Using the FMEA Method as a Support for Improving the Social

Responsibility of a Company

Patrycja Hąbek and Michał Molenda

Faculty of Organization and Management, Silesian University of Technology, Roosevelta 26 str., Zabrze, Poland

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, Sustainability, Risk Assessment, ISO

26000.

Abstract: The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is based on companies voluntarily respecting

environmental and social needs while making business decisions and at the same time taking into account

the expectations of stakeholders. The notion of CSR is well known nowadays and practised by businesses

around the world. However, this concept is sometimes interpreted and implemented differently. It is

important to realize that the concept of CSR should be considered from the perspective of manufactured

products as well as all processes realized in the company. The focus in this paper is on company processes.

Socially responsible processes are those that do not adversely affect the company stakeholders. Therefore,

the need arises to assess the risk of potential failures that may occur in company processes, taking into

account the subjects of social responsibility. The authors present the possibility of using Failure Mode and

Effects Analysis (FMEA) for this purpose. This paper presents an example of using a modified FMEA

method which it is hoped can on one hand provide inspiration for further development of tools dedicated to

CSR implementation at the operational level, and on the other hand offer help to those companies which

want to integrate CSR into company processes.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) concept

is receiving increased attention from the business as

well as the academic community (Crifo et al. 2016;

Dahlsrud 2008; Fifka 2013a; Rok et al. 2007; Du et

al. 2010; Lin-Hi & Müller 2013). CSR can be

defined as a concept that integrates, on a voluntary

basis, social and environmental concerns into a

business’ operations and interactions with its

stakeholders. Unfortunately, not so rarely the

concept is considered only as a marketing or public

relations tool to improve company image (Mahoney

et al. 2013; Wolniak & Hąbek 2015). Whereas in

reality it is only possible to achieve long-term

benefits from CSR implementation if socially

responsible behaviour is integrated into all the

processes in an enterprise. However, even a

company with deep involvement in the affairs of the

local community is not responsible if at the same

time it does not respect employee rights, does not

care about the environment and does not ensure the

safety of its products. The activities of socially

responsible manufacturers should be focused on the

creation of products and services that are safe for the

customer and at the same time do not threaten the

environment, in addition the production processes of

these products must be conducted in a safe manner

and with concern for the environment (Paliwoda-

Matiolańska 2014; Bluszcz & Kijewska 2014;

Ryszko 2015).

Many companies are currently implementing

CSR and even publish reports disclosing CSR data,

however, there are still few tools that focus on the

implementation of this concept at the operational

level and tools which can be applied to all processes

functioning in the company. One method that has

been modified for this purpose and can be used to

make a company’s processes socially responsible is

the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). The

aim of the FMEA method is to consistently and

systematically identify potential defects/failures in

the product, process or design and then eliminate

them or minimize the risks associated with them.

Through the subsequent analysis with the FMEA

method we can continually improve our products,

processes or projects.

The aim of this article is to present the concept of

using the FMEA methodology to improve the

processes of a socially responsible organization.

HÄ

Ebek P. and Molenda M.

Using the FMEA Method as a Support for Improving the Social Responsibility of a Company.

DOI: 10.5220/0006118600570065

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems (ICORES 2017), pages 57-65

ISBN: 978-989-758-218-9

The remainder of the paper is structured as

follows. The next two sections provide an overview

of the CSR concept and give a short description of

the FMEA method. This is followed by a section

dedicated to the modified FMEA method that can be

used to implement social responsibility into

processes. The paper ends with conclusions and

recommendations for further research.

2 CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY – THE

CONCEPT

Changes occurring in the environment, such as

globalization and changing societal expectations,

have caused companies to become the object of

increasing pressure from different groups among its

stakeholders to ensure not only profit but also

greater social value. Consumers are becoming

increasingly interested in how the company whose

products they buy treats its employees and suppliers,

and if the company has a negative impact on the

natural environment or whether it is involved in

corrupt practices.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a broad

term which has been differently defined (Gaweł et

al. 2015; Line & Braun 2007; Maignan et al. 2002;

Vveinhardt & Andriukaitienė 2014; Elkington

1999). For example, the European Commission

understand it as a voluntary inclusion by a business

of social and environmental concerns in their

commercial (economic) activities and their relations

with their stakeholders (COM 2001). Guidance on

social responsibility (ISO 26000: 2010) defines the

concept as the responsibility of an organization for

the impacts of its decision and activities on society

and the environment, through transparency and

ethical behaviour that: contribute to sustainable

development, including the health and welfare of

society, take into account the expectations of

stakeholders, are in compliance with applicable law

and consistent with international norms of

behaviour, are integrated throughout the

organization and practices in its relationship.

Referring to the above definitions, it seems that a

key aspect of the CSR concept is running a business

based on building lasting and transparent

relationships with all stakeholders (Hąbek 2009).

Identification of and engagement with stakeholders

are crucial in the implementation of social

responsibility in a company (Maignan et al. 2002).

We can define stakeholders as individual people and

groups of people, inside and outside the

organization, who are interested in the results of its

operations.

In order to systematize the knowledge of CSR

and clarify the values which should act as guidance

for organizations in its activities, in the ISO

26000:2010 the following areas of social

responsibility (which are called the core subjects)

have been defined: organizational governance,

human rights, labour practices, the environment, fair

operating practices, consumer issues, commitment

and social development. The core subjects of CSR

should be considered holistically in an organization

rather than concentrating on a single issue.

Therefore, it can be stated that responsibility is

managed when, for example, employee policies are

developed, when customer relationship strategies are

implemented, when supply chains are managed,

when leaders are really committed to a quality

culture, when firms manage processes to achieve

quality improvement, and when firms use

measurement systems to improve their activities

(Tarí 2011; Cierna & Sujova 2015).

Only comprehensive implementation of this

concept enables enterprises to achieve values in the

economic, social and environmental dimension. For

this reason, the concept of corporate social

responsibility should be considered from the

perspective of all of company processes (Paliwoda-

Matiolańska 2014).

Unfortunately CSR in companies is implemented

variously and good practices often show one-

dimensional practices concerning, e.g., environment

protection or philanthropic activities. In addition, for

many managers CSR is seen simply as a tool to

improve company image or enhance public relations.

To achieve the long-term benefits of its

implementation, socially responsible behaviour

should be integrated into and refer to all the

processes in an enterprise. Therefore, there is a need

to develop tools for the operationalization of CSR

throughout an organization. In this paper, the authors

suggest using for that purpose the methodology of

FMEA.

3 FAILURE MODE AND

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a

step-by-step approach for identifying all possible

failures in a design, manufacturing or assembly

process, or a product or service. “Failure modes”

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

means the ways, or modes, in which something

might fail. Failures are any errors or defects,

especially ones that affect the customer, and can be

potential or actual. “Effects analysis” refers to

studying the consequences of those failures. Failures

are prioritized according to how serious their

consequences are, how frequently they occur and

how easily they can be detected. The purpose of the

FMEA is to take actions to eliminate or reduce

failures, starting with the highest-priority ones.

Failure modes and effects analysis also documents

current knowledge and actions about the risks of

failures, for use in continuous improvement (Tague

2005; Wolniak 2011).

FMEA first emerged in studies conducted by

NASA in 1963. It eventually spread to the car

manufacturing industry, where it aided in the

identification and quantification of possible defects

at the product design stage (Puente et al. 2002).

FMEA is currently utilized in the automotive,

aerospace, and electronic industries to identify,

prioritize, and eliminate known potential failures,

problems, and errors in systems during the design

stage and prior to releasing the product (Stamatis

1995). Several industrial FMEA standards, such as

those developed by the Society of Automotive

Engineers, the US Military of Defense, and the

Automotive Industry Action Group, employ Risk

Priority Numbers (RPNs) to measure the risk and

severity of failures (Rhee & Ishii 2003). RPN is an

index that can represent the degree of risk that a

product, process or design possesses. It consists of

three indicators, namely, Occurrence (O), Severity

(S), and Detection (D).

RPN = O x D x S (1)

Where O is the probability of the failure, S is the

severity of the failure, and D is the probability of not

detecting the failure. FMEA consists of two stages.

Potential failure modes are identified in the first

stage, and the values of severity, occurrence, and

detection are assigned. The manager makes

recommendations for corrective action in the second

stage, and RPN must be recalculated after

undertaking such corrective action (Su & Chou

2008; Gajdzik & Sitko 2016).

The Risk Priority Number (RPN) can take the

maximum value of 1000. In practice, established

boundaries of this index are used, which can be

defined as the level of acceptability of the risk. It is

often assumed that the value of the RPN below 120

for the failure is an acceptable level of risk. In such a

case it will not be necessary to make changes in the

system. If the value of the RPN is in the range of

120-160, then corrective action should be taken

which decreases the RPN value (Molenda et al.

2016).

Chen (2007) pointed out that FMEA provides a

structured systematic identification of the potential

failure modes in design, manufacturing, or

management. FMEA provides a qualitative

evaluation of the necessary corrective actions by

studying the impact of failure on the system and by

focusing on the problems affecting systematic

reliability (Zasadzień 2014; Midor 2014). Failure

modes and effects analysis also documents current

knowledge and actions about the risks of failures, for

use in continuous improvement.

The results of the FMEA analysis serve as a

basis for the introduction of changes in the product

design or production processes, aimed at reducing

the risk of occurrence of defects identified as

critical. If it is not possible to completely eliminate

the causes of defects, action should be taken in order

to enhance their capability to detect or reduce the

negative effects of their occurrence. Implementation

of the recommended corrective action should be

continuously monitored and their effects subjected

to verification (Wyrębek 2012; Skotnicka-Zasadzień

2012; Wojtaszak & Biały 2015).

4 FMEA FOR CSR – MAKING

THE PROCESSES SOCIALLY

RESPONSIBLE

In this section of the paper the authors present the

procedure for social responsible risk assessment (see

Figure 1) using the methodology of FMEA (FMEA

for CSR/ FMEA4CSR). This method allows

identifying problems and inconsistencies (weak

points) that may occur during the process, taking

into consideration the core subjects of the CSR

concept. The similar concept was presented by

Duckworth and Rosemond (2010).

The example presented in the paper applies to the

process functioning in a production company. The

authors are aware that conducting a risk assessment

on one process will not ensure that the whole

organization achieves improvements in social

responsibility. The intention of the authors was to

show an exemplary solution for the selected process.

The first step in the FMEA4CSR is to determine

the process in the organization which should be

studied. It is good to take a process-oriented

approach which allows for the holistic analysis of

risk on all aspects of social responsibility for that

Using the FMEA Method as a Support for Improving the Social Responsibility of a Company

Figure 1: Stages of FMEA4CSR.

process. At this stage, a cross-functional team should

be established consisting of the various groups

involved in the process (engineering, purchasing,

health and safety, human resources, new product

development, etc.) which should be encouraged to

complete the FMEA form.

The advantage of utilizing a cross-functional

team approach is the varied experience and

perspectives that each individual brings to the task.

Although increased team diversity often leads to

intense discussions when rating severity and

occurrence, this difficulty in building consensus

creates thoughtful debate about the organization’s

role in improving socially responsible behaviour

(Duckworth & Rosemond 2010).

As an example, the maintenance process in a

production company has been selected.

When the process for analysis has been selected and

the team of experts set up it is necessary to identify

the basis data about the process. To properly analyse

the process, with accordance to the process

approach, it should be determined the scope of the

process, its suppliers, inputs as well as outputs. As

the process has to be analysed from the perspective

of social responsibility it is important to identify in

the same time all the stakeholders involved in the

process (see Table 1). It is good to present the

information about the process in graphic form to

enable a better understanding of the subject of the

analysis. This phase is also dedicated to identifying

the stakeholders (employees, customers, sharehol-

ders, community, government, local businesses, etc.)

of the process whose needs and expectations will

form the basis for further analysis. We have to bear

in mind that identification of stakeholders is crucial

to proceeding with the implementation of social

responsibility in a company.

Table 1: Withdrawal of machines and equipment process identification.

SUPPLIERS INPUTS PROCESS OUTPUT STAKEHOLDERS

• company

owners

• maintenance

department

• machine

manufacturer

• health and

safety

department

• worn out, unnecessary

machine

• withdrawal order

• plan for dismantling

and removing from the

plant

• documentation of the

machine (dismantling

manual, design

documentation)

• instructions for safe

removal and disposal of

the machine

withdrawal of

machines and

equipment (used,

worn out,

unnecessary)

• dismantled and removed

machine

• records in the register about

the machine removal

• worn consumables materials

(oils, lubricants, etc.)

• emission of gases into the

environment

• registration and inventory of

used parts and consumables

materials

• records of environmental

hazardous materials

• company owners

• employees

working within

the process

• environmental

inspectors

• accounting

department

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

The assessment of the severity of identified

failure modes in FMEA4CSR should be done from

the point of view of all stakeholders of the process,

and not just from a customer’s point of view as in

the classical FMEA methodology.

After determining the stakeholders, all the

outputs of the process should be identified, which

may have an impact on these stakeholders. The next

step is to identify all the process inputs (materials,

energy, information, and human resources, etc.)

required to conduct the process. The final task will

be to identify the suppliers for the pre-defined inputs

of the process. The goal of this analysis is to identify

the potential social responsibility risks associated

with the selected process. When the process is

determined, we should focus on the critical function

to that process. The functions constituting the

maintenance process in an exemplary organization

are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Functions of maintenance process.

1. Planning of investment for production resources

Execution of the investment, the purchase of

machines and equipment

Installation and labelling of machines and

equipment. Introduction to the register

First commissioning and validation of machines

and equipment

5. Training for machine operators

6. Planning of inspections and repairs

Monitoring of the operations and diagnostics of

machines and equipment

Implementation of the plan of inspections and

repairs

9. Cost calculation of repair work

10.

Supply for maintenance (parts, consumable

materials, etc.)

11. Withdrawal of machines and equipment

12. Diagnostics. Breakdown removal

For the further analysis we have chosen the

process of withdrawal of machines and equipment

(Table 5).

For the identified function in the selected

process, all potential failure modes should be

identified. At this stage we should use the

knowledge of the team members as well as the data

from the analysis of other processes or

benchmarking studies. The next step is the analysis

of all potential causes of the failure modes. At this

stage we can use other tools such as the Ishikawa

diagram. Because often the failures involve a

cascade of effects, next we should analyse the

impact of those failures. The direct effect or the

consequence from the stakeholders’ point of view

should be taken into account (Kaźmierczak 2016).

Another step of FMEA4CSR is to determine the

Severity (S), Occurrence (O) and Detection (D)

indicators. Each indicator can be a number between

<1-10>. The ratios we determined are based on the

data in Table 3 and Table 4. It should be noted here

that the D indicator is fixed arbitrarily on the basis

of knowledge about the possibility of detection of a

failure. Number 1 applies when such a possibility is

very big and number 10 when the failure is difficult

to detect. Subsequently, we can calculate the Risk

Priority Number (RPN) index. The RPN values

allow us to determine the priority risks that can

threaten social responsibility performance.

Table 3: Criteria of severity and occurrence ratings.

Rating

Severity

[S]

Rating

Occurrence

[O]

1 meaningless 1 negligible

2-3 low 2-3 occasional

4-6 moderate 4-6 moderate

7-8 high 7-8 high

9-10 very high 9-10 very high

Table 4: Criteria of detection ratings.

Rating Detection [D]

1 very high

2-5 high

6-8 moderate

9 low

10 accidental

Then we can focus on ranking the failure from

the most important, from the point of view of the

stakeholders, when the number of RPN is the

greatest, to the least important. Then we must fix the

limit (a number RPN) between critical failures and

other failures. For all critical failures we should

determine the corrective actions, i.e., actions which

enable eliminating the causes of the failures. After

completion of these activities the RPN index should

be re-calculated and if there are still critical failures,

the introduction of corrective actions should be

repeated to achieve an acceptable level of risk.

In our example, we established the limit for RPN

between the critical and the other failure modes at

Using the FMEA Method as a Support for Improving the Social Responsibility of a Company

Table 5: FMEA4CSR example sheet for the selected process – part A.

PROCESS: WITHDRAWAL OF MACHINES AND EQUIPMENT

CORE

SUBJECT

SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY

FAILURE MODE

CAUSES FAILURE EFFECTS S O D RPN

Organizational

Governance

No systems for

tracking and/or

reporting on social and

environmental results

Reducing the cost of

bureaucracy and

reduction of

employment

No information on emissions and pollution

which occurred during the dismantling and

removal of the machines

No information regarding the threats to

employees during removal of the machines

7 8 3 168

No organizational

policy for the

protection of property,

which is to prevent the

theft of technical

resources

Lack of awareness of

the top management of

the risks of theft of the

dismantled machines

or their components

Material losses arising from theft of

unprotected elements of the machines

7 7 4 196

Human

Rights

Lack of clear message

about the importance

of human rights in the

organization

Top management is

convinced that at all

levels of the

organization human

rights are respected

Performing activities that threaten health

during realization of the process

9 7 4 252

Lack of processes for

resolving grievances

Information about

complaints of

employees are blocked

by direct superiors

Carrying out the process under pressure

beyond normal working hours

9 5 2 90

Labour

Practices

Conditions of work do

not comply with

national law

Lack of training of

middle-level managers

in terms of the law in

force concerning the

implementation of the

process

Working in conditions that threaten the

health and lives of workers carrying out

the process

9 7 1 63

Environment

Lack of system for

tracking waste created

by the organization

Adoption by top

management policy,

oriented only on the

financial results.

Reducing bureaucracy

No information on emissions and pollution

caused by errors during the dismantling

and removal of machines

5 5 3 75

Lack of identification

and action associated

with protecting the

natural environment

Lack of environmental

policy

Uncontrolled pollution arising during the

dismantling and removal of machines

8 7 4 224

Fair Operating

Practices

Lack of identification

of risk associated with

corruption

Lack of awareness of

top management

associated with the

resale of used

machines undervalued

Company financial losses associated with

selling the withdrawn machines

undervalued

7 3 8 168

Consumer

Issues

Unknown impact

Community

Involvement

and

Development

Unknown impact

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

Table 6: FMEA4CSR example sheet for the selected process – part B.

PROCESS: WITHDRAWAL OF MACHINES AND EQUIPMENT

CORE

SUBJECT

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

FAILURE MODE

IMPROVEMENT PLAN S O D RPN

Organizational

Governance

No systems for tracking and/or

reporting on social and

environmental results

The introduction of an emissions control system as

well as system to keep track of accidents occurring

during the removing of withdrawn machines

7 3 1 21

No organizational policy for the

protection of property, which is to

prevent the theft of technical

resources

The establishment of a special committee whose task

will be to calculate the value of withdrawn machines

7 1 4 28

Human

Rights

Lack of clear message about the

importance of human rights in the

organization

The introduction of documented organizational rules

in the company, which include labour standards

during the removal of withdrawn machines

9 2 4 72

Lack of processes for resolving

grievances

Labour

Practices

Conditions of work do not comply

with national law

Environment

Lack of system for tracking waste

created by the organization

Lack of identification and action

associated with protecting the

natural environment

The adoption of environmental policies and the

development of procedures for environment

protection while removing machines that will secure

the process from uncontrolled emission to the

environment

8 4 2 48

Fair Operating

Practices

Lack of identification of risk

associated with corruption

The adoption of procedures to ensure the valuation

and resale of the withdrawn machines and its

components for the actual value

7 1 6 42

Consumer Issues Unknown impact

Community

Involvement and

Development

Unknown impact

120. Thus, the RPN for the failure modes obtained

above this limit need corrective action. In the present

case we identified five critical social responsibility

failure modes. For each we have proposed an

improvement plan and re-calculated the RPN index

(Table 6). After the implementation of the improve-

ments, an acceptable level of risk was achieved. We

can conclude that the FMEA4CSR method enables

the identification of potential risks associated with

the business processes and allows us to better

understand the impact on society, the environment

and economics. The added value of this analysis is

increased awareness among managers, as well as the

employees involved, especially in the analysed

process. This raised awareness will influen-ce the

development of appropriate organizational culture

facilitating the implementation of the CSR concept.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The authors presented in this paper a method called

FMEA for CSR (FMEA4CSR) that is used as a tool

for risk analysis which identifies and prioritizes

Using the FMEA Method as a Support for Improving the Social Responsibility of a Company

actions for improving socially responsible processes.

These prioritized actions allow us to rethink the

types and volume of resources needed to minimize

the risks associated with the specific failure modes.

FMEA4CSR is based on seven core subjects of

social responsibility defined in ISO 26000. Because

CSR is a concept which is based on the stakeholders

theory, identification and analysis of their needs and

expectations is crucial for the implementation of this

concept. Therefore, FMEA4CSR takes into account

in the risk assessment not only the severity of

potential failure modes for customers (as in the

classical FMEA), but also for the other stakeholders.

In the proposed methodology the significance of

potential failure modes for all the company’s

stakeholders involved in the process is considered.

Thus, it is reasonable to use the expert knowledge in

the analysis as it is in the case of the FMEA method.

Therefore, it is recommended to integrate the

methodology with one of the participatory methods

(e.g. Charrette, Syncon, Delphi, Groupware, etc.) in

order to reach consensus between stakeholders or at

least the justifications for the different opinions,

scores, etc. and to make sure the results are clear to

all of them.

The purpose of using this tool is the continuous

improvement of socially responsible processes.

Identification of the risks associated with each of the

core subjects of social responsibility leads not only

to determining the priority issues, but also improves

awareness among employees. This improved

awareness is an added value to this analysis and is

invaluable in the implementation of CSR in a

company. Summarizing, FMEA4CSR can be used as

a practical tool for the continuous improvement of

social responsibility within a company at the

operational level.

We must bear in mind that we cannot always

find the ideal solution. Social responsibility

approach may sometimes conflict with the other

company's goals (e.g. environmental protection goal

and keeping production which pollutes the

environment but simultaneously giving an

employment for many people). It is not always

possible to meet all expectations at the same time

and the company must make a choice. Therefore

there is a need for further discussion on this multi-

criteria aspect of the problem. Future research may

be concentrated also on the implementation of the

core subjects of CSR in product or design FMEA. It

could be also interesting to discuss other tools

traditionally used in quality improvement and their

potential benefits in social responsibility improve-

ment programmes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The paper is the result of the statutory research

project No 13/030/BK_16/0024 entitled “Production

engineering methods and tools for development of

smart specializations”.

REFERENCES

Bluszcz, A. & Kijewska, A., 2014. W kierunku społecznej

odpowiedzialności przedsiębiorstw górniczych.

Przegląd Górniczy, 70(4), pp.45–51.

Chen, J.K., 2007. Utility Priority Number Evaluation for

FMEA. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention,

7(5), pp.321–328. Available at: http://link.

springer.com/10.1007/s11668-007-9060-2 [Accessed

September 16, 2016].

Cierna, H. & Sujova, E., 2015. Parallels Between

Corporate Social Responsibility and the EFQM

Excellence Model. MM Science, October, pp.670–676.

COM, 2001. GREEN PAPER. Promoting a European

Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility,

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/

EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3An26039.

Crifo, P., Diaye, M.-A. & Pekovic, S., 2016. CSR related

management practices and firm performance: An

empirical analysis of the quantity–quality trade-off on

French data. International Journal of Production

Economics, 171, pp.405–416. Available at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092

5527314004137 [Accessed December 17, 2015].

Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is

defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate

Social Responsibility and Environmental Manage-

ment, 15(1), pp.1–13. Available at: http://doi.wiley.

com/10.1002/csr.132 [Accessed September 26, 2016].

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. & Sen, S., 2010. Maximizing

Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR): The Role of CSR Communication.

International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1),

pp.8–19. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.11

11/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x [Accessed August 11,

2016].

Duckworth, H.A. & Rosemond, A.M., 2010. Social

Responsibility: Failure Mode Effects and Analysis,

Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Elkington, J., 1999. Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom

Line of 21st Century Business, Capstone Publishing

Ltd. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/Cannibals-

Forks-Triple-Century-Business/dp/1841120847

[Accessed December 21, 2015].

Fifka, M.S., 2013a. Corporate Responsibility Reporting

and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective - a

Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta-

analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment,

22(1), pp.1–35. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/

10.1002/bse.729 [Accessed August 11, 2016].

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

Fifka, M.S., 2013b. Corporate Responsibility Reporting

and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective - a

Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta-

analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment,

22(1), pp.1–35.

Gajdzik, B. & Sitko, J., 2016. Steel mill products analysis

using qualities methods. Metalurgija, 55(4), pp.807–

810.

Gaweł, E. et al., 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility as

an Instrument of Sustainable Development of

Production Enterprises. Management Systems in

Production Engineering, 3(19), pp.152–155.

Hąbek, P., 2009. Społeczna odpowiedzialność

przedsiębiorstw jako koncepcja firmy zorientowanej

na interesariuszy. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 2(6),

pp.69–86.

Kaźmierczak, J., 2016. Engineering of Needs (EoN): the

role of identifying and analyzing needs in Engineering

and Engineering Management. In ESME 2016

International Conference on Economic Science and

Management Engineering. Guilin.

Line, M. & Braun, R., 2007. Baseline Study on CSR

Practices in the New EU Member States and

Candidate Countries, Available at: http://docs.china-

europa-

forum.net/undpconference_26062007_brochure.pdf.

Lin-Hi, N. & Müller, K., 2013. The CSR bottom line:

Preventing corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of

Business Research, 66(10).

Mahoney, L.S. et al., 2013. A research note on standalone

corporate social responsibility reports: Signaling or

greenwashing? Critical Perspectives on Accounting,

24(4-5).

Maignan, I. et al., 2002. Corporate Social Responsibility

in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’

Self-presentations. Journal of International Business

Studies, 33(3), pp.497–514.

Midor, K., 2014. An analysis of the causes of product

defects using quality management tools. Management

Systems in Production Engineering, 16(4), pp.162–

167.

Molenda, M., Hąbek, P. & Szczęśniak, B., 2016.

Zarządzanie jakością w organizacji. Wybrane

zagadnienia, Gliwice: Wydawnictwo Politechniki

Śląskiej.

Paliwoda-Matiolańska, A., 2014. Odpowiedzialność

społeczna w procesie zarządzania przedsiębiorstwem,

Warszawa: CH Beck.

Puente, J. et al., 2002. A decision support system for

applying failure mode and effects analysis.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management, 19(2), pp.137–150. Available at:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/0265

6710210413480 [Accessed September 16, 2016].

Rhee, S.J. & Ishii, K., 2003. Using cost based FMEA to

enhance reliability and serviceability. Advanced

Engineering Informatics, 17(3), pp.179–188.

Rok, B. et al., 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility in

Poland. Baseline Study., Warsaw.

Ryszko, A., 2015. Environmental Proactivity and its

Determinants: Selected Issues Based on the Example

of Poland. In 15th International Multidisciplinary

Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2015. Environmental

Economics. pp. 259–266. Available at:

http://www.sgem.org/sgemlib/spip.php?article6535

[Accessed October 2, 2016].

Skotnicka-Zasadzień, B., 2012. Analiza Efektywności

Zastosowania Metody FMEA w Małym

Przedsiębiorstwie Przemysłowym. Systemy

Wspomagania w Inżynierii Produkcji, pp.142–153.

Stamatis, D.H., 1995. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis,

ASQ Quality Press.

Su, C.-T. & Chou, C.-J., 2008. A systematic methodology

for the creation of Six Sigma projects: A case study of

semiconductor foundry. Expert Systems with

Applications, 34(4), pp.2693–2703.

Tague, N.R., 2005. The Quality Toolbox, Milwaukee:

American Society for Quality, Quality Press.

Available at: https://www.amazon.com/Quality-Tool

box-Nancy-R-Tague/dp/0873896394.

Tarí, J.J., 2011. Research into Quality Management and

Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,

102(4), pp.623–638. Available at: http://link.

springer.com/10.1007/s10551-011-0833-x [Accessed

September 23, 2016].

Vveinhardt, J. & Andriukaitienė, R., 2014. Social

Responsibility Discourse in Empirical and Theoretical

Lithuanian Scientific Studies. Engineering Economics,

25(5), pp.578–588. Available at: http://www.in

zeko.ktu.lt/index.php/EE/article/view/4898 [Accessed

September 14, 2016].

Wojtaszak, M. & Biały, W., 2015. Problem solving

techniques as a part of implementation of six sigma

methodology in tire production. Case study.

Management Systems in Production Engineering,

19(3), pp.133–137.

Wolniak, R., 2011. Wspomaganie metody FMEA w

przedsiębiorstwie produkcyjnym. Problemy Jakości,

43(1), pp.15–21.

Wolniak, R. & Hąbek, P., 2016. Quality Assessment of

CSR Reports – Factor Analysis. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 220, pp.541–547. Available at:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S18770428

16306310 [Accessed July 19, 2016].

Wolniak, R. & Hąbek, P., 2015. Reporting Process of

Corporate Social Responsibility and Greenwashing. In

15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific

GeoConference SGEM 2015. Environmental Econo-

mics. Available at: http://www.sgem.org/sgemlib/spip.

php?article6565 [Accessed September 29, 2016].

Wyrębek, H., 2012. Znaczenie metody FMEA w

zarządzaniu jakością w przedsiębiorstwach. Zeszyty

Naukowe Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczo-

Humanistycznego w Siedlcach. Administracja i

Zarządzanie, 19(nr 92), pp.151–165.

Zasadzień, M., 2014. Using the Pareto Diagram and

FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) to Iden-

tify Key Defects in a Product. Management Systems in

Production Engineering, 4(16), pp.153–156.

Using the FMEA Method as a Support for Improving the Social Responsibility of a Company