Integrating Sustainability Indicators Into Project Man - 2021 - Journal of Clean

Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123774
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Review
Integrating sustainability indicators into project management: The

case of construction industry
Marios Stanitsas, Ph.D. a, *, Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, Associate professor a,
Vrassidas Leopoulos, Professor a
a
Section of Industrial Management and Operational Research, Greece
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Sustainability concepts showcase significant value in construction projects. The discipline of project man-
Received 25 September 2019 agement is also integrating sustainability issues into its approaches. Under this notion, this study explores the
Received in revised form integration of sustainability indicators into project management practices of construction projects. Current
3 August 2020
literature discloses many indicators/key factors as contributing towards the sustainability success of con-
Accepted 16 August 2020
struction projects. However, the lack of an all-encompassing categorization creates difficulties in directing
Available online 22 August 2020
project managers towards their proper utilization. This paper aims to contribute towards the holistic view of
Handling editor Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemes sustainability in project management, especially for construction projects. A systematic literature review was
conducted towards the understanding of the key topics and the findings were validated through semi-
Keywords: structured interviews. Eighty-two (82) sustainability indicators related to project management practices in
Sustainability construction projects were finally identified. Their categorization into economic, environmental and social/
Indicators management sustainability indicators was completed through semi-structured interviews with construction
Project management experts and via previous literature analysis. The economic related indicators finalized in 27; 18 for the
Triple-bottom line
environmental dimension and 37 indicators were included in the social/management dimension. This study
Construction
contributes to research on sustainable project management for construction projects in two main ways: (1) it
provides a holistic view of sustainable project management indicators, covering the full spectrum of the triple
constraint (TBL); (2) it offers the possibility for practitioners to choose the right mix of indicators, depending
on the sustainability focus they want to provide in their projects.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Sustainable project management in construction projects e Sustainability indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Research method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Data collection via systematic literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Validation of results via interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Sustainability, sustainable development (SD) and project man-

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] agement (PM) have always been major topics of discussion
(M. Stanitsas), [email protected] (K. Kirytopoulos), [email protected]
(V. Leopoulos).
amongst scholars. The World Commission on Environment and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123774
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 M. Stanitsas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123774
Development, also known as the Brundtland Report, shaped in to fully comply with the stakeholders’ demands, opting for trans-
1987 a definition for sustainable development that has been widely parency and ethics for the organization and society and assuring
accepted by the scientific community (Renoldner, 2013; Schubert that economic, social and environmental dimensions are taken into
and La ng, 2005; Vasconcellos Oliveira, 2018; Martens and consideration.
Carvalho, 2017). According to this report “Sustainable develop- In order to address issues related to sustainability in construc-
ment is a development that meets the needs of the present without tion projects, understanding of the relevant indicators is required
jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own (Pade et al., 2008; Uncsd, 2001; Ugwu and Haupt, 2007). According
needs” (Wced, 1987). Sustainability from a TBL perspective was a to Reid and Rout (2020), the term “indicator” does not refer to a
concept conceived in 1994 by John Elkington so that the sustain- singularly defined and highly precise concept”. Moldan and Dahl
ability movement could, more explicitly, incorporate the social (2007), in line with Gallopín and Assessment (1996), argue that
dimension (Elkington, 2004). The whole concept is based on the not all set of indicators are equally accurate and quantifiable. There
three pillars of sustainability which interact in a constant flow of are obscurities and inconsistencies in the definition of indicators in
movement due to social, political, economic, and environmental literature. Jollands (2006) indicates in his research that “an indi-
constraints, and its effects occur at the interface of the pillars cator is, fundamentally, a sign; a sign, which requires interpreta-
(Elkington, 2012). tion”. Following Reid and Rout (2020) original idea, and the fact
While some studies in the field present skepticism over the TBL that the word “indicator” (despite often connected with quantita-
concept (Norman and Macdonald, 2004; Milne and Gray, 2013); tive measures) derives from the Latin term “indicare” which means
Silvius and Schipper (2014b) indicate in their research (systematic “to point out” or “one who points out”, this study takes a broader
literature review), that 86% of the publications address sustain- view of the term indicator and aims to provide insights into sus-
ability in terms of TBL. A more acceptable concept of sustainability tainability indicators for project management of construction
is the one based on the integration of economic, environmental, projects.
and social dimensions (TBL), and it has nowadays become widely However, a holistic approach and taxonomy of the indicators
known (Elkington, 1998; Labuschagne and Brent, 2005; Carvalho that contribute towards sustainable PM in construction projects
and Rabechini, 2017; Gimenez et al., 2012; Banihashemi et al., according to the TBL scenario, remains as a gap in the literature and
2017; Martens and Carvalho, 2017; Silvius et al., 2017). According in practice (Bon-Gang, 2018; Ferna ndez-Sa nchez and Rodríguez-
to Savitz (2014), “the TBL concept captures the essence of sustain- Lopez, 2010). To address such a gap in the body of knowledge,
ability”. On the same line of thought, Othman (2013), describes five this research (1) approaches sustainability in PM context and re-
major groups that influence the sustainable delivery of projects in veals related indicators as effective tools for construction projects;
developing countries, namely technical, human development, (2) provides initial insights into sustainable PM practices that can
managerial, political and TBL attributes. assist project managers by focusing their attention on indicators
In this study, the authors follow an approach that considers the that improve the sustainability of the project; and (3) presents a
sustainability in the TBL perspective. Integration of sustainability structured literature on sustainability and PM. This study makes
into project management practices is also defined in line with the use of the existing literature data from carefully chosen related
sustainability TBL concept, also followed by Silvius (2017) and areas and uses it to create a relevant theoretical framework.
Banihashemi et al. (2017). Construction projects use specific indicators that guide project
Many studies showcase the necessity for PM to evolve towards success (Sibiya et al., 2015; Chan, 2004). To identify these indicators
the sustainable “path”, especially in the construction sector (Saad a through literature review was conducted, and the authors gath-
et al., 2019). Silvius et al. (2017) based on Labuschagne and Brent ered all those indicators relevant to the construction industry. The
(2005) and Silvius and Schipper (2014b) initial approach of sus- analyzed indicators provide a generic framework criterion for
tainable PM, describe the broader social framework and argue that sustainable construction project performance. It is possible that
this is the starting point of the recognition of this societal context some of these indicators conform with the likes of other projects as
considering sustainability in PM. Silvius (2017) argues that tradi- well, but this is beyond the scope of this paper; further research can
tional PM practices do not successfully address the basic principles thus shed light towards this direction.
of sustainability as described in the TBL scenario. Furthermore, The rest of the paper is structured as follows. This introduction is
Shen et al. (2010) describe the reasons why sustainability should be followed by Section 2 that discusses the sustainable PM framework,
in the PM plan: “With reference to construction business, sus- along with the correlation between sustainability and PM in con-
tainability is about achieving a winewin outcome for contributing struction projects. Indicators for sustainable PM of construction
to the improved environment and the advanced society, and at the projects are also introduced in this section. The research method is
same time for gaining competitive advantages and economic ben- explained in Section 3. The results are presented in Section 4, where
efits for construction companies.” the authors report the indicators that contribute towards sustain-
Having reviewed the relevant definitions, four characteristics able PM for construction projects, and cluster these factors into
occur as the main aspirations for sustainable PM. These are (1) categories according to the TBL scenario. Finally, the conclusion is
Sustainable PM should reflect all of the TBL perspectives, and not drawn in Section 5.
just the economical profitability (holistic TBL approach); (2) sus-
tainable PM should consider the entire life cycle of the project, and 2. Sustainable project management in construction projects
the project’s outcomes (long term assessment); (3) sustainable PM e Sustainability indicators
should involve stakeholders’ analysis that leads to a “managing for
stakeholders” tactic (stakeholders’ involvement); and (4) sustain- Recent studies have highlighted the importance of civil con-
able PM should contribute to the sustainability of the organization struction materials in attaining sustainable projects (De Azevedo
and society (ethics). Henceforth, through the literature search, for et al., 2020; Carvalho et al., 2014). The need for SD in construc-
the purpose of this study the authors conclude to a refined defi- tions occurs through the shortage of natural resources, leading the
nition of sustainable PM by following the four abovementioned construction sector into new perceptions and technical “green”
aspirations: Sustainable PM is the management of all the phases of solutions (Azevedo et al., 2019). While sustainable materials seem
a project through planning, monitoring and controlling during the to dig into modern practices, sustainable PM ideas have gained
entire life-cycle of the project’s processes and deliverables, in order momentum too.
M. Stanitsas et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123774 3
The vast majority of today’s organizations are adopting PM related to sustainable PM practices, Fig. 1 provides an overview of
techniques, investing resources and efforts in the integration of PM how the top eight core PM values can be enhanced to accommodate
issues into their construction projects (Carvalho et al., 2008; sustainability under the TBL consideration. The selection of the
Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010). On top of the iron triangle, ob- eight core PM values occurred by the authors after reviewing the
jectives of scope, time, and cost, organizations are progressively analysis of three fundamental studies on PM (Kouzes, 2017; Bennis
dealing with added value and benefits that stem from new con- and Goldsmith, 1997; Pmi, 2014). Taking into consideration the
struction projects (Silvius and Schipper, 2014a). Benefits, value, and concluded PM values, and the need that literature presents for
value creation indicate diverse options to the stakeholders and sustainable evolvement, the authors show the “path” towards
might change during the different stages of the project’s life cycle. sustainability integration into these practices.
Thus, identifying the project goals can be very stimulating (Keeys There is a growing interest for studies on the congregating
and Huemann, 2017; Gri, 2015). There are more than a few refer- themes of sustainability and PM (Sroufe, 2017; Sneddon et al.,
ence guides in the PM field. Two of the most well-known guides are 2006). The fact that SD principles have been previously inte-
the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) grated into various sectors, as a repercussion of the Brundtland
(Project Management, 2013), and the Projects In Controlled Envi- Commission Report, which established a definition about sustain-
ronments (PRINCE2) adopted by the UK government (Murray et al., ability amongst scholars, drove the development of this study.
2009); structured into categorized areas of knowledge. Yet, they While many scholars have deepened into the indicators/key factors
seem not to pay special attention and in-depth analysis to sus- of sustainable PM, only a very small number of studies emphasize
tainability attributes. Nevertheless, the presence of sustainability in thoroughly on the context for construction projects (Maqbool,
PM events and conferences is intense (Silvius, 2017). According to 2018). In line with this development, this study looks upon proj-
Martens and Carvalho (2017), who conducted a systematic search ect managers who target SD (TBL) by focusing much more attention
to identify some of the biggest events, sustainability and SD con- on specific indicators rather than paying equal attention to all of
cerns were noticeable. This finding indicates that the concept of them. The beneficiaries of the findings will be all those project
sustainability, “seeks” its way through the PM context. managers who are interested in implementing sustainability con-
As the PM field matures, the definition of what “project success” struction patterns through the use of specific indicators. This study
means, is changing (Belout and Gauvreau, 2004). Traditional PM enables them to familiarize themselves with and then select the set
principles are expanding into delivering the project’s objectives of indicators that best serves their needs. The purpose of this
while preserving lifecycle focus (Carboni et al., 2018; Fiksel, 1999). research is to provide a holistic view of sustainable PM indicators,
PM must make greater efforts to address sustainability issues (TBL) covering the full spectrum of the TBL. The focus is in identifying the
into each project and assure a sustainable way of life for future indicators on sustainable PM that affect the processes of con-
generations. To achieve this, PM must change into a wider and well- struction projects. However, by considering and implementing
rounded view of the project’s impact and value (Kolltveit et al., sustainable PM indicators during the processes, the project deliv-
2007; Robe rt et al., 2002). Through synthesis of the literature erable (product) is also affected by sustainable PM (process) (Kivil€a
Fig. 1. Embedding sustainability in project management.

analysis, but rather as a suggested model as perceived by the au-

thors after their interaction with the literature sources. The success
Client
of a project in relation to sustainability is dependent on the prior-
Owner: High
involvement ities that the project participants (project governance roles) set.
to 1, 2, 4 These priorities embrace the four prementioned characteristics for
sustainable PM. By reaching the “goal” of these characteristics, the
Project Program project attains a sustainable profile.
Manager: Manager: This literature review search of previous empirical studies on
High High indicators/key factors of sustainability, PM and construction area,
involvement involvement guides this study towards the selection and the categorization of
to 3, 4 to 2 sustainable PM indicators for construction projects. Indicators/key
Project governance factors have previously been mentioned as important key features
roles that that lead projects to sustainability success (Ahadzie et al., 2008;
contribute towards Gan et al., 2017). Maghsoodi and Khalilzadeh (2018) in alliance with
sustainable project Iram et al. (2017) initial analysis, have identified fifteen critical
management success factors (CSFs) that can lead to sustainable project success.
Sponsor: Senior Amid these CSFs, project scope identification and skilled PM team
High Supplier: were the most fitting CSFs for leading to project success
involvement High (Development, 1995). Zhao and Chen (2018) concluded in identi-
to all involvement fying the CSFs that affect the renewable energy sources’ electricity
numbers to 3 production in China. The results showcase the creation of clusters
concerning the project’s management parameters. Xu et al. (2011),
Senior User:
based in Chen and Chen (2007) and Chan et al. (2004a), have
High
involvement established twenty one indicators under six clusters, of energy
to 3 performance constraints for sustainable buildings in China.
Thus, literature search reveals various classifications around
indicators/key factors that concern construction projects. None-
Fig. 2. Project governance roles that contribute towards sustainable PM - level of
theless, a holistic approach and taxonomy of the indicators that
involvement. (1) Holistic TBL approach, (2) long term assessment, (3) stakeholders’ contribute towards sustainable PM in construction projects against
involvement, (4) ethics. the TBL scenario has not yet been proposed and remains as a gap in
the literature. Although the taxonomy of indicators against the TBL
scenario within PM has been attempted (Martens and Carvalho,
et al., 2017; Aarseth et al., 2017). 2017; Icheme, 2002), there are not so many studies to ensure
To ensure project management’s efficiency towards global up- saturation of information. Following this impression, this research
coming sustainability-related complications, sustainability and PM suggests that the sustainability side of construction projects can be
need to be combined (Marcelino-Sa daba et al., 2015). Bhakar et al. significantly improved when looking at specific, categorized in-
(2018) emphasize the importance of including sustainability dicators (TBL scenario).
related key factors into PM’s basic principles of planning, moni-
toring, evaluation, and decision making to augment the overall 3. Research method
quality of construction projects. Al-Saleh and Taleb (2010),
Baumgartner and Ebner (2010) and later Ahmed (2010) contend To meet the aim of the paper and identify the indicators of
that sustainability in PM can be effective through various practices: sustainability in PM context that affect construction projects, the
committing sustainable purchases, changing the value manage- research strategy follows a mixed methods approach. Initially, the
ment development of projects, using “practical” barriers (ex. time researchers conduct a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to
limitations and behavioral issues), carrying out risk management explore the literature (identify the indicators as distinguished in
analysis, and integrating sustainability within value management previous studies from the construction projects standpoint in
practices of projects. general) and then a series of semi-structured interviews to validate
Hence, the prospect for integration of sustainability issues in PM the results. Semi-structured interviews have been conducted to
and the understanding of both topics as presented in this section, seek expert opinions on the validation of each indicator for sus-
validate the importance of combining the theme of sustainability tainable PM practices for construction projects identified so far.
with traditional PM. It also highlights the importance of identifying After analyzing the results, the designation/description of the in-
indicators that can be used in PM and thus bringing forward dicators was revised accordingly by the authors.
additional value in the applied context. To further understand and
evaluate this statement, it is of vital need to examine the level of 3.1. Data collection via systematic literature review
involvement of the roles given to stakeholders in a sustainable
construction project. Fig. 2 shows the project governance roles that The SLR method is considered amongst scholars as a particularly
occur when the personnel that works on a project is after the four useful technique that draws vital conclusions, identifies patterns
characteristics that occurred from previous literature and already and gaps based on the published literature (Sengers et al., 2019). In
described in the introduction section: (1) holistic TBL approach, (2) this paper, it helped to identify the links between PM, sustainability
long term assessment, (3) stakeholders’ involvement, and (4) and sustainability indicators in construction PM. The initial stage of
ethics. Goedknegt (2012) identified six key project governance the SLR includes a systematic search for articles through the online
roles, that are used in Fig. 2. Brauer (2013) indicates the high databases of Scopus, Science Direct, Web of science (WoS), Google
importance of values and ethics when in seek of sustainability Scholar, and SpringerLink. The abovementioned databases are
because he strongly believes that this should be the starting point considered by scholars to include the vast majority of scientific
of a project. Fig. 2 is not offered as a result of a systematic empirical documents. The original sample analyzed was composed of 4.227
documents. After the exclusion of duplicate papers (same paper authors decided to include this keyword in the Boolean expression
retrieved from different databases), 1.237 documents were ob- as well. The main search keywords occurred through pilot searches
tained (journal and conference papers). These were reduced to 613 to test and tune the search string (Caldero n and Ruiz, 2015). The
after consideration of titles and to 338 after consideration of ab- final search strings consisted of the following Boolean expression:
stracts. Finally, a further reduction to 133 was reached based on the
full text reading. Thus, 133 articles were reviewed in their full ((Indicators OR Key Factors OR Critical Success Factors) AND
length. (Sustainability AND Project Management AND Construction
Due to the fact the scientific area analyzed is under develop- AND Project success AND Triple bottom line)).
ment (PM, sustainability, indicators, SD, construction projects), the
reduction from the initial number of identified documents is These keywords were used in the most general search tabs of all
satisfactory. Documents with sustainability focus were more than databases (e.g. Scopus: “All fields”). Nevertheless, the Google
50% of the total sample. The development of the theme of sus- Scholar database produced a very large amount of results (41.900
tainability in PM started relatively recently in 2003. In addition, results) by using the abovementioned expression, which is normal
indicators in sustainable PM concepts that concern construction due to the “nature” of the database. Thus, the authors decided to
projects have recently been used in a small number of documents. analyze the first 1.000 results, as the most relative to the search
These results show that the field of sustainability in PM and more keywords (Google follows this search pattern). Through these
specifically the use of indicators in construction projects that help keywords the initial selection of documents took place. The authors
the process is still in the exploratory stage (Maqbool and Sudong, used MS Excel™ to save the information collected about the
2018; Kiani Mavi and Standing, 2018). The literature was traced, searches. It should be noted that the final results are not at all
filtered, and evaluated, in Stanitsas et al. (2019) who followed indicative of completeness of the databases as it was the keyword
Thürer et al. (2018) and Tiwari and Gupta (2015) initial research. string that dictated the outcomes. Also, the fact that an article does
The process that was followed is depicted in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 outlines not come up on a specific data base, does not mean that it does not
the research design followed sequentially for tracing (documenta- exist in it but again it is the search string that affects the result.
tion), filtering, and evaluating the documents. However, among the different strings explored, this one was
Tracing the documents (documentation) was used as guidance selected as it gave the most complete result, in terms of the number
to retrieve indicators in sustainable PM. This step was conducted of relevant articles.
through a review of conference papers, journal articles, book The second stage of the SLR included the filtering of the docu-
chapters, and reports from international organizations. ments. The final number of documents through this stage finalized
The research subject is the indicators in sustainable PM and in 332. Double validation of all the references was made in order to
their use in construction projects. Therefore, keywords of wide avoid possible document loss (Stanitsas et al., 2019). This resulted
scientific fields were used, so that the authors could reassure that in 6 additional documents that were added to the total documen-
most of the relevant documents were included in the study. The use tation sample and settled the 338 documents. The final sample
of the keywords Indicators, Key factors CSFs, Sustainability, PM and (journal and conference papers) was 133 documents (excluding
Construction was vital as the research subject has immediate and duplicates) from which 32 were reviews on indicators/key factors
closest relation to these scientific themes. The notion of “Sustain- of sustainability, 101 referred to PM and the rest to construction
ability” cannot be evaluated without the TBL scenario, so the use of projects. Fig. 4 depicts the filtering process and the relevant sour-
this keyword was inevitable too. The sustainability concept is ces. It provides an overview of the progression of documents
rooted in the TBL concept (Purvis et al., 2019). Connecting the two retrieved in scientific databases. Science Direct and Google Scholar
concepts with an “AND” reassures the authors that both concepts were the databases with the most primary documents of this sys-
have been taken into consideration in the papers included in the tematic literature review.
systematic literature review process. The main focus of this paper is The final phase of the systematic literature review is extracting
on the sustainability indicators that contribute towards the TBL the useful information from each of the 133 final documents. Ob-
scenario for construction projects and thus, these concepts jectivity was achieved through a two-time analysis and discussions
constitute indivisible in this research. As the term “project success” among researchers for alleviating any potential biases (Thürer et al.,
has been directly linked with the attainment of the sustainability 2018).
objective (Carvalho and Rabechini, 2017; Iram et al., 2017), the The difficulty of assessing the final selection of documents lies in
Tracing the documents

Filtering the documents the documents
•Keywords search in online •Removing duplicates and

databases documents' exclusion through discussions among researchers
•Documents' exclusion through full

text reading
•Double
references to avoid loss of
relevant documents
Fig. 3. Research method (SLR) presented in steps.
Fig. 4. Filtering of documents and sources.
determining which indicators from literature are appropriate for Interviews are meant to investigate people’s views in greater
sustainable PM practices in construction projects. To describe the depth, collect thoughts, and attain a systematic conclusion around
systematic approach for selecting the indicators, the authors have various scientific topics (Goodell et al., 2016). Interviews, as a
identified four basic activities based on Caralli et al. (2004) initial validation method, were chosen to gather project managers’ views,
analysis that comprises the following steps: 1.) Scope definition, 2.) and validate the results of the SLR process on the sustainable PM
Data collection (SLR), 3.) Indicators extraction, 4.) Indicators indicators. All the interviews were semi-structured and focused on
breakdown. Each of these activities are provided in Fig. 5. obtaining viewpoints on the value of the extracted indicators. The
The integration of sustainability in PM context, especially in interview process covered the customization/merging of the pre-
construction projects involves various perceptions of numerous liminary list of identified indicators (97 in total). Interviewees were
features from different disciplines (Mazzetto, 2017). The vital stage provided with the initial list of indicators and were asked to express
of the progressive filtering lies in the perception of how concepts their views about each of the items. They were also free to proceed
are presented in the literature and what is their use in the sus- to detailed modifications, including add, delete or combine. This
tainable PM context. process resulted in modifying the initial indicators to the ones (82)
in Tables 2e4. The interviewees expressed similar opinions in
evaluating the initial list. Any inconsistencies in the evaluation
3.2. Validation of results via interviews
process were handled by the authors in the sense of majority’s
opinion. Changes occurred in both the title and the explanatory text
To validate the applicability of the indicators for sustainable PM
of the indicators. In order to analyze a wide-ranging multiplicity of
in construction projects, as they were identified from the SLR, semi-
ideas and views, the authors chose to interview persons from
structured interviews were conducted. The interview scheduling
€ public authorities (government, regional/local authority), private
plan was inspired by Oberg et al. (2018) and Tura et al. (2019). The
infrastructure companies and public/private universities (Guest
main purpose for the interviews was to investigate if construction
et al., 2006). Particularly, the first participant is employed in the
experts validate the outcomes of the literature review regarding the
educational sector (university); participants 2,3,4, and 5 are
indicators relevant to sustainable PM in construction.
•Indicator a
Scope d n type (
projects)
)
(SLR)
•Create summary themes: Sustainability + PM +
n
Indicators export
•Derive indicators
•Refine and combine indicators
Indicators •Determine comparison criteria

breakdown •Analyze s
Fig. 5. Systematic approach for selecting the indicators. Adapted from Caralli et al. (2004).
Table 1
Participants’ profile.
Participant Industry Business titles Length (min)
1 Infrastructure and heavy construction Construction Manager/Researcher 83

2 Energy construction/Renewables and Green buildings Chief Operational Officer (COO)/Chief Construction Officer (CCO) 90
3 Architectural industry Design Architect/Sustainable Design Specialist 54
4 Construction/Power Grids Project Manager 120
5 Renewables Engineering Project Manager 49
6 Design and Construction Environmental Engineer 69
Total 6 persons 465
employed in private infrastructure companies; and finally, the last that will help project managers to understand the areas that they
participant comes from the public authorities’ sector. All the in- should consider in order to successfully implement sustainable
terviewees had previous construction management experience and project management. The result was a large record of 446 in-
were aware of the sustainability practices that their organizations dicators/key factors extracted from previous studies. The 446
implement. Following Faulkner (2017) research that briefly pro- identified indicators/key factors enclosed multiple scientific areas
vides a definition for data saturation (“it refers to the point in the linked to sustainability, PM and construction projects. To evaluate
research process when no new information is discovered in data these indicators/key factors, a review as suggested by Banihashemi
analysis, and this redundancy signals to researchers that data collec- et al. (2017) was conducted. This process has been named by the
tion may cease. Saturation means that a researcher can be reasonably authors as “applicability of literature”. It involves evaluating the
assured that further data collection would yield similar results and outcome as it derived from analyzing older documents and using
serve to confirm emerging themes and conclusions.“); the authors only the parts related to the aim of the research (Levy, 2006). Thus,
concluded that the information retrieved from the 6 respondents the initial record was significantly reduced in 127 indicators, in
attended this goal. The industry/academia/public mix was not view of the four literature observations for sustainable PM, as they
regarded of particular importance, especially because the beliefs previously described (holistic TBL approach, long term assessment,
were similar. However, this might be indeed a limitation of the stakeholders’ involvement, and ethics). The selected 127 indicators
study that needs to be further investigated. An overview of the were then confirmed as contributing for sustainable PM practices
participants’ profile is presented in Table 1. In total, 5 persons were through interviews. The interviewees, based on their previous
located in Greece and 1 in United Kingdom. The interviews lasted construction management experience and awareness of sustain-
between 49 and 120 min. The interviews were conducted as semi- ability practices, concluded in reducing the final list into 82 in-
structured interviews with the help of an information sheet that dicators. This reduction occurred through the merging of two or
included all the initially identified indicators. Interviews were held more indicators with similar content. These indicators were then
via in person meetings from November 2018 to January 2019. The categorized according to the TBL philosophy to better reflect their
interviewees’ personal opinions were asked for, considering their usage when in use by project managers in construction projects,
previous construction management experience. They expressed and shown in Tables 2e4. The categorization into economic, envi-
their point of view and gave emphasis on answering the questions ronmental and social/management sustainability indicators was
that derived during the interviews. All the interviews focused on made with the help of the interviews and after reviewing their way
the value of sustainable PM and the validation of the initially of usage in previous literature (Ahmadabadi and Heravi, 2019;
identified indicators for construction projects. However, there were Joung et al., 2013). The interviews also revealed the next immediate
some significant differences between the participants’ opinion on relation of some indicators with a second or a third TBL aspect
the importance of the indicators. The first participant (educational (column 4). Column 3 reveals the main TBL relation of each indi-
sector) documented the social related indicators as the most cator, as the basic criterion for the initial categorization. The classic
contributing towards the sustainability goal. On the other hand, TBL scenario includes social, economic and environmental attri-
participants 2,3,4,5 (private infrastructure companies) seemed to butes. Nevertheless, the literature has revealed the direct rela-
care more for the economic related indicators. Finally, the last tionship of the social part with numerous managerial issues
participant (public authorities) presented emphasis on the envi- (Eizenberg and Jabareen, 2017; Roca-Puig, 2019). Thus, this study
ronmental and social indicators. uses this feature of sustainability under the scope of social/man-
agement side of TBL, instead of just social. It is to be noted that the
order in which the indicators appear is not indicative of their
4. Results and discussion
importance.
Analyzing the abovementioned tables, the economic side of
Indicators/key factors have been extracted from previous
sustainability includes technical factors, engineering measures and
studies that refer to various construction projects. The prerequisite
viability factors. A construction project can be said to be econom-
is to work towards sustainable PM in construction projects. Based
ically viable when its multi-factor productivity has risen in a
on this line of reasoning, indicators related with enhancing sus-
particular period (Ehui and Spencer, 1993). The environmental
tainability and PM practices in various construction projects were
attribute introduces quality factors as parameters related to the
identified through a SLR. These indicators were purposively put at
damage in the quality of elemental environmental services and the
high-level to cover the whole spectrum of the relevant field.
deterioration of the ecosystem’s value (Ferrarini et al., 2001).
Generally, there can be many different measurable indicators that
Environmental management factors is a PM practice through which
could be used to measure the high-level indicators provided in this
an organization manages the impacts of its project activities on the
study. Such measurable indicators may be affected by culture and
environment, providing a structured approach for sustainable
region and might not be universally accepted. The purpose of this
planning (Gotschol et al., 2014). The social/management aspect
paper is not to go down to the level of such measurable indicators
includes communication and team factors that describe how to
but to synthesize the relevant literature and come up with the high
advantageously connect with the stakeholders and the local society
level indicators (not always and necessary measurable at this level)
Table 2
Pool of sustainable PM indicators for construction projects of economic sustainability, extracted from previous studies.
Economic (ECO) sustainability indicators
Indicator Description Main Next Indicative References

TBL immediate
relation TBL relation
ECO1: Financial/Economic performance Objective measure that concerns the return on investments, the ECO e (Azapagic, 2004;
creditworthiness, the viability, and the cash flow of a project. Martens and Carvalho,
2017)
ECO2: Economic and Political stability Economic growth and political stability are interconnected. An unstable ECO SOC (Gudiene, _ 2013; Liu
political environment impacts investment and increases the risk. et al., 2016)
ECO3: Stakeholder involvement/ Satisfying stakeholders’ needs and interests by their involvement in the ECO SOC (Buson, 2009; Martens
participation design of the project and in the project itself, leads in delivering successful and Carvalho, 2017)
projects.
ECO4: Innovation management/new It refers to product, process, and organizational innovation. Innovation ECO SOC (Martens and Carvalho,
product development management practices come through research and development, 2017; Liu et al., 2016)
productivity, and flexibility.
ECO5: Target marketing and benefits Proper target market shapes the desired services and products for the ECO e (Berssaneti and
project’s outputs. Carvalho, 2015; Lam
et al., 2017)
ECO6: Effective Project Control Effective Project Control concerns the data gathering for effective time ECO e (Belout and Gauvreau,
management, risk management, cost management, value management, 2004; Lee et al., 2018)
document control, supplier performance and reporting.
ECO7: Best practice strategy Strategy in which the organization who realizes the project monitors and ECO e (Mulder and Brent, 2006;
benchmarks the best practices and integrate them into its processes. Veleva and Ellenbecker,
2001)
ECO8: Efficient allocation of resources It refers to the distribution of inputs such that the resources will be ECO e (Ihuah et al., 2014;
efficiently utilized. Songer and Molenaar,
1997)
ECO9: Customer-relationship It concerns the managerial process of an organization’s interaction with ECO SOC (Labuschagne et al.,
management/Access to a range of current and potential customers. 2005; Veleva and
customers Ellenbecker, 2001)
ECO10: Scope control through managing Scope control safeguards that corrective actions are efficiently applied to ECO e (Chan et al., 2004b;
changes prevent negative impacts. Tabish and Jha, 2011)
ECO11: Business ethics It examines moral/ethical problems that may result from trading, affiliation ECO SOC (Martens and Carvalho,
with competition, and governmental obligations. 2017; Brauer, 2013)
ECO12: Facility management technologies/ It refers to general constructions, building maintenance and renovation, ECO e (Xing et al., 2009;
general improvements green buildings and services that come with the new improvements. Martens and Carvalho,
2017)
ECO13: Cost management plan It concerns the process of planning and controlling the cost associated with ECO e (Pulaski and Horman,
the resources of a project and the other costs. 2005; Martens and
Carvalho, 2017)
ECO14: Resource planning It involves the human resources, potential machinery, building materials, ECO ENV, SOC (Duy Nguyen et al., 2004;
etc. Tabish and Jha, 2011)
ECO15: Supply chain collaboration Collaboration practices and criteria to select order-winners, leading to ECO SOC (S
aez-Martínez et al.,
improved business outcomes. 2016; Banchuen et al.,
2017)
ECO16: Effective strategic planning It concerns organizational management activity. Such planning is used to ECO SOC, ENV (Duy Nguyen et al., 2004;
reinforce procedures and to set priorities. Domingues et al., 2017)
ECO17: Organizational culture It concerns the collective values, beliefs and principles of ECO SOC (Mulder and Brent, 2006;
organizational members. It directs people on how to behave in Martens and Carvalho,
organizations. 2017)
ECO18: Project outputs emphasis Financial measurements, tracking processes and status reports, planning ECO SOC (Maqbool and Sudong,
and management of the project focusing on the project outputs. 2018; Xu et al., 2011)
ECO19: Developing efficient “iron triangle” Project management plan e Scope, time and cost aspects of a project. ECO SOC, ENV (Ihuah et al., 2014; Rand,
parameters by the Project Management 1993)
Team (PMT)
ECO20: Ability to pay and affordability It refers to the capacity to pay for building, operating and maintaining the ECO e (Devece et al., 2016;
project. Laasch, 2018)
ECO21: Environmental/economics Integration of economic and environmental data to reach project success. ECO ENV (Pissourios, 2013;
accounting Martens and Carvalho,
2017)
ECO22: Developing an efficient risk It is all about the variables that can affect the project’s progress and outcome, ECO e (Songer and Molenaar,
management plan by the PMT both internally and externally, taking into consideration uncertainty. 1997; Ihuah et al., 2014)
ECO23: Implementing an effective change The process that can help facilitate change and make the transition easier for ECO SOC, ENV (Fortune and White,
management strategy the project. 2006; Toor and
Ogunlana, 2008)
ECO24: Efficient data processing for Data processing helps managers to solve problems by examining alternative ECO SOC (Banihashemi et al.,
decision-making practices. choices and help the decision making. 2017; Toor and
Ogunlana, 2008)
ECO25: Bureaucratic streamlining Less bureaucracy for projects improves the effectiveness of the project ECO SOC (Ahmadabadi and
processes. Heravi, 2019; Wilkerson
et al., 2018)
ECO26: Internationalization It refers to the process of increasing involvement of the organization in ECO e (Martens and Carvalho,
international markets. 2017; Ukaga, 2014)
ECO27: Targeted incentives It refers to the total cash or other incentives that can offered as a bonus. A ECO e (Lam et al., 2017;
stakeholder can have a personalized target incentive. Alsanad, 2015)
Table 3
Pool of sustainable PM indicators for construction projects of environmental sustainability, extracted from previous studies.
Environmental (ENV) sustainability indicators

TBL immediate
relation TBL relation
ENV1: Energy efficiency It refers to efficient production, use, distribution, and transmission of ENV ECO, SOC (Nord and Sjøthun, 2014;
energy to provide products and services. Baatz et al., 2018)
ENV2: Available - fitting renewable It refers to the environmentally friendly selection of the primary energy ENV ECO (Martens and Carvalho, 2017;
energy resources/fossil fuels sources that contributes towards the effective operation of the project. Verdolini et al., 2018)
ENV3: Eco-efficiency It refers to “green” business orientation, regarding services and products, ENV ECO, SOC (Wang et al., 2015; Gavrilidis
construction materials, environmental footprint, and energy consumption et al., 2019; Martens and
in built. Carvalho, 2017)
ENV4: Consistent and predictable load Uninterrupted energy supply. ENV e (Chan et al., 2004b; Ali et al.,
2008)
ENV5: Sustainable use of natural It refers to minimizing resource usage, primary material input and output, ENV ECO (Fellows and Liu, 2008;
resources waste recovery and disposal operations. Spangenberg, 1998)
ENV6: Up to date environmental It refers to resource-efficient and environmentally responsible processes ENV ECO, SOC (Toor and Ogunlana, 2008;
construction technologies and in order to ensure lifetime sustainability of the project. Banihashemi et al., 2017)
methods
ENV7: Environmental responsibility/ It refers to the developing equity between members of different ENV SOC (Jeurissen, 2000; Martens and
justice generations, and to the cooperation for the improvement of Carvalho, 2017)
environmental quality.
ENV8: Construction water quality It refers to water quality during the construction phase and after the ENV SOC (Liu et al., 2013; Pulaski and
impact completion of the project, reduction of liquid waste, risks on water Horman, 2005)
pollution.
ENV9: Environmental impact The process of evaluating the likely environmental impacts of a project. ENV SOC
(Chang et al., 2018; Zidonien e_
assessment project report and Kruopiene, _ 2015)
ENV10: Environmental management It refers to all environmental obligations, environmental adaptation and ENV e (Martens and Carvalho, 2017;
systems/policy implications infractions for evolving, implementing and preserving Gotschol et al., 2014)
the strategy for environmental protection.
ENV11: Identify and address choke Choke points include mainly social and psychological barriers that prevent ENV SOC (Devece et al., 2016; Potts
points development towards an environmental objective. et al., 2015)
ENV12: Climate change adaptation/ facilitate the achievement of the two above goals through the ENV ECO, SOC (Pilli-Sihvola et al., 2018;
disaster risk management development, field-testing and promotion of a “climate-smart approach to Spangenberg, 1998)
disaster risk management”.
facilitate the achievement of the two above goals through the
development, field-testing and promotion of a “climate-smart approach to
disaster risk management”.
It refers to the development, field testing and promotion of a “climate-
smart approach to disaster risk management” (Mitchell, 2010).
ENV13: Appropriate and flexible It refers to the process of addressing ENV ECO (Tabish and Jha, 2011; Yong
environmental design details and surrounding environmental parameters in projects. and Mustaffa, 2013)
specifications
ENV14: Project biodiversity It refers to the protection of all environmental ecosystems. ENV e (Fellows and Liu, 2008;
Fernandez-S
anchez and
Rodríguez-Lopez, 2010)
ENV15: Environmental education and Skills like critical thinking, problem-solving, and effective decision- ENV SOC (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018;
training making, are cultivated through education and training, in order for Martens and Carvalho, 2017)
individuals to expand their viewpoint around environmental issues.
ENV16: Sustainable project delivery It refers to sustainable development principles through stakeholder ENV SOC (Li et al., 2011; Huemann and
through project stakeholder management. Eskerod, 2013)
management
ENV17: Considering the life cycle of It includes lifecycle analysis, product disassembly analysis, post-sale ENV ECO (Buson, 2009; Sarkis et al.,
products and services to reduce tracking, and reverse logistics. 2012)
environmental impacts
ENV18: Environmental management Effective environmental management and monitoring ensures the ENV SOC (Ahadzie et al., 2008;
plan for impacts by the PMT environmental objectives of the project. Banihashemi et al., 2017)
about the construction project. Communicating and teaming The results of the research identify the highest number in social/
around the sustainability project’s success, distinguishes the proj- management indicators in construction projects (total number of
ect and shapes the stakeholders’ approval (Scho € nborn et al., 2019). 37 factors). The social acceptance of construction projects has been
These indicators include extents on values of PM, user partici- negatively impacted by factors like high cost, planning problems
pation, team members, organization, availability of technical re- and lack of information on new technologies. Thus, it is exactly this
sources, external environment, accurate project task, development unusual aspect of such type of projects that demand the social
aims, natural resources, and managerial support (White and acceptance in order for local societies to favor construction (Zhang
Fortune, 2002; Saqib et al., 2008). et al., 2013a). The practical implication of the study is that sus-
Sustainable construction projects are meant to provide services tainable project managers who participate in construction projects,
to local societies that positively impact all TBL attributes of sus- gain an in depth understanding of possible indicators that could
tainability (Ali et al., 2008). Before even the first phase of con- lead to sustainability success. Moreover, the indicators categoriza-
struction of a project, studies need to be undertaken in order to tion under the TBL scenario of sustainability and their detailed
reveal the sustainability potential of the final outcome (Ding, 2008). investigation offers project managers and scholars with a basis for
Table 4
Pool of sustainable PM indicators for construction projects of social/management sustainability, extracted from previous studies.
Social/Management (SOC) sustainability indicators

TBL immediate
relation TBL
relation
SOC1: Social responsibility It refers to competition and pricing policies, compliance with anti- SOC e (Xing et al., 2009; Ukaga,
corruption practices and contribution to social campaigns. 2014)
SOC2: Social action funding/Concepts of social It refers to the importance of funding a social act which takes into SOC ECO ndez-S
(Ferna anchez and
justice account the actions and reactions of individuals/communities. It Rodríguez-Lo pez, 2010;
also includes charities, constitutional social activities, and social Martens and Carvalho, 2017)
influence.
SOC3: Corporate sustainability and organizational Integration of corporate practices under an organizational prism SOC ECO, ENV (Liu et al., 2016; Baumgartner
culture about the natural and the social environment. That includes all the and Ebner, 2010)
values and ways of interaction that contribute towards the TBL
scenario and SD.
SOC4: Labor practices It includes issues around employment (general conditions, health, SOC e (Ali et al., 2008; Martens and
safety), training and education, employee relations, openings Carvalho, 2017)
(career opportunities, salary issues, etc.). Includes acquirement,
development and management of the project team.
SOC5: Needs assessment of society/people The social apprehension of needs for desired living conditions. SOC e (Banihashemi et al., 2017; Liu
et al., 2016)
SOC6: Sustainable employment It concerns the empowering of young people with better job SOC ECO (Knockaert and Maillefert,
opportunities, the creation of green jobs and the conditions 2004; Cappuyns, 2016)
needed to create them.
SOC7: Community relationships and involvement It includes the development of engagement plans, and SOC ECO (Labuschagne and Brent,
communities’ potentials and desires. Focus on strategic 2005; Martens and Carvalho,
investments shaped by the community, and the development 2017)
relationships with community leaders are two possible practices
of this kind.
SOC8: Human rights Includes freedom of association, connection with trade unions, SOC e (Martens and Carvalho, 2017;
and social management. Belout and Gauvreau, 2004)
SOC9: Employee commitment/commitment in It refers to the team-building experience of employees, regarding SOC e (Chan et al., 2004a; de Sousa
the workplace the connection with their organization and their workplace. Jabbour et al., 2018)
SOC10: Public acceptance towards the project It refers to the social willingness of embracing the project’s SOC e (Liu et al., 2018; Sütterlin and
outputs. Siegrist, 2017)
SOC11: Stakeholder engagement/management Stakeholder engagement refers to the interaction with the project SOC e (Martens and Carvalho, 2017;
stakeholders to the overall benefit of the project, while Huemann and Eskerod, 2013)
stakeholder management is “the systematic
identification, planning and implementation of actions designed
to engage with stakeholders”(Management, 2012).
SOC12: Project independence of political factors The development of a project according to the society’s interests SOC e (Soltani, 2018; Gan et al.,
and not according to political interests. 2017)
SOC13: Social impact reports It refers to reports presenting society’s viewpoints on projects SOC e (Martens and Carvalho, 2017;
(statistics and analysis). Scho€ nborn et al., 2019)
SOC14: Transparent and competitive It refers to the transparency of the processes and policies when SOC e (Ahadzie et al., 2008; Yong
procurement processes there is direct engagement with the suppliers, without and Mustaffa, 2013)
discrimination and by safeguarding all confidential information.
SOC15: Absence of bureaucracy from the Faster procedures for delivering the project’s outputs to the SOC e (Duy Nguyen et al., 2004;
workplace society. Ukaga, 2014)
SOC16: Contractor - supplier relationship It refers to the selection, evaluation, partnership and development SOC ECO (Martens and Carvalho, 2017;
of long-lasting and stable collaboration. Supply chain Li et al., 2011)
improvements derive through such relationships.
SOC17: Commitment to the stakeholders ‘needs It refers to the respect of the stakeholders’ needs that should be SOC e (Ahadzie et al., 2008; Chan
followed according to the project scope. It also includes the et al., 2004b)
necessity of clearly defined goals.
SOC18: Well-defined project scope and project It includes the creation of precise project goals, through the SOC ECO, ENV (Songer and Molenaar, 1997;
limitations implementation of a PM plan. Tabish and Jha, 2011)
SOC19: Holistic view of benefits It refers to the way of providing optimal command (project SOC ECO, ENV €
(Wilkerson et al., 2018; Kivila
management) and visibility, allowing organizations to more easily et al., 2017)
execute a benefits strategy.
SOC20: Product - service systems Business model which targets in fulfilling the stakeholders’ SOC ECO, ENV (Martens and Carvalho, 2017;
demands through a joined mix of products and services so that the Veleva and Ellenbecker, 2001)
interest of the providers continuously seek TBL solutions.
SOC21: Emphasis on high quality workmanship It refers to the human attribute relating to knowledge and skills for SOC ECO (Toor and Ogunlana, 2008;
performing a task. Yong and Mustaffa, 2013)
SOC22: Encourage competition Encouraging positive competition among the PMT, marks SOC ECO (Van Horen et al., 2018; Lam
increased productivity resulting from cooperative teamwork and et al., 2017)
mutual efforts.
SOC23: Implementing a quality management It includes implementation of an effective quality control and SOC e (Ahadzie et al., 2008; Yong
system quality assurance system. and Mustaffa, 2013)
SOC24: First mover advantage A marketing strategy that follows the philosophy that the initial SOC ECO (Lieberman and Montgomery,
significant occupant of a market sector harnesses a 1988; Gomez et al., 2016)
competitive advantage.
SOC25: Culture of accountability SOC e (Toor and Ogunlana, 2008;
Iacono, 2013)
Table 4 (continued )
Social/Management (SOC) sustainability indicators

TBL immediate
relation TBL
relation
It refers to the sense of ownership for processes, project results

and risks by the employees within their roles and responsibilities
for the organization.
SOC26: Comprehensive contract documentation This documentation includes contract arrangements, work SOC e (Du Plessis, 2007; Saqib et al.,
declaration contracts, possible special conditions, bill of quantities, 2008)
drawings, construction schedule, and common types of insurance.
Stakeholders should be able to comprehend the main terms of the
contract.
SOC27: Diversification It refers to strategy that follows the saying of “don’t put all your SOC e (Mcdowell, 2018; Van Horen
eggs in one basket.” It is the process of managing the project in a et al., 2018)
way that reduces the exposure to a specific asset or risk.
SOC28: Competitive tendering/comprehensive It refers to various processes that can be used effectively to achieve SOC ECO (Chan et al., 2004b; Yong and
pre-tender investigation on project value for money practices in project procurement. Mustaffa, 2013)
SOC29: Adaptability in project environment Employees are required to adapt to new environments, SOC e (Banihashemi et al., 2017;
technologies, expectations and conditions. Tabish and Jha, 2011)
SOC30: Intangible asset management Intangible assets include exclusive rights, patents, trademarks, SOC e (Martens and Carvalho, 2017;
trade names, etc. Berssaneti and Carvalho,
2015)
SOC31: Multidisciplinary/competent PMT It refers to the importance of multidisciplinary experience of PMT SOC e (Ihuah et al., 2014; S
aez-
contributing to the PM success. Martínez et al., 2016)
SOC32: The role of trust within the PMT It refers to the importance of trust amongst the PMT for enhancing SOC e (Du Plessis, 2007; Zhang et al.,
project performance. 2013b)
SOC33: Following project management phases/ It refers to all the basic PM processes (ex. defining scope, planning, SOC e (Fortune and White, 2006;
processes project closure). Toor and Ogunlana, 2008)
SOC34: Project manager’s leadership style Leadership styles can be creating vision techniques, coaching/ SOC e (Saqib et al., 2008; Turner,
unlocking potential and commanding/giving direction. It is 2005)
influenced by the project manager’s experience and competence.
SOC35: Employing of operational decision- It refers to the utilization of structured data and procedures at all SOC e (Fortune and White, 2006;
making techniques by the PMT levels by the PMT for decision making. Gudiene,_ 2013)
SOC36: Project monitoring and evaluation by the “A project monitoring and evaluation system is designed to mitigate SOC e (Callistus and Clinton, 2016,
PMT, through previous experiences in projects poor project performance, demonstrate accountability and promote 2018)
(access to relevant experience) organizational learning for the benefit of future projects” (Crawford
and Bryce, 2003).
SOC37: Managing knowledge and awareness to The PMT is focusing on the project processes though the gain of SOC ECO, ENV (Ihuah et al., 2014; Alsanad,
promote sustainable project delivery (PMT) knowledge from all project phases; enables learning, awareness 2015)
and ensures to integrate finalized projects’ lessons learned into
new projects.
further analysis and research into indicators for construction pro- dimension).
jects. The results of the research can aid project managers, scheme Several indicators have been identified via a systematic litera-
new sustainable strategies in order to attain sustainability success ture review and validated with semi-structured interviews of
in the project, especially in ground-breaking projects, taking into construction management experts. The indicators concerning the
consideration the indicators identified. In an applied real-life sce- economic dimension finalized in 27; 18 for the environmental
nario, the results of the research provide strategies for policy dimension and 37 indicators in the social/management dimension.
makers and companies’ executives. The interviews also revealed the immediate relation of some in-
The economic, environmental, and social/management aspects dicators with a second or a third TBL aspect (Tables 2e4).
of construction projects can be understood in a better way when The literature review also revealed the need for more empirical
the TBL scenario is present. A set of indicators is important for the studies on the promising theme of sustainable PM indicators in
integration of sustainability into project management practices construction projects, as no widely accepted strategy of reaching
that can lead to sustainable project success (Presley et al., 2007). sustainability in construction projects has been discussed. Thus,
Following this idea, this research suggests that by following the one possible direction for further research could be the creation of
identified indicators within the proposed taxonomy, project man- additional studies on how to recover and reveal indicators that
agers may significantly enhance and expand their original practices actually contribute towards this track. Furthermore, researchers
and improve chances of sustainability success. could proceed into mapping all the possible control mechanisms
for sustainable PM across dissimilar types of construction projects,
explore the problems that might occur during the phases of the
5. Conclusion project, and focus on the TBL scenario of sustainability to relate the
results. Indicators can perform the main role towards this route.
This paper aims to contribute towards the holistic view of sus- The examination of other aspects of sustainable PM via the utili-
tainability for PM in construction projects. The objectives of the zation of indicators, such as stakeholder characteristics and life-
research involve (1) exploring the concept of sustainability in PM of cycle management, could also be studied further. Concerning the
construction projects; (2) identifying the sustainability indicators generalizability of the research findings of this study; interview
for construction projects in relevant literature; (3) categorizing the data derived from two countries (Greece and UK) in construction
indicators identified according to the triple-bottom line scenario of projects framework, which may be considered as a limitation of this
sustainability (hence the economic, environmental and social
study. All the interviews were semi-structured, and focused on the Buson, M., Laurenti, R., Rozenfeld, H., Forcellini, F.A., 2009. Uma proposta de
avaliaç~ao da sustentabilidade de projetos na fase de planejamento com base nos
theme of sustainable PM in construction projects, based on the ^nicos. In:
princípios lean um estudo de caso no segmento de eletro
interviewees’ previous construction management experience, their Produto, I.C.B.D.G.D.D.D. (Ed.), Cbgdp 2009. Sa ~o Jose
Dos Campos - Sp. Anais: Sp,
current and previous working organizations implement. Further 2009.
Caldero n, A., Ruiz, M., 2015. A systematic literature review on serious games
research can be applied to other countries in order to identify va-
evaluation: an application to software project management. Comput. Educ. 87,
rieties amongst different manufacturing features. 396e422.
There is an urgent need to define a commonly accepted process Callistus, T., Clinton, A., 2016. Evaluating barriers to effective implementation of
for identifying and selecting the most suitable set of indicators for project monitoring and evaluation in the Ghanaian construction industry.
Procedia Engineering 164, 389e394.
sustainable PM practices in construction projects. Sustainable PM Callistus, T., Clinton, A., 2018. The role of monitoring and evaluation in construction
methods are suggested by researchers as a way for achieving the project management. In: Karwowski, W., Ahram, T. (Eds.), Intelligent Human
“sustainability goal” in construction projects. This study presents a Systems Integration, 2018. Springer International Publishing, Cham,
pp. 571e582.
total amount of 82 indicators. The purpose of such research is to: (1) Cappuyns, V., 2016. Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the
provide a holistic view of sustainable PM indicators, covering the selection of sustainable site remediation options. J. Environ. Manag. 184, 45e56.
full spectrum of the triple constraint (TBL) and (2) to offer the Caralli, R., Stevens, J., Willke, B., Wilson, W., 2004. The Critical Success Factor
Method. Establishing a Foundation for Enterprise Security Management, Pitts-
possibility for practitioners to choose the right mix of indicators, burgh, Pa.
depending on the sustainability focus they want to provide in their Carboni, J., Duncan, W., Gonzalez, M., Milsom, P., Young, M., 2018. Sustainable
projects (e.g. TBL balanced/economically focused/environmentally project management: the gpm reference guide. Gpm Global.
Carvalho, A., Xavier, G., Alexandre, J., Pedroti, L., Azevedo, A., Vieira, C.M.,
focused/socially focused).
Monteiro, S., 2014. Environmental durability of soil-cement block incorporated
with ornamental stone waste. Mater. Sci. Forum 798e799, 548e553.
Carvalho, M.M., Laurindo, F.J.B., Pessoa, M.S.P., 2008. Organizational project man-
Declaration of competing interest agement models. Encyclopedia of information science and technology 6,
2941e2947.
The authors declare that they have no known competing Carvalho, M.M., Rabechini, R., 2017. Can project sustainability management impact
project success? An empirical study applying a contingent approach. Int. J. Proj.
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
Manag. 35, 1120e1132.
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Chan, A.P.C., 2004. Key performance indicators for measuring construction success.
Benchmark Int. J. 11, 203e221.
Chan, A.P.C., Chan, D.W.M., Chiang, Y.H., Tang, B.S., Chan, E.H.W., Ho, K.S.K., 2004a.
References Exploring critical success factors for partnering in construction projects.
J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 130, 188e198.
Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., Andersen, B., 2017. Project sustain- Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D., Chan, A.P.L., 2004b. Factors affecting the success of a con-
ability strategies: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, struction project. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 130, 153e155.
1071e1083. Chang, I.S., Wang, W., Wu, J., Sun, Y., Hu, R., 2018. Environmental impact assessment
Ahadzie, D.K., Proverbs, D.G., Olomolaiye, P.O., 2008. Critical success criteria for follow-up for projects in China: institution and practice. Environ. Impact Assess.
mass house building projects in developing countries. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, Rev. 73, 7e19.
675e687. Chen, W.T., Chen, T.-T., 2007. Critical success factors for construction partnering in
Ahmadabadi, A.A., Heravi, G., 2019. The effect of critical success factors on project Taiwan. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25, 475e484.
success in Public-Private Partnership projects: a case study of highway projects Crawford, P., Bryce, P., 2003. Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for
in Iran. Transport Pol. 73, 152e161. enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. Int. J.
Ahmed, A., 2010. Mapping of Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Man- Proj. Manag. 21, 363e373.
agement Related Governance, Thailand, Strengthening Climate Resilience (Scr) De Azevedo, A.R.G., Alexandre, J., Marvila, M.T., Xavier, G.D.C., Monteiro, S.N.,
Initiative: A. Climate Smart Approach to Disaster Risk Management. Pedroti, L.G., 2020. Technological and environmental comparative of the pro-
Al-Saleh, Y.M., Taleb, H.M., 2010. The integration of sustainability within value cessing of primary sludge waste from paper industry for mortar. J. Clean. Prod.
management practices: a study of experienced value managers in the Gcc 249, 119336.
countries. Proj. Manag. J. 41, 50e59. De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., Foropon, C., Godinho Filho, M., 2018. When
Ali, B., Sopian, K., Chan, H.Y., Mat, S., Zaharim, A., 2008. Key success factors in titans meet e can industry 4.0 revolutionise the environmentally-sustainable
implementing renewable energy programme in Malaysia. WSEAS Trans. Envi- manufacturing wave? The role of critical success factors. Technol. Forecast.
ron. Dev. 4, 1141e1150. Soc. Change 132, 18e25.
Alsanad, S., 2015. Awareness, drivers, actions, and barriers of sustainable con- Devece, C., Peris Ortiz, M., Rueda Armengot, C., 2016. Entrepreneurship during
struction in Kuwait. Procedia Engineering 118, 969e983. economic crisis: success factors and paths to failure. J. Bus. Res. 69, 5366e5370.
Azapagic, A., 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators Development, D.F.I., 1995. Critical Success Factors for Renewable Energy Projects.
for the mining and minerals industry. J. Clean. Prod. 12, 639e662. Final Report to the Overseas Development Administration, United Kingdom:
Azevedo, A.R.G., Marvila, T.M., Júnior Fernandes, W., Alexandre, J., Xavier, G.C., Etsu.
Zanelato, E.B., Cerqueira, N.A., Pedroti, L.G., Mendes, B.C., 2019. Assessing the Ding, G.K.C., 2008. Sustainable constructiondthe role of environmental assessment
potential of sludge generated by the pulp and paper industry in assembling tools. J. Environ. Manag. 86, 451e464.
locking blocks. Journal of Building Engineering 23, 334e340. Domingues, A.R., Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Ramos, T.B., 2017. Sustainability
Baatz, B., Relf, G., Nowak, S., 2018. The role of energy efficiency in a distributed reporting in public sector organisations: exploring the relation between the
energy future. Electr. J. 31, 13e16. reporting process and organisational change management for sustainability.
Banchuen, P., Sadler, I., Shee, H., 2017. Supply chain collaboration aligns order- J. Environ. Manag. 192, 292e301.
winning strategy with business outcomes. Iimb Management Review 29, Du Plessis, C., 2007. A strategic framework for sustainable construction in devel-
109e121. oping countries. Construct. Manag. Econ. 25, 67e76.
Banihashemi, S., Hosseini, M.R., Golizadeh, H., Sankaran, S., 2017. Critical success Duy Nguyen, L., Ogunlana, S.O., Thi Xuan Lan, D., 2004. A study on project success
factors (Csfs) for integration of sustainability into construction project man- factors in large construction projects in Vietnam. Engineering. Construction and
agement practices in developing countries. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, 1103e1119. Architectural Management 11, 404e413.
Baumgartner, R.J., Ebner, D., 2010. Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability Ehui, S.K., Spencer, D.S.C., 1993. Measuring the sustainability and economic viability
profiles and maturity levels. Sustain. Dev. 18, 76e89. of tropical farming systems: a model from sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Econ. 9,
Belout, A., Gauvreau, C., 2004. Factors influencing project success: the impact of 279e296.
human resource management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 1e11. Eizenberg, E., Jabareen, Y., 2017. Social Sustainability: A New Conceptual
Bennis, W.G., Goldsmith, J., 1997. Learning to Lead : a Workbook on Becoming a Framework.
Leader. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Elkington, J., 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of
Berssaneti, F.T., Carvalho, M.M., 2015. Identification of variables that impact project 21st-century business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 8, 37e51.
success in Brazilian companies. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33, 638e649. Elkington, J., 2004. Enter the Triple-Bottom Line. Eathscan, London.
Bhakar, V., Digalwar, A.K., Sangwan, K.S., 2018. Sustainability assessment framework Elkington, J., 2012. Canibais com garfo e faca. Sa ~o Paulo.
for manufacturing sector e a conceptual model. Procedia Cirp 69, 248e253. Faulkner, Sandra L., Trotter, Stormy P., 2017. Data Saturation. The International
Bon-Gang, H., 2018. Chapter 6 - knowledge areas and skills for green construction Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods.
project management. In: Bon-Gang, H. (Ed.), Performance and Improvement of Fellows, R., Liu, A., 2008. Impact of participants’ values on construction sustain-
Green Construction Projects. Butterworth-Heinemann. ability. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustain-
Brauer, C.S., 2013. Just sustainability? Sustainability and social justice in profes- ability 161, 219e227.
sional codes of ethics for engineers. Sci. Eng. Ethics 19, 875e891. Fernandez-Sa nchez, G., Rodríguez-Lo pez, F., 2010. A methodology to identify
sustainability indicators in construction project managementdapplication to Li, Y.Y., Chen, P.-H., Chew, D.A.S., Teo, C.C., Ding, R.G., 2011. Critical project man-
infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecol. Indicat. 10, 1193e1201. agement factors of aec firms for delivering green building projects in Singapore.
Ferrarini, A., Bodini, A., Becchi, M., 2001. Environmental quality and sustainability in J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 137, 1153e1163.
the province of Reggio Emilia (Italy): using multi-criteria analysis to assess and Lieberman, M.B., Montgomery, D.B., 1988. First-mover advantages. Strat. Manag. J. 9,
compare municipal performance. J. Environ. Manag. 63, 117e131. 41e58.
Fiksel, J., Mcdaniel, J., Mendenhall, C., 1999. Measuring progress towards sustain- Linnenluecke, M., Griffiths, A., 2010. Corporate Sustainability and Organisational
ability principles, process and best practices. In: Institute, B. M (Ohio). Culture.
Fortune, J., White, D., 2006. Framing of project critical success factors by a systems Liu, H., Skibniewski, M.J., Wang, M., 2016. Identification and hierarchical structure of
model. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 53e65. critical success factors for innovation in construction projects: Chinese
Gallopín, G.C.J.E.M., Assessment, 1996. Environmental and sustainability indicators perspective. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 22, 401e416.
and the concept of situational indicators. A systems approach 1, 101e117. Liu, J., Zuo, J., Sun, Z., Zillante, G., Chen, X., 2013. Sustainability in hydropower
Gan, X., Fernandez, I.C., Guo, J., Wilson, M., Zhao, Y., Zhou, B., Wu, J., 2017. When to developmentda case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 230e237.
use what: methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators. Liu, Y., Sun, C., Xia, B., Cui, C., Coffey, V., 2018. Impact of community engagement on
Ecol. Indicat. 81, 491e502. public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects: empirical
Gavrilidis, A.A., Nița, M.R., Onose, D.A., Badiu, D.L., Nastase, I.I., 2019. Methodological evidence from China. Waste Manag. 76, 431e442.
framework for urban sprawl control through sustainable planning of urban Maghsoodi, A.I., Khalilzadeh, M., 2018. Identification and evaluation of construction
green infrastructure. Ecol. Indicat. 96, 67e78. projects’ critical success factors employing fuzzy-topsis approach. Ksce Journal
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., Rodon, J., 2012. Sustainable operations: their impact on the of Civil Engineering 22, 1593e1605.
triple bottom line. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140, 149e159. Management, A.F.P., 2012. Apm Body of Knowledge. Association for Project
Goedknegt, D., 2012. Sustainability in project management: a case study at uni- Management.
versity of applied sciences utrecht. Pm World Journal I 18. Maqbool, R., 2018. Efficiency and effectiveness of factors affecting renewable energy
Gomez, J., Lanzolla, G., Maicas, J.P., 2016. The role of industry dynamics in the projects; an empirical perspective. Energy 158, 944e956.
persistence of first mover advantages. Long. Range Plan. 49, 265e281. Maqbool, R., Sudong, Y., 2018. Critical success factors for renewable energy projects;
Goodell, L.S., Stage, V.C., Cooke, N.K., 2016. Practical qualitative research strategies: empirical evidence from Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 991e1002.
training interviewers and coders. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 48, 578e585 e1. Marcelino-S adaba, S., Gonz rez-Ezcurdia, A., 2015. Using project
alez-Jaen, L.F., Pe
Gotschol, A., De Giovanni, P., Esposito Vinzi, V., 2014. Is environmental management management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a
an economically sustainable business? J. Environ. Manag. 144, 73e82. framework definition. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 1e16.
GRI, 2015. Business reporting on the sdgs - an analysis of the goals and targets. In: Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2017. Key factors of sustainability in project man-
Compact, G. R. I. U. G.. agement context: a survey exploring the project managers’ perspective. Int. J.
Gudiene, _ N., Banaitis, A., Banaitiene, _ N., 2013. Evaluation of critical success factors Proj. Manag. 35, 1084e1102.
for construction projects e an empirical study in Lithuania. Int. J. Strat. Property Mazzetto, S., 2017. Practice Experience and Multidisciplinary Collaboration in
Manag. 17 (1), 21e31. Project Management: a Case Study.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., Johnson, L., 2006. How many interviews are enough?: an Mcdowell, S., 2018. The benefits of international diversification with weight con-
experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18, 59e82. straints: a cross-country examination. Q. Rev. Econ. Finance 69, 99e109.
Huemann, M., Eskerod, P., 2013. Sustainable development and project stakeholder Milne, M.J., Gray, R., 2013. W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global
management: what standards say. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6, 36e50. reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. J Journal of Business
Iacono, M.V., 2013. The culture of accountability. J. PeriAnesthesia Nurs. 28, Ethics 118, 13e29.
107e109. Mitchell, T.E.A., 2010. Climate Smart Disaster Risk Management. Strengthening
Icheme, 2002. The Sustainability Metrics: Sustainable Development Progress Met- Climate Resilience. Brighton: Ids: Institute of Development Studies.
rics Recommended for Use in the Process Industries, 165-189 Railway Terrace, Moldan, B., Dahl, A., 2007. Challenges to sustainability indicators. Sustainability
Rugby Cv21 3hq. Institution of Chemical Engineers, Uk. Indicators: A Scientific Assessment 1e26.
Ihuah, P.W., Kakulu, I.I., Eaton, D., 2014. A review of critical project management Mulder, J., Brent, A.C., 2006. Selection of sustainable rural agriculture projects in
success factors (cpmsf) for sustainable social housing in Nigeria. International South Africa: case studies in the landcare programme. J. Sustain. Agric. 28,
Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 3, 62e71. 55e84.
Iram, N., Khan, B., Shakil Ahmad, M., Farooq Sahibzada, U., 2017. Critical Factors Murray, A., Bennett, N., Bentley, C., Great, B., Office Of Government, C., 2009.
Influencing the Project Success: an Analysis of Projects in Manufacturing and Managing Successful Projects with Prince2, 2009 Edition Manual [Online].
Construction Industries in Punjab. Pakistan. London: Tso (The Stationary Office). Available. http://www.books24x7.com/
Jeurissen, R., 2000. John Elkington, cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of marc.asp?bookid¼41539.
21st century business. J. Bus. Ethics 23, 229e231. Nord, N., Sjøthun, S.F., 2014. Success factors of energy efficiency measures in
Jollands, N., 2006. Getting the most out of eco-efficiency indicators for policy. buildings in Norway. Energy Build. 76, 476e487.
Sustainable Development Indicators in Ecological Economics 317e343. Norman, W., Macdonald, C., 2004. Getting to the bottom of "triple bottom line". Bus.
Joung, C.B., Carrell, J., Sarkar, P., Feng, S.C., 2013. Categorization of indicators for Ethics Q. 14, 243e262.
sustainable manufacturing. Ecol. Indicat. 24, 148e157. €
Oberg, M., Nilsson, K.L., Johansson, C.M., 2018. Complementary governance for
Keeys, L.A., Huemann, M., 2017. Project benefits co-creation: shaping sustainable sustainable development in transport: the European Ten-T Core network cor-
development benefits. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, 1196e1212. ridors. Case Studies on Transport Policy 6, 674e682.
Kiani Mavi, R., Standing, C., 2018. Critical success factors of sustainable project Othman, A., 2013. Challenges of mega construction projects in developing coun-
management in construction: a fuzzy Dematel-Anp approach. J. Clean. Prod. tries. Organisation, Technology and Management in Construction 5, 730e746.
194, 751e765. Pade, C., Mallinson, B., Sewry, D., 2008. An elaboration of critical success factors for
Kivil€a, J., Martinsuo, M., Vuorinen, L., 2017. Sustainable project management rural ict project sustainability in developing countries: exploring the dwesa
through project control in infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, case. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 10,
1167e1183. 32e55.
Knockaert, S., Maillefert, M., 2004. What is sustainable employment? The example Pilli-Sihvola, K., Harjanne, A., Haavisto, R., 2018. Adaptation by the least vulnerable:
of environmental jobs. Natures Sci. Soc. 12, 135e145. managing climate and disaster risks in Finland. International Journal of Disaster
Kolltveit, B.J., Karlsen, J.T., Grønhaug, K., 2007. Perspectives on project management. Risk Reduction 31, 1266e1275.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25, 3e9. Pissourios, I.A., 2013. An interdisciplinary study on indicators: a comparative review
Kouzes, J.M., Posner, B.Z., 2017. The Leadership Challenge: How to Make Extraor- of quality-of-life, macroeconomic, environmental, welfare and sustainability
dinary Things Happen in Organizations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New indicators. Ecol. Indicat. 34, 420e427.
Jersey. Pmi, 2014. Requirements Management: Core Competency for Project and Program
Laasch, O., 2018. Beyond the purely commercial business model: organizational Success.
value logics and the heterogeneity of sustainability business models. Long. Potts, T., O’higgins, T., Brennan, R., Cinnirella, S., Brandt, U.S., De Vivero, J.L.S.,
Range Plan. 51, 158e183. Beusekom, J.V., Troost, T.A., Paltriguera, L., Hosgor, A.G., 2015. Detecting critical
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., 2005. Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management: the choke points for achieving Good Environmental Status in European seas. Ecol.
need to integrate life cycles in the manufacturing sector. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, Soc. 20.
159e168. Presley, A., Meade, L., Sarkis, J., 2007. A strategic sustainability justification meth-
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., Van Erck, R.P.G., 2005. Assessing the sustainability odology for organizational decisions: a reverse logistics illustration. Int. J. Prod.
performances of industries. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 373e385. Res. 45, 4595e4620.
Lam, P.T.I., Yang, H.X., Yu, J.S., 2017. Critical Success Factors for integrating renewable Project Management, I., 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of
energy development in a country with 2 systems: the case of Pearl River Delta Knowledge : (Pmbok® Guide), Newtown Square. Project management Institute,
and Hong Kong Sar in China. Energy Pol. 107, 480e487. Pa.
Lee, J.K., Han, S.H., Jang, W., Jung, W., 2018. “Win-win strategy” for sustainable Pulaski, M.H., Horman, M.J., 2005. Continuous value enhancement process.
relationship between general contractors and subcontractors in international J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 131, 1274e1282.
construction projects. Ksce Journal of Civil Engineering 22, 428e439. Purvis, B., Mao, Y., Robinson, D., 2019. Three pillars of sustainability: in search of
Levy, Y., Ellis, Timothy J., 2006. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature conceptual origins. Sustainability Science 14, 681e695.
review in support of information systems research. Inf. Sci.: The International Rand, G.K., 1993. Elements of project management: plan, schedule, and control (2nd
Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 9, 181e212. edition). J. Oper. Res. Soc. 44, 840-840.
Reid, J., Rout, M., 2020. Developing sustainability indicators e the need for radical Sütterlin, B., Siegrist, M., 2017. Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies
transparency. Ecol. Indicat. 110, 105941. from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar
Renoldner, K., 2013. Rethinking ‘our common future’: a physician’s remarks 25 years power. Energy Pol. 106, 356e366.
after the release of ‘Brundtland report’. Med. Conflict Surviv. 29, 278e288. Tabish, S.Z.S., Jha, K.N., 2011. Identification and evaluation of success factors for
Robert, K.H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., Aloisi De Larderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J.L., Kuehr, R., public construction projects. Construct. Manag. Econ. 29, 809e823.
Price Thomas, P., Suzuki, M., Hawken, P., Wackernagel, M., 2002. Strategic Thürer, M., Tomasevi c, I., Stevenson, M., Qu, T., Huisingh, D., 2018. A systematic
sustainable development d selection, design and synergies of applied tools. review of the literature on integrating sustainability into engineering curricula.
J. Clean. Prod. 10, 197e214. J. Clean. Prod. 181, 608e617.
Roca-Puig, V., 2019. The circular path of social sustainability: an empirical analysis. Tiwari, S., Gupta, A., 2015. A systematic literature review of use case specifications
J. Clean. Prod. 212, 916e924. research. Inf. Software Technol. 67, 128e158.
Saad, M.H., Nazzal, M.A., Darras, B.M., 2019. A general framework for sustainability Toor, S.-U.-R., Ogunlana, S.O., 2008. Critical Coms of success in large-scale con-
assessment of manufacturing processes. Ecol. Indicat. 97, 211e224. struction projects: evidence from Thailand construction industry. Int. J. Proj.
S
aez-Martínez, F.J., Lefebvre, G., Hern andez, J.J., Clark, J.H., 2016. Drivers of sus- Manag. 26, 420e430.
tainable cleaner production and sustainable energy options. J. Clean. Prod. 138, Tura, N., Kera€nen, J., Patala, S., 2019. The darker side of sustainability: tensions from
1e7. sustainable business practices in business networks. Ind. Market. Manag. 77,
Saqib, M., Farooqui, R.U., Lodi, S.H., 2008. Assessment of critical success factors for 221e231.
construction projects in Pakistan. First International Conference on Construc- Turner, J.R.M.,R., 2005. The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on
tion in Developing Countries 392e404. projects: a literature review. Proj. Manag. J. 36, 49e61.
Sarkis, J., Meade, L.M., Presley, A.R., 2012. Incorporating sustainability into Ugwu, O.O., Haupt, T.C., 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment methods
contractor evaluation and team formation in the built environment. J. Clean. for infrastructure sustainabilityda South African construction industry
Prod. 31, 40e53. perspective. Build. Environ. 42, 665e680.
Savitz, A.W., 2014. The Triple-Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies Are Ukaga, O., 2014. Gilbert Silvius, ron schipper, julia planko, jasper van den brink and
Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental SuccessdAnd How You Can adri kohler: sustainability in project management. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 16,
Too. Jossey-Bass, a Wiley brand, San Francisco, Ca. 455e457.
Scho€nborn, G., Berlin, C., Pinzone, M., Hanisch, C., Georgoulias, K., Lanz, M., 2019. UNCSD, 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodolo-
Why social sustainability counts: the impact of corporate social sustainability gies. Development, U. N. C. O. S, United Nations.
culture on financial success. Sustainable Production and Consumption 17, 1e10. Van Horen, F., Van Der Wal, A., Grinstein, A., 2018. Green, greener, greenest: can
Schubert, A., La ng, I., 2005. The literature aftermath of the Brundtland report ‘our competition increase sustainable behavior? J. Environ. Psychol. 59, 16e25.
common future’. A scientometric study based on citations. Science And Social Vasconcellos Oliveira, R., 2018. Back to the future: the potential of intergenerational
Science Journals. justice for the achievement of the sustainable development goals. Sustainability
Sengers, F., Wieczorek, A.J., Raven, R., 2019. Experimenting for sustainability tran- 10, 427.
sitions: a systematic literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 145, Veleva, V., Ellenbecker, M., 2001. Indicators of sustainable production: framework
153e164. and methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 9, 519e549.
Shen, L.-Y., Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, L., Ji, Y.-B., 2010. Project feasibility study: the key to Verdolini, E., Vona, F., Popp, D., 2018. Bridging the gap: do fast-reacting fossil
successful implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction technologies facilitate renewable energy diffusion? Energy Pol. 116, 242e256.
management practice. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 254e259. Wang, Y., Sun, M., Wang, R., Lou, F., 2015. Promoting regional sustainability by eco-
Sibiya, M., Aigbavboa, C., Thwala, W., 2015. Construction Projects’ Key Performance province construction in China: a critical assessment. Ecol. Indicat. 51, 127e138.
Indicators. A Case of the South African Construction Industry. WCED, W. C. O. E. A. D., 1987. Our Common Future: the Bruntland Report. Oxford
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R.P.J., 2014a. Sustainability in project management com- University Press, Oxford [online].
petencies: analyzing the competence gap of project managers. J. Hum. Resour. White, D., Fortune, J., 2002. Current practice in project management d an empirical
Sustain. Stud. 19, 02. study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20, 1e11.
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R.P.J., 2014b. Sustainability in project management: a Wilkerson, M.L., Mitchell, M.G.E., Shanahan, D., Wilson, K.A., Ives, C.D.,
literature review and impact analysis. Social Business 4 (34), 63e96. Lovelock, C.E., Rhodes, J.R., 2018. The role of socio-economic factors in planning
Silvius, G., 2017. Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management. and managing urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 31, 102e110.
J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1479e1493. Xing, Y., Horner, R.M.W., El-Haram, M.A., Bebbington, J., 2009. A framework model
Silvius, G.A.J., Kampinga, M., Paniagua, S., Mooi, H., 2017. Considering sustainability for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development. Account. Forum 33,
in project management decision making; an investigation using Q-methodol- 209e224.
ogy. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, 1133e1150. Xu, P., Chan, E.H.-W., Qian, Q.K., 2011. Success factors of energy performance con-
Sneddon, C., Howarth, R.B., Norgaard, R.B., 2006. Sustainable development in a tracting (Epc) for sustainable building energy efficiency retrofit (Beer) of hotel
post-Brundtland world. Ecol. Econ. 57, 253e268. buildings in China. Energy Pol. 39, 7389e7398.
Soltani, S., Gu, N., Sivam, A., Ochoa, P.I., Mcginley, T., 2018. Social Sustainability in Yong, Y.C., Mustaffa, N.E., 2013. Critical success factors for Malaysian construction
the Built Environment: a Critical Conceptual Framework. Zero Waste Sa projects: an empirical assessment. Construct. Manag. Econ. 31, 959e978.
Research Centre for Sustainable Design and Behaviour, School of Art, Archi- Zhang, F., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., 2013a. Identification and evaluation of the key social
tecture and Design, University of South Australia Zero Waste, Australia. competencies for Chinese construction project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31,
Songer, A.D., Molenaar, K.R., 1997. Project characteristics for successful public-sector 748e759.
design-build. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 123, 34e40. Zhang, L., Li, Y., Wu, Q., 2013b. Evaluation on collaborative satisfaction for project
Spangenberg, J.H., Bonniot, O., 1998. Sustainability Indicators Compass on the Road management team in integrated project delivery mode. J. Inst. Eng.: Series A 94,
towards Sustainability. Wuppertal Papers, No. 81, provided in Cooperation with. 109e115.
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Zhao, Z.-Y., Chen, Y.-L., 2018. Critical factors affecting the development of renewable
Sroufe, R., 2017. Integration and organizational change towards sustainability. energy power generation: evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 184, 466e480.
J. Clean. Prod. 162, 315e329.
Zidonien _ S., Kruopiene,
e, _ J., 2015. Life Cycle Assessment in environmental impact
Stanitsas, M., Kirytopoulos, K., Vareilles, E., 2019. Facilitating sustainability transi- assessments of industrial projects: towards the improvement. J. Clean. Prod.
tion through serious games: a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 106, 533e540.
924e936.

Integrating Sustainability Indicators Into Project Man - 2021 - Journal of Clean

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrating Sustainability Indicators Into Project Man - 2021 - Journal of Clean

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrating Sustainability Indicators Into Project Man - 2021 - Journal of Clean

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123774

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Integrating sustainability indicators into project management: The

* Corresponding author. Sustainability, sustainable development (SD) and project man-

Fig. 1. Embedding sustainability in project management.

analysis, but rather as a suggested model as perceived by the au-

Tracing the documents

•Keywords search in online •Removing duplicates and

•Documents' exclusion through full

Fig. 4. Filtering of documents and sources.

Indicators •Determine comparison criteria

Participant Industry Business titles Length (min)

1 Infrastructure and heavy construction Construction Manager/Researcher 83

Economic (ECO) sustainability indicators

Indicator Description Main Next Indicative References

Environmental (ENV) sustainability indicators

Indicator Description Main Next Indicative References

Social/Management (SOC) sustainability indicators

Indicator Description Main Next Indicative References

Social/Management (SOC) sustainability indicators

Indicator Description Main Next Indicative References

It refers to the sense of ownership for processes, project results

You might also like