The Methodology for Assessing the Applicability of CSR into Supplier Management Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. CSR Requirements in the Supply Chain
2.2. CSR Standards Framework
3. Materials and Methods
- A research organization (TU), focused on the development of electronic systems, which had an ISO 9001 QMS in place, but other MSs were not applied, even though it must comply with other requirements of its customers in its activities.
- Three organizations that are suppliers to the automotive industry. Two of them, AU1 and AU2, did not have an Energy Management System (EnMS) in place, but had a system for CSR according to IQNet SR10. Only AU3 had EnMS. It also had CSR requirements in its policy but IQNet SR10 was not implemented.
- The last respondent for model verification was a metallurgical company which also had an EnMS in place, but its CSR policy was not compliant with IQNet SR10.
4. Results
4.1. Comparison of CSR Requirements with Requirements of Selected Management Systems
4.2. Results of the Evaluation Using SRIMS Methodology in the Selected Organizations with Different Management Systems
4.3. Results of ANOVA and Bonferroni Analysis
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Standard/Chapters | Management System (MS) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IQNet SR10 | QMS | IATF | EMS | OHSMS | EnMS | ||||||||
Chapt. | Chapt. | Chapt. | Chapt. | Chapt. | Chapt. | ||||||||
4 | Context of the organization | 4.1 | 20 | 4.1 | 20 | 4.1 | 20 | 4.1 | 20 | 4.1 | 20 | 4.1 | 20 |
4.2 | 20 | 4.2 | 20 | 4.2 | 20 | 4.2 | 20 | 4.2 | 20 | 4.2 | 20 | ||
4.3 | 20 | 4.3 | 20 | 4.3 | 20 | 4.3 | 20 | 4.3 | 20 | 4.3 | 20 | ||
4.4 | 20 | 4.4 | 20 | 4.4 | 20 | 4.4 | 20 | 4.4 | 20 | 4.4 | 20 | ||
5 | Leadership | 5.1 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 |
5.2 | 20 | 5.2 | 20 | 5.2 | 20 | 5.2 | 20 | 5.2 | 20 | 5.2 | 20 | ||
5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | ||
5.4 | 20 | 5.1.1.1 | 20 | 5.4 | 20 | ||||||||
6 | Planning | 6.1 | 20 | 6.1 | 20 | 6.1 | 20 | 6.1 | 20 | 6.1 | 20 | 6.1 | 20 |
6.2 | 20 | 6.2 | 20 | 6.2 | 20 | 6.2 | 20 | 6.2 | 20 | 6.2 | 20 | ||
6.3 | 20 | 6.3 | 20 | 6.3 | 20 | 6.3 | 20 | ||||||
6.4 | 20 | 6.1.3 | 20 | 6.1.3 | 20 | 6.4 | 20 | ||||||
6.5 | 20 | ||||||||||||
6.6 | 20 | ||||||||||||
7 | Support | 7.1 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 | 5.1 | 20 |
7.2 | 20 | 5.2 | 20 | 5.2 | 20 | 5.2 | 20 | 5.2 | 20 | 5.2 | 20 | ||
7.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | ||
7.4 | 20 | 5.4 | 20 | 5.4 | 20 | 5.4 | 20 | 5.4 | 20 | 5.4 | 20 | ||
7.5 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | 5.3 | 20 | ||
8 | Operation | 8.1 | 20 | 8.1 | 20 | 8.1 | 30 | 8.1 | 20 | 8.1 | 30 | 8.1 | 20 |
8.2 | 20 | 8.2 | 20 | 8.2 | 20 | 8.2 | 20 | 8.2 | 20 | 8.2 | 20 | ||
8.3 | 30 | 8.3 | 30 | 8.3 | 40 | 8.3 | 20 | ||||||
8.4 | 20 | 8.4 | 20 | 8.4 | 20 | ||||||||
8.5 | 20 | 8.5 | 20 | 8.5 | 20 | ||||||||
8.6 | 20 | 8.6 | 20 | 8.6 | 30 | ||||||||
8.7 | 20 | 8.7 | 20 | 8.7 | 20 | ||||||||
8.8 | 20 | ||||||||||||
8.9 | 20 | ||||||||||||
9 | Performance evaluation | 9.1 | 40 | 9.1 | 40 | 9.1 | 40 | 9.1 | 40 | 9.1 | 40 | 9.1 | 40 |
9.2 | 20 | 9.2 | 20 | 9.2 | 20 | 9.2 | 20 | 9.2 | 20 | 9.2 | 20 | ||
9.3 | 20 | 9.3 | 20 | 9.3 | 20 | 9.3 | 20 | 9.3 | 20 | 9.3 | 20 | ||
9.4 | 20 | ||||||||||||
10 | Improvement | 10.1 | 40 | 10.1 | 40 | 10.1 | 40 | 10.1 | 40 | 10.1 | 40 | 10.1 | 40 |
10.2 | 40 | 10.2 | 40 | 10.2 | 40 | 10.2 | 40 | 10.2 | 40 | 10.2 | 40 | ||
In total | 710 | 610 | 660 | 500 | 540 | 580 |
Appendix B
Organization: TU | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard/Chapters | Management System (MS) | ||||
IQNet SR10 | QMS | EMS | OHSMS | EnMS | |
CHAP4 | 80 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CHAP5 | 80 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CHAP6 | 80 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CHAP7 | 100 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CHAP8 | 190 | 59 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CHAP9 | 100 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CHAP10 | 80 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MS/IQNet SR10 % | 38% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
In total | 710 | 269 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Organization: AU1 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard/Chapters | Management System (MS) | ||||
IQNet SR10 | IATF | EMS | OHSMS | EnMS | |
CHAP4 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 0 |
CHAP5 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 0 |
CHAP6 | 80 | 57 | 59 | 59 | 0 |
CHAP7 | 100 | 96 | 99 | 100 | 0 |
CHAP8 | 190 | 167 | 40 | 50 | 0 |
CHAP9 | 100 | 78 | 79 | 79 | 0 |
CHAP10 | 80 | 70 | 59 | 59 | 0 |
MS/IQNet SR10 % | 88% | 67% | 71% | 0% | |
In total | 710 | 628 | 476 | 507 | 0 |
Organization: AU2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard/Chapters | Management System (MS) | ||||
IQNet SR10 | IATF | EMS | OHSMS | EnMS | |
CHAP4 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 0 |
CHAP5 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 0 |
CHAP6 | 80 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 0 |
CHAP7 | 100 | 93 | 94 | 98 | 0 |
CHAP8 | 190 | 165 | 38 | 49 | 0 |
CHAP9 | 100 | 74 | 73 | 73 | 0 |
CHAP10 | 80 | 65 | 54 | 54 | 0 |
MS/IQNet SR10 % | 86% | 64% | 69% | 0% | |
In total | 710 | 614 | 457 | 493 | 0 |
Organization: AU3 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard/Chapters | Management System (MS) | ||||
IQNet SR10 | IATF | EMS | OHSMS | EnMS | |
CHAP4 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
CHAP5 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 60 |
CHAP6 | 80 | 57 | 58 | 58 | 108 |
CHAP7 | 100 | 93 | 94 | 94 | 92 |
CHAP8 | 190 | 165 | 38 | 49 | 52 |
CHAP9 | 100 | 72 | 74 | 72 | 71 |
CHAP10 | 80 | 65 | 54 | 54 | 35 |
MS/IQNet SR10 % | 86% | 65% | 69% | 70% | |
In total | 710 | 612 | 458 | 487 | 498 |
Organization: OC | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard/Chapters | Management SYSTEM (MS) | ||||
IQNet SR10 | IATF | EMS | OHSMS | EnMS | |
CHAP4 | 80 | 52 | 52 | 52 | 52 |
CHAP5 | 80 | 59 | 36 | 71 | 36 |
CHAP6 | 80 | 55 | 51 | 51 | 108 |
CHAP7 | 100 | 91 | 90 | 88 | 86 |
CHAP8 | 190 | 161 | 36 | 45 | 50 |
CHAP9 | 100 | 66 | 72 | 72 | 72 |
CHAP10 | 80 | 63 | 52 | 52 | 34 |
MS/IQNet SR10 % | 77% | 55% | 61% | 62% | |
710 | 547 | 389 | 431 | 438 |
References
- Cheng, W.; Ahmad, J. Incorporating stakeholder approach in corporate social responsibility (CSR): A case study at multinational corporations (MNCs) in Penang. Soc. Responsib. J. 2010, 6, 593–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harms, D.; Hansen, E.G.; Schaltegger, S. Strategies in sustainable supply chain management: An empirical investigation of large German companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 20, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiesa, P.J.; Przychodzen, W. Social sustainability in supply chains: A review. Soc. Responsib. J. 2020, 16, 1125–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Modak, N.M.; Sinha, S.; Raj, A.; Panda, S.; Merigó, J.M. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B. Corporate social responsibility and supply chain management: Framing and pushing forward the debate. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 122981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, C.; Du, J.; Shahzad, F.; Wattoo, M.U. Environment Sustainability Is a Corporate Social Responsibility: Measuring the Nexus between Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Big Data Analytics Capabilities, and Organizational Performance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, M.; Skjoett-Larsen, T. Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Supply Chain. Manag. 2009, 14, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofmann, H.; Busse, C.; Bode, C.; Henke, M. Sustainability-Related Supply Chain Risks: Conceptualization and Management. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2014, 23, 160–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siwiec, D.; Pacana, A.; Gazda, A. A New QFD-CE Method for Considering the Concept of Sustainable Development and Circular Economy. Energies 2023, 16, 2474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuncoro, W.; Suriani, W.O. Achieving sustainable competitive advantage through product innovation and market driving. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2018, 23, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamardi, A.A.; Mahdiraji, H.A.; Masoumi, S.; Jafari-Sadeghi, V. Developing sustainable competitive advantages from the lens of resource-based view: Evidence from IT sector of an emerging economy. J. Strateg. Mark. 2022, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahdi, O.R.; Almsafir, M.K. The Role of Strategic Leadership in Building Sustainable Competitive Advantage in the Academic Environment. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 129, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemphill, T. The ISO 26000 guidance on social responsibility international standard: What are the business governance implications? Corp. Gov. 2013, 13, 305–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colwell, S.R.; Zyphur, M.J.; Schminke, M. When does Ethical Code Enforcement Matter in the Inter-Organizational Context? The Moderating Role of Switching Costs. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 104, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Eusanio, M.; Tragnone, B.M.; Petti, L. From Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) to Social Organisational Life Cycle Assessment (SO-LCA): An Evaluation of the Working Conditions of an Italian Wine-Producing Supply Chain. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giacalone, M.; Santarcangelo, V.; Donvito, V.; Schiavone, O.; Massa, E. Big data for corporate social responsibility: Blockchain use in Gioia del Colle DOP. Qual. Quant. 2021, 55, 1945–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bai, C.; Sarkis, J. Determining and applying sustainable supplier key performance indicators. Supply Chain. Manag. 2014, 19, 275–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delbufalo, E.; Bastl, M. Multi-principal collaboration and supplier’s compliance with codes-of-conduct. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2018, 29, 1237–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, I.J.; Schwarzkopf, J.; Müller, M. Exploring Supplier Sustainability Audit Standards: Potential for and Barriers to Standardization. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castka, P.; Balzarova, M.A. ISO 26000 and supply chains—On the diffusion of the social responsibility standard. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 274–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashidi, K.; Farzipoor Saen, R. Incorporating dynamic concept into gradual efficiency: Improving suppliers in sustainable supplier development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 226–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyd, D.E.; Spekman, R.E.; Kamauff, J.W.; Werhane, P. Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains: A Procedural Justice Perspective. Long Range Plan. 2007, 40, 341–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Formentini, M.; Taticchi, P. Corporate sustainability approaches and governance mechanisms in sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1920–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, T.; Liu, Z.; Cruz, J.; Wang, J. Social and Environmental Sustainability: An Empirical Analysis of Supply Chain Profitability and the Recession. Oper. Supply Chain. Manag. 2020, 13, 176–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciliberti, F.; Baden, D.; Harwood, I.A. Insights into Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in Supply Chains: A Multiple Case Study of SMEs in the UK. Oper. Supply Chain. Manag. Int. J. 2009, 2, 154–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sütőová, A.; Kóča, F. Corporate Social Responsibility Standards: Is it Possible to Meet Diverse Customer Requirements? Manag. Syst. Prod. Eng. 2022, 30, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baden, D.; Harwood, I.A.; Woodward, D.G. The effects of procurement policies on ‘downstream’ corporate social responsibility activity: Content-analytic insights into the views and actions of SME owner-managers. Int. Small Bus. J. 2011, 29, 259–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikram, M.; Zhou, P.; Shah, S.A.A.; Liu, G.Q. Do environmental management systems help improve corporate sustainable development? Evidence from manufacturing companies in Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 628–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talapatra, S.; Uddin, K.; Doiro, M.; Santos, G. The linkage between corporate social responsibility and the main benefits obtained from the integration of multiple management systems in Bangladesh. Soc. Responsib. J. 2023, 19, 79–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronckers, M.; Gruni, G. Retooling the Sustainability Standards in EU Free Trade Agreements. J. Int. Econ. Law 2021, 24, 25–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poletti, A.; Sicurelli, D.; Yildirim, A. Promoting sustainable development through trade? EU trade agreements and global value chains. Ital. Political Sci. Rev. Riv. Ital. Di Sci. Politica 2021, 51, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, X.; Yasmeen, R.; Li, Y.; Hafeez, M.; Padda, I.U.H. Free Trade Agreements and Environment for Sustainable Development: A Gravity Model Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahlsrud, A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 Definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meehan, J.; Meehan, K.; Richards, A. Corporate social responsibility: The 3C-SR model. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2006, 33, 386–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behringer, K.; Szegedi, K. The Role of CSR In Achieving Sustainable Development—Theoretical Approach. Eur. Sci. J. ESJ 2016, 12, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, M.S.; Carroll, A.B. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach. Bus. Ethics Q. 2003, 13, 503–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witek-Hajduk, M.K.; Zaborek, P. Does Business Model Affect CSR Involvement? A Survey of Polish Manufacturing and Service Companies. Sustainability 2016, 8, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torelli, R. Sustainability, responsibility and ethics: Different concepts for a single path. Soc. Responsib. J. 2021, 17, 719–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yawar, S.A.; Seuring, S. Management of Social Issues in Supply Chains: A Literature Review Exploring Social Issues, Actions and Performance Outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 141, 621–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, P.; Sarkis, J.; Adenso-Díaz, B. Environmental management system certification and its influence on corporate practices: Evidence from the automotive industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2008, 28, 1021–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiarini, A. Designing an environmental sustainable supply chain through ISO 14001 standard. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2013, 24, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roshni, A.G.; Siti-Nabiha, A.K.; Jalaludin, D.; Abdalla, Y.A. Barriers to and enablers of sustainability integration in the performance management systems of an oil and gas company. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, J.; Kochhar, T.S.; Ganguli, S.; Rajest, S.S. Evolution of management system certification: An overview. In ICT Based Framework for Data Science and Machine Learning Applications; Innovations in Information and Communication Technology Series; IJAICT India Publications: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2021; pp. 082–092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milovanović, V.; Paunović, M.; Casadesus, M. Measuring the Impact of ISO 9001 on Employee and Customer Related Company Performance. Qual. Innov. Prosper. 2023, 27, 79–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGrath, P.; McCarthy, L.; Marshall, D.; Rehme, J. Tools and Technologies of Transparency in Sustainable Global Supply Chains. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2021, 64, 67–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartos, K.E.; Schwarzkopf, J.; Mueller, M.; Hofmann-Stoelting, C. Explanatory factors for variation in supplier sustainability performance in the automotive sector—A quantitative analysis. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain. 2022, 5, 100068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maletič, D.; Marques de Almeida, N.; Gomišček, B.; Maletič, N. Understanding motives for and barriers to implementing asset management system: An empirical study for engineered physical assets. Prod. Plan. Control 2022, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wawak, S.; Rogala, P.; Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. Research trends in quality management in years 2000-2019. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2020, 12, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Pawar, K.S.; Bhardwaj, S. Improving supply chain social responsibility through supplier development. Prod. Plan. Control. 2017, 28, 500–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruxue, S.; Pingtao, Y.; Weiwei, L.; Wang, L. Sustainability self-determination evaluation based on the possibility ranking method: A case study of cities in ethnic minority autonomous areas of China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 87, 104188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsien, C.; Zi-Yu, K.; Eisner, E.; Sing Ying, C.; Ng Kuan Yuan, L.; Dönmez, J.; Mennenga, M.; Herrmann, C.; Sze Choong Low, J. Self-Assessment and Improvement Tool for a Sustainability Excellence Framework in Singapore. Procedia CIRP 2021, 98, 672–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schöggl, J.-P.; Fritz, M.M.C.; Baumgartner, R.J. Sustainability Assessment in Automotive and Electronics Supply Chains—A Set of Indicators Defined in a Multi-Stakeholder Approach. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajwa, N.; Prewett, K.; Shavers, C.L. Is your supply chain ready to embrace blockchain? J. Corp. Account. Financ. 2020, 31, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, I.; Müller, M.; Schwarzkopf, J. Dear supplier, how sustainable are you? A multiple-case study analysis of a widespread tool for sustainable supply chain management. Nachhalt. Manag. Forum 2020, 28, 127–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, N.; Ormiston, J. Blockchain as a sustainability-oriented innovation?: Opportunities for and resistance to Blockchain technology as a driver of sustainability in global food supply chains. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 175, 121403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munir, M.A.; Habib, M.S.; Hussain, A.; Shahbaz, M.A.; Qamar, A.; Masood, T.; Sultan, M.; Mujtaba, M.A.; Imran, S.; Hasan, M.; et al. Blockchain Adoption for Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Economic, Environmental, and Social Perspectives. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 899632. Available online: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2022.899632 (accessed on 20 June 2023).
- Hastig, G.M.; Sodhi, M.S. Blockchain for Supply Chain Traceability: Business Requirements and Critical Success Factors. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2020, 29, 935–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IQNet Association. IQ Net SR10 Social Responsibility Management Systems Requirements. Bern: IQNet Association—The International Certification Network. 2015. Available online: https://cro-cert.hr/images/downloads/IQNet_SR10_2015_eng.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2020).
- ISO 26000; Guidance on Social Responsibility. Ženeva: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
- Szczuka, M. Social Dimension of Sustainability in CSR Standards. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 3, 4800–4807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritz, M.C.M.; Schöggl, J.P.; Baumgartner, R.J. Selected sustainability aspects for supply chain data exchange: Towards a supply chain-wide sustainability assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 587–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halkos, G.; Nomikos, S. Corporate social responsibility: Trends in global reporting initiative standards. Econ. Anal. Policy 2021, 69, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Responsible Business Alliance (RBA). Available online: https://www.responsiblebusiness.org/ (accessed on 20 February 2022).
- Electrolux Professional—Supplier Workplace Standard. Available online: https://www.electroluxprofessional.com/corporate/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Electrolux-Professional-Supplier-Workplace-Standard.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2021).
- Code of Conduct for Suppliers of the BSH Group. Available online: https://media3.bsh-group.com/Documents/21050820_Attachment_5_Code_of_Conduct_EN_version_3_0.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2023).
- IATF 16949; Quality Management System for Organizations in the Automotive Industry. International Automotive Task Force; VDA: Eisenach, Germany, 2016.
- Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire on CSR/Sustainability for Automotive Sector Suppliers. Available online: https://www.drivesustainability.org/saq-5-0/ (accessed on 20 December 2021).
- BMW Group Supplier Sustainability Policy. Available online: https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/grpw/websites/bmwgroup_com/responsibility/downloads/en/2022/BMW-Group-Supplier-Code-of-Conduct-V.3.0_englisch_20221206.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022).
- Ford Motor Company. Sustainability Strategy. Available online: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2021/04/30/ford-establishes-formal-supplier-conduct-code-for-environment--h.html (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Responsible Purchasing Practices. Available online: https://www.stellantis.com/en/responsibility/responsible-purchasing-practices (accessed on 15 November 2022).
- Volkswagen Group Code of Conduct for Business Partners. Available online: https://www.volkswagen-group.com/en/publications/more/code-of-conduct-for-business-partner-1885 (accessed on 15 May 2023).
- FCA Sustainability Guidelines for Supplier. Available online: https://www.stellantis.com/content/dam/stellantis-corporate/archives/fca/corporate-regulations/FCA_Guidelines_for_Suppliers.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2023).
- Responsible Steel. Available online: https://www.responsiblesteel.org/ (accessed on 15 May 2023).
- Thyssenkrupp. Supplier Code of Conduct. Available online: https://www.eecv.nl/uploads/20230210-code-of-conduct-english.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2020).
- Validated Assessment Program (VAP). Available online: https://www.responsiblebusiness.org/vap/about-vap/ (accessed on 25 June 2022).
- ISO 9001; Quality Management Systems—Requirements. Ženeva: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
- ISO 14001; Environmental Management Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. Ženeva: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
- ISO 45001; Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. Ženeva: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
- ISO 5001; Energy Management Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. Ženeva: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
- Nenadál, J. The New EFQM Model: What is Really New and Could Be Considered as a Suitable Tool with Respect to Quality 4.0 Concept? Qual. Innov. Prosper. 2020, 24, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zgodavova, K.; Bober, P. An Innovative Approach to the Integrated Management System Development: SIMPRO-IMS Web Based Environment. Qual. Innov. Prosper. 2012, 16, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, G.; Sá, J.C.; Félix, M.J.; Barreto, L.; Carvalho, F.; Doiro, M.; Zgodavová, K.; Stefanović, M. New Needed Quality Management Skills for Quality Managers 4.0. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacana, A.; Czerwińska, K. A Quality Control Improvement Model That Takes into Account the Sustainability Concept and KPIs. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ispas, L.; Mironeasa, C.; Silvestri, A. Risk-Based Approach in the Implementation of Integrated Management Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kishore, R.A.; Sanghadasa, M.; Priya, S. Optimization of segmented thermoelectric generator using Taguchi and ANOVA techniques. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 16746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sauder, D.C.; DeMars, C.E. An Updated Recommendation for Multiple Comparisons. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 2, 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz, R.; Pan, Q.-K.; Naderi, B. Iterated Greedy methods for the distributed permutation flowshop scheduling problem. Omega 2019, 83, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trama, R.; Hautier, C.A.; Blache, Y. fctSnPM: Factorial ANOVA and post-hoc tests for Statistical nonParametric Mapping in MATLAB. J. Open Source Softw. 2021, 6, 3159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kováč, J.; Gregor, I.; Melicherčík, J.; Kuvik, T. Analysis of the Operating Parameters of Wood Transport Vehicles from the Point of View of Operational Reliability. Forests 2023, 14, 1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malash, G.F.; El-Khaiary, M.I. Piecewise Linear Regression: A Statistical Method for the Analysis of Experimental Adsorption Data by the Intraparticle-Diffusion Models. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 163, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafique, M.; Rafiq, M. An Overview of Construction Occupational Accidents in Hong Kong: A Recent Trend and Future Perspectives. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Daza, M.A.; Guzmán Rincón, A.; Castaño Rico, J.A.; Segovia-García, N.; Montilla Buitrago, H.Y. Multivariate Analysis of Attitudes, Knowledge and Use of ICT in Students Involved in Virtual Research Seedbeds. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lukavská, K.; Burda, V.; Lukavský, J.; Slussareff, M.; Gabrhelík, R. School-Based Prevention of Screen-Related Risk Behaviors during the Long-Term Distant Schooling Caused by COVID-19 Outbreak. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tomašková, M.; Balážiková, M.; Krajňák, J. Hazards related to activities of fire-rescue department members during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. J. Silesian Univ. Technol. Ser. Transp. 2022, 117, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagyová, A.; Pačaiová, H.; Markulik, Š.; Turisová, R.; Kozel, R.; Džugan, J. Design of a Model for Risk Reduction in Project Management in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Symmetry 2021, 13, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
CSR Standards and Codes | Basic Subject and Requirements | Approaches to Assessment | EL | AU | ST |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
RBA (Responsible Business Alliance) 2020 [62] | RBA Code of Conduct: 1. Staff; 2. Health and Safety; 3. Environment; 4. Ethics; and 5. Management systems | RBA VAP, auditable by a third party. | √ | ||
Electrolux Supplier standards in the workplace 2020 [63] | Child labor; Workforce; Safety measures; Health and safety; Non-discrimination; Harassment and abuse; Disciplinary and grievance procedures; Working time; Compensation; Freedom of assembly; Environmental compliance; and Corruption and business ethics. | Electrolux Workplace Policy and Supplier Workplace Standard (second- and third-party audits). | √ | ||
BSH Supplier Code of Conduct 2021 [64] | Laws and regulations; Corruption and bribery; Human rights; Labor; Child labor; Harassment; Compensation; Hours of work; Non-discrimination; Health and safety; Freedom of assembly and collective bargaining; Environment; and Supply chain. | CSR audit carried out by a third party towards BSH Supplier Code of Conduct. | √ | ||
IATF 16949 [65] | CSR policy that, as a minimum, should include: Anti-Bribery Policy, Employee Code of Conduct, and Ethics Escalation Policy. | √ | |||
SAQ ver. 5.0 2021 [66] | Business Management, Working Conditions and Human Rights, Health and Safety, Business Ethics, Environment, Supplier Management, and Responsible Sourcing of Raw Materials. | √ | |||
BMW Group Supplier Sustainability Policy 2021 [67] | 1. Environmental responsibility; 2. Social responsibility; 3. Public governance; and 4. Supply chain responsibility | SAQ 5.0/RBA VAP (third party audit) | √ | ||
FORD Human Rights Code, basic working conditions social responsibility 2022 [68] | 1. Human rights and working conditions; 2. Community involvement and indigenous peoples; 3. Bribery and corruption; 4. Environment and sustainability; and 5. Accountability and implementation | SAQ 5.0/RBA VAP (third party audit) | √ | ||
PSA Group Responsible Purchasing Rules [69] 2020 | 1. Social principles; 2. Environmental protection; 3. Ethical principles; and 4. Sustainable procurement | EcoVadis Platform/PSA Group Own methodology (third party audits) | √ | ||
Volkswagen Group Code of Conduct for Business Partners 2020 [70] | 1. Environmental protection; 2. Human and labor rights of employees; 3. Transparent business relations; 4. Fair market conduct; 5. Due diligence to promote a responsible mineral supply chain; and 6. Integration of sustainability requirements in the organization and processes. | SAQ 5.0 / RBA VAP (third party audit) | √ | ||
FCA Group Sustainability guidelines for suppliers 2020 [71] | 1. Human rights and working conditions; 2. Environment; 3. Business ethics and corruption; and 4. Monitoring and corrective action. | RBA (by third party towards Supplier Code of Conduct) | √ | ||
ResponsibleSteel 2021 [72] | 1. Company Management; 2. Social, Environment and Governance Management System; 3. Responsible Sourcing of Input Materials; 4. Decommissioning and Closure; 5. Occupational Health and Safety; 6. Labor rights; 7. Human Rights; 8. Stakeholder Engagement and Communication; 9. Local communities; 10. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas; 11. Noise, Emissions, Effluents and Waste; 12. Water Stewardship; and 13. Biodiversity. | Third party audit according to ResponsibleSteel standard. | √ | ||
ThyssenKrupp Supplier Code of Conduct 2020 [73] | Human and labor rights; Employee health and safety; Environmental protection; Business conduct; Supplier relations; and Compliance with the ThyssenKrupp Code of Conduct. | ThyssenKrupp Supplier Code of Conduct (second- or third-party audit) | √ |
Standard Chapters/() | Management System (MS) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IQNet SR10 | QMS | IATF | EMS | OHSMS | EnMS | ||
4 | Context of the organization | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
5 | Leadership | 80 | 60 | 80 | 60 | 80 | 60 |
6 | Planning | 80 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 120 |
7 | Support | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
8 | Operation | 190 | 150 | 180 | 40 | 60 | 60 |
9 | Performance evaluation | 100 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
10 | Improvement | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
In total | 710 | 610 | 660 | 500 | 540 | 580 |
Respondent | Management System (MS) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IQNet SR10 | QMS | IATF | EMS | OHSMS | EnMS | Area of Activity | ||
1 | TU | √ | EL | |||||
2 | AU1 | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | AU |
3 | AU2 | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | AU | |
4 | AU3 | √ | √ | √ | √ | AU | ||
5 | OC | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ST |
Factor | Level | Values |
---|---|---|
Organization | 5 | AUT1; AUT2; AUT3; OC; TU |
Standard | 5 | EMS; EnMS; IATF; OHSAS; QMS |
Chapter | 7 | 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10 |
Test for Equal Variances | MZ vs.Organization; Standard; Chapter | MU vs. Organization; Standard; Chapter | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Method | Test Statistic | p-Value | Test Statistic | p-Value |
Multiple comparisons | — | 0.002 | — | 0.042 |
Levene | 0.51 | 1.000 | 0.66 | 0.993 |
Variances | ||
---|---|---|
MZ | = | 24.354 − 1.03 Organization_AUT1 − 1.04 Organization_AUT2 + 6.55 Organization_AUT3 + 13.27 Organization_OC − 17.75 Organization_TU + 3.05 Standard_EMS − 9.35 Standard_EnMS + 12.81 Standard_IATF + 4.17 Standard_OHSAS − 10.68 Standard_QMS − 1.73 Chapter_4 − 2.14 Chapter_5 − 3.60 Chapter_6 + 7.26 Chapter_7 + 4.15 Chapter_8 + 0.56 Chapter_9 − 4.50 Chapter_10 |
MU | = | 20,404 + 2.49 Organization_AUT1 + 1.31 Organization_AUT2 + 7.93 Organization_AUT3 + 7.09 Organization_OC − 18.82 Organization_TU + 3.44 Standard_EMS − 8.82 Standard_EnMS + 12.89 Standard_IATF + 5.12 Standard_OHSAS − 12.63 Standard_QMS − 0.47 Chapter_4 − 3.08 Chapter_5 − 2.88 Chapter_6 + 6.42 Chapter_7 + 3.97 Chapter_8 − 0.05 Chapter_9 − 3.92 Chapter_10 |
Total | = | 44.76 + 1.45 Organization_AUT1 + 0.28 Organization_AUT2 + 14.48 Organization_AUT3 + 20.36 Organization_OC − 36.57 Organization_TU + 6.50 Standard_EMS − 18.18 Standard_EnMS + 25.70 Standard_IATF + 9.29 Standard_OHSAS − 23.31 Standard_QMS − 2.20 Chapter_4 − 5.22 Chapter_5 − 6.48 Chapter_6 + 13.68 Chapter_7 + 8.12 Chapter_8 + 0.51 Chapter_9 − 8.42 Chapter_10 |
ANOVA for MZ | ANOVA for MU | ANOVA for Total | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Source | DF | Adj SS | Adj MS | F-Value | p-Value | DF | Adj SS | Adj MS | F-Value | p-Value | DF | Adj SS | Adj MS | F-Value | p-Value |
Organization | 4 | 56,111 | 14,027.8 | 53.22 | 0.000 | 4 | 49,848 | 12,462.1 | 64.78 | 0.000 | 4 | 205,746 | 51,436.4 | 59.93 | 0.000 |
Standard | 4 | 41,192 | 10,297.9 | 39.07 | 0.000 | 4 | 46,331 | 11,582.8 | 60.21 | 0.000 | 4 | 174,509 | 43,627.1 | 50.83 | 0.000 |
Chapter | 6 | 8324 | 1387.3 | 5.26 | 0.000 | 6 | 6781 | 1130.1 | 5.87 | 0.000 | 6 | 29,880 | 4980.0 | 5.80 | 0.000 |
Error | 509 | 134,150 | 263.6 | 509 | 97,912 | 192.4 | 509 | 436,889 | 858.3 | ||||||
Lack-of-Fit | 160 | 133,902 | 836.9 | 1173.66 | 0.000 | 160 | 97,731 | 610.8 | 1174.43 | 0.000 | 160 | 436,477 | 2728.0 | 2309.63 | 0.000 |
Pure Error | 349 | 249 | 0.7 | 349 | 182 | 0.5 | 349 | 412 | 1.2 | ||||||
Total | 523 | 239,730 | 523 | 200,813 | 523 | 846,784 | |||||||||
Model | S | R-sq | R-sq (adj) | R-sq (pred) | S | R-sq | R-sq (adj) | R-sq (pred) | S | R-sq | R-sq (adj) | R-sq (pred) | |||
16.2344 | 44.04% | 42.50% | 40.69% | 13.8695 | 51.24% | 49.90% | 48.32% | 29.2972 | 48.41% | 46.99% | 45.32% |
MZ | MU | Total | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organization | N | Mean | Grouping | Mean | Grouping | Mean | Grouping | ||||||||
OC | 104 | 37.6238 | A | 27.4940 | A | B | 65.1178 | A | |||||||
AUT3 | 105 | 30.9007 | B | 28.3330 | A | 59.2337 | A | ||||||||
AUT1 | 105 | 23.3214 | C | 22.8904 | B | C | 46.2118 | B | |||||||
AUT2 | 105 | 23.3170 | C | 21.7191 | C | 45.0362 | B | ||||||||
TU | 105 | 6.6053 | D | 1.5842 | D | 8.1895 | C | ||||||||
Standard | N | Mean | Grouping | Mean | Grouping | Mean | Grouping | ||||||||
IATF | 105 | 37.1635 | A | 33.2922 | A | 70.4557 | A | ||||||||
OHSAS | 104 | 28.5268 | B | 25.5229 | B | 54.0497 | B | ||||||||
EMS | 105 | 27.4081 | B | 23.8490 | B | 51.2570 | B | ||||||||
EnMS | 105 | 14.9998 | C | 11.5825 | C | 26.5823 | C | ||||||||
QMS | 105 | 13.6701 | C | 7.7743 | C | 21.4444 | C | ||||||||
Chapter | N | Mean | Grouping | Mean | Grouping | Mean | Grouping | ||||||||
7 | 75 | 31.6125 | A | 26.8287 | A | 58.4412 | A | ||||||||
8 | 75 | 28.5033 | A | B | 24.3751 | A | B | 52.8784 | A | B | |||||
9 | 75 | 24.9143 | A | B | C | 20.3585 | A | B | C | 45.2728 | A | B | C | ||
4 | 74 | 22.6282 | B | C | 19.9340 | A | B | C | 42.5622 | B | C | ||||
5 | 75 | 22.2141 | B | C | 17.3245 | C | 39.5387 | B | C | ||||||
6 | 75 | 20.7540 | B | C | 17.5241 | B | C | 38.2781 | B | C | |||||
10 | 75 | 19.8492 | C | 16.4841 | C | 36.3333 | C |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kóča, F.; Pačaiová, H.; Turisová, R.; Sütőová, A.; Darvaši, P. The Methodology for Assessing the Applicability of CSR into Supplier Management Systems. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713240
Kóča F, Pačaiová H, Turisová R, Sütőová A, Darvaši P. The Methodology for Assessing the Applicability of CSR into Supplier Management Systems. Sustainability. 2023; 15(17):13240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713240
Chicago/Turabian StyleKóča, Ferdinand, Hana Pačaiová, Renata Turisová, Andrea Sütőová, and Peter Darvaši. 2023. "The Methodology for Assessing the Applicability of CSR into Supplier Management Systems" Sustainability 15, no. 17: 13240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713240