Assessment and improvement of organisational social impact through the EFQM Excellence Model

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Total Quality Management & Business Excellence on 2018, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1253465.” Assessment and improvement of organisational social impact through the EFQM Excellence Model Arturo Calvo-Mora, Marta Domínguez-CC Fernando Criado Department of Business Administraon and Markeng, University of Seville, Av. Ramón y Cajal,1, 41018 Seville, Spain Funding This research has been supported by the Junta de Andalucía (Regional Government of Andalusia) (Consejería de Economía, Innovación y Ciencia), Spain (Proyecto de invesgación de excelencia P10-SEJ-6081). Assessment and improvement of organisational social impact through the EFQM Excellence Model ABSTRACT Total quality management (TQM) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are relevant management philosophies and frameworks that organisaons use to help generate a sustainable compeve advantage. This contribuon aims to study the influence of TQM social factors (leadership and human resource) and TQM technical and strategic factors (StrategyResources management and process management) with social results. The hypotheses proposed in our research model are tested on a sample of 116 Spanish companies, with experience in TQM through assessments by means of the European Foundaon for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model. The paral least squares structural equaons modelling (PLS-SEM) approach was used to test the research model. Our findings indicate that the EFQM Excellence Model is a reliable and valid framework with which to measure and improve the organisaonal social impact. The synergies and theindirect effects between the TQM crical factors, in the EFQM Excellence Model framework, constute a management system. Moreover, the TQM social factors and Strategy-Resources management factors determine the efficiency with which an organisaon manages its key processes, which have a significant impact on the social results that organisaons are capable of achieving. Keywords: Quality management; TQM; EFQM model; social impact; social responsibility 1. Introduction In an increasingly complex and uncertain environment, directors tend towards mimec isomorphism, that is, faced with the uncertainty of the environment they tend to behave like the other actors in the organisaonal field. For that reason, companies model themselves on other organisaons which share their organisaonal context, choosing as models those which they perceive as having greater legimacy or greater success within the field (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Therefore, in an environment dominated by uncertainty, directors tend to consider legimate those pracces that are considered as ‘best pracce’ in the organisaonal field. This explains the proliferaon of the total quality management (TQM) models and the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Maen & Moon, 2008). The importance of these quesons has led many authors to ask themselves if the key principles and factors of both models converge or diverge (Barre, 2009). The basic queson is: can a company simultaneously align its TQM and CSR objecves and pracces? TQM is a comprehensive management philosophy oriented towards achieving excellent results in relaon to stakeholders (Prajogo & McDermo, 2005). TQM has a global and strategic dimension, as it affects not only the quality of products, services, processes, and management of the organisaon, but also the quality of the relaonships that it maintains with its environment and main stakeholders (Kok, van der Wiele, McKenna, &Brown, 2001). CSR refers to the set of business pracces that meet or exceed the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic expectaons of society. It includes the overall relaonships of the organisaon with all of its stakeholders (Tarı´, 2011). For that reason, public authories, professional colleges, and consumers increasingly demand that companies contribute greater benefits to society and measure their posive and negave impacts within it (Maen & Moon, 2008). CSR is intrinsically linked to the concept of sustainable development and the management of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of the operaons of organisaons. McAdam and Leonard (2003), Olaru, Stoleriu, and S¸andru (2011), and Tarı´ (2011) suggest that quality management pracces facilitate the development of environmental management, require ethical behaviour, need a stakeholder focus, and may facilitate the development of acvies that are socially responsible. It must not be forgoen that all the above must be achieved within terms of compeveness. This has brought about certain pressure to integrate the principles of CSR into quality management systems (ISO 9000), Excellence Models frameworks more used to implement the principles and pracces of TQM. The established Excellence/TQM Models (Malcolm Baldrige Naonal Quality Award, the European Foundaon for Quality Management Excellence Model, the Australian Business Excellence Framework, and the Canadian Framework for Business Excellence) all incorporate a social responsibility element, and advocate management pracces compable with the ideals of CSR (Ghobadian, Gallear, & Hopkins, 2007). From the point of view of the specialised literature, the first authors to relate quality management principles and pracces with social responsibility were termed quality gurus. Deming, Juran, and Crosby indicate the importance of the values, ethical behaviour, the movaon, and the sasfacon of the people (workers and directors) for the success of the quality iniaves (Barre, 2009). Later, the literature has been focused on analysing the impact of TQM pracces on customer sasfacon, workers’ movaon, and the company’s image (Calvo-Mora, Picón-Berjoyo, Ruiz-Moreno, & Cauzo-Boala, 2014). Along this line, Locke, Moon, and Visser (2006) indicate that an important percentage of arcles focusing on environmental subjects require greater aenon by the researchers on the social and ethics areas. Tarı´ (2011) indicates that there are insufficient works simultaneously assessing TQM pracces and social responsibility in the same study, and also that theorecal studies predominate over those of an empirical nature, and that within those of an empirical nature, those using qualitave methodology are more abundant than those using quantave methodology. In addion, although numerous authors suggest there are relaonships between both approaches of management (Kok et al.,2001; Leonard & McAdam, 2003; Mar´n-Caslla, 2002; Withanachchi et al., 2007), there is no consensus in the literature on the best way to integrate them, or which models are more effecve in their implementaon and improvement. Against this background, the present study raises the following objecves: 1) To analyse the suitability (validity and reliability) of the EFQM Excellence Model to assess and improve an organisaon’s social impact. 2) To study how organisaons can improve their results in society through the management of their key processes related to the social impact and social responsibility of the organisaon. 3) To verify how a suitable strategic management of resources and alliances (TQM), strategic and technical factors) and the parcipaon and involvement of the leaders and the people of the organisaon (TQM social factors) are the forerunners of an efficient management of the processes and, indirectly, of the results and social impact of the organisaon. 4) To propose a series of recommendaons for companies, when iniang the process of assessment and interpretaon of the results of the social impact of the company, by means of the EFQM model. In this study, the EFQM Excellence Model (EFQM, 2003, 2010, 2013) was taken as a reference for three main reasons: (1) it is the most used framework for the implementaon of TQM principles and pracces in organisaons (Calvo-Mora et al., 2014; Samson & Terziovski, 1999; Van der Wiele, Dale, & Williams, 2000); (2) in 1991, it was the first QualityAward that explicitly included the importance of measuring the impact and the social results of an organisaon (Kok et al., 2001) and, in the current version of the model, a specific criterion (Society results) is reserved for it; and (3) as Marn-Caslla (2002) indicates, given the non-prescripve character of these excellence models, it is possible to give them an ethical and social responsibility focus when applying the excellence search criteria. This study connues with a review of the literature in which the principles and evoluon of TQM and CSR are analysed. Later, the proposed model is presented, detailing the hypotheses that will be tested. This will be followed by a descripon of the methodology and data analysis used. The results are then presented, which are followed by a discussion and the conclusions, indicang limitaons and future lines of research of the study. 2. Literature review 2.1. TQM and CSR TQM is a comprehensive organisaonal management approach. This approach is based on the correct integraon of certain cultural values and principles (connuous improvement,innovaon, and dynamism) into the strategy, structure, and processes of the organisaon. To put these values and principles into pracce, organisaons use a series of techniques, models, and systems oriented towards stakeholder sasfacon and strengthening the compeveness of the organisaon. Among the crical factors of TQM idenfied in the literature are an organizaonal culture oriented to connuous improvement; a determined commitment and leadership by the management; strategic planning; connuous improvement; a customerand other stakeholderfocused approach; management based on data and informaon analysis; and the management of personnel, processes and suppliers or other partners (Sila & Ebrahimpour, 2003). In this respect, Rahman and Bullock (2005) classify the crical factors of TQM as follows: 1) So aspects, corresponding to social and behavioural factors, such as an open and flexible culture, the management’s commitment and leadership, the human resources management, and the focus on stakeholders. 2) Hard aspects, associated with the technical factors of the design, implementaon and improvement of the quality management systems, such as the control and management processes, the use of problem-solving tools, and the management of resources and supplier 3) Strategic aspects, that is, the need to integrate the quality objecves, plans, and policies into the general strategic process of the organisaon. On the other hand, CSR is defined as the commitment of an organisaon to assess and to take responsibility for the impacts that its decisions and acvies have on society and the environment, by means of an ethical and transparent behaviour that takes into consideraon the interests of its interested pares, fulfils the applicable legislaon and is consistent with internaonal standards of behaviour, and is integrated into the whole organisaon and put into pracce in its relaonships (‘ISO, 26000’, 2012). According to Carroll (1991), there are four stages of social responsibility: economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic. The highest level of social responsibility is philanthropy, which has a posive influence on the reputaon and the economic performance of the organisaon (Brammer & Millington, 2005). For Leonard and McAdam (2003), CSR refers to the human rights of the workers, preservaon of the environment, and involvement in the community and social development. On the other hand, Kok et al. (2001) find 14 key elements of CSR which they divided into three groups: 1) External environment, which includes the relaonships with the community, the consumers, the suppliers, and the shareholders. 2) Internal environment, which refers to the culture of environmental protecon, working condions, empowerment, and involvement. 3) Ethical conscience, referring to the codes of behaviour, and ethical values and codes. With respect to the relaonship between TQM and CSR, Leonard and McAdam (2003) tried to clarify this relaonship, based on the ethical foundaon of both models. From the perspecve of CSR, business ethics are not mere philanthropy, but an essenal foundaon that allows the improvement of the organisaon and the development of society. Similarly, the TQM principles are based on the ethics of connuous improvement of all the organisaonal processes (Zairi & Peters, 2002). Thus, Barre (2009) indicates that the connuous improvement of quality requires a commitment to exceed the expectaons of the customers and other stakeholders, which involves an important ethical base. For Moir (2001), CSR has a posive impact on the progress of businesses, as it reduces ligaons, protects the brand image, improves customer sasfacon, and reduces absenteeism and employee turnover, whilst retaining the personnel with the most talent. Leonard and McAdam (2003) maintain that CSR approaches aspects such as employee sasfacon, protecon of the environment, and sustainability so that it can be defined in terms of ethical legimacy or acceptable ethical behaviour and, second, can be seen from an instrumental perspecve in which the image and the goals of the organisaon are a primary concern. In short, TQM is consistent with the ethical legimacy and instrumental vision of CSR. This suggests that CSR can be incorporated into organisaons more effecvely, and in less me, by using the exisng values, principles, and pracces of TQM (Tarı´, 2011). 2.2. Social impact assessment in the EFQM Excellence Model There are different frameworks for implemenng the values, fundamental principles, and pracces that characterise the whole TQM iniave. Abdullah, Uli, and Tarı´ (2008) differenate between them: (1) based on quality gurus; (2) extracted aer theorecal and empirical research; and (3) excellence models (Deming Model, Malcolm Baldrige Model, and the European Foundaon for Quality Management Model). In Europe, EFQM Excellence Model (EFQM, 2003, 2010, 2013) is the best-known reference when introducing and improving a TQM system. Generally, excellence models include a set of guidelines that are made available to organisaons so that they can develop the concepts of TQM and put them into operaon (BouLlusar, Escrig-Tena, Roca-Puig, & Beltrán-Marn, 2009). The validity of excellence models for TQM implementaon has been widely studied in the literature. Alonso-Almeida and FuentesFrias (2012), Bou-Llusar et al. (2009), Curkovic, Melnyk, Calantone, and Handfield (2000), Flynn and Saladin (2001), Gómez Gómez, Marnez Costa, and Marnez Lorente (2015), and Pannirselvam, Siferd, and Ruch (1998) conclude that the most extended excellence models (EFQM model and Malcolm Baldrige Naonal Quality Award (MBNQA)) and their criteria do capture TQM core concepts and can predict the relaonships between TQM procedures and organisaonal performance. Moreover, Calvo-Mora, Picón-Berjoyo, Ruiz-Moreno, and CauzoBoala (2015) point out how the use of the EFQM Excellence Model guarantees that the management pracces employed form a coherent system. The EFQM Excellence Model has a flexible nature and can be applied to large and small organisaons, in the public and private sectors, as well as to industrial and service companies (EFQM, 2003, 2010, 2013). In addion, it is a dynamic model that has evolved and adapted to social changes. The base for the applicaon of the model and the improvement of the management is self-assessment. Self-assessment measures the level of quality reached in an organisaon through a series of criteria and management and performance indicators. Once the self-assessment has been made, for which different methodologies exist, the organisaon can opt for certain stamps of recognion or may even choose to present a candidacy for different quality awards. For this, it will have to be subjected to a process of external assessment by independent experts who will make a detailed analysis before they verify the self-assessment report presented by the organisaon. In order to achieve sustained success in the management of the EFQM Excellence Model, the integraon of three components is proposed (Figure 1): fundamental concepts of excellence, EFQM Excellence Model criterion, and Results, Approaches, Deploy, Assess and Refine (RADAR) logic (EFQM, 2003, 2010, 2013). The eight fundamental concepts of excellence outline the foundaon for achieving sustainable excellence in any organisaon. They can be used as the basis to describe the aributes of an excellent organisaonal culture. The fundamental concepts of excellence are (EFQM, 2013) adding value for customers; creang a sustainable future; developing organisaonal capability; harnessing creavity and innovaon; leading with vision, inspiraon, and integrity; managing with agility; succeeding through the talent of people; and sustaining excellent results over me. The previously presented principles are condensed into nine dimensions or criteria which serve as a guide for the implementaon of the management system and the measurement of the results. These criteria are specified in five enablers (leadership, policy and strategy, partnerships and resources, people, and process), and four types of results which the organisaon aains (customers, employees, society, and other key results). To develop each criterion with more detail, these contain a variable number of subcriteria. Altogether, the model considers 32 sub-criteria which are to be approached when carrying out the complete self-assessment (EFQM, 2003, 2010, 2013). Figure 1. The structure of the EFQM Excellence Model. On the other hand, the RADAR logic scheme provides a structured approach to making the self-assessment on the basis of the EFQM model. The elements Approaches, Deploy, Assess and Refine are applied to the agents criterion and contribute evidence on how the organisaon is doing. The Results element is used to assess the results criterion and analyse what the organisaon obtains, as a result of its efforts. In the EFQM model has been incorporated the growing importance of the CSR and sustainability for the management excellence in the organisaons. For example, in the 2003 version CSR was first introduced as a Fundamental Concept, whilst in 2010 100 points were given to criterion 8 instead of the 60 points of the previous version. The 2013 version included, for the very first me, topics such as posive impact in the organisaon, triple boom line, and accountability. 2.2.1. Social impact and fundamental concepts of excellence The aspects related to the social impact of the organisaon are present in the fundamental concepts and, specifically, in the so-called Creang a sustainable future. In this regard, excellent organisaons adopt a strict ethical approach, are transparent, and are accountable to their stakeholders for their performance as responsible organisaons. They consider and promote social responsibility and environmental protecon. The social responsibility of organisaons is defined in their values and integrated into them by means of public and transparent commitments, which contemplate all stakeholders. In addion, they sasfy and exceed the expectaons, standards, and laws that are applicable to them. Also, they manage risks, and they seek and promote opportunies to collaborate with society in mutually beneficial projects, promong and maintaining a high level of confidence among their stakeholders. They are aware of their impact on the present and future community and they are concerned about reducing any adverse impact to the minimum (EFQM, 2003, 2013; Olaru, Dinu, Stoleriu, Sandru, & Dinca˘, 2010). 2.2.2. Social impact and the EFQM Excellence Model criterion Within the results criterion, Society Results analyses the social impact of the organisaon. In this point, it is necessary to highlight that for the EFQM Excellence Model, ‘society’will be the pares which are in some way interested in the organisaon, with the excepon of shareholders, customers, suppliers, and employees, as these stakeholders are considered in the rest of the results criterion. Criterion 8 indicates that excellent organisaons take exhausve measures and reach excellent results with respect to society, including the collaboraon of the organizaon with philanthropic acvies, relaonships with authories, ethics, social responsibility, environment protecon, etc. Within criterion 8 there are 2 sub-criteria: 8a. Measures of percepon and 8b. Performance indicators which specify and detail how to reach and improve the social impact of the organisaon. Moreover, despite CSR and sustainability having a strong presence in social results criterion, this is not the only criterion in which EFQM included them. The fundamental concept of excellence ‘Creang a sustainable future’ is related in three sub-criteria in Leadership, one in Strategy, two in Partnerships and Resources, and one from Processes (EFQM, 2013). In short, it can be seen that the EFQM Excellence Model includes the most significant aspects of CSR when approaching the analysis of the social impact of an organizaon (Ascigil, 2010; McAdam & Leonard, 2003; Olaru et al., 2011). More specifically, Kok et al. (2001) conclude that criterion 8 of the EFQM Excellence Model contemplates 9 of the 14 aspects that these authors consider essenal to CSR: Community relaons, social responsibility and new opportunies, minories/diversity and working condions, ethics awareness, educaon and training, consumer relaons, natural environment, supplier relaons, and the physical environment. 3. Research model and hypotheses The research model and the hypotheses (Figure 2) have been posed, based on the structureof the EFQM Excellence Model, its basic premise, and the review of the specialised literature on TQM, the EFQM Excellence Model, and CSR. Regarding TQM pracces, the enablers of the EFQM Excellence Model have been taken as reference and, more specifically, the grouping made by Calvo-Mora et al. (2014). Through Figure 2. Research model and hypotheses. a factor analysis, the study summarises the enablers of the EFQM Excellence Model into three factors: Factor 1, which consists of the TQM social factors and includes leadership and human resources management. Factor 2, the strategic resources management of partners has elements related to strategy formulaon and review. These are based on informaon, indicators, and organisaonal learning, as well as on factors related to external partnerships (suppliers and partners) and resource management. Factor 3, process management, encompasses the organisaon’s key processes in order to generate an increasingly greater value for the customers and other stakeholders (Table 1). The grouping of the enabling agents from the EFQM model produced by Calvo-Mora et al. (2014) was chosen as reference, as it allows working with an operaonally simpler research model (3 constructs or latent variables, instead of the 5 contained in the original EFQM model). In addion, the proposed model is complete, as it includes the key elements of the TQM idenfied in the literature (Rahman & Bullock, 2005). The grouping of the enabling agents of the EFQM model into so, strategic, and hard is also used in other studies such as those by BouLlusar et al. (2009), Brown (2002), and Reiner (2002). In short, the research model is based on finding which quality management pracces may facilitate the development of social responsibility. More specifically, an organizaon can manage and improve its impact on society through the management and improvement of its key processes. However, for an efficient management of the processes, the organisaon must have the parcipaon and involvement of its leaders and its people (social factors), as well as a suitable strategic management of its resources and external alliances with the main partners with which it interacts (strategic resources management factors). 3.1. TQM social factors as drivers of TQM iniaves The leadership of the management and the involvement of the human resources are considered determining factors for the success of the TQM and CSR iniaves (Fotopoulos & Psomas, 2010; Pedersen & Neergaard, 2008). Thus, the management must act as a guide and driver in the process of implementaon of the EFQM Excellence Model, and must create and spread the values of excellence in management, as well as establishing goals and objecves that are consistent with these values (Calvo-Mora et al., 2014). From the CSR perspecve, leaders must consider the needs of all stakeholders, creang models of ethical and socially responsible behaviour at all levels of the organisaon (Tarı´, 2011). The impact of the processes on the results that the organisaon reaches in society has been indicated in the studies by Al-Tabbaa, Gadd, and Ankrah (2013), Benavides-Velasco, QuintanaGarcı´a, and Marchante-Lara (2014), and Olaru et al. (2011). More specifically, Álvarez García, Rama, Vila Alonso, and Fraiz Brea (2014), in a structural analysis of the enabling agents of the EFQM model and the social impact, find posive and significant relaonships between management by processes and social impact (0.371; R2= 13.8%). However, in our work, the relaonship between both variables and the explanatory variance percentage is more elevated. The proposed model also shows that the social impact of the organisaon cannot be improved solely by orienng the key processes and acvies of the organizaon towards a socially responsible management (Rocha, Searcy, & Karapetrovic, 2007). The involvement of the main suppliers and partners, the efficient management of the resources, and the strategic consideraon of quality and the CSR (Strategy-Resources management factors) are also crical variables. This fact is in accordance with that pointed out by Alvarez Garcia et al. (2014), Abdullah et al. (2008), and Rahman and Bullock (2005). This aspect is verified on analysing the very high influence that these variables have on Process management (H3), which explains 46.05% of its variance (Table 3). In addion, the Strategy-Resources management factors have an indirect influence on Social results (Table 3). Finally, the obtained results show that companies which wish to improve their results and their social impact must take into account that TQM social factors are the most important in this respect. In this respect, management leadership and people management indirectly affect the social impact through their influence on the Strategy-Resources management factors and Process management variables (Indirect effect = 0.3426). In addion, TQM social factors have a significant direct effect on Strategy-Resources management factors (H1) and Process management (H2) and explain a high percentage of the explained variance of both variables, specifically 65.56% and 19.42%, respecvely (Table 3). Although not directly related to the social impact, the existence of mulple indirect effects, between the key factors of TQM and the results, has also been studied by Curkovicet al. (2000), Suarez, Calvo-Mora, and Roldan (2016), and Tutuncu and Kucukusta (2007). 7. Conclusions, limitations, and future research lines 7.1. Academic and theorecal implicaons As has been indicated in the discussion, it is not possible to find a unique management factor which affects the results that the organisaon achieves in society. This fact corroborates the mulple relaonships that exist between the agents (criteria and sub-criteria of the EFQM model) which form the management system. Below, we present the relaonhips which we consider the most important for the improvement of the social impact of the organisaon.  The whole process begins with the leadership. The highest managers must create the ethical and social principles and values of the organisaons. They must also lead by example of involvement with, and fulfilment of, these principles and values as cultural bases, through acon and behaviour. These principles and values must be translated into acons by the management in response to the demands of society. These aspects are included in the Social factors of the proposed research model.  The integraon of the aspects related to CSR into the policy and strategy. The key elements for this are as follows: (1) the communicaon and the results of the CSR policy of the organisaon; (2) the policies and equality of opportunies; (3) demand for the fulfilment of values and the development of acons in CSR from suppliers and partners; and (4) the implementaon of standardised systems of management in maers of the environment (ISO 14000) and CSR (ISO 26000). These elements are included in the Strategy-Resources management factors and process management dimensions of the proposed model. 7.2. Implicaons for business management The concern of the organisaon about sasfying the expectaons of the people and instuons related to it obliges it to consider in its strategy the need to act in terms of social responsibility and to measure its impact in the society in which it undertakes its acvity. Sll recognising the inherent subjecvity of organisaonal ethics, understood in its widest sense, the respect of certain social standards (whether sanconed by the effecve legality or not) forms part of a TQM, which seeks long-term objecves. This may lead to the sacrifice of obtaining certain short-term profits in the interest of the opportunity to show atudes which contribute to a posive social image of the organisaon. In a broader sense, the management and connuous improvement of quality involve considering the social customer as consisng of the different segments that constute the organisaonal macro-environment (polical-legal, economic, environmental, and sociocultural). In addion, the organisaon must not forget that the relaonships with its stakeholders are based on a balance between rights and obligaons; that is, they must not only receive, but also give. Thus, a relaonship of confidence between an organisaon and society can arise which will lay the foundaons of a socially responsible behaviour. 7.3. Recommendaons for assessment and improvement of social impact A series of acons are detailed below that companies would have to develop to effecvely assess what they are doing to sasfy the social client and how to improve their posioning and social image:  Clearly idenfy the stakeholders that it includes in the group called ‘society’, as well as their needs and expectaons.  Establish objecves related to social impact: image; degree of influence on the local and naonal economy; ethics; support to educaonal, sporng, or cultural acvies; philanthropic or support acvies to not-for-profit organisaons; prevenon of occupaonal risks; protecon and preservaon of the environment; etc. .  Maintain the commitment and involvement of the leaders and highest managers of the organisaon, who must create the ethical values and give an example of their applicaon as cultural bases of acons and behaviour.  Involve and movate all the people of the organisaon and make them see the importance of their role in the improvement of the social impact.  Demand ethical and socially responsible values and behaviour from the main suppliers and partners.  Explicitly establish a policy and strategy relang to social responsibility.  Implement suitable channels for gathering informaon, communicang and relang with society, and evaluang their effecveness (surveys, reports, news in the media, meengs with interest groups, Market research, etc.).  Idenfy and effecvely manage the key processes involved in the relaonships that the company maintains with society and which can have the greatest impact on it.  Establish programmes and plans and assign specific resources to improve the social impact.  Design a system of measurement indicators that allow the monitoring of the effecveness of the processes, programmes, and plans related to the social impact of the organisaon.  Establish the mechanisms for informing and maintaining a fluid dialogue with the social stakeholders. 7.4. Limitaons and future research lines The interpretaon of the results and conclusions of this study are subject to a series of limitaons. The first limitaon is due to the technique used for the proposed model: structural equaon modelling, which assumes the linearity of relaonships between the latent variables. The second is related to the noon of causality. Our study has considered a so modelling approach, oriented more towards predicon than causality. The third limitaon refers to the design of the research being cross-seconal instead of longitudinal. The fourth limitaon is related to the sample and data collecon. In this sense, the sample size and the period of me in which the data have been collected (six years) may affect the interpretaon of the results and conclusions. Finally, the geo-graphical area selected for analysis can affect the results and conclusions. In this respect, ethical values and social orientaon of the companies can be different from one geo-graphical context to another. The indicated limitaons constute challenges for the development of new research. In parcular, we can indicate the following: (1) To verify if the results obtained with our research can be replicated, segmenng the sample by size; (2) to deepen the understanding of the indirect relaonships in the model through the analysis of the mediang effects of the StrategyResources management factors and Process management variables. References Abdullah, M. M. B., Uli, J., & Tarı´, J. J. (2008). The influence of so factors on quality improvement and performance. The TQM Journal, 20(5), 436–452. Alonso-Almeida, M. M., & Fuentes-Frı´as, V. G. (2012). Internaonal quality awards and excellence quality models around the world. A muldimensional analysis. Quality and Quanty, 46, 599–626. Al-Tabbaa, O., Gadd, K., & Ankrah, S. (2013). Excellence models in the non-profit context: Strategies for connuous improvement. Internaonal Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 30(5), 590–612. Álvarez García, J., Rama, C. D. R., Vila Alonso, M., & Fraiz Brea, J. A. (2014). Dependence relaonship between the crical quality factors and social impact. Revista de Administrac¸a˜o de Empresas, 54(6), 692–705. Ascigil, S. F. (2010). Toward socially responsible SMEs? Quality award model as a tool. The Quality Management Journal, 17(3), 7–20. Barre, J. D. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and quality management revisited-acng responsibly with a focus on the future. Journal for Quality and Parcipaon, 31(4), 24–30. Benavides-Velasco, C. A., Quintana-Garcı´a, C., & Marchante-Lara, M. (2014). Total quality management, corporate social responsibility and performance in the hotel industry. Internaonal Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, 77–87. Bou-Llusar, J. C., Escrig-Tena, A. B., Roca-Puig, V., & Beltra´n-Mar´n, I. (2009). An empirical assessment of the EFQM excellence model: Evaluaon as a TQM framework relave to the MBNQA model. Journal of Operaons Management, 27(1), 1–22. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputaon and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 29–44. Brown, A. (2002). Using HR strategies to support business excellence. In: Proceedings of the 7th World Congress for Total Quality Management, Vol. 2, Verona, Italy, 339–346. Calvo-Mora, A., Pico´n-Berjoyo, A., Ruiz-Moreno, C., & Cauzo-Boala, L. (2014). The relaonships between so-hard TQM factors and key business results. Internaonal Journal of Operaons & Producon Management, 34(1), 115–143. Calvo-Mora, A., Picon-Berjoyo, A., Ruiz-Moreno, C., & Cauzo-Boala, L. (2015). Contextual and mediaon analysis between TQM crical factors and organisaonal results in the EFQM Excellence Model framework. Internaonal Journal of Producon Research, 53(7), 2186– 2201. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizaonal stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48. Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W.W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of paral least squares: Concepts, methods and applicaons (pp. 655–690). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Curkovic, S., Melnyk, S., Calantone, R., & Handfield, R. (2000). Validang the Malcolm Baldrige Naonal Quality Award framework through structural equaon modelling. Internaonal Journal of Producon Research, 38(4), 765–791. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collecve raonality and instuonal isomorphism in organizaonal fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147–160. EFQM. (2003). Modelo EFQM de Excelencia. Brussels: European Foundaon for Quality Management. EFQM. (2010). Modelo EFQM de Excelencia. Brussels: European Foundaon for Quality Management. EFQM. (2013). Modelo EFQM de Excelencia. Brussels: European Foundaon for Quality Management. Eskildsen, J. K., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2000). A causal model for employee sasfacon. Total Quality Management, 11, 1081–1094. Flynn, B. B., & Saladin, B. (2001). Further evidence on the validity of the theorecal models underlying the Baldrige Criteria. Journal of Operaons Management, 19, 617–652. Fotopoulos, C. V., & Psomas, E. L. (2010). The structural relaonships between TQM factors and organizaonal performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excelllence, 22(5), 539–552. Ghobadian, A., Gallear, D., & Hopkins, M. (2007). TQM and CSR nexus. Internaonal Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 24(7), 704–721. Gómez Gómez, J., Marnez Costa, M., & Marnez Lorente, A. R. (2015). EFQM excellence model and TQM: An empirical comparison. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence.doi:10.1080/14783363.2015.1050167 Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on paral least squares structural equaon modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, Incorporated. ISO 26000: 2012. (2012). Guía de responsabilidad social ISO 26000. Internaonal Organizaon for Standardizaon, Génova. Jabnoun, N., & Sedrani, K. (2005). TQM, culture and performance in UAE manufacturing firms. The Quality Management Journal, 12(4), 8–20. Kaynak, H. (2003). The relaonship between total quality management pracces and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operaons Management, 21, 405–435. Kok, P., van der Wiele, T., McKenna, R., & Brown, A. (2001). A corporate social responsibility audit within a quality management framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(4), 285–297. Leonard, D., & McAdam, R. (2003). Corporate social responsibility. Quality Progress, 36(10), 27–33. Locke, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research:Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence_. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 115–136. Mar´n-Caslla, J. I. (2002). Possible ethical implicaons in the deployment of the EFQM excellence model. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1–2), 125–134. Maen, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparave understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,33(2), 404–424. McAdam, R., & Leonard, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in a total quality management context: Opportunies for sustainable growth. Corporate Governance: The Internaonal Journal of Business in Society, 3(4), 36–45. Moir, L. (2001). What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance: The Internaonal Journal of Business in Society, 1(2), 16–22. Olaru, M., Dinu, V., Stoleriu, G., S¸andru, D., & Dinca˘, V. (2010). Responsible commercial acvity of SMEs and specific values of sustainable development in terms of the European excellence model. Amfiteatru Economic, 12(27), 10–26. Olaru, M., Stoleriu, G., & S¸andru, I. M. D. (2011). Social responsibility concerns of SMEs in Romania, from the perspecve of the requirements of the EFQM European Excellence Model. Amfiteatru Economic, 13(29), 56–71. Pannirselvam, G. P., Siferd, S. P., & Ruch, W. A. (1998). Validaon of the Arizona Governor´s quality award criteria: A test of the Baldrige criteria. Journal of Operaons Management, 16, 529–550. Perianez-Cristobal, R., Calvo-Mora, A., & Navarro-Garcı´a, A. (2014). Processes approach, quality management and key business results. In Peris-Orz, M. and A ´ lvarez-Garcı´a, J. (Eds.),Acon-based quality management (pp. 83–96). London: Springer. Pedersen, E. R., & Neergaard, P. (2008). From periphery to center: How CSR is integrated in mainstream performance management frameworks. Measuring Business Excellence, 12, 4–12. Prajogo, D. I., & McDermo, C. M. (2005). The relaonship between total quality management pracces and organizaonal culture. Internaonal Journal of Operaon Producon Management, 25(11), 1101–1122. Rahman, S., & Bullock, P. (2005). So TQM, hard TQM, and organisaonal performance relaon- ships: An empirical invesgaon. Omega, 33, 73–83. Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Internaonal Journal of Research in Markeng, 26, 332–344. Reiner, G. (2002). Analysis of crical factors of company success based on the EFQM excellence model. In Proceedings of the 7th World Congress for Total Quality Management, vol. 2. Verona, Italy, 361– 366. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). Hamburg: University of Hamburg. Rocha, M., Searcy, C., & Karapetrovic, S. (2007). Integrang sustainable development into exisng management systems. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(1–2), 83–92. Roldan, J. L., & Sánchez-Franco, M. J. (2012). Variance-based structural equaon modelling: Guidelines for using paral least squares in informaon systems research. In M. Mora (Ed.), Research methodologies, innovaons and philosophies in soware systems engineering and informaon systems (pp. 193–221). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Samson, D., & Terziovski, M. (1999). The relaonship between total quality management pracces and operaonal performance. Journal of Operaons Management, 17(4), 393–409. Seinor, B., & Swailer, S. (2004). The dimensions of management team performance: A repertory grid study. Internaonal Journal of Producvity and Performance Management, 53(4), 317–333. Sila, I., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2003). Examinaon and comparison of the crical factors of total quality management (TQM) across countries. Internaonal Journal of Producon Research, 41(2), 235–268. Suarez, E., Calvo-Mora, A., & Roldan, J. L. (2016). The role of strategic planning in excellence management systems. European Journal of Operaonal Research, 248(2), 532–542. Suarez, E., Roldán, J. L., & Calvo-Mora, A. (2014). A structural analysis of the EFQM model: An assessment of the mediang role of process management. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15(5), 862–885. Tarı´, J. J. (2011). Research into quality management and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), 623–638. Tarı´ Guillo´, J. J., Lo´pez Gamero, M. D., & Molina Azorı´n, J. F. (2007). El proceso de autoevaluacio´n segu´n el modelo EFQM en una Pyme. Invesgaciones Europeas de Direccio´n y Economı´a de la Empresa, 13(2), 202–216. Tutuncu, O., & Kucukusta, D. (2007). Relaonship between organizaonal commitment and EFQM business excellence model: A study on Turkish quality award winners. Total Quality Management, 18(10), 1083–1096. Van der Wiele, T., Dale, B. G., & Williams, R. (2000). Business improvement through quality management systems. Management Decision, 38(1), 19–23. Westlund, A. H. (2001). Measuring environmental impact on society in the EFQM system. Total Quality Management, 12(1), 125–135. Withanachchi, N., Handa, Y., Karandagoda, K. K. W., Pathirage, P. P., Tennakoon, N. C. K., & Pullaperuma, D. S. P. (2007). TQM emphasizing 5-S principles: A breakthrough for chronic managerial constraints at public hospitals in developing countries. Internaonal Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(3), 168–177. Zairi, M., & Peters, J. (2002). The impact of social responsibility on business performance. Managerial Auding Journal, 17(4), 174–178. Zenko, Z., Hrast, A., & Mulej, M. (2013). Social responsibility: Measures and measurement as a basis for organizaonal systemic acon. Systemic Pracce and Acon Research, 26(6), 475–484.