph.D.thesis (Labodova A. The implementation of integrated management system. Ph.D. thesis, VSBTechnical University Ostrava,Czech Republic; 2002) based on an established risk assessment methodology (Risk Management. Leonardo da Vinci project no.CZ/98/1/82530/PI/III.1.a/FPI Technological Training for SMEs, English version. Ostrava: b.n., 2001, Module 3, Level 3 (projectcoordinator A. Labodova)), was used as a particular system approach and also for the implementation of integrated managementsystem based on risk analysis on greenfield. Both ways were tested in the form of case studies. Both case studies have demonstratedthe functioning of the theoretical model for implementation of risk analysis based management systems. 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Management; Management system; Quality management system; Environmental management system; Occupational health and safetymanagement system; Integration; Risk assessment; Risk analysis; Risk management; Integrated management system

1. Introduction

For companies, all over the world, it is crucial to besustainable, especially from an economic point of view.Sustainable entrepreneurship means decreasing theenvironmental impact of a company in an economicallyviable way, using a preventative approach with a con-tinuous improvement principle. The result of such anattempt is a more competitive market position. Until nowthis way of thinking has not been sufficiently explored.A systematic approach to management is a conditio sinequa non for a broader scope of dissemination of thesepractices.

Tel.: +420-59-699-5540; fax: +420-59-699-3040.E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Labodova).

0959-6526/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.08.008

If management is defined as the specific function, howto operate and control the company, everybody willagree that the management of a company must be con-sistent. It is not possible to implement several inde-pendent management systems in one company.

Business and marketing reasons lead companies to aneed for proven management quality. An organizedapproach to the quality of management can be shownthrough the implementation of a management systemaccording to international standards followed by the cer-tification of an external organisation. Until now, normal-ised systems for quality management (QMS), environ-mental management (EMS) and health and safetymanagement (OHSMS) have been developed. There isno formalised integrated management system (IMS),which can be certified. The term integrated manage-ment system can cover many different facets of corpor-

572 A. Labodova / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 571580

ate management; therefore it is important to identifywhich aspects are involved. Usually, integrated manage-ment systems can be described as a combination of qual-ity management and environmental management, butalso some systems consisting of environmental manage-ment and health and safety management were foundunder the same term. Even a combination of environ-mental management and cleaner production assessmentwas called integrated management and also combi-nations with product management (product-orientedEMS, POEMS) [14]. The most comprehensive combi-nation, found in the literature, integrates process/productquality management and environmental managementsystems, with the health and safety management system.This approach is in compliance with total quality man-agement (TQM), in that it gives similar results in finalmanagement impact [15].

In this paper two ways of integration are discussed:

step by step, sequential implementation of individualsystems QMSEMSOHSMS and combining theminto IMS

implementation of IMS, one system covering all areas(QMSEMSOHSMS) in greenfield conditionsdirectly.

For the direct implementation of IMS, a methodologybased on risk analysis was chosen. Risk can be used asan integrating factorrisk for the environment, risk forlife and health of employees and surrounding population,and risk of economical losses [16].

Risk is a combination of probability that some(dangerous) event will occur and the consequences of itif it actually occurs. There are many sources of hazard(chemical, physical, mechanical, biological, humanerror, natural causes, etc.), but only four types of tar-getsemployees, population, environment and pos-sessions (buildings, technology, etc.) and three ways ofhazard transmissiontransfer of mass, energy and infor-mation [11]. Many times the same source of hazard cancause risks to targets in more management areas, forexample non-compliant product production. A decreaseof non-complying production means:

a reduction of the risk for losses because of reworkor scrap,

a reduction of the risk of bad quality products deliveryto customers,

a reduction of the risk for environment (decreasedconsumption of raw material and energy, decrease ofwaste generation) and also,

a reduction of the risk for employees (as processesare better understood, also the probability of accidentswill be reduced),

a reduction of the risk for consumers (non-compliantproduct can be source of accident/injury).

Fig. 1. The general PDCA schema.

Risk analysis is a proper base for a complex manage-ment system. The formal structure of known particularsystems (QMS, EMS, OHSMS) is in compliance and theprocedure of their implementation is very similar, basedon the PlanDoCheckAct (PDCA) principle (Figs. 1and 2).

OHSMS implementation according to currentlyknown standards asks for riskassessment/evaluation/management [9,10]. The idea ofdirect implementation of an IMS follows the same pat-tern as OHSMS and is based upon the premise that acombination of sources of hazard and target systems candescribe the possible risks in the company, whichcharacterise all management systems areas. The risk canbe used as a general factor and combination of riskswithin one operation/production justifies the applicationof risk analysis as a basis for IMS implementation.

Fig. 2. The OHS management schema according to BS 8800.

573A. Labodova / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 571580

2. Theoreticalliterary findings [13]

From an historical point of view, the first broadlyexplored managerial system was the quality managementsystem. This system was developed for the simplificationof product quality proof within the production/supplychain. Quality management system (QMS) covers themanagement and control of a production system with atarget to secure constant quality of products and services.The standardized systems for quality management gener-ally follow the PDCA scheme (Fig. 1) and can beimplemented according to several standardsnational,international or sectoral. From these, the ISO 9000 [2]approach was chosen for further research since it is themost commonly used system. This model was developedfor the first time in the late 1980s. The model is broadlyused internationally; it has a clear structure and is fullycertifiable according to the same requirements, across theworld. Business, consumer and governmental pressuresled to the implementation of product quality manage-ment systems in large numbers of companies. In time,such quality management systems became so important,that the lack of having implemented a certified qualitymanagement system (QMS) became a trade barrier. In1994, the ISO 9000 series was revised and amended bynew norms, also from ISO 10 000 series, especially forQMS audits and documentation (Table 1).

Table 1ISO QMS standards after revision in 1994 [2]

ISO norm number Title

ISO 8402:1994 Quality management and quality assurance. VocabularyISO 9000-1:1994 Quality management and quality assurance standardspart 1: guidelines for selection and useISO 9000-3:1991 Quality management and quality assurance standardspart 3: guidelines for use ISO 9001:1994 to the

development, supply, installation and maintenance of computer softwareISO 9000-2:1993 Quality management and quality assurance standardspart 2: the directive for use of ISO 9001, 9002 and

9003ISO 9000-4:1994 Quality management and quality assurance standardspart 4: guide to dependability programme managementISO 9001:1994 Quality systemsmodel for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation and servicingISO 9002:1994 Quality systemsmodel for quality assurance in production, installation and servicingISO 9003:1994 Quality systemsmodel for quality assurance in final inspection and testISO 9004-1:1994 Quality management and quality system elementspart 1: guidelinesISO 9004-2:1991 Quality management and quality system elementspart 2: guidelines for servicesISO 9004-3:1993 Quality management and quality system elementspart 3: guidelines for processed materialsISO 9004-4:1993 Quality management and quality system elementspart 4: guidelines for quality improvementISO 10011-1:1990 Guidelines for auditing quality systemspart 1: auditingISO 10011-2:1990 Guidelines for auditing quality systemspart 2: qualification criteria for quality systems auditorsISO 10011-3:1991 Guidelines for auditing quality systemspart 3: management of audit programmesISO 10013:1995 Guidelines for developing quality manualsISO 10005:1995 Quality managementguidelines to quality in project managementISO 10006:1997 Quality managementguidelines to quality in project managementISO 10007:1995 Quality managementguidelines for configuration managementISO/TR 10014:1998 Guidelines for managing the economics of qualityISO/TR 10017 Guidance on statistical techniques for ISO 9001:1994ISO 10015:1999 Quality managementguidelines for trainingISO 10012-1:1992 Quality assurance requirements for measuring equipmentpart 1ISO 10012-2:1997 Quality assurance requirements for measuring equipmentpart 2: guidelines for control of measurement

processes

This improved the effectiveness of standardized qual-ity management systems and also partially includedsome environmental issues in the system. In parallel withthe evolution of quality standards, several norms ofenvironmental management were developed that had asimilar structure of environmental management require-ments. Starting with several national norms, the processevolved through to the European-wide EMAS system[3]. Partially, simultaneously with the development ofthe European EMAS, the ISO 14000 series for environ-mental management systems [4] was developed as aworldwide, certifiable environmental management sys-tem. Rising public awareness demanded for clear evi-dence of a companys performance in the environmentalarea. These standards allowed companies to give verifiedinformation about their environmental performance. Themodel of the ISO 14000 developed a similar structure forenvironmental management systems as for the qualitymanagement models based on the PDCA approach. Thestandard has a formal structure similar to the ISO9001:1994 model. The last edition of ISO 9000, after arevision in 2000, is even more compatible with ISO14000 requirements (Table 2). The revised Europeanstandard EMAS II [5] is also completely compatible withISO 9000:2000, using part 4 of ISO 14001 for estab-lishing of management system.

It is seen, from Table 2, that the new structure of ISO


Table 2QMS standards after revision in 2000 (November 2002) [2]


ISO 9000:2000 Quality management systemsfundamentals and vocabularyISO 9001:2000 Quality management systemsrequirementsISO 9004:2000 Quality management systemsguidelines for performance improvementISO 19011:2002 Guidelines on quality and/or environmental management systems auditingISO 10005:1995 Quality managementguidelines for quality plansISO 10006:1997 Quality managementguidelines to quality in project managementISO 10007:1995 Quality managementguidelines for configuration managementISO 10012-1:1992 Quality assurance requirements for measuring equipmentpart 1: metrological confirmation system for

measuring equipmentISO 10012-2:1993 Quality assurance for measuring equipmentpart 2: guidelines for control of measurement processesISO/TR 10013: 2001 Guidelines for quality management system documentationISO/TR 10014:1998 Guidelines for managing the economics of qualityISO 10015:1999 Quality managementguidelines for training

9000 series copies the structure of the ISO 14000 series(ISO xxx1system requirements, ISO xxx4guide-lines for implementation). One common standard forQMS/EMS audits (ISO 19 011:2002) [6] shows the pri-ority for integration through the increased compatibilityof both systems (see Table 3).

Both QMS and EMS standards have some require-ments, which are related to the occupational health andsafety management system (OHSMS), but do not suf-ficiently cover all heath and safety problems. The needfor involving occupational health and safety issues andemergency preparedness in a broader scope than isrequired in ISO 9000 and/or ISO 14000 standards wasone major incentive for the development of a new man-agement system, but the main incentive was a change inlegal requirements. Especially, in Europe, new legis-lation in the field of occupational health and safety atwork and also the application of SEVESO II directive[7] and legislation on management of chemicals [8]made this need very urgent. OHSMS should help compa-nies to find preventive way of fulfilling new legal obli-gations in this area. At this moment, there are no inter-nationally certifiable standards similar to ISO for thesefacets of corporate management. Further, as wasrevealed from the 2001 ISO discussions, there are nocurrent plans to develop such international standards, sothe activity in OHSMS field was left on the national

Table 3ISO EMS basic norms (November 2002) [4]


ISO 14001:1996 Environmental management systemsspecification with guidance foruse

ISO 14004:1996 Environmental management systemsgeneral guidelines on principles,systems and supporting techniques

ISO 19011:2002 Guidelines on quality and/or environmental management systemsauditing

level [17]. As in both previous cases, e.g. QMS and/orEMS standards development, the leading role has beentaken by The British Standardisation Institute (BSI). Bri-tish standards BS 5750 (QMS) and BS 7750 (EMS)became the pattern for many other countries and a back-ground for development of international standards. Thus,it is hoped that current BS 8800:1996 [9] and twoOHSAS, 18001:1999 and 18002:2000 (occupationalhealth and safety assessment systems, system require-ments and guidelines for implementation, respectively)[10] will give the direction for further development ofOH&SMS. All three mentioned British norms are com-pletely compatible in structure with ISO 14001 (Fig. 2).BSI offers the possibility to register to OHSAS 18001,which, in fact, means certification of OH&SMS. Manyorganisations were involved in the preparation of bothOHSAS norms outside BSI and also outside The UnitedKingdom, which greatly improved its value. After theISO decision not to work on such an international norm,other countries also started to develop national norms.Some of them have a similar structure as the Britishnorms, e.g. are in correlation with ISO 14001. Examplesinclude the Australian AS 4801-2000 Occupationalhealth and safety management systemsspecificationwith guidance for use and AS 4804-1997 Occupationalhealth and safety management systemsgeneral guide-lines on principles, systems and supporting techniques.


Many countries use different systems, which can replacethe proposed OH&SMS, based mostly on insurancecompanies outlines or certification bodies internalnorms. The disadvantage of such systems is either non-compatibility with ISO 14001 or non-comparability ofcertificates, because of a different level of requirements.The Czech Republic started to develop national stan-dards on OHSMS with a structure fully compatible withISO 14001. Czech National Norm (CSN) 01 08 01(system requirements) and CSN 01 08 04 (guidelines forimplementation) are expected to be published in 2003.

3. Ways of integration of corporate managementsystems

The main conclusion that can be drawn from thisliterature review is that until now, certifiable standardsare designed purposely with a very close formal structureand allow integration of particular systems requirementsinto a general unified integrated management system(IMS). The ways of integration are, as mentioned before,basically twofoldconsecutive implementation of parti-cular systems followed by integration or the implemen-tation of IMS directly.

The first option has been followed by companies,which, historically, because of business pressures or forlegal reasons, started with the implementation of a sin-gle (QMS, EMS, OHSMS) system. In the past, compa-nies usually implemented and certified the ISO 9000standards and then continued with EMS, using as muchof the framework and procedures from their ISO 9000as possible in structuring their EMS systems. Frequently,for example, the personnel involved as ISO 9000 audi-tors were re-trained as EMS auditors as well. Thisapproach to combined auditors competence is supportedalso in requirements of the new ISO 19011-audit norm[6]. Also, the structure of the documentation is the verysame, but sometimes the documentation itself cannot beintegrated fully. Lower levels of documentation, pro-cedures description and working instructions cover insuch case always both quality and environmental issues.The highest level of documentation, the QMS or EMSmanuals can be also integrated or can be written separ-ately. This depends on the certification body opinion.Since business pressure for EMS certification is almostas strong as for QMS, companies need to fulfil suf-ficiently the requirements of certification bodies, accord-ing to customers demands for system quality evidence.Until now there is no possibility to certify a combined(integrated) management system, so even in the case offully integrated documentation, certificates are kept sep-arate [18]. Combination of QMSEMS is probably themost frequent occurrence, but not the only possibilityand the described approach to integration is applicablein any variation of combining particular systems. This

approach can be used also in combining all three knownsystems consecutively.

However, companies, which have not yet started toimplement a formal standardised management system,may be interested in implementing IMS directly. Theimplementation of an integrated management systemmodel, based on risk assessment, is described in the fol-lowing paragraphs.

4. Model for the direct implementation of an IMS

The model for IMS implementation proposed in thispaper uses the methodology originally developed forOHSMS. OHSMS is the youngest and therefore, theleast widespread management system. In the require-ments of OHSAS 18001, which can be used here as amost general example, as it is fully compatible with ISO14001, it is defined that risk must be assessed, evaluated,controlled and managed. In the frame of the Leonardoda Vinci project CZ/98/1/82530/PI/III.1.a/FPI Techno-logical Training for SMEs [11] a procedure wasdesigned for risk assessment, which originally wasdeveloped as a response to major accidents risk assess-ment requirements (transposition of SEVESO II require-ments into the Czech legislation) [12] and is systematicand fully applicable to any company.

This methodology consists of seven steps:

1. Description of the production system installations andthe surrounding environmentin the form of a blockscheme including space layout. For more complicatedproduction systems, the diagram can be divided intoelementary blocks representing (similar to inventoryanalysis in LCA)technology, and the differentmedia of surrounding environment (geology, meteor-ology, fauna, flora) and population;

2. Identification of sources of hazard and possible tar-get systems;

3. Scenarioscombination of sources and targets,identification of possible actions;

4. Evaluation of riskdefinition of risk, likelihood(probability) and consequences, setting-up the accept-able level of risk in various areas, likelihood of pro-posed scenarios and acceptability of their conse-quences in the form of a matrix, the so called riskmatrix (Fig. 3). The scenarios found within point 3 areplaced according to assessed probability and possibleconsequences into matrix. The scales on the riskmatrix axes are the result of top management decisionand are based mostly on financial acceptability as acommon scale to compare risk levels in various dif-ferent areas. The position of scenario within the riskmatrix shows the acceptability of risk (combinationof probability and consequences) caused by this scen-ario;


Fig. 3. The risk matrix (probability vs. consequences).

5. Setting-up the objectivesthis is based on the pos-ition of scenarios in the risk matrix (acceptable, con-ditionally acceptable, unacceptable)the objectivesare agreed upon according to legal, political, or socialacceptability of scenarios for moving them to accept-able levels by decreasing of either their likelihood orconsequences or both, primarily dealing with non-acceptable risks;

6. Definition of means of prevention and protectionthis point is devoted to the planning of programmesfor reaching the objectives. The risk can be decreasedthrough prevention (cleaner production approach), orusing protection, e.g. end-of-pipe solution barriers;

7. Management of riskpersonal, technical and finan-cial resources for programmes. The main goal of riskmanagement is to keep the risks at an acceptable levelby maintaining the tolerable risks and following theprogrammes for reaching the goals to move unaccept-able risks to an acceptable level. Risk managementmust involve procedures, resources, timetables, etc.,so as to be able to fulfil safety programmes, leading

Fig. 4. The combination of risk analysis (seven steps) and OHS management spiral.

to a reduction of the risk level. All this is designedto avoid accidents, incidents, injury, or occupationaldiseases. In the event of an accident that has alreadyoccurred, a necessary part of risk management is themanagement of crisis for minimising oflosses/impacts.

If this seven steps procedure is compared to thePDCA based OHSMS scheme, it can be seen that allrisk management steps can be related to the PDCAflow-chart, but they do not cover the whole PDCAscheme. Some necessary steps must be added, especiallymonitoring, audits, management review and the principleof continuous improvement (Fig. 4). The detailed riskassessment methodology leading to an OHSMS manage-ment scheme can serve also as a direct IMS implemen-tation pattern, if the risks to product quality, the environ-ment and health and safety are assessed and dealt withat the same time. The only difference is the comprehen-siveness of the risk sources and targets inventory and thedefinition of proper measures for assessing the risk indifferent managerial areas [13]. This procedure can becompared to the initial review in EMS implementation:

register of environmental aspects = sources of hazard environmental impacts = consequences environment = targets significance of aspects = risk, acceptability

5. Testing of the new model[13]

The proposed new model was tested in two case stud-ies. One case study covered the first approachimplementation of singular OHSMS following theproposed procedure and its integration into a functioningcertified EMS. The other approach describes the


implementation of IMS according to the risk analysismodel.

5.1. Case study 1

The first company (No. 1) is a large producer of heatfor central heating. The company, initially did not con-sider an IMS, but was interested in broadening the scopeof its existing EMS and completing it with OHSelements. Company No. 1 consists of several operationunits, located in several cities around. The implemen-tation of OHSMS and its integration into current EMSstarted as a pilot project in one unit in fall 2000. Mainincentive for it was a change in legislation, especiallythe new edition of legislation for occupational health andsafety, which fully introduces EU legal requirements toCzech law [19,20]. The first step in this procedure wasa revision of the companys environmental policy. Thepolicy was redesigned and now also emphasises OHSissues. Documentation of its well functioning EMS wasdeveloped partially in electronic database form and wascompleted with new elements. Identification of risks wasderived from a database of environmental aspects, whichpartially covered also OHS aspects and was completedwith an inventory of other hazard sources (for examplehigh pressure equipment, electrical hand tools, etc.).OHS problems identification and procedures for evalu-ation of significance were also added within the revisionof the EMS manual. A major problem in this study wasthe development of the consequence scale and measuresfor acceptability of risk, which must be comparable forall risks across the company (for employees, public,environment, possession, and production). The riskacceptability scale was based on financial terms, eithercompensation necessary for damage reparation or costfor investment or training for the prevention of hazard-ous events. The level of acceptability was agreed at thetop management level and was related to insurance pol-icy conditions by verbal description of particular accept-able levels in various areas (Fig. 5, Table 4).

Similarly can be described risks for the water and soil,air, fauna and flora, etc.

After setting up the measures, possible scenarios weredeveloped and evaluated and action plans were preparedfor reaching the agreed objectives. Evaluation pro-cedures are regularly repeated and risk levels checked.All EMS documentation was revised in a step-by-stepmanner and integrated with OHS issues. Revision startedwith EMS policy, manual and register of aspects, as wellas register of legislation was completed by OHS require-ments.

For particular sources of hazard so called cards weredesigned. These are database records in Lotus Notessoftware, which are located in the information systemconnected to real location of source in company. Thesecards show also transmission ways, possible impacts,

already implemented prevention and protection meansand prospective corrective actions besides the locationand type of source. They are connected to steering docu-ments for given sources and also to documents showingthe connected relevant legislation.

Structure and contents of teaching and training wassupplemented. Working procedures and/or workinginstructions were controlled and amended according toOHS issues. The implementation team prepared pro-cedures for OHS aspects identification and evaluation foremployees at operational level. Also, the internal andexternal communication strategy was extended, toinclude the connection to a regional integrated rescuesystem. The systems of EMS and OHSMS audits werekept separate. OHS audits have different frequency andrequirements and should cover technical safety, occu-pational health, working conditions and general hygienicproblems. The certification of OHSMS is not possibleunder current conditions in the Czech Republic. Somecertification bodies, especially foreign, do offer it, butonly outside the official Czech accreditation system. Sothe company decided to integrate OHS elements into theexisting EMS. If, in future, the certification of OHSMSwill become accessible and if its implementation couldimprove the market position of the company, they areprepared to go for it. The management system in thecompany works properly, using IT databases and reportsfor informing employees, maintaining EM and OHSaspects and controlling them. This approach avoidedexpensive double work in maintaining separate systemsand training. Re-certification of EMS in company isexpected in 2004. The actual numbers on man-hoursneeded for the maintenance of the integrated manage-ment system will be available. Experience from this pilotproject will be explored within implementation ofOHSMS in other company parts.

5.2. Case study 2

The second company (No. 2), initially did not feel theneed to have any certified management system. Its busi-ness is the supply of drinking water and wastewatertreatment and it has a type of natural monopoly in itsarea. However, when the managers learned that IMS,even without certification, could help them to complywith legal obligations in an economically viable way andalso could save money using a preventative approachinstead of end-of-the-pipe solutions in their operations,they became interested in exploring the possibilitiesfurther.

The company No. 2 has good corporate culture andmanagement, but in many cases gaps were found in theirmanagement system: missing and not updated docu-ments, technological procedures not written, family-like,informal information chain typical for SMEs in separatecompany units, etc.


Fig. 5. The basic risk matrix for company No.1.

Table 4

Risk consequence scale in financial terms

10x millions CZK Catastrophicx millions10x millions CZK Critical10x thousandsx millions CZK Significantx thousands10x thousands CZK Low significancex thousands CZK Insignificant

Probability scaleVery high 1 100High 1 101Medium 1 102Low 1 103Very low 1 104

Verbal descriptions of consequence scale in particular areas (examples)Production qualityCatastrophic Complete long term failure of drink water deliveryCritical Long term significant degradation of drink water qualitySignificant Repeated defects on equipment, fluctuation of water qualityLow significance Short term failures in amount or quality of waterInsignificant Degradation of quality in acceptable measures, but worse than usual

Impact on employees healthCatastrophic Fatal or aggregate injury caused by companyCritical Aggregate injury with permanent after-effectsSignificant Injury with permanent after-effects, occupational diseaseLow significance Injury or disease caused by work with short sick leaveInsignificant Injury without sick leave

The value of x is set up by top management according to insurance policy measures. Verbal descriptions (examples).

Implementation of an IMS was started in one of thecompany No. 2 units as a pilot project. The procedurewas started with an initial reviewidentification ofsources of hazard and their current status, based upon a

technological scheme and working procedure descrip-tions (Table 5).

As a tool for sources of hazard identification the gen-eral list of sources of hazard published in Annex 1 to


Table 5List of sources of hazard (examples)

Source of hazard Type of source Location Activity Aspect Impact

Chlorine Chemical Tank truck Transport Leakage within car Damage of thecrash environment,

surrounding populationhealth, drivers health

Fork lift truck Mechanical Material store Discharge of barrels Wrong manipulation, Employees injury,fall of goods damage of the

instalment, damage ofthe environment

Manual electric Physical Workshop Repairs, Noise, vibrations Insult of hearing,assembly tools maintenance occupational disease

cause by noise and/orvibrations

Risk Management module in Leonardo da Vinci project[11] was used.

Consecutively, scenarios of possible events wereevaluated. The risk matrix for risk acceptability was pre-pared and agreed upon by top management. Since thestructure of documentation was found to be incon-venient, a new system of documentation, based on IT,was designed. The company training program wasrestructured according to the requirements of legislationin force and a structure of IMS audit was proposed.Economic effects cannot be evaluated yet. At a price ofslightly more time for the initial review using the com-prehensive risk assessment method, the approach savedthe triple effort of introducing different management sys-tems, and the effort for maintaining the documentationsand training. The effectiveness of this approach hasalready convinced the management, to utilise the methodwithin the other company units.

6. Discussion

The above-described model for IMS implementationand its testing were developed within the research for aPh.D. thesis [13]. The main objective of this work wasto design a methodology for the implementation of IMS,covering QMS, EMS and OHSMS, based on risk analy-sis. Two ways of integration were tested in the form ofcase studies, one already being used in various compa-nies (consecutive implementation of particular systemsfollowed by integration) and the other designed duringthis research: direct implementation of IMS based onrisk analysis. The case studies showed, that both wayscan give similar results and their application depends onthe actual starting conditions in each particular company.

In brief it is possible to say, that any implementationof a management system consists of two basic parts: firstthe initial review assessing the actual situation regardingrisks and the actual technology and organisation present

and second the introduction of a management schemefollowing the PDCA-approach. In case a companyalready has a formal management system following thePDCA scheme, the implementation of another system ismuch easier. After the initial review for a new systemthese issues can be included in the already used PDCAsystem, broadened with new system requirements. Forcompanies starting without any formal system a PDCAcycle for all corporate management facets can be intro-duced. The initial review will be more comprehensivethan in a single system. Compared to two or three sep-arate initial reviews the combined review will save timeand effort, as it avoids analysing the same technologyand the same organisation several times with a differentscope of assessment. Basically one PDCA-approachgoverning the aspects of quality, environment, healthand safety, consistent, with clear priorities, shows hotspots in companies, makes it easy to focus proceduresand responsibilities on important areas.

Both case studies showed that the proposed manage-ment model based on risk analysis is viable and appli-cable either for OHSMS or IMS. The only difference isin the scope of risks involved. The key problem of usingthis model in practice is setting up proper measures forparticular kinds of risk in various management areas.The acceptable level of risk depends on the opinion oftop management. Of course there is guidance by laws,for example threshold values for emissions, but manyother risk levels aredefined as a compromise of costfor risk management and acceptable costs for repair. Itis extremely important to define comparable acceptablerisk levels in different areas. Financial aspects can beused as a universal measurethe sum necessary for riskprevention compared to the cost involved after the prob-lems occur. A practical application of the designedmodel showed that in the practical work in companiesthe theoretical assessment steps are sometimes connec-ted and therefore solved together. Within the work onlist of sources main targets and ways of transmission as


well as basic scenarios can be found. Of course, alsoother possibilities must be checked. No conflicts betweentheory and practise in the use of the proposed modelwere found within the work in both case studies.

7. Conclusions and recommendations

The proposed theoretical model for OHSMS/IMSimplementation combines risk analysis and the PDCAapproach (see Fig. 4). The approach was tested in prac-tice and no conflicts with theory were found. The meth-odology can be used in any kind of company, includingSMEs. Various authorities responsible for occupationalhealth and safety control submitted several handbooksfor simple and obvious risk assessment, which can beeasily used by SMEs. For bigger companies, with morecomplicated production systems, it is useful to have anexpert on risk evaluation methods in the implementationteam. Many risk assessment and evaluation methodsdemand special training to be applied properly. The pro-posed management system based on risk assessment wasalso implemented in several companies as a tool formanagement of major-accident hazards involvingdangerous substances [21] in the meantime.

References

[1] Leonardo da Vinci project CZ/98/1/82530/PI/III.1.a/FPI Tech-nological Training for SMEs (19982001), English version.Ostrava: b.n., 2001 (coordinator A. Labodova).

[2] ISO 9000 seriesThe International Standard Organizationhttp://www.iso.ch/, The Czech Normalisation Institutehttp://www.csni.cz.

[3] Council regulation (EEC) No. 1836/1993 allowing voluntary par-ticipation by companies in industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS I).

[4] ISO 14000 seriesThe International Standard Organizationhttp://www.iso.ch/, The Czech Normalisation Institutehttp://www.csni.cz.

[5] Regulation (EC) No. 761/2001 of the European Parliament andof the Council allowing voluntary participation by organisationsin a Community ecomanagement and audit scheme (EMAS II).

[6] ISO 19011:2002 Guidelines on quality and/or environmentalmanagement systems auditing, The International StandardOrganizationhttp://www.iso.ch/, The Czech NormalisationInstitutehttp://www.csni.cz.

[7] Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the controlof major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(SEVESO II).

[8] Act No. 157/1998 Coll. on chemicals (approximation of EU legis-lation to Czech legislation).

[9] BSI. BS 8800:1996Guide to occupational health and safetymanagement systems.

[10] BSI. OHSAS 18 001:1999Occupational health and safetyassessment systems, system requirements and BSI. OHSAS 18002:2000Occupational health and safety assessment systems,guidelines for implementation.

[11] Risk Management. Leonardo da Vinci project No.CZ/98/1/82530/PI/III.1.a/FPI, Technological Training for SMEs,English version. Ostrava: b.n., 2001, Module 3, Level 3 (projectcoordinator A. Labodova).

[12] Act No. 353/1999 Coll., Decree No. 8/2000 Coll.Czech legis-lation on major accidents, approximation of EU legislation [6].

[13] Labodova A. The implementation of integrated management sys-tem. Ph.D. thesis, defended in July 2002 at VSBTechnical Uni-versity Ostrava, Czech Republic.

[14] Rocha C. Product-oriented environmental management systems(POEMS). Proceedings of 7th European Roundtable on CleanerProduction, pdf file on CD, 24 May 2001, Lund, Sweden.

[15] Nenadal J. Moderni systemy rizeni jakosti (Modern systems ofquality management). Praha: Management press, 1998 in Czech.

[16] Danihelka P. Subjective factors of cleaner productionparallelto risk perception? Proceedings of 7th European Roundtable onCleaner Production, pdf file on CD, 24 May 2001, Lund, Swed-en.

[17] Palecek M, Director of Research Institute for OccupationalSafety, personal communication, May 2001.

[18] Nemcikova K. Zavadeni integrovaneho systemu rizeni kombinu-jiciho QMS dle ISO 9001:2000 a EMS dle ISO 14001:1996 vpodminkach sluzeb (The Implementation of integrated manage-ment system combining QMS according to ISO 9001:2000 andEMS according to ISO 14001:1996 in conditions of services).Masters thesis, Department of Quality Management, Faculty ofMetallurgy and material Engineering, VSBTU Ostrava,defended in June 2002, advisor A.Labodova.

[19] Act No. 65/1965 Coll., Labour Code as amended by Act No.155/2000.

[20] Act No. 258/2000 Coll. (Public health protection act).[21] Danihelka P, et al. personal communication within the work on

Leonardo da Vinci project CZ/02/B/F/PP-134039 ExtendedTechnology and Management Training for SMEs (1.11.200231.10.2004, coordinator A. Labodova).

Implementing integrated management systems using a risk analysis based approachIntroductionTheoretical-literary findings [13]Ways of integration of corporate management systemsModel for the direct implementation of an IMSTesting of the new model[13]Case study 1Case study 2

DiscussionConclusions and recommendationsReferences

implementing integrated management systems using a risk analysis based approach

Documents