ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a Research Agenda on Management System Standards*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management system standards, also called meta‐standards, have been adopted by an increasing number of organizations across the world. Although these management system standards are based on the same type of management principles and institutional arrangements, the literature remains scattered, with diverse studies focused on specific standards and published in various journals. The main objective of this paper is to analyse the academic research on meta‐standards through an integrative review intended to shed light on the main conclusions and substantial advances made in this area. This integrative review focuses more specifically on the two main meta‐standards which have been adopted by more than 1.3 million organizations worldwide: ISO 14001 and ISO 9001. The paper contributes insights into the main streams of the literature and current knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research on the various issues related to meta‐standards: global governance, diffusion processes, motivations, benefits of adoption and impacts on performance, internalization, integration, consultancy and auditing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.083 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".