Sustainable Business Management: The Role of Standardisation

Abstract

Theoretical justifications related to voluntary standards at international, European and national levels as ‘soft’ regulators in the field of sustainable management of organisations are considered. The conceptual framework of the study is based on the overall standardisation process, going through the first phase of ‘Standards setting’ and the subsequent phase of ‘Standards implementation’ with the participation of stakeholders from the sustainable management of organisations. A methodology for empirical research on attitudes towards the implementation of sustainable management of organisations in the light of the setting and implementation of standards as ‘soft’ regulators among stakeholders has been developed. The content analysis of the conducted ‘in-depth’ interviews has allowed to outline the main categories according to the process model of standardisation. Three main models of standardisation for sustainable management have been identified: ‘de jure’ standards of standard-setting organisations, market-based ‘de facto’ standards and legal standards based on government policies and measures. The correspondence between the revealed models and the implementation of the sustainable standards by the respondents depending on their affiliation to the respective stakeholder group has been established. In conclusion, opportunities have been identified to improve the implementation of standards as a voluntary tool for achieving sustainable business management.

1. Introduction

Today, more than ever, business organisations from all sectors of the economy are under increasing pressure from public authorities, society and various stakeholders demanding greater activity and transparency in the field of sustainable management, consumption and production. This requires to show a number of responsibilities relating to both good economic performance and society, the environment and resource and energy consumption [1, 2, 3].

The concepts of ‘green’ and sustainable management are used very intensively to describe the responsible development of business organisations—not to have a negative impact on the environment at local and global level, and not to harm the local community and society as a whole.

A number of researchers define sustainable management as system management practices applied by the company to address environmental issues above all by protecting the environment and minimising the negative impact of company products throughout their life cycle [1, 3, 4, 5, 6]. According to them, this management can be realised both through management, which concerns the protection of the environment and resources, and through efficiency in all types of activities of the company related to energy, material, water resources, personnel and society. As a systematic and efficient way to identify and pursue high-priority environmental performance, ‘green’ or otherwise referred to by Blackburn as ‘environmental’ and ‘sustainable’ management is also seen as a method of seeking sustainable business values [1].

On the other hand, standards have the potential to play a significant role in sustainable management, against the backdrop of a wide range of regulations and social norms in terms of sustainable consumption and production. The modern development of standardisation builds on its classical focus on solving technical problems by including social and environmental topics [7, 8, 9, 10]. Many authors give strong arguments in support of the thesis that standardisation appears as a general new form of regulation in modern globalised life alongside traditional legislation and social norms [6, 7, 8, 11].

Other authors also view standards as three party-regulatory tools between government, business and civil society [12]. They identify standards as ‘soft’ regulatory tools, highlighting their voluntary implementation in various industrial sectors. This is supported by the described dynamic interaction between different standardisation models based on initiatives of government, market and society within the concept of multi-model standardisation [13].

There are many examples of voluntary environmental standards designed to solve environmental problems, which also include economic and social aspects. We are witnessing an increase in the number of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) standards and sustainable management of organisations. They all differ significantly in their objectives and performance patterns, based on a variety of approaches: certification of organisation management systems and labelling of products and services, models for business excellence and for learning organisations and so on. At the same time, there is very limited research in the country [14, 15, 16] for adopting standards as a tool to enforce sustainable management. In order to fill this gap, this study sets specific objectives for implementation in this area.

The involvement of stakeholders in the development of standards helps to create and disseminate a common reference framework for all, which will bring sustainable development topics into the agenda. However, a small number of initiatives have been identified in practice, involving representatives of stakeholders in the creation of international, regional and national standards, and research in this area is very limited. Thus, the need for this study arises, the aim of which is to explore the role of standardisation and the involvement of stakeholders in imposing sustainable business management.

1.1 Standards and sustainable management of organisations

The proactive approach of companies to ‘green’ (environmental) and sustainable management requires finding a specific way to identify and pursue high-priority economic, environmental and social outcomes. Blackburn [1] emphasises that the series of standards for management systems allows this process of sustainable management or as he defines it as a ‘sustainable operating system’ to be ‘mapped’ and ‘institutionalised in written documents’. Standards communicate how this process is carried out, and this enables all participants to be familiar with their role in it [1, 17]. The author points out as important advantages of ‘sustainable standards’ or ‘sustainable operating systems’, that they direct companies to their priorities for action, provide institutional memory to improve processes, introduce organisational discipline for improvements, ensure constructive changes in the culture of the organisation, improve the effectiveness and efficiency of management and serve as a framework for the dissemination of good practices ([1], p. 166).

According to other researchers, the so-called ‘voluntary standard systems’ (VSS) are a promising and rapidly evolving concept with significant potential for introducing the ‘green’ and sustainable economy. It focuses on the three main pillars of sustainability—social, environmental and economic aspects—and is seen as a tool that makes sustainable development visible. These systems have recently become an important element of international trade and play an important role in the implementation of sustainable development strategies, in particular in the context of global markets and supply chains [18, 19].

The chronology of the development of these standards follows the events of 1990–1999, notably the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, after which a number of environmental and social responsibility standards were developed, such as ISO 14000 and EMAS [20, 21]. These standards were set both by the International Organisation for Standardisation and within the framework of the European environmental policy to cover corporate requirements for auditing, eco-labels and declarations, product life cycle analysis and so forth. After 2000, standards such as ISO 26000 for the guiding principles of CSR [22] emerged with the introduction of the approach of satisfying all stakeholders [19, 23]. Approved in September 2021, the London Declaration to combat climate change through standards defines ISO’s commitment to achieve the climate agenda by 2050 [24].

Schmitz-Hoffmann et al. see standards as ‘a tool that translates the vision of sustainable development into concrete and practical steps, the impact of which can be measured and aims at future development’. The authors believe that voluntary sustainable standards are part of the response to the search for social and environmental forms of globalisation and support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [19, 25]. Among the main reasons for their development and implementation is the complexity of risk assessment and management of the global supply chain and the inability of national standards and legal regulation to fully cover these risks due to the limited scopes of validity. Voluntary sustainable standards provide feasible business practices with the support of the relevant stakeholders which cover actors from the private sector, the public sector and civil society. In the light of the concept of multi-model standardisation, these ‘de facto’ standards are developed by industry, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade associations and so on, aiming to find solutions to specific issues related to implementing sustainability [13, 19]. The success and adoption of sustainable standards initiatives is based on their message and impact (social, environmental and economic), trust and legitimacy. The systems of voluntary sustainable standards introduce new forms of partnership between civil society and the business in favour of sustainable production and consumption.

1.2 Building the conceptual framework of the study

The process approach applied to standardisation will be used for the purposes of this study on the role of standardisation and the involvement of stakeholders in implementing sustainable management. The process model of standardisation described by De Vries (Figure 1) distinguishes broadly two main phases: ‘Standards setting’ and ‘Standards implementation’ [26].

Figure 1.

Process model of standardisation, according to De Vries [26].

The first phase, of the example of setting ISO standards, involves successive activities from the initiation of the standardisation project with a specific idea, through the development phase with balanced stakeholder representation and the challenge of systematic work and consensus building, to the barely researched stage of provision of the standard, that is, its ‘visibility’ or dissemination.

The second phase of implementation of standards includes the stages: ‘Acceptance’; ‘Introduction and use’ and ‘Impact’. The stage of implementation of a standard has received serious attention in studies, which focuses on the so-called ‘war’ between different standards. This stage has been linked to the question—Which standard should be chosen for implementation in the organisation? However, practice shows the parallel existence of numerous standards. There is also a large number of studies supporting the positive effects of the standards of the last two stages of introduction, use and impact at company level.

The construction of the conceptual framework of this study takes into account the fact that more research has been done in the second phase of the implementation of the standards mainly for sustainable management compared to the scarce data for the first phase of their creation.

1.3 From business idea to sustainable management standards

Due to their widespread adoption in most industrial sectors, ‘green’ management systems, also known as ‘Environmental management systems’ (EMS), enjoy considerable attention from researchers in the field of company organisation and management. A systematic review shows that ‘despite extensive empirical literature, the academic studies of ISO 14001 and the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) are still focused on technical and pragmatic aspects and have little theoretical input’ [27, 28]. The authors emphasise that these voluntary standards are tools that meet different needs of certain stakeholders and differ in their approaches. For this reason, many of the existing studies are not comprehensive and present voluntary standards for ‘green’ management systems with a certain dose of prejudice [27, 28]. Other authors recommend identifying in future studies the specific focus of different types of stakeholders towards different EMS standards and assessing the intensity of ‘different signalling effects in different geographical contexts’ [29, 30].

1.3.1 Management ideas and standards

Stakeholder engagement makes it possible to explore the way standardisation works and to consider the evolution and impact of management ideas, which can be defined as ‘very stable bodies of knowledge of what management should do… as a system of assumptions, accepted principles and rules of procedure’ [31]. Rasche and Seidl cite as the main reason for exploring the relationship between management ideas and standards that they can be seen as enduring bearers of knowledge and associated with management ideas can influence their dissemination [32]. An illustration of this is a study of the quality management standards of the ISO 9000 series, which are seen as a common language (code) for communication and industrial relations. The study found that the implementation of these international standards for management systems is linked to the codification of knowledge through a learning process that involves both individual and collective transformations of knowledge [33, 34].

The way management concepts and standards relate to each other justifies some authors to introduce the concepts of ‘codified’ and ‘non-codified’ standards [32]. They emphasise that not all management ideas are codified into standards and consider so-called ‘generic’ or ‘common’ strategies that are considered general applicable recommendations or non-codified standards.

On the other hand, codification can also be seen as a form of objectification that involves the construction of definitions, processes, measures or indicators that are subsequently used to assess compliance [35]. The popularity of some uncodified management ideas can stimulate the development of codified standards. An example of this is the creation of the international standard ISO 26000 as a result of the widespread and global success of the concept of corporate social responsibility [10]. The ‘translation’ of management ideas leads to the creation of rules with a high degree of accuracy, and codified management ideas can be seen as a ‘compression of knowledge and practices’ in the organisation [32].

1.3.2 Reasons for turning management ideas into codified standards

There are many reasons to turn management ideas into codified standards.

Standards act as a source of authority and thus strengthen the legitimacy of management ideas. One of the main criticisms of management ideas is that they are too vague and tend to reflect ‘the rhetoric’ rather than substantive practices [32]. The standards are believed to reflect precise rules that are usually developed by experts, and this allows for the creation of mechanisms to ensure and monitor specific management ideas [8]. Turning ideas into codified standards provides a means of organising the use of management ideas. Once an idea is converted into a codified rule, other elements of the organisation such as monitoring, sanctions, membership and hierarchy can be added to the standard [19, 32].

Management ideas often become codified standards, as these standards facilitate the formation of markets. Market realisation refers to ‘extension of market coordination in non-commercial coordinated social areas’. The creation of markets in areas that relate to certain ideas is of commercial interest to the numerous actors (e.g. managers, auditors and consultants) and are thus generally considered desirable [32].

Another reason for turning management ideas into codified standards is related to the durability of standards over time. Very often, management ideas are subject to ‘fashion trends’ that are unstable over time and their popularity can quickly change. Standards are generally perceived as more durable because they ‘represent the “scientific basis” of sometimes ambiguous ideas’ [8]. Standardisation involves experts from different societal fields, for instance, from research institutions or academia. It is expertise that forms the basis for the development of precise definitions, measures and indicators that define the principles on which management ideas are based. The standardisation process ‘takes away part of the semantic wealth and strategic ambiguity of such ideas, but at the same time increases the stability of their meaning’ [36].

The very process of turning management ideas into codified standards can help spread these ideas. Inviting potential users to participate in the drafting of codified standards can help define the content of the standard in a way that is acceptable to all [37]. This is possible, for example, through discussions in which participants can explore the characteristics of different groups of potential users which need to be taken into account when formulating the standard. These characteristics may reflect, for example, differences in organisation size or regulatory requirements. Such discussions also provide an opportunity to explore participants’ willingness to adopt certain aspects of a standard. The elimination of potentially controversial aspects often helps in the subsequent dissemination of the standard. Participation in the standard-setting process also creates engagement among participants. As Brunsson et al. write: ‘Participation often involves a commitment to adopt the standard’. This implies that the more stakeholders involved in standard-setting, the higher the number of users involved in the future [37].

1.3.3 Creation of codified management standards

Standards are mainly created by organisations that specialise in the development of codified (formal) standards such as ISO. Although these bodies have official members, the range of actors involved in the development of standards is usually much wider. Often external experts and organisations potentially affected by a standard are invited to contribute [37]. Other codified ‘de facto’ standards involve mainly representatives of so-called ‘industrial consortia’ representing associations of enterprises.

In both cases, a number of criteria apply to the selection of participants in the standardisation process. The expertise of the participants helps the quality of the standards set and strengthens the legitimacy of standards among those who will implement them, that is, potential users. Unfortunately, some experts are often symbolically involved in the standard-setting process, while others are not represented equally, such as the so-called social partners in European standardisation. Depending on the type of codified management standard being developed, it is possible to overlap different interests. Technically, all participants usually have an equivalent voice in developing standards, although some studies show that differences in material resources (travel budget to the meeting place) or social capital (personal connections) can impact stakeholder groups [7]. Participants that are stronger and more rich in resources often have a stronger influence on how a standard will be finalised than the influence of other participants.

This highlights the need for more research to reveal the policy of turning management ideas into standards. Currently, little is known about how consultants, publishers and authors of management concepts influence the standard-setting process if these ideas are incorporated into the emerging standard [32].

Considering this first phase of the creation of ‘green’ and sustainable management standards according to the process model of standardisation, it is necessary to study the phenomena already described in the Bulgarian socio-economic context (Figure 1).

1.4 Dissemination and implementation in organisations

Competition between standards may take the form of the so-called ‘War of standards’ [26, 32, 38]. The reduction of competing formal standards is also one of the reasons for ISO’s work, which coordinates the standardisation efforts of different national standardisation bodies. Outside the technical sphere, multiple standards coexist the so-called ‘marketplace of standards’, as competing standards focus on different aspects of activities aimed at standardising [39]. Researching the development of corporate responsibility standards in the global coffee industry shows that the relevant standards have common key criteria and general principles, but differ in their focus on different aspects of sustainability.

Since many codified standards are used as market signals (e.g. by suppliers to convince buyers that their products meet certain specifications), it is necessary to establish strict rules for the implementation of the standard by organisations. The implementation of codified standards is therefore often regulated through monitoring and certification mechanisms. In addition to standard makers and their target group, there are ‘third parties’ who can also show an active interest in a certain standard such as customers, suppliers, business partners and investors. These actors often welcome the development of standards they can benefit from.

Standards can also help reduce information asymmetry between business partners. Knowing that the future business partner is certified to a certain standard relieves participants of the burden of evaluating the processes and structures of that partner [8, 40]. Some representatives of so-called third parties, such as consultants, auditors, certification bodies or mass media, may be directly involved in standards adoption and monitoring processes. They often have very different interests in relation to a given standard. From the perspective of consultants, for example, the new standards provide opportunities to consult organisations during the adoption process. There is an entire industry of consultants who specialise in helping companies implement ISO standards. Auditors and certification bodies also gain by checking and certifying the implementation of certain standards [41].

This should also take into account the fact that standards often change during their dissemination process. The formulation of standards requires a high level of abstraction and codification so that they are applicable in different application environments. As a result, only when a standard is applied in a particular situation can one speak of its importance in this context [38, 42]. No general rule may fully regulate the conditions of its own implementation. In this regard, some authors note that standards are characterised by an unavoidable ‘partial emptiness’ which must be fulfilled by their interpretation from the point of view of the specific situation [42]. As a consequence, the importance of standards ‘deviates’ from the context in which they apply [42, 43]. This gives reason to study the implementation of sustainable management standards in the specific Bulgarian context.

Researchers stress that standards inevitably relate to other legal and voluntary rules with which they can compete in their implementation [37, 44]. Such relations can affect the speed at which standards are disseminated and can lead to their reinterpretation. As already highlighted, standards can be used as a benchmark in a given legal system. In particular, voluntary management standards are considered the ‘best practice’ in assessing the risk of taking responsibility towards the environment and society [45].

‘As with other “soft” law instruments/with non-binding legal force/, the legal system tends to include standards for Corporate Management Codes as a normal criterion against which behaviour will be measured in a particular case. As regards liability, the interpretation of contractual clauses and so on, it seems possible to consider the rules adopted in the Codes as standard’ [45].

1.4.1 The consequences of the ‘translation’ of management ideas into codified standards

An important consequence of codifying ideas into standards is increasing the uniformity of behaviour [8, 46]. Imitation is a key factor in such homogeneity. Ideas often form the basis for copying what other companies do. Although ideas can be interpreted and applied in different ways, codified standards reduce the scope of possible interpretations and can therefore be expected to lead to more uniform behaviour among those who implement them. At the same time, even when standards are clearly formulated and dictate specific criteria for measuring the performance of those who have applied them, they do not guarantee uniformity, as all standards inevitably leave room for different interpretations [43, 46].

Another possible consequence of turning management ideas into codified standards is the concept of decoupling, which refers to the inconsistencies between the day-to-day practices of the standard-setting organisations and the formal structures that are created in relation to a standard [8]. Boiral et al. examines the adoption of ISO 14001 by business organisations and shows that while the standard brings some technical and administrative improvements, most daily practices remain separate from the prescriptions of the standard [41]. Previous research has also shown that this separation is influenced by a number of factors that are related to the discussion of standards depending on the management ideas they codify. In the case of management ideas that are translated into codified standards, decoupling can be a lesser problem, as these formal standards leave relatively little room for interpretation and offer precise guidance. Guarantee and verification mechanisms (audits) reduce the likelihood of such a phenomenon of separation. According to current research, the differentiation of strategic and operational dimensions in two separate constructs leads to a symbolic form of corporate environmentalism if it does not depend on the precise implementation of the EMS requirements [27, 28]. The adoption of certified EMS appears as a means of aligning environmental and strategic positions, which, however, does not prevent the potential separation between the symbolic commitment to the environment and the substantial improvement of the environment [27, 28].

The proliferation of codified management standards leads to an ‘explosion of audits’ [32]. As underlined, an important advantage of some codified standards is that they can potentially help reduce information asymmetry: knowing that a company has adopted a specific standard provides information about that company. However, as stressed by Brunsson and Jacobsson ([8], p. 169), this usually requires the application of relatively heavy auditing and certification processes: ‘If the role of a given standard is to be fulfilled for the transmission of information, it is often necessary for a third party to certify that the standard is being complied with’. While these mechanisms provide relevant audit and certification bodies with sources of income, they represent a significant burden on those who have adopted the standard and who are required to set up an administrative apparatus to document their structures and processes. Other authors highlight audit processes as appropriate methods to measure the impact of voluntary sustainable management standards. They differentiate them as internal impact in the organisation and external impact, which provides external stakeholders with verification of performance. At the same time, the audit can be used for an internal development and training process [19].

Codification of management standards is often associated with a dilution of responsibility for the consequences of implementing a certain standard [32]. Codified standardisation is believed to be ‘a system in which responsibility is both fragmented and fuzzy’ [8]. Since standard adoption is voluntary, standard-setters are rarely responsible for the consequences of their standards and usually claim to be the responsibility of those who adopt them to decide whether to follow them or not. However, those adopting the standards often claim that they have no real choice, as they are often under pressure from third parties to comply with these standards [17, 30].

Taking into account the second phase of implementation of standards, the process model of standardisation emerges as a potential study of the intersections of the ideas of ‘green’ and sustainable management and standardisation of the stages of adoption, introduction and use, as well as their impact on business organisations in the Bulgarian economic and social environment.

As can be seen from Figure 1, the conceptual framework envisages examining the attitudes for the implementation of the standards for ‘green’ and sustainable stakeholder management in Bulgaria.

2. Methodology

In order to explore in more detail, the already outlined problems of sustainable management, a qualitative method for collecting empirical data using the ‘in-depth’ interview method among stakeholders in Bulgaria is used.

Interviews were conducted with the participants in the study according to a previously developed protocol. This consists of conducting a direct personal interview by one interviewer with one respondent within 45–60 minutes, on pre-established main thematic areas [47]. Participants in interviews are experts who are very familiar with the problem studied and are able to expand, enrich, specify, correct or change the perception of it. Research issues, which are studied with the help of a deep interview, are poorly structured. One of the main advantages of an ‘in-depth’ interview is that it is a flexible method in which the researcher has great freedom in questioning the respondent (to discover new directions of the conversation, to deepen one question, to ignore another, etc.).

The aim of these interviews is to study in detail the attitudes towards the implementation of sustainable management of organisations in the country in the light of the creation and implementation of standards as ‘soft’ regulators.

2.1 Choice of participants in the study

After taking into account the stakeholders from sustainable management standards, the main groups of respondents were identified: State and government bodies, business and sectoral organisations, non-governmental organisations, consulting and certifying organisations and scientific institutions and universities. Table 1 presents the distribution of participants by group, the institutions/organisations in the respective group and the number of participants in the survey from each institution/organisation.

Institutions/organisations	Number of participants
Group1: State and governmental bodies
Bulgarian Institute of Standardisation (1.1)	3
Ministry of Environment and Water, Preventive Activity Department (1.2)	2
European Institute for Risk Policy (1.3)	1
Group2: Business and sectoral organisations
Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2.1)	1
The Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce (2.2)	1
ABB Bulgaria (2.3)	1
Sopharma Trading AD (2.4)	1
Varna Airport (2.5)	1
Kamenitza, Molson Coors (2.6)	1
Group3: Non-governmental organisations
Association ‘Club 9000’ (3.1)	3
The Bulgarian Union of Standardisers (3.2)	1
Bulgarian Network of the UN Global Compact (3.3)	1
Bulgarian Association of CSR Professionals (3.4)	1
Group4: Consulting and certifying organisations
QMS Cert (4.1)	1
Letrina S.A. (4.2)	1
Lloyd’s Register Group Services Ltd. (4.3)	1
NQA Bulgaria (4.4)	2
Double D Ltd. (4.5)	1
Group5: Scientific institutions and universities
Bulgarian academy of sciences, Institute for Economic Research (5.1)	2
Sofia University ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’ (5.2)	1
University of Economics—Varna (5.3)	1
University of national and world economy—Sofia (5.4)	1
University of mining and geology ‘St. Ivan Rilski’ (5.5)	1
Total	30

Table 1.

Description of participants in the ‘in-depth’ interviews.

The selection of stakeholders’ representatives from sustainable management standards is essential for the study (Figure 2). Therefore, approved experts with many years of experience in the field were invited to participate in the envisaged ‘in-depth’ interviews. The group of scientific institutions and universities took into account scientific publications and performances in this field. When selecting the participants, it is necessary to take into account the existence of a declared interest in the topics related to standards and sustainable management of organisations.

Figure 2.

Mapping of participants through the two phases of standardisation process model.

2.2 Stakeholder questionnaire for the ‘in-depth’ interviews

For the purpose of the study, a semi-structured questionnaire was developed for the interviews. Interviewees are asked to answer a series of open questions divided into three parts: opening questions, main questions of the problem, final questions related to recommendations and suggestions. The following issues are included in the ‘Main questions’ section, but the authors are not limited to them: stakeholder knowledge and information on the role of standards in achieving sustainable management objectives, the involvement of stakeholders in standardisation processes and possible difficulties in involving stakeholders in setting and implementing standards in the country context.

Participants in the interviews were invited, both via an e-mail message and through face-to-face meetings with representatives of stakeholders from the groups represented in Table 1. A total of 30 respondents out of 35 invited participated. The interviews were conducted in the period October–November 2019 and February–March 2020 in Sofia. An audio recording was made during each interview.

2.3 Data analysis

The analysis of the data collected from the empirical study includes an analysis of the content (content analysis) of the interviews conducted and outlining the categories of analysis. Categorisation is done in the process of reading the interview materials using a mixed grid [47]. Although the main study categories are defined in advance, there is a likelihood that newly discovered categories to be added during the analysis of empirical data, as well as to modify or exclude already existing ones.

Categorisation of concepts is performed according to the established standardisation process model; establishing correspondence between the revealed standardisation models and implementing sustainable standards by respondents, depending on their membership in a relevant stakeholder group and identifying opportunities for improvement in the implementation of standards as a voluntary tool to achieve sustainable management.

The recordings of the interviews were written verbatim for each interviewee. Content analysis was performed according to the method developed by Ose using Microsoft Word and Excel to structure qualitative data [48] and assigned content-related codes in Bulgarian language. The use of Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel is recommended by a number of researchers as an appropriate and convenient way to systematically coding and structure qualitative data [47, 48, 49, 50]. Groups of similar codes were later categorised as different categories were found from each personal interview, according to the established standardisation process model (Figure 1).

For the content analysis of the first phase ‘Standards setting’, a series of categories and sub-categories were considered to distinguish the different standardisation models as a comprehensive category and standardisation in sustainable management.

In the second phase ‘Standards implementation’, a series of categories and sub-categories were generated to describe the implementation of ‘green’ and sustainable management standards; the dissemination and use of sustainable management standards (‘market’ of standards and ‘war’ of standards), benefits of implementing sustainable standards (economic, environmental, and social), problems with their implementation and so forth.

3. Results and discussion

The results of the study are presented following the process model of standardisation and its two phases: ‘Standards setting’ and ‘Standards implementation’.

Table 2 shows the results on how participants in the interviews perceive the standardisation models for sustainable management. The results in Table 3 presents how the participants in the interviews perceive the implementation of the standardisation models for sustainable management.

Categories describing standardisation models	Category description	Number of respondents describing the category
		Gr. 1	Gr. 2	Gr. 3	Gr. 4	Gr. 5
1. ‘De jure’ SSO standards * (ISO, CEN, BIS)	Standardisation based on the activities of the SSO, referred to as ‘de-jure’ or formal standardisation; stakeholders are co-operated in committees and SSOs provide a platform for their development	6	6	5	5	5
1.1. Participants in the process of setting these standards	Official members of the SSO committees for the development of standards such as ISO, CEN, BIS, etc.; External experts; The expertise of participants	4	4	4	5	2
1.2. Reflecting the interests of stakeholders	The development of these standards reflects the interests of stakeholders in the sustainable management of companies/organisations	3	3	4	5	2
2. ‘De facto’ standards (industrial consortia, etc.)	Market-based standardisation, referred to as ‘de facto’ standardisation; imposed on the market through competitive opposition	4	1	1	1	3
2.1. Participants in the process of setting these standards	Direct participation of associations of enterprises (e.g. consortia), individual companies or non-governmental organisations	2	1	1
2.2. Reflecting the interests of stakeholders	The setting of these standards is associated with purely market forces or a dominant position of a company that achieves broad public acceptance of a model of behaviour/standard	2		1		1
3. Legal standards (government policies and measures e.g. EMAS)	Standardisation based on government policies and measures	3		1	1	2
3.1. Participants in the process of setting these standards	Most often, these are government bodies that develop standards and/or enforce their use.	1	1
3.2. Reflecting the interests of stakeholders	Reflect government policies using this hierarchical position to enforce the developed standards to be used by others	1	1

Table 2.

Categories used to describe standardisation models as a comprehensive category and standardisation in sustainable management during the ‘in-depth’ interviews.

Note: *SSO—Standard-setting organisations such as the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO).

Categories describing the implementation of sustainable management standards	Category description	Number of respondents describing the category
		Gr. 1	Gr. 2	Gr. 3	Gr. 4	Gr. 5
1. Dissemination and use of sustainable management standards
‘Market of standards’	This concept was linked to the question ‘What standard should be chosen for implementation in the organisation?’; Practice shows the parallel existence of numerous standards	5	5	5	4	4
‘War of standards’	Strong competition between the various initiatives of codified (voluntary) standards, known as the ‘war of standards’, is seen as a serious obstacle to the future imposition of these sustainable governance models and is associated with a lack of cooperation	5	5	5	3	4
2. Benefits of implementing ‘green standards’
Economic		6	5	5	5	6
Sub-category: benefits for the management of companies		5	5	5	5	4
Ecological		6	6	5	5	5
Social		4	3	2	4	4
3. Consequences of the use of sustainable management standards in Bulgaria
To ‘translate’ the ideas of sustainable management into a codified form		5	3	4	5	6
4. Problems with the implementation	Total for point 4	6	5	5	5	6
Uniformity of practices	The implementation of the standard can lead to uniform practices in the organisation
Separation (decoupling)	Decoupling of day-to-day practices from formal structures that are created in the implementation of a standard
‘Explosion of audits’	‘Explosion of audits’ or audit as measuring the impact of sustainable standards inside and outside the organisation
‘Dilution of responsibility’	‘Dilution of responsibility’ in the implementation of the standards

Table 3.

Categories used to describe the implementation of sustainable management standards during the ‘in-depth’ interviews.

3.1 First phase ‘Standards setting’

Based on the described categories of the ‘Standards setting’ phase, it can be said that the participants in the study distinguish several models of standardisation (Table 2).

3.1.1 ‘De jure’ standards of standard-setting organisations

According to the respondents, ‘organisational changes imposed by governments or European regulators (e.g. emission control, high quality of products, environmental responsibility) are more easily perceived not in the form of binding directives and sanctioning regimes, but through conviction and compliance with standards and norms’. Thus, it aims ‘to achieve compliance with environmental standards, such as responsible corporate behaviour towards environmental protection’ through the levers of ‘soft’ regulation (ISO 14000, EMAS) rather than through laws, regulations and sanctions. In the field of CSR, the ISO 26000 standard is marked as the most up-to-date ISO standard.

Participants describe the hierarchical levels of standardisation in the field of sustainable management. They build the logical link of ‘de jure’ standardisation: standardisation at international level—standardisation at European level—standardisation at national level. Taking into account the descriptions of these categories given in the interviews, the following sequence is formed: international or European standards in the field of sustainable management are developed in ‘technical committees and working groups of those [ISO, CEN, etc.] standard-setting organisations (SSO)’ which are adopted by the national standardisation body (BIS—Bulgarian Institute for Standardisation) for Bulgarian standards. In their descriptions, respondents gave details of standardisation at each of these levels, citing specific organisations, technical committees, standard numbers and titles and so on. One participant stressed that ‘the time is coming to change the overall standardisation paradigm in relation to the development of new standards needed for “green” and sustainable management through the European “Green Deal”, but also in the UN Agenda and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals’.

This completely coincides with the results of research in recent years in Germany, which show that specifically ‘de jure’ standards are perceived to positively contribute to achieving the SDGs [51].

This standardisation model is characterised by the activity of the members of the relevant committees, where standards are developed following an agreement on a common solution. This category is described in detail by participants at different hierarchical levels. It is underlined that the official members of the SSO committees represent the stakeholders, which are cited in detail in the interviews. The possibility of attracting external experts with high competence to develop standards in this field is outlined. One respondent cites an interesting example of the so-called social partners in European standardisation in the face of the non-governmental organisation ‘Small business standards – The voice of European SMEs in standardisation’. Its role is to protect the interests of small businesses, to participate in the development of European standards and to promote their implementation.

Here, we also find some issues at national level related to ‘lack of stakeholder engagement’, ‘organisational barriers’, ‘lack of language competences (e.g. English)’ and so forth which confirms other studies on activities and perspectives of National Standards Bodies [34].

3.1.2 ‘De facto’ standards and market-based standardisation

The category of ‘de facto’ standards refers to solutions envisaged as a standard that can be initiated by different market sources. In practice, coordination through competition between these numerous solutions on the market leads to a single ‘de facto’ standard. They are not familiar to most respondents. These results are not surprising because they support the conclusions of the few studies by other authors about ‘voluntary standard systems’ as new forms of standardisation and implementation of standards [18, 19, 52].

Stakeholders’ representatives in the study showed a different description of this standardisation model. Participants mainly from Group1: State and government bodies say they are not familiar with such standards. Moreover, they associate them with certain rules, good practices, industry norms, initiatives and so on, but do not perceive them as standards.

On the other hand, the representatives of Group3: NGOs are familiar with such standards and give a number of examples at international and national level. It is said that ‘the setting such standards of local businesses, as well as the going through the standardization of these practices, is a way to realise the role of ISO standards and other international standardisation organisations’.

The relationship between the two standardisation models also concerns another respondent from Group4: Consulting and certifying organisations. He believes that ‘they [“de facto” standards] work where ISOs have not organised to meet this need in the market because ISO, as a global organisation, works slower’. In addition, the respondent notes that ‘these [“de facto” standards] work until ISO comes up with an international standard and everything is normalised i.e. to be traceable, competent, enter the global chain of trust’ of the accredited certification.

Representatives of Group5: Scientific institutions and universities demonstrate an in-depth understanding of this category. One of them said that ‘in Bulgaria there is an increased activity of co-regulation. This translates into the active use of industry charters (brewing industry), international industry initiatives (Responsible care), openly declaring willingness to voluntarily join in compliance with fundamental norms and values (UN Global Compact)’.

The interviews highlighted the direct involvement of associations of enterprises (e.g. consortia), individual companies or non-governmental organisations in the creation of ‘de facto’ standards. It is associated with purely market forces or a dominant position of a company that achieves broad public acceptance of a model of behaviour/standard, rather than consensus, as noted above for ‘de jure’ standards [19, 52].

A participant in the study draws attention to the fact that ‘ISO maintains the policy that there is no such commercial interest or intention in the standards, that there is legal protection of intellectual property’. Conversely, the ‘de facto’ standards apply flexible rules to protect intellectual property in line with the preferences of the initiators and the technological/market context.

3.1.3 Legal standards and standardisation based on government policies and measures

Such solutions envisaged as standards in the field of environmental and sustainable management can come from a variety of sources. They reflect government policies, including policies of the European Union, using this hierarchical position to enforce the developed standards to be implemented by others.

Unlike the two models above, this standardisation model is not clearly recognised by the participants. Very few of them give a description of this category.

Academia representative sees them as co-regulatory: ‘unlike self-regulation, co-regulation is a combined form of regulation where there is active interaction between public authority and civil society’. The respondent considers that ‘in a broad sense, both entities - regulators and regulated seek to implement a regulatory scheme that takes into account both public objectives and the interests of regulated entities’ and that ‘joint regulation is a combination of active public authority and active initiative private entities’.

Other participants found that ‘the European EMAS scheme duplicates almost 100% the ISO standards (ISO 14 001)’ or that ‘EMAS is a regulation but not a standard’.

Respondents from the consulting circles specify that ‘very few companies in Bulgaria implement EMAS because it is very difficult to implement, and we do not have a good enough organisation for its implementation, we do not have evaluators and we have to use foreign evaluators’. They believe that the introduction of a European standard in the form of regulation leads to it being ‘heavy and difficult’ to implement and associate it with ‘serious liability 24/7 and 365 e.g. for company emission limits’ or ‘insurance liability’ and so forth.

Three of the participants from Group1: State and government bodies associate this model of standardisation with ‘technical product standards that can be regulated and therefore come in the form of characteristics and safety directives’. They emphasise the fact that ‘some of the standards [technical product standards] have reference to European directives and regulations, and they have entered into our legislation in Bulgaria as an ordinance or part of a law’.

The results of the interviews described here present participants’ perceptions of standardisation models for sustainable management. To conclude, we provide the vivid description of these categories in the interview of one of the participants.

‘Soft’ regulations can be considered part of a shared value system or shared responsibility, against the backdrop of many ‘hard’ regulations or over-regulations that can hardly be respected. This makes them very often ineffective regulations in the field of environmental protection and social responsibility. Standards can also be seen as the least common multiple in a globalised world that attracts companies to share their sustainable values. ‘Soft’ regulations are the future of regulations and are very suitable for Bulgaria. It is a question of ‘learning’—of acquiring the knowledge and skills to implement these standards.

3.2 Second phase ‘Standards implementation’

The categories described in Table 3 allowed us to analyse respondents’ perceptions of the implementation of ‘green’ management standards.

3.2.1 Dissemination and use of sustainable management standards

According to respondents in our study, environmental standards start to apply ‘when required as an obligation, by virtue of regulations or requirements at industry level – only then are they [standards] started to be looking for’ when ‘this standard will help them meet the requirements of environmental legislation’. Others consider that ‘in the framework of the European operational programmes (Competitiveness; Human Resources, Agriculture; Good governance) in the past and the current period there were many opportunities according to which companies could apply for certification to the standard they need (including voluntary ‘green’ management standards such as ISO 14001 and EMAS)”. They believe that ‘this process will continue to evolve’ in tune with other authors [30, 41, 44].

This category was described by the term ‘standards market’, which refers to the question ‘Which standard should be chosen for implementation in the organisation?’. Content analysis shows that respondents describe this concept with the parallel existence of multiple standards in a given area, as well as with ‘competition that exists between similar standards offered by different organisations’. At the same time, they stress that ‘the simultaneous existence of multiple “green” standards does not prevent them from being imposed’. When more than one environmental management standard exists, ‘the choice depends on the traditions of the country concerned and on which standard is most applicable’.

Strong competition between the various initiatives of codified (voluntary) standards, known as the ‘war of standards’, is seen as a serious obstacle to the future imposition of these ‘green’ management models and is associated with a lack of cooperation. Participants in the study from all stakeholders agreed that ‘with environmental standards, such a war is not noticeable’. They do not consider this to be a ‘war’ of standards, but rather a ‘clear opinion [choice] of the customer [the firm] in this respect’. They believe that ‘for Bulgaria in particular, there is no so intense and aggressive presence of those offering different standards’. It is specified that ‘with corporate social responsibility standards there is such a risk [that there will be a “war” of standards] as SA 8000; ISO 26000, etc.’. One participant concluded that ‘usually the war of standards is won by international standards, which are well known’. These results fully support the argumentation of Rasche and Seidl on competition between standards in the field of Corporate Social Responsibility [32].

3.2.2 Benefits of implementing sustainable management standards

When describing the benefits of applying these standards, the content analysis allowed to build up several sub-categories: economic, environmental, social and so on benefits.

3.2.2.1 Economic benefits

Economic benefits are associated with savings, including ‘energy and use of natural resources/technological materials and gases’, when implementing environmental management systems according to ISO 14000 series standards. The implemented systems result in less waste generated, and ‘this automatically leads to less cost of recovery’. The requirements of the standard for ‘more efficient maintenance of machinery and equipment in manufacturing plants’ as well as the ‘effective use of oils, lubricants, etc. in the field of services’ also lead to savings.

Respondents believe that the implementation of such standards ‘creates a good name for the company’ and ‘confirms a new type of organizational/corporate culture’ and ‘in building the supply chain social responsibility is perceived as a priority as an investment, not as a cost’.

Others believe that these standards also make savings from ‘not going to be fined by the control bodies and receive other sanctions and fines’.

3.2.2.2 Environmental benefits

This sub-category describes numerous environmental benefits. According to the experience of a respondent from Group4: Consulting and certifying organisations, ‘companies that have introduced standards such as ISO 14001 already have a changed outlook about the environment and society. Unfortunately, this is not a massive phenomenon in our country’, confirming what has been found in other recent studies [27, 30, 53]. During the interviews, it was pointed out that ‘standards create order in emergency situations (emissions, spills of toxic substances, fires, etc.) and situations are played out, and the scenarios developed are played out at least once a year’. The implementation of environmental standards requires ‘following changes in legislation at local, national and European level’. The importance of this is emphasised by a respondent from Group1: State and government bodies, which say that ‘the introduction of environmental management systems (EMS), be it in accordance with ISO 14001 or EMAS, can assist the company in organising activities to meet the environmental requirements of the legislation’.

A representative of a business organisation adds that this is an opportunity to ‘enter into the so-called “circular economy”, although for them [companies] this is an abstract concept, i.e. to be able to see from what they discard, whether they can use it again and close the cycle’.

3.2.2.3 Social benefits

A number of social benefits have been identified, such as that ‘the company becomes a good place to work for employees’ and ‘all this will affect workers – it will give them a better working environment, the safety of the work they do will increase well-being’. The standard leads to ‘a change in culture, and this can be transferred to the home, family, etc.’ (the respondent gives an example of a large cement plant in North-western Bulgaria).

There are respondents who do not separate social benefits as a sub-category, but rather associate them with environmental benefits. An interesting angle on the social benefits demonstrates a participant from the business: when energy consumption is reduced by implementing the energy efficiency standard, funds will remain for other activities, including social ones.

3.2.2.4 Other benefits

Respondents from universities noted that ‘these standards have a markedly educative effect on organisations’, ‘act educatively and disciplining’, and ‘change behaviours and attitudes’. It is noted that ‘many young people are aware of the need for change in terms of the environment’. These results may confirm the established effects of the implementation of the international standards for management systems by codification of knowledge through a learning process at both individual and collective level in organisations [33, 34].

3.2.3 Standards as translation of ideas for sustainable management into codified form

Similar to other studies in recent years [30, 52, 54], the analysis of the results shows the strong opinion of almost all participants that the standards translate the ideas of sustainable management into a codified form in Bulgaria.

Respondent from Group1: State and government bodies argue that ‘according to standardisation rules, standards must be shaped in such a way as to serve to transfer practices and knowledge’ and adds that ‘revision of standards ensures the introduction of these new knowledge [ideas for sustainability]’. Another member of this group said: these standards manage to provide the business with information and ideas for the organisation of management, and ‘in practice, they provide guidance on how to transform policy objectives into the real business environment’.

The interviews specify that this applies to the industry that conducts ‘green’ management, not when ‘the standard is made “pro-form” because we need this certificate’. A representative of a business organisation argued that ‘if you go through this fast track, there is no way this standard can be observed and it will not play the role for which it is implemented’.

Respondent from Group4: Consulting and certifying organisations clarifies: if we have introduced the standard only to obtain a certificate to use for marketing purposes or for public procurement, or simply because it is modern, or because some of our sales partners require it, all these are perfunctory reasons for the introduction of the standard and this role cannot be fulfilled.

3.2.4 Problems with the implementation

This part addresses several sub-categories related to the implementation of sustainable standards. Respondents demonstrated their attitude towards problems previously identified in the survey related to the implementation of these standards, such as creating uniform practices, decoupling day-to-day practices from formal structures, ‘explosion of audits’ and ‘dilution of responsibility’.

According to the majority of participants, this should not be achieved by applying sustainable management standards, but rather ‘there is a risk of uniform practices only if they are not best implemented’. This risk exists for small companies that do not have the resources or interest in developing effective EMS for example. Another group of interviewees says that ‘this is not a problem – on the contrary, this is exactly the role of standards to offer a unified path, a modus operandi and I think it is useful’; ‘standardised practices reduce the possibility of errors’.

When a management system does not take into account the specificities of business, accepted practices and organisation, there may be risks of decoupling of daily practices from formal structures, declare some of the interviewees. Another respondent describes two parallel practices, which he considers a serious problem: ‘on the one hand, the company works in a way that it has always worked, and at the same time there is a documentary adjustment of the audit trail so that it can be shown to the external auditor that the requirements of the standard have been met’. The description of this sub-category also affects the role of consultants who assist companies in the implementation of standards. According to one participant, ‘consultants have an important role to play in advising the company or entrepreneur concerned in a way that eases management and structure it according to the standard, rather than bureaucratising and burdening it’.

Half of the participants described the audit as a tool to measure the impact of ‘green’ and sustainable standards inside and outside the organisation. They provide a number of evidence of the benefits of proper auditing as required by ‘green’ standards. At the same time, this sub-category is described by a part of the respondents as a problem of the so-called ‘explosion of audits’. A business participant shares: ‘the large number of audits is a problem for companies. I personally found myself in a situation where I had 15 audits per year – external, internal, second and third party, etc.’ ‘Audits require a huge resource, and there is no time to consider and analyse the results of these audits. Thus, the benefit to the company itself is lost. It takes between 3 and 5 years, not 6 months or a year, to change a significant process of the company’s activities.’ In the same direction is the statement of an NGO representative: ‘[with CSR standards] this is a serious problem. They may very often check you, which entails a lot of costs’; ‘For example frequent audits every 6 months are a purely financial and organizational obstacle to the implementation of the SA 8000 standard in Bulgaria’.

With regard to the sub-category ‘dilution of responsibility’ in the implementation of the standards, respondents agree that, on the contrary, standards require clear roles and responsibilities.

3.2.5 Proposals from the empirical study to improve the effectiveness of the implementation of standards as a voluntary tool for achieving sustainable management

The interviews also asked about suggestions for improvements in the dissemination and implementation of sustainable management standards in Bulgarian organisations.

The main direction identified by the participants is a creation of knowledge of standardisation and, in particular, of sustainable management standards.

This result of the empirical study corresponds to the identified deficits of general awareness and training on standardisation among European companies against the background of increasing importance of standardisation for the competitiveness of organisations and the achievement of public goods in the European Union [55]. Hence, the lack of a structured and strategic approach to standardisation at the company level, whether it is compliance with legislation, access to markets or general business strategy [55].

Another important direction that the respondents indicate is the improvement of communication of ‘green’ and sustainable standards. The study clearly identifies the need for improvements in the field of internal and external communication of sustainable management standards inside and outside organisations.

This is confirmed by a small number of studies on the effects of stakeholder input on voluntary sustainability standards, where the learning effect leading to better sustainability impacts is noted [56].

4. Conclusions

Theoretical justifications related to voluntary standards at international, European and national levels as ‘soft’ regulators in the field of sustainable management of organisations are considered.

It can be said that the inclusion of the examined systems of voluntary standards in sustainable development strategies is an emerging feature of the management of business organisations. The issues of setting and implementing green and sustainable standards are discussed as a manifestation of a new feature of management ‘with increasing reliability, meaningfulness and stakeholder involvement’ [19].

The conceptual framework of the study is based on the overall standardisation process, going through the first phase of ‘Standards setting’ and the subsequent phase of ‘Standards implementation’ with the participation of stakeholders from the sustainable management of organisations.

The use of the descriptive-analytical approach has revealed the need to explore the specific focus of different types of stakeholders towards green and sustainable management standards of organisations in the relevant economic and social context.

A methodology for empirical research on attitudes towards the implementation of sustainable management of organisations in the light of the creation and implementation of standards as ‘soft’ regulators among stakeholders has been developed. It includes the following components: minutes of ‘in-depth’ interviews with participants, selection of participants in the study, development of a questionnaire for the ‘in-depth’ interviews, and analysis of the results obtained. A total of 30 interviews were conducted at the end of 2019 and early 2020.

The content analysis of the conducted ‘in-depth’ interviews has allowed to outline the main categories according to the process model of standardisation.

The analysis of the results shows the strong opinion of almost all participants that the standards translate the ideas of sustainable management into a codified form in Bulgaria.

Three main models of standardisation for sustainable management have been identified: ‘de jure’ standards of standard-setting organisations, market-based ‘de facto’ standards and legal standards based on government policies and measures. The correspondence between the revealed models and the implementation of the sustainable standards by the respondents depending on their affiliation to the respective stakeholder group has been established.

The benefits of implementing sustainable management standards are indisputable according to the participants, who position them along the three axes of sustainability: economic, environmental and social. In addition, significant additional effects of the implementation of the international standards for sustainable management systems by codification of knowledge through a learning process at both individual and collective level in the organisations.

The study also identified a number of problems in the implementation of sustainable standards in organisations such as creating uniform practices, decoupling day-to-day practices from formal structures, ‘explosion of audits’ and ‘dilution of responsibility’.

In conclusion, opportunities have been identified to improve the implementation of standards as a voluntary tool for achieving sustainable business management, related to creating knowledge on the various models of standardisation, as well as communication of sustainable management standards inside and outside organisations.

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the UNWE Research Programme.

Adapted by permission from the Publishing Complex of University of National and World Economy—Sofia: UNWE Publishing Complex, Green Business Management—The Role of Standards by Elka Vasileva, Daniela Ivanova, Nina Tipova, Stilian Stefanov, COPYRIGHT (2022).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes/thanks/other declarations

The authors thank all the participants in the interviews for their interest in the topics related to standards and sustainable management of organisations.