Advertisement

Drivers, Obstacles and Benefits of the Adoption of SA8000: A Survey in Italian Companies

  • Iñaki Heras-SaizarbitoriaEmail author
  • Giovanna Talamazzi
  • Francesco Testa
  • Olivier Boiral
Chapter
  • 2.6k Downloads
Part of the Measuring Operations Performance book series (MEOP)

Abstract

Several CSR certifiable meta-standards have been launched in recent decades but one of the most popular and widespread has been the SA8000 standard, as the ISO 26000 launched by ISO is not suitable for certification purposes (Hahn in Bus Strategy Environ 22:442–455, 2013). Indeed, in the scholarly literature, SA8000 has been considered to be one of the best CSR initiatives, as it is intended to institutionalize business ethics through standardization (Gilbert and Rasche in Bus Ethics Q 187–216, 2007). Nevertheless, the adoption of this CSR standard has not been widely studied compared to the cases of ISO 9001, ISO 14001 or EMAS. In order to fill this gap in the literature, the aim of the present chapter is to shed light on the adoption of the SA8000 meta-standards by Italian companies. The empirical study focused on the Italian case because it seems paradoxical; Italy is the country in the world with the highest intensity of SA8000 certification in relative terms, even though this CSR standard was targeted at developing countries with labour intensive industries. The work analyzes the motivations, obstacles and benefits of the adoption of the SA8000 standard using primary data obtained from a survey of 130 Italian organizations. The article contributes to the empirical literature on the adoption of CSR standards. Implications for managers, policy makers and other stakeholders are discussed, together with avenues for further research.

Keywords

CSR standards SA8000 Meta-standards Adoption Survey Italy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been carried out for the Research Group funded by the Basque Government (Grupos de Investigación del Sistema Universitario Vasco; IT1073-16).

References

  1. Boiral O, Heras-Saizarbitoria I (2015) The SAGE encyclopedia of quality and the service economy. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  2. Boiral O (2003) ISO 9000: outside the iron cage. Organ Sci 14(6):720–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boiral O, Guillaumie L, Heras‐Saizarbitoria I, Tayo Tene CV (2017a) Adoption and outcomes of ISO 14001: a systematic review. Int J Manage Rev (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Boiral O, Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Testa F (2017b) SA8000 as CSR-washing? The role of stakeholder pressures. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manage 24(1):57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bres LP (2013, January) Membership strategies in pluralistic organizations: the case of ISO 26000. In: Academy of management proceedings (vol 2013, no. 1). Academy of Management, p 15343Google Scholar
  6. Carey C (2008) Governmental use of voluntary standards case study 10: Tuscany Region (Italy) and the SA8000. Standard for Social Accountability, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan A (2005) Recent trends in Chinese labour issues—signs of change. China Perspect 57:23–31Google Scholar
  8. Christmann P, Taylor G (2006) Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. J Int Bus Stud 37(6):863–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciliberti F, De Haan J, De Groot G, Pontrandolfo P (2011) CSR codes and the principal-agent problem in supply chains: four case studies. J Clean Prod 19(8):885–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El Abboubi M, Nicolopoulou K (2012). International social-related accountability standards: using ANT towards a multi-stakeholder analysis. M@n@gement 15(4):392–414Google Scholar
  11. Fassin Y (2009) The stakeholder model refined. J Bus Ethics 84(1):113–135Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert DU, Rasche A (2007) Discourse ethics and social accountability: the ethics of SA8000. Bus Ethics Q 187–216Google Scholar
  13. Grüninger B (2009) The impact of SA8000 in Brazil. In: SA8000: the first decade: implementation, influence, and impact. Greenleaf Publishing in Association with GSE Research, vol 172(180), pp 172–180Google Scholar
  14. Hahn R (2013) ISO 26000 and the standardization of strategic management processes for sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Bus Strategy Environ 22:442–455Google Scholar
  15. Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Boiral O (2013) ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: towards a research agenda on management system standards. Int J Manage Rev 15(1):47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Boiral O (2015) Symbolic adoption of ISO 9000 in small and medium-sized enterprises: the role of internal contingencies. Int Small Bus J 33(3):299–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heras‐Saizarbitoria I, Arana G, Boiral O (2015) Outcomes of environmental management systems: the role of motivations and firms’ characteristics. Bus Strategy Environ (in press)Google Scholar
  18. Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Dogui K, Boiral O (2013) Shedding light on ISO 14001 certification audits. J Clean Prod 51:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heras-Saizarbitoria IH, Landín GA (2013) La responsabilidad social corporativa y la norma SA8000: un análisis de su adopción en las organizaciones cooperativas. Revista vasca de economía social = Gizarte ekonomiaren euskal aldizkaria (9):31–52Google Scholar
  20. Hiscox MJ, Schwartz C, Toffel MW (2009) Evaluating the impact of SA8000 certification. SA8000: First Decade: Implement Influ Impact 1(78):147–165Google Scholar
  21. LARIC (Labour Rights in China) (1999) No illusions: against the global cosmetic SA8000. Asia Monitor Resource Center, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  22. Perrini F, Pogutz S, Tencati A (2006) Corporate social responsibility in Italy: state of the art. J Bus Strat 23(1):65–91Google Scholar
  23. Rohitratana K (2002) SA8000: a tool to improve quality of life. Manage Audit J 17(1/2):60–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stigzelius I, Mark-Herbert C (2009) Tailoring corporate responsibility to suppliers: managing SA8000 in Indian garment manufacturing. Scand J Manage 25(1):46–56Google Scholar
  25. Tencati AY, Zsolnai L (2009) The collaborative enterprise. J Bus Ethics 85:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zuckerman A (1998) Do we really need a social accountability standard. Purchasing 125:24–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giovanna Talamazzi
    • 1
  • Francesco Testa
    • 2
  • Olivier Boiral
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management, Faculty of Economy and BusinessUniversity of the Basque Country UPV/EHUSan SebastianSpain
  2. 2.Istituto Di ManagementSant’Anna School of PisaPisaItaly
  3. 3.Département de Management, Faculté Des Sciences de L’administrationUniversité LavalQuebec CityCanada

Personalised recommendations