The Role of BFQM in Bridging the Gap Between Corporate Governance and Management Quality: A Comparative Study with EFQM and ESG

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a theoretical comparison of EFQM, ESG, and BFQM, highlighting conceptual gaps and the potential for BFQM to integrate governance and quality management.

🏢実務担当者:Offers insights into how BFQM could be used to align governance structures with management practices, though practical application is limited without standardized criteria.

This study presents a comparative analysis of three prominent organizational frameworks—EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management), ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance), and BFQM (British Foundation Quality Management)—with a specific focus on the role of BFQM in bridging the persistent gap between corporate governance and management quality. While EFQM has established itself as a comprehensive model for organizational excellence emphasizing sustainable value creation through leadership, strategy, execution, and results, and ESG has emerged as the dominant framework for assessing non-financial risks, sustainability performance, and stakeholder legitimacy, a critical conceptual and operational gap remains between governance mechanisms and management quality practices. Many organizations maintain separate systems for quality management, compliance, risk oversight, and governance reporting, resulting in systemic fragmentation where governance structures exist on paper but fail to translate into improved decision-making quality or management effectiveness. This paper argues that BFQM, as proposed by Amir-Homayoun Kashani-Kia, offers a potential theoretical bridge by repositioning quality not as an operational or process-level concern but as an architectural principle for organizational guidance, leadership quality, decision-making integrity, and systemic compliance. Unlike EFQM which focuses on excellence maturity and ESG which prioritizes disclosure and transparency, BFQM directs attention to the internal logic of management systems, the coherence of governance architecture, and the quality of decisions as the root cause of performance outcomes. Through an analytical-comparative methodology examining five dimensions—philosophical foundation, unit of analysis, evidence requirements, output types, and strategic function—this study identifies that EFQM answers "how to be excellent," ESG answers "how to be accountable and sustainable," and BFQM potentially answers "how to institutionalize quality at the level of leadership and governance." The findings suggest that BFQM is not a replacement for EFQM or ESG but rather a complementary framework that can serve as the connective tissue linking governance quality with management effectiveness. However, significant limitations exist including lack of standardized criteria, limited international validation, and absence of extensive reference literature, requiring systematic development before empirical application.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.63053/ijmea.83first seen 2026-06-19 05:24:46