Megaproject Management A

Multidisciplinary Approach to Embrace

Complexity and Sustainability Edoardo
Favari
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/megaproject-management-a-multidisciplinary-approa
ch-to-embrace-complexity-and-sustainability-edoardo-favari/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Sarcoma A Multidisciplinary Approach to Treatment

Henshaw

https://textbookfull.com/product/sarcoma-a-multidisciplinary-
approach-to-treatment-henshaw/

Practical Management of Thyroid Cancer: A

Multidisciplinary Approach 3rd Edition Ujjal K. Mallick

https://textbookfull.com/product/practical-management-of-thyroid-
cancer-a-multidisciplinary-approach-3rd-edition-ujjal-k-mallick/

The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management Bent

Flyvbjerg

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-
megaproject-management-bent-flyvbjerg/

Sarcoma A Multidisciplinary Approach to Treatment 1st

Edition Robert M. Henshaw (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/sarcoma-a-multidisciplinary-
approach-to-treatment-1st-edition-robert-m-henshaw-eds/
Conservation and management of tropical rainforests an
integrated approach to sustainability 2nd Edition
Bruenig

https://textbookfull.com/product/conservation-and-management-of-
tropical-rainforests-an-integrated-approach-to-
sustainability-2nd-edition-bruenig/

Sarcoma A Practical Guide to Multidisciplinary

Management Peter F. M. Choong

https://textbookfull.com/product/sarcoma-a-practical-guide-to-
multidisciplinary-management-peter-f-m-choong/

Complexity Economics: Building a New Approach to

Ancient Economic History Koenraad Verboven

https://textbookfull.com/product/complexity-economics-building-a-
new-approach-to-ancient-economic-history-koenraad-verboven/

Multidisciplinary Approach to Osteoporosis From

Assessment to Treatment Andrea Lenzi

https://textbookfull.com/product/multidisciplinary-approach-to-
osteoporosis-from-assessment-to-treatment-andrea-lenzi/

From Human Attention to Computational Attention A

Multidisciplinary Approach 1st Edition Matei Mancas

https://textbookfull.com/product/from-human-attention-to-
computational-attention-a-multidisciplinary-approach-1st-edition-
matei-mancas/
SPRINGER BRIEFS IN APPLIED SCIENCES AND
TECHNOLOGY  POLIMI SPRINGER BRIEFS

Edoardo Favari
Franca Cantoni Editors

Megaproject
Management
A Multidisciplinary
Approach to Embrace
Complexity and
Sustainability
123
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences
and Technology

PoliMI SpringerBriefs

Editorial Board
Barbara Pernici, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
Stefano Della Torre, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
Bianca M. Colosimo, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
Tiziano Faravelli, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
Roberto Paolucci, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
Silvia Piardi, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
More information about this subseries at http://www.springer.com/series/11159
http://www.polimi.it
Edoardo Favari Franca Cantoni
•

Editors

Megaproject Management
A Multidisciplinary Approach to Embrace
Complexity and Sustainability

123
Editors
Edoardo Favari Franca Cantoni
PoliPiacenza DISES
Piacenza, Italy Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
Piacenza, Italy

ISSN 2191-530X ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology
ISSN 2282-2577 ISSN 2282-2585 (electronic)
PoliMI SpringerBriefs
ISBN 978-3-030-39353-3 ISBN 978-3-030-39354-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39354-0
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword

Megaprojects such as large transport projects, power systems, and water manage-
ment systems that supply, recycle, and/or cope with rising sea levels, integrated city
(re)developments, or event-driven undertakings such as the Olympics or EXPOs
define our modern human landscape, at times excite the imagination, often disap-
point, and all too often are the subject of outrage.
This volume presents a range of perspectives on the complexity and sustain-
ability of megaprojects in general as well as several chapters that begin to outline
what might be considered an Italian model of MPs. This multidisciplinary approach
is welcome and promising, since megaprojects themselves are multifaceted and
intertwined. They are at the same time physical–technical-engineering construc-
tions, financial–economic undertakings, and sociopolitical negotiations and out-
comes. Success typically requires mastery in each of these domains, and failure can
come from anyone.
In line with its goal of setting up a debate among different disciplines, this
volume does not come to a final definitive conclusion, but it does provide a number
of important insights.
The volume begins with a set of essays focusing on the social and political aspects
of projects. Barabaschi reviews stakeholder theory as applied to megaprojects and
draws the important distinction between “management of stakeholders versus
management for stakeholders”. Cantoni and Pagnone argue that benefit shortfalls are
often more important than Flyvbjerg’s Iron Law of megaproject performance
—“over cost, over schedule over and over again”—and that the failure to deliver
what should have been possible given the scope and resources involved lies in the
inadequate engagement of external stakeholders. Favari suggests that tracking
benefits through a 3P lens—economic, environmental, and social—will lead to
better outcomes. As the authors note in their overview:
Applying a traditional Plan-Do-Check-Act approach simply is not enough: organizations
performing Megaprojects need good managers able to apply traditional management at a
tactical level, but what is missing in this approach is the long-run strategy enabling a
megaproject to shape the environment where is operating in the best possible way.

v
vi Foreword

The volume then turns to financial and economic conditions. Plantoni and Timpano
argue that the underperformance of projects does reflect an optimism bias, but also a
lack of emphasis on ex-post evaluation including the benefits delivered. Locatelli
et al demonstrate that the analytical frames typically applied to shape and select
megaprojects—deterministic “once and for all” discounted cash flow models—
often result in project designs that are overoptimistic and “too mega”, and that a real
options approach, which values flexibility during project design and implementa-
tion, leads to more realistic estimates and the selection of smaller modular project
designs.
The volume concludes with three pieces focused on Italian projects and prac-
tices. Maja reviews the experiences of the technically successful but economically
failed Bergamo Express where the projected demand did not materialize, though the
analysis does not determine whether the project failed to capture the potential
demand or if the demand simply was not there. Protasoni reviews the redevelop-
ment of EXPO15 for urban regeneration and suggests that in this instance, at least,
the project was successful in balancing economic, social, and environmental con-
cerns through a process that engaged the community in its design, and that pro-
ceeded from a very high-level allocation of open vs. developed space into specific
designs. The conclusion to this chapter would be a fitting conclusion to the whole
volume. It attributes the project's success to the ability to:
• “read the phenomena at different scales of interactions (from the geographical
one of territory to the focused one of architecture);
• to make a synthesis of multiple knowledge (among natural and earth sciences,
social and economic disciplines);
• to test decision-making analytical methodologies integrating the singular inputs
of the various actors involved in the processes”.
Zecchin concludes by arguing that the legal/contractual basis for projects in Italy
allows for a balance between public and private interests and for pragmatic man-
agement of variations and risk.
In all, the contributions provide a useful review of the multiple perspectives
required to understand, design, and manage megaprojects and serve to highlight the
often underemphasized social and political aspects and the deep stakeholder
engagement needed at all stages.

Donald Lessard
Professor Emeritus, MIT Sloan
School of Management
Cambridge, MA, USA
Preface

More is different
(P. W. Anderson, 1972)

Megaprojects have characterized all civilizations since the dawn of mankind. In the
last decades, they are spreading not only in developed and rich countries, but almost
anywhere in the world. In addition, their dimension is growing in terms of cost,
impact, and complexity. Research on megaprojects is pretty recent: the first broad
study has been carried out by Miller and Lessard (2000), having as a core concept
that megaprojects are shaped, not chosen or planned. The message of Miller and
Lessard is still valid: makes no sense to apply a planning or selection process for a
megaproject, as it will not become a piece of the environment where it will be
placed, but it will literally make the environment, dramatically modify the envi-
ronment where it is located. Miller and Lessard focused their attention on large
engineering projects (LEPs); today, researches expanded the perimeter of such
studies to megaprojects, including large-scale events such as Olympics and large IT
projects. The three major contributors to current megaproject research are Bent
Flyvbjerg, Edward Merrow, and Peter E. D. Love. Determining whether a project is
a megaproject is not immediate: there is a threshold related to the budget invested
(some authors set a lower limit to 100 M€/$, some others at 1B€/$); in addition, it is
pretty clear that phenomena characterizing megaprojects are emerging even in
project investing an order of magnitude less, but facing a large variety of stake-
holders: this is the case of several IT projects. It is pretty clear that it is a matter of
complexity in the project’s (internal and external) environment, but it stays unclear
how to assess the level of complexity first, and how to govern it, later. What is
evident is that traditional management is not working for a megaproject. More
simply, traditional management is not enough. Applying a traditional “Deming”
approach Plan-Do-Check-Act simply is not enough: organizations performing
megaprojects still need good managers able to apply traditional management at
tactic level, but what is missing in this approach is the long-run strategy enabling a
megaproject to shape the environment where is operating in the best possible way.
At the same time, the public debate on megaprojects is far from being agreed
upon. In the last few years, the topic is particularly relevant at the EU level. In fact
the decision-making process on which infrastructure (LEP) should be funded and

vii
viii Preface

which not by the public sector has been criticized by new “sovranist” political
parties. For example, studies both in favour and against the funding of the same
infrastructure have been published by different academics, even belonging to the
same institution.
To tackle this situation, in 2018 a group of researcher belonging to different
institutions and academic sectors established the Megaproject Research
Interdisciplinary Team (MeRIT). The group aims at:
• spreading awareness about megaprojects implementation towards public
opinion;
• promoting academic research on megaprojects involving a wide range of
research fields, such as engineering, architecture, management, economics,
sociology, laws, and political sciences;
• being the reference point for Megaproject Stakeholders debate, by promoting
discussion events involving the whole supply chain of stakeholders responsible
for megaproject decision and implementation;
• Help spreading awareness about megaprojects implementation towards public
opinion;
• supporting megaprojects planning, implementation, and management, transfer-
ring the findings from the academic research and the stakeholders debate to
operators on the field.
The position of the MeRIT is that the research on megaprojects cannot be unique
and linear: there is an epistemological limit in such an approach. Complexity
requires a multiple approach in a kind of hermeneutic circle of megaprojects: the
understanding of a megaproject as a whole is established by reference to the specific
parts and the understanding of each specific part by reference to the whole. The
circular method of hermeneutics appears the only applicable to megaprojects. No
final destination and no final synthesis are achievable.
This book represents this approach. If the reader goes through all the chapters,
he/she will see that independently from the reader’s culture and will see the rele-
vance of all the points represented by the authors. Chapters of this book are not
intentionally harmonized, and humanistic topics are not separated from the tech-
nical ones. This way of reading and interpreting megaprojects through reciprocal
contamination between different disciplines and perspectives represents and iden-
tifies the MeRIT approach.
The volume consists of eight chapters written by the constituent members of the
MeRIT: jurists, economists, sociologists, corporatists, architects, and engineers.
Each chapter is the fruit of reflections and studies conducted in accordance with the
specific discipline of reference.
Intended for readers with different profiles and research and study interests, the
book offers different reading paths, although a sequential reading of the chapters is
suggested. However, other routes are advisable depending on specific needs or
curiosity.
Preface ix

In Chap. 1, Cantoni and Pagnone present “Megaprojects. A Special Eye on

Sustainability to Overcome the “Iron Law””. Unfortunately, “Over Budget, Over
Time, Over and Over Again” is the summary of what is best known as Flyvbjerg’s
“Iron Law of Megaprojects” which theorizes that megaprojects have a history of
failures in terms of missed achievement. Considering that risks tend to repeat them-
selves, easy-to-implement measures—some of which conventional, others less—are
recommended.
Chapter 2 is about the concern of the author, E. Favari, about making sustain-
ability effectively working in project and megaproject management: “Sustainability
in (Mega)Project Management—A Business Case for Project Sustainability”.
Chapter 3 “Management for Stakeholders Approach for a Socially Sustainable
Governance of Megaprojects” by Barabaschi represents the critical aspect of
stakeholders management in ordinary projects and, more critically, in megaprojects,
providing the most up-to-date methodologies to interface and engage stakeholders
at the best.
In Chap. 4, Platoni and Timpano present a rigorous dissertation about “The
Economics of Mega-projects”, presenting quantitative methods for decisions
making and ex-post assessment of megaprojects.
An outstanding paper is presented in Chap. 5: “Using Real Options to Value
Two Key Merits of Small Modular Reactors” by Locatelli, Pecoraro, Meroni, and
Mancini, proposing a quantitative approach to deal with the complexity of energy
megaproject according to the time to market and the existing portfolio.
Chapter 6 “Large Transportation Project: Lessons Learned from Italian Case
Studies” written by Maja presents the point of view of transportation engineering on
megaprojects, presenting a specific case study and providing general advice on
transportation megaprojects.
Chapter 7 “Milano Expo 2015 Regeneration Process: Between Legacy and
Megaproject”, written by Protasoni and Roda, deals with the importance of space
and space management in megaprojects, and in large-scale events in particular,
providing a final Decalogue for the best implementation of them.
Zecchin in Chap. 8 presents “Megaprojects Contracts: Between International
Practices and Italian Law”: the legal perspective on megaprojects is often neglected,
even if it is crucial for the success of such initiatives.
There is no conclusion, or final synthesis in this book, just to live up to the stated
approach: centrality is the interdisciplinary debate between different disciplines, and
the hermeneutic circle that cannot come, by its nature, to a final definitive
conclusion.

Piacenza, Italy Franca Cantoni

Edoardo Favari
Contents

1 Megaprojects. A Special Eye on Sustainability to Overcome

the “Iron Law” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Franca Cantoni and Francesca Pagnone
2 Sustainability in (Mega)Project Management—A Business Case
for Project Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Edoardo Favari
3 Management for Stakeholders Approach for a Socially Sustainable
Governance of Megaprojects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Barbara Barabaschi
4 The Economics of Mega-projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Silvia Platoni and Francesco Timpano
5 Using Real Options to Value Two Key Merits of Small
Modular Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Giorgio Locatelli, Marco Pecoraro, Giovanni Meroni,
and Mauro Mancini
6 Large Transportation Project: Lessons Learned from Italian
Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Roberto Maja
7 Milano Expo 2015 Regeneration Process: Between Legacy
and Megaproject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Sara Protasoni and Michele Roda
8 Megaprojects Contracts: Between International Practices
and Italian Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Francesco Zecchin

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

xi
Chapter 1
Megaprojects. A Special Eye
on Sustainability to Overcome the “Iron
Law”

Franca Cantoni and Francesca Pagnone

Abstract Over the last century, megaprojects have proven to result unsuccess-
fully in addressing the expected outcomes. When it comes to respecting budget
and schedule constraints, megaprojects are affected by several variables and behav-
iors, which affect the performances. Benefit shortfalls are another perspective of
underperformance, given the impact that these endeavors have on communities and
groups of interest. From literature review and empirical contributions, it is possi-
ble to map and describe some managerial guidelines aimed at improving megapro-
jects’ performances. In particular, it is interesting to look at these guidelines through
the lenses of sustainability, by considering how managerial approaches should be
applied and executed considering the concepts of social, environmental and economic
sustainability.

Keywords Megaprojects · Complexity · Sustainability

1.1 “Much More Than Expected”: Predictable

and Not-So-Easy-Predictable Issues

PMBOK [1] suggests that a project is typically defined as successful when it meets
the targeted scope, within the targeted timeframe and budget. Unfortunately, “Over
Budget, Over Time, Over and Over Again” is the summary of what is best known as
Flyvbjerg’s “Iron Law of Megaprojects” [2], which theorizes that the more megapro-
jects turn out to be unsuccessful, the more they seem to grow their popularity around
the world, attracting more and more investments every year. Megaprojects do have a
history of failures, in terms of missed achievement of the planned objectives. Flyvb-
jerg [2], in fact, claimed that, on average, one project out of ten respects the planned
budget when it is delivered, one out of ten projects is delivered on schedule, and
one out of ten projects is delivered performing the expected benefits. With a simple

F. Cantoni (B) · F. Pagnone

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore—Sede di Piacenza, Via Emilia Parmense 82, 29122
Piacenza, PC, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

E. Favari and F. Cantoni (eds.), Megaproject Management,
PoliMI SpringerBriefs,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39354-0_1
2 F. Cantoni and F. Pagnone

calculation of probabilities, it is possible to say that, out of a thousand projects, only

a single one is delivered with respect of the three main deliverables/constraints of
the Triangle.
After having underlined the substantial differences between projects and megapro-
jects it is natural to ask whether these parameters (time, budget and scope) can be con-
sidered as exhaustive also for megaprojects. [3] specifically mentions the impact that
these endeavors have towards their stakeholders and society: not only megaprojects
have a wide range of stakeholders that are directly impacted, but also communities
and societies which are supposed to benefit from them. This can lead to still consider
megaprojects’ success basing on the time of delivery, budget—since megaprojects
are often sustained and funded by taxpayers’ money—and scope delivery, meaning
the value perceived by society.
Value creation can be considered under two main perspectives; firstly, the
outcome-based one [4] considers the value a megaproject creates right after its com-
pletion: typically, it is related to the financial revenues produced for project sponsors
and labor force which contributed to its creation. Instead, the system lifecycle-based
perspective includes tangible and intangible values developing through the “opera-
tions phase” (i.e. when the project is actually performing its tasks) [3]. Basing on
these concepts, internal stakeholders of megaprojects can be more easily associated
with the outcome-based perspective of value, i.e. the value drawn from project man-
agement practices deployment in order to reach specific and pre-determined goals.
Instead, external stakeholders seem to be more associated to the system lifecycle-
based perspective of value, meaning that the positive impact must be perceived on
the outcomes rather than the project’s metrics.

1.1.1 Cost Overruns

According to several analyses and investigations conducted by the most relevant

authors of the field [5, 2, 4], cost overruns are a major feature and challenge of
megaprojects, which prove to be empirically more expensive than expected. The
problem of cost overrun is, therefore, not much of a potential cause of underper-
forming megaprojects, but an actual recurring event, which gives a great hint for
further analysis. Furthermore, it is an occurrence that can be related to not just one
field, but several areas of economic development in which megaprojects have an
important role: from infrastructures, to energy production and extraction, to infor-
mation technology. There is also not a pattern that concerns only one country, so
the phenomenon can be considered with an “internationalised” exposure. Finally,
what seems to be the most striking aspect of these conclusions is the timeframe: the
results show that, despite the passing of time and the improvement of technologies
and knowledge worldwide, costs overrun have not been mitigated.
What is the fault for these continuous cost overruns? Can it be possible to mainly
blame contingencies, here intended as external and unexpected events having an
1 Megaprojects. A Special Eye on Sustainability to Overcome … 3

impact on the forecasted costs? Indeed, there is an extent of events that are uncon-
trollable by megaproject managers. Budget shortcomings are the most discussed topic
concerning megaprojects’ under performances. In fact, there is an interesting asset of
opinions coming from scholars and researchers on why budgets (or forecasts) turn out
to be inconsistent so often. For instance, Flyvbjerg et al. [6] consider four main areas
of causes that might explain the cost underestimation trends: these include technical,
economic, psychological and political reasons. Indeed, what appears as key feature
of Flyvbjerg’s point of view on cost underestimation is, indeed, the psychological
perspective of this phenomenon. In fact, he gives great importance to the so-called
“optimism bias” phenomenon, for which project promoters do underestimate costs
owing to the “cognitive predisposition […] to judge future events in a more posi-
tive light than the actual experience” (pp 5–15). Indeed, besides the phenomenon of
optimism bias, he definitely leaves room for the “strategic misinterpretation”, i.e. the
underestimation of costs made on purpose. However, he keeps the main cause for cost
underestimation on the dual perspective of deceptive (i.e. strategic misinterpretation)
and non-deceptive (i.e. optimism bias) practices.
The lack of capabilities for psychological and political reasons to entirely justify
cost overruns is also validated by the perspective of Love et al. [7]; according to this
perspective, these two explanations do have some kind of adherence to reality, but
are simply not enough to explain these practices as a whole. Instead, Love focuses its
investigation in the causes that come from the independent factors that provoke cost
overruns, and their interdependencies with this phenomenon. Therefore, the point
expressed by Love and the school of thought of the “evolution theorists” [8] reminds
that the investigation must not just be done on the deceiving actions in the “FEL”
(i.e. Front End Loading) phase of megaprojects, but also in the development and
implementation phases, which can bring external and unforeseen events to potentially
change the scope of a megaproject and, as a consequence, its budget and its schedule.

1.1.2 Schedule Delays

Among the three main performance metrics and shortfalls of megaprojects, schedule
delays can be considered as the “most consequential” variable; as seen from the
previous examples of the historical overview, often schedule delays are a direct
consequence of a not well-defined strategic vision for a megaproject, brought about
by significant misalignment of stakeholders. This, for instance, happened with the
Three Gorges Dam megaproject, which was significantly delayed with respect to the
time of its initial conception, owing to political disagreements and different interests
in conflict.
In the same way, schedule delays are a direct consequence of the situations of
cost overruns, considering the time needed for megaproject promoters to source for
new financial sponsorship, whenever the megaproject finds itself in the “breaking”
phase of the traditional Break-Fix Model. One of the most striking example of these
4 F. Cantoni and F. Pagnone

situations is the Channel Tunnel megaproject, which, at some point in its construction,
opened the doors to public share offerings in order to have more financial availability.
Besides being a consequence of other shortfalls, megaprojects’ delays can be con-
sidered as triggers for some other risks and failures, such as the growth of interest
and exchanging rates of financial resources, if the project takes longer than expected
[9]. Moreover, schedule delays can have consequences in terms of adaptation to the
market; in fact, if a project is in the public eye since its conception and planning
phases, this definitely has an impact on the market where the project operates and
its competitors. Other market actors could be triggered by the news of a megapro-
ject and improve their own competitiveness. Indeed, if this situation is applied to
a megaproject with schedule delays, the project will end up being completed when
competitors will already have made their moves. Overall, the delayed megaproject
will turn out to have weakened competitiveness, compared to its market.

1.1.3 Benefit Shorfalls

As well as the misleading forecasts in terms of costs and budget, also misleading fore-
casts in terms of future demand can seriously undermine the success of a megaproject
[9] since, in some extent, the existence of a certain demand from society is the major
reason why megaprojects are conceptualized in the first place.
Flyvbjerg gives space for the use of wrong methodologies as a reason for mis-
matching forecasts; hence, it is possible to consider it among the causes of poor
forecast reliability, especially when thinking about the fact that, sometimes, change
management in organizations towards new technological tools can be challenging.
Moreover, particularly in the field of transportation, the market has lived decades
of continuous development of complexity, with new market entries and increased
competition. As for other identified reasons for misleading forecasts, Flyvbjerg con-
siders the potential lack of data available, which could be further developed by con-
ducting so-called “stated preference analysis”, investigating on consumers’ choices
and behaviours. Furthermore, the forecasts can be undermined by discontinuous
behaviours of the analysed individuals, which might be led to change owing to the
change in complementary factors, i.e. factors mostly related to the “customer experi-
ence”, but not directly considered in the demand forecast since they are not directly
related to the core service offered. Exogenous factors also play a significant role;
exogenous factors are intended as the unexpected and uncontrollable events of social
or macroeconomic nature, which indirectly affect the actual demand and might widen
the gap with the forecasts. On this wave, also political decisions can relevantly affect
the demand for a megaproject; for instance, if the demand is forecast according to
certain regulations, which are then not legalized, enforced and/or enacted, there is
certainly room for some demand to be affected by these changes.
A parallel reflection needs to be done also on the phenomena of “appraisal bias”;
this is particularly related to the forecasts made by consultants and project promot-
ers, who might tend to produce projections that produce more plausible or desirable
1 Megaprojects. A Special Eye on Sustainability to Overcome … 5

outcomes. Obviously, both consultants and project promoters have motives to be “op-
timistic”, especially when forecasts are created in order for projects to gain financial
sponsorship or regulatory permissions. This concept of optimistic views on forecasts
seems to significantly resemble the one related to cost projections. Again, also in
this perspective, Flyvbjerg does not push the investigation too far, defining these
mismatches as “implicit” and not specifically referring to any intentional actions
coming, above all, from project promoters. However, it seems quite easy to associate
these demand “exaggerations” with intentional actions coming from project promot-
ers, especially in the phase in which projects seek for financial sponsoring and/or
regulatory approval. In conclusion, it is safe to say that misleading demand forecasts
are not just the results of statistically random casualties, but there are concrete bases
to believe that forecasts are often biased by the aforementioned factors.

1.1.4 The Influence of Secondary Stakeholders

Among the not-so-easily-predictable issues megaprojects can result as unpopular

and receive the opposition of local communities, as they frequently perceive them as
environmentally disruptive or with general negative impact on society’s well-being.
Gellert and Lynch [10] express a very harsh opinion on megaprojects, claiming their
tendency to be disruptive towards the environments and the local communities. What
clearly emerges from a literature review on this topic is that the failure of megaprojects
is particularly analysed under the spectrum of the so-called “indirect stakeholders”,
i.e. society, environment and institutions. This is definitely caused by the fact that
the broader impact is one of the key features that differentiate megaprojects from
traditional projects, and has, therefore, to be considered in this optic.
It is clear that, under all circumstances, megaprojects should have the overall
goal of accomplishing the objectives of their stakeholders, in which institutions are
definitely included. On this concept, Di Maddaloni and Davis [7] also aligned by
claiming that the objectives that are met in terms of costs and schedule are never
enough to define a megaproject as successful: there have to be real benefits that
have to be set in advance, and not just assessed after the project is implemented and
considered as some sort of “collateral effects”.
A key component of the challenges for megaprojects to actually bring results
on the institutional perspective is the concept of considering stakeholders as the
ones who provide with resources [11]; it is legitimate to wonder whether this idea
is consistent or not for megaprojects. Once again, the answer can be found in the
very own definition and key characteristics of megaprojects, which clearly entail
the involvement of wider classes of stakeholder; therefore, not just the ones who
bring physical resources should be considered. This idea is further validated by the
fact that one of the main causes for benefit shortfalls is brought by a lack of public
participation [9]. This idea is also expressed in the work of [12] in which a statistical
analysis on 44 megaprojects with the aim of identifying success factors highlighted
that one of the major critical factors for a positive outcome delivery is local public
6 F. Cantoni and F. Pagnone

acceptability of megaprojects, which affects them positively, together with the lack
of litigation procedures and the multiculturality of project teams.
On a different perspective, benefit shortfalls can also be seen not just as the poor
consideration of some classes of stakeholders, but also as a lack of integration and
alignment of interests for the considered ones. Biesenthal et al. [13], for instance,
gather the attention on megaprojects having governance structures that turn out to
be polycentric; this is mainly caused by the complexity of the stakeholders’ array, as
already mentioned, but also caused by the fact that several stakeholders have key roles
in megaprojects’ deliveries. As an example, we can consider politicians, who can give
media exposure and public approval with their influence. At the same time, regulators
and regulations can give or deny the green light for a megaproject on a concession
standpoint. In addition, financing sources are equally essential resources, being the
size of megaprojects so considerable. Therefore, megaprojects’ stakeholders and
actors are often leaders or senior positions of their organizations, used to being at
the top of their own governance systems. With these premises, the consequence is a
challenging formation of a governance structure that is the megaproject’s own, and
hierarchical decision making is harder to develop, especially since direct stakeholders
all bring essential resources to the table.
Indeed, each stakeholder group comes with different and, sometimes, contrasting
interests and desired outcomes. The references found in classic megaproject literature
[14] describe stakeholders’ destruction of megaproject’s value when considering their
own interests and desirable outcomes as the megaproject’s drivers for success. This
happens when the project’s overall strategic vision is not aligned with stakeholders’
objectives and/or stakeholders are vaguely aware that there is a strategic vision that
aligns all the expected outcomes [15].

1.1.5 Corruption in Megaprojects

In between the investigation on causes for time, scope and budget under perfor-
mances, it seems essential to put a significant stress on the phenomenon of corruption,
which has surprisingly found few literature at support. One of the most interesting
works on the topic has been elaborated by, in an article that puts some light on
the practice and finally includes them in the causes for shortfalls in megaprojects’
delivery. For what concerns large projects, the article makes an interesting insight
on how corruption can more easily gain space in contexts where megaprojects are
developed and implemented. This is due to megaprojects’ key characteristics, such
as the size. In fact, where there are complex networks of stakeholders and many indi-
viduals involved, it is easier for some actors to enact briberies and illegal practices,
and hide them, given the whole complexity of the system. More contracts and more
parties collaborating generate more opportunities for bribery and power abuse, which
is also encouraged by the relevant presence of public institutions participating and
having access to potentially manipulable offices, regulations and control procedures.
In addition, since megaprojects that involve public institutions are more than often
1 Megaprojects. A Special Eye on Sustainability to Overcome … 7

in the spotlight of public opinion and mass media, there is a significant tendency in
attempting to covering sensitive information that could be used and misinterpreted
by the media and, as a consequence, by society.
An important take-home is related to the impact of corruption on megaprojects,
which has an extent on both megaproject and project success. Firstly, projects are
impacted in terms of costs, as the infrastructural ones tend to increases and have
significant additions. At the same time, there is a tendency for delay, brought by
initial infrastructures that prove to be unsuccessful. In conclusion, what really occurs
is a “sub-optimal allocation” of resources in order to privilege private gains and
interest of some parties involved. Interests that are clearly not included in the ones
that are clearly attributable to stakeholders being stakeholders, but go beyond the
coordination and alignment of actions that should naturally be performed in order to
deliver the expected value from the implementation of megaprojects.

1.2 Overcoming the Issues

Indeed, a winning strategy would entail the utilization of a rigorous method of cost
forecasting, especially concerning the moment in which the forecast is made. As
previously discussed, misinformation and underestimation of costs is also caused by
different forecasts made in different stages of development. This creates confusion
and does not allow to have a clear idea on what going over budget really means.
Locatelli et al. [16] do express a solution to this problem; the clear setting of a stage
of development for each project, in which the official and most reliable forecast
is made. Indeed, the most indicated stage of development varies depending on the
specifics of the project, as well as the sector of reference.
Flyvbjerg describes with detail what is known as the “conventional” megaproject
management approach; based on various empirical examples, such as the Great Belt
bridge in Denmark, the author gives an overview on how megaprojects are typically
managed, highlighting the central role of the government and state-owned enterprises.
Among the various identified characteristics, the lack of attention to the external
effects of the project and the negatively affected stakeholders is major. In addition,
Flyvbjerg also recognizes a lack of in-depth analysis especially concerning risks. This
underestimated stakeholder involvement in the traditional megaproject approach is
considered as the main trigger for consequent public dissatisfaction.
The last century has seen a growing tendency of private organizations being
involved in the financing of megaprojects; as analysed and described by traditional
literature, some aspects have to be considered on the entering of private entities in
megaprojects’ development: for instance, it is necessary to consider the added value
that private entities may bring in terms of technical knowledge and capabilities is
construction and cost controlling. It may also have positive outcomes in terms of
risk identification, owing to the different perspectives that the private sector might
bring to the planning and risk assessment phases. When private and public sector
collaborate in this context, there is definitely a need for long-term commitments on
8 F. Cantoni and F. Pagnone

both sides, which enforces a formal relationship between two or more entities and
implies more specific inputs and outputs coming from all the actors participating.
The more accentuated involvement of the public and the indirect stakeholders is
considered as absolutely necessary in order to overcome the traditional megaproject
management approach, which leaves most of the roles and responsibilities to the
government. If a management approach that is more focused on the various stake-
holders is applied, stakeholder groups and society representative should be involved
in the development process and informed with transparency, right from the earliest
stages of development. Firstly, this process can more efficiently happen if there is
a sharing of clear information through public means of communication towards the
public. This action would be according with the principle of transparency, which
governments involved in megaprojects should maintain. At the same time, the clear
flux of information must also be collected from the stakeholders, with tools such as
surveys, public hearings, committees etc.
Overall, it seems that the most problematic aspect that challenges megaproject
management is the involvement and alignment of many stakeholders, as it was
initially assessed by identifying megaprojects’ complexity. For this reason, what
megaproject management might really need is a more rigorous and sensitive method
to involve and coordinate multiple stakeholders in order to ensure the alignment of
their interests, their effective contribution with resources and their assessment of
realistic results. On the topic, literature [14] has theorized interesting solutions and
guidelines, which reconnect adequate project management practices to the very own
creation of value coming from megaprojects; this value is, in fact, generated from
all the joint activities of megaproject actors, organized in organizational platforms.
These platforms are described as organizational structures that store multiple actors
and their resources, whether they are tangible or intangible. Organizational plat-
forms, in traditional business processes, involve actors from both the production and
the consumption. There is, therefore, plenty of different actors involved, just like it
occurs for megaprojects. For this reason, literature often describes megaprojects as
“temporary organization” [17].
Hence, the main procedures that take the single actors and transform them into
an organizational platform for a megaproject’s development, is the matching of the
actors with their inputs and resources, and the identification of an overall system-level
goal that aligns and unifies the goals of each single actor. By doing so, the system-level
goal becomes the key to a megaproject with a clear, strategic vision, which, as claimed
by literature [15] as one of the main success factors. The very own interaction among
actors paves the way for an alignment of resources and interests with the creation
of interorganizational coordinating bodies, emerged from the development of joint
activities. By interaction, actors are able to identify all the resources, including the
most critical ones, and the various responsibilities that can, then, determine calibrated
ownership and decision-making.
Interorganizational coordinating bodies have the functionality of facilitating the
joint activities and enhance structured governance systems, which are key drivers
for megaprojects’ success coordination creates a key role in collecting stakeholders’
inputs and expected outcomes, in order to define a clear strategic vision. Basically,
1 Megaprojects. A Special Eye on Sustainability to Overcome … 9

coordinating actors identify what value stakeholders are expected to capture, what
resources they can bring to create this value, and what resources represent the most
critical ones. Hence, there is alignment of these various perceptions of value, and
alignment of the expectations of single actors. At this stage, the process of alignment
is crucial for the identification of project stakeholders as one unique organizational
platform: it is also the most challenging aspect of stakeholders’ management, as the
strategic system-based goal that emerges from the alignment of all the stakeholders’
goals still has to be able to represent these stakeholders. In other words, stakeholders
should be able to still see what is in it for them when the organizational platform is
formed and, most importantly, stakeholders have to be able to logically recognize
what perspectives of value they will not be able to reach and why.
Interorganizational coordinating bodies have, therefore, this very complicated
task to accomplish. In order to do so, they can apply some approaches and tools
to more efficiently create the ideal context for stakeholders to properly collaborate.
Firstly, the identification of a strategic goal and the concrete reachable value of
a megaproject, coordinating bodies have to perform an in-depth analysis on the
expressed stakeholders’ objectives; this enables to find actions and practices that
will lead to a kind of “intersectional” result, which may be the right outcome to
address the expectations of more than one stakeholder, if not most of them. To
express it in geometrical terms, this phase of the process resembles the search of
an “intersection” among expected outcomes. Once this intersection is found and
the alignment among objectives is performed, coordinators can and have to use
the means of transparency to clarify the outcomes with stakeholders as much as
possible. This will prevent misalignment on the expected outcomes, but will also
lead actors to realize that, even with different extents, the value they wish to capture
from the megaproject is considered in the “bigger picture”; this would be especially
beneficial for secondary stakeholders and their participation in the megaproject’s
development. More clear objectives communicated to all the involved parties are
definitely a tool that coordinators can use to minimize the cultural gaps and enhance
effective collaboration, which are two of the main and most occurred challenges [18].
Furthermore, another aspect has to be considered in terms of coordination among
stakeholder; promoters and managers do also have to implement leadership prac-
tices. Not only taking advantage of leadership allows a better performing decision-
making, but also allows to better track progress on a greater perspective. Leadership
in megaprojects is seen [15] as an essential resource to be added to managers of daily
operations, since megaprojects do also need an intense “institutional management”,
more intensively but together with “technical management” [19].
On the topic of coordinating and interorganizational bodies, it is interesting to
consider the research done on the so-called “Special Purpose Entities” (SPEs), par-
ticularly relevant in the context of megaprojects, but, according to some literary
examples, significantly under-investigated. SPEs are commonly defined as fenced
organizations with pre-defined purposes and their own legal identity. Typically, the
organizations that act as SPEs in project management are the ones who collaborate in
project financing and project partnering. If employed for project financing purposes,
SPEs contribute in assessing and isolating risks for potential investors; they act as
10 F. Cantoni and F. Pagnone

a further proxy for external financiers. For what concerns their project partnering
usefulness, SPEs are the legal entities that allow partnering among stakeholders,
in order for their interests to be aligned. Basically, project stakeholders, including
private and public entities, can use SPEs to create partnerships within each other
or form actual joint ventures; they, therefore, create, a separate organization made
up of organizations. Megaproject SPEs are typically physical organizations, with a
defined timeline and a define purpose; they are typically set in a venue that is close
to the location where the megaproject is constructed, and have their own legal iden-
tity, which allows them to be entitled for assets, liabilities, people employment et
cetera, just like any other organizations. Moreover, another interesting feature is that,
being SPEs “fenced” entities, if their shareholders go bankrupt, the SPE’s assets are
not liable to recover from this bankrupt; therefore, to the eyes of financial lenders,
SPEs are definitely a reliable instrument. Overall, it is possible to consider SPEs as
real organizational platform with legal identities. Hence, their existence and proper
employment can resemble the creation of an interorganizational coordinating bodies,
accomplishing the objectives of alignment, coordination and co-evolution that these
bodies are aimed at. Furthermore, given their fenced nature and independent identity
from the forming organizations, they can also be perceived as risk regulators and
reliable means of collecting financial resources. In other words, SPEs are able to
create the governance structures that companies implement and that megaprojects,
as temporary organizations, would need.

1.3 Conclusions: Sustainability as a Key of Interpretation

Many are the inputs that can be collected by literature research and empirical exam-
ples. In order to provide with a main theory that unifies all the guidelines offered by
literature, it would be useful to introduce the concept of sustainability. The OECD
[20] defines it as “The continuation of benefits from a development intervention
after major development assistance has been completed. The probability of con-
tinued long-term benefits. The resilience to risk of the net benefit flows over time.”
Considering the concepts of benefits and resilience that the definition of sustainability
comprehends, it is possible to interpret sustainable behavior as a key to solve and/or
mitigate criticalities in megaproject management, as well as to solve criticalities
and challenges in general world economic, social and environmental development.
Guidelines and hints related to megaprojects can be mapped into the three main
sustainability pillars; economic, environmental and social sustainability.

1.3.1 The Economic Perspective

In terms of economic benefits that sustainable megaprojects should bring, it is nec-

essary to consider fair financial rewards and earnings for stakeholders that bring
1 Megaprojects. A Special Eye on Sustainability to Overcome … 11

resources. This fair economic return should be rightfully forecasted, together with
the projections of public demand of a megaproject’s services. As previously seen,
literature on megaprojects offers hints and insights on how to perform these activ-
ities fairly and lawfully, with consequent benefits to the overall performance of a
megaproject. More precise forecasts with less “optimistic” approaches, the decision
of assessing forecasts that are always made in the same phases of the projects, more
investigation on the data related to similar megaprojects’ costs, as well as precau-
tionary practices of identification and assessment of risks: these are all guidelines
that can be drawn by literature and empirical evidence, and all can lead to a more
sustainable economic development. In this sense, literature also gives a perspective
for further reflection on how stakeholders should collaborate towards a clear defi-
nition of what are the expected economic benefits for them. This guideline would
be an attempt to overcome situations in which corruption episodes occur; needless
to say, the effectiveness of this guideline to reach the afore-mentioned result can be
doubted and further investigated; for the level of this analysis, this guideline can be
considered as a starting point for mitigating the challenge of corruption.

1.3.2 The Environmental Perspective

Modern society is further and further supporting governments and regulations pro-
moting environmentally sustainable business practices; environmental conscious-
ness should, therefore, be of incredible concern for megaprojects promoters and
executors [1]. What is more useful to say on this topic is that, according to the lit-
erature and empirical examples, nowadays contemporary organizations do have the
tools and frameworks to implement environmental sustainability into megaprojects’
development. For instance, the several groups of interest operating on national and
international levels can, in this sense, provide organizations with support on feasibil-
ity studies that also consider environmental impacts of megaprojects. Since several
organizations already have focused their efforts in operating following sustainable
environmental practices, there already are positive premises for megaprojects’ spon-
soring companies to translate their knowledge on environmental sustainability into
a more conscious planning and execution of megaproject with potentially massive
environmental impacts [18].

1.3.3 The Social Perspective

This sustainability pillar has a major role in determining megaproject’s performances

and, therefore, deserves to be treated as a conclusive topic and main insight for fur-
ther research. Basing on the findings of this essay, social sustainability is an essential
key to overcome all the megaproject challenges that have to do with public audi-
ences and community members, who should be the very first perceivers of benefits.
12 F. Cantoni and F. Pagnone

Not only, social sustainability can be considered as the key interpretation to a more
effective stakeholder management, applying all the practices described by litera-
ture and empirical examples, aimed at identifying stakeholders’ interest, resources,
outcomes and potential ownership and decision-making power. Stakeholders, at all
levels, should be included at all stages of development; they should be given the nec-
essary information and, at the same time, the possibility to provide each other all the
necessary information. Their goals should be aligned with each other and translated
into one system-level goal, which becomes the strategic vision of the megaproject. In
order to perform these activities of integration, mediating and coordinating entities,
such as the SPEs acting as interorganizational bodies should be assessed.
In the same way, empirical evidence paves the way to interpreting alignment also
on the internal perspective, regarding the attention that must be made on the “insti-
tutional capabilities” that professionals involved in megaprojects should embody. In
order to work in a context where “institutional management” is more consistently
valued than “technical management”, the recruitment and selection of project actors
has to be performed bearing this idea in mind with the expectation that a selection
process that considers an asset of soft skills leads to a project management practice
that has an institutional connotation, which is an essential trait of megaproject man-
agement. Among stakeholders, as often highlighted in the previous paragraphs of
this chapter, communities do have a major role to achieve social sustainability. Com-
munities, either on a local, national or international level, must be integrated into the
life of a megaproject that is planned to exist with the aim of improving the quality
of life. Integrated communities can give precious hints to megaprojects promoters in
order to plan, build and execute infrastructures or any other kind of endeavors that
are actually responsive to their needs. The hints coming from communities have the
ultimate goal of better addressing the resources that stakeholders and megaproject
promoters and sponsors to a socially sustainable final product. The social sustain-
ability will, consequently, turn into public acceptance and, thus, an increase in the
demand for the offered services. Therefore, social sustainability is not just about the
social impact of a megaproject per se, but it also can bring collateral benefits falling
into the economic and the environmental dimensions of sustainability.
1 Megaprojects. A Special Eye on Sustainability to Overcome … 13

References

1. PMBOK® Guide – Sixth Edition (2017).

2. Flyvbjerg B (2017) Introduction: the iron law of megaproject management, in Bent Flyvbjerg
ed The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management (Oxford: Oxford University Press),
Chapter 1, pp 1–18
3. Artto K, Ahola T, Vartiainen V (2016) From the front end of projects to the back end of
operations: managing projects for value creation throughout the system lifecycle. Int J Project
Manage 34(2):258–270
4. Gellert P, Lynch B (2003) Megaprojects as displacements. Int Soc Sci J. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1468-2451.5501002
5. Di Maddaloni F, Davis K (2017) The influence of local community stakeholders in megapro-
jects: rethinking their inclusiveness to improve project performance. Int J Project Manag
35(2017):1537–1556
6. Edkins A, Geraldi J, Morris P, Smith A (2013) Exploring the front-end of project management.
Eng Proj Organ J 3:71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2013.775942
7. Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W (2003) Megaprojects and risks: an anatomy of
ambition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
8. Ahiaga-Dagbui DD, Smith SD (2014) Rethinking construction cost overruns: cognition,
learning and estimation. J Financ Manag Property Constr 19(1):38–54
9. Locatelli G (2018) Why are megaprojects, including nuclear power plants, delivered overbud-
get and late? reasons and remedies. Report MIT-ANP-TR-172, Center for Advanced Nuclear
Energy Systems (CANES), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
10. Locatelli G, Invernizzi D, Brookes N (2017) Cost overruns—helping to define what they really
mean, vol 171, Issue CE2. Institution of Civil Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1680/jcien.17.
00001
11. Love PED, Ahiaga-Dagbui DD, Irani Z (2016) Cost overruns in transportation infrastructure
projects: sowing the seeds for a probabilistic theory of causation. Transp Res Part A Policy
Pract 92:184–194
12. Shenhar A, Holzmann V (2017) The three secrets of megaproject success: clear strategic vision,
total alignment, and adapting to complexity. Proj Manag J 48(6):29–46
13. Biesenthal C, Clegg S, Mahalingam A, Sankaran S (2017) Applying institutional theories to
managing megaprojects. Int J Project Manag 36(2018):43–54
14. Locatelli G, Invernizzi DC, Brookes NJ (2017) Project characteristics and performance in
Europe: an empirical analysis for large transport infrastructure projects. Transp Res A Policy
Pract 98:108–122
15. Miller R, Lessard DR (2001) The strategic management of large engineering projects: shaping
institutions, risks, and governance. MIT Press, Cambridge
16. Locatelli G, Milos M, Kovacevic M, Brookes N, Ivanisevic I (2017) The successful delivery
of megaprojects: a novel research method. Proj Manag J 48(5):78–94
17. Lundin RA, Söderholm A (2013) Temporary organizations and end states. Int J Manag Proj
Bus 6(3):587–594
18. Sainati T, Brookes N, Locatelli G (2017) Special purpose entities in megaprojects: empty boxes
or real companies? Proj Manag J 48(2):55–73
19. Flyvbjerg B, Skamris Holm M, Buhl S (2002) Underestimating costs in public works projects:
error or lie? J Am Plann Assoc 68(3):279–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360208976273
20. OECD Annual Report (2002) Public Affairs Division, Public Affairs and Communications
Directorate, Published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD
Chapter 2
Sustainability in (Mega)Project
Management—A Business Case
for Project Sustainability

Edoardo Favari

Abstract Sustainability in a 3P framework is becoming a key driver in megaproject

feasibility assessment according to International Financial Institutions. Currently, in
several cases, sustainability is still used as a fair topic to talk about by CEOs and
presidents of Companies and Institutions without a concrete plan to implement it. This
paper aims to explore the strategies for a real implementation of 3P sustainability
in projects and megaprojects, integrating the three pillars of sustainability into a
cohesive whole to make it works not only at year-end speeches to shareholders, but
also to fruitfully include sustainability into the strategy of organizations.

Keywords Sustainability · Project management · Business case · Megaproject ·

Feasibility

2.1 Focusing on Sustainability of (Mega)Projects

Sustainability in the triple bottom line (TBL), also referred as 3P framework (People,
Planet, Profit) is becoming a key driver for business strategy in the twenty-first century
[1]. Today, the question “How can we develop prosperity without compromising the
life of future generations?” is generally recognized worldwide as a basic need for
setting strategic goals of organizations [2]. In fact, according to [3]: “As of 2016,
we are consuming 1.6 planets worth of resources, and based on current trends, this
will increase to two planets.” In scientific literature, sustainability is a fair new topic
[4]. Moreover, sustainability goals are expressed in the United Nations’ “The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development” [5], adopted by all United Nations Member
States in 2015. In this document, the “P” principles became 5: in addition to People,
Planet and Prosperity (Profit), “Peace” and “Partnership” have been added. In the
mentioned UN resolution, 17 goals to sustainability are expressed. The Sustainable
Development Goals are:

E. Favari (B)
PoliPiacenza, 29121 Piacenza, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 15

E. Favari and F. Cantoni (eds.), Megaproject Management,
PoliMI SpringerBriefs,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39354-0_2
16 E. Favari

1. No Poverty
2. Zero Hunger
3. Good Health and Well-being
4. Quality Education
5. Gender Equality
6. Clean Water and Sanitation
7. Affordable and Clean Energy
8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
10. Reducing Inequality
11. Sustainable Cities and Communities
12. Responsible Consumption and Production
13. Climate Action
14. Life Below Water
15. Life on Land
16. Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
17. Partnerships for the Goals.
Nonetheless, in the remainder part of our paper, we will continue to refer to the 3P
framework as it is more common and easy to be applied at project management level,
and we will assume that an organization or a project, to be considered “sustainable”,
must address all the 17 goals mentioned above.
In the last decades, sustainability and corporate sustainability have become a
stilted and moralistic topic, and the public opinion feels that it is used to clean the
conscience or to get public consensus, without concrete argument. As a matter of
fact, what is missing today is the deployment of these strategic goals related to
sustainability into the operational activities of organization [6]. According to all
the scientific sources consulted [3, 7–9], the discipline that can help organizations
achieving their strategic goals is project management: in fact, in order to survive and
prosper in a global environment that is continuously evolving, organizations must
endlessly develop changes in their way of doing business, and project management
is a key skill capable to execute these changes in a structured manner [7].
Currently, no Project Management frameworks (PMI and IPMA above all) include
sustainability knowledge areas or specific processes [8, 10]. Moreover, no specific
input nor output in project management frameworks considers sustainability in the
3P approach, but only some (rare) specific points referring to one of the three pillars
can be found [7].
A project manager, alone, can’t succeed in including sustainability goals in his/her
project, if these goals are competing with goals set by the project sponsor and/or
PMO in the project charter [11]. In order to influence the way project management is
carried out, and to include sustainability into project goals, decisions must be taken
during the business analysis phase (i.e. the phase during which decision on what
project solution is the best to fix the problem or opportunity addressed is taken),
analysed and included into the business case, approved through a formal Go/NoGo
decision, so that project managers are fully empowered to develop projects in a
2 Sustainability in (Mega)Project Management—A Business … 17

controlled manner [12, 13]. In fact, no organization would leave to individual project
managers the discretionary power to make decisions related to sustainability [14].
Indeed, sustainability decisions could cause expenses that cannot be justified simply
from the project’s point of view, because sustainability has long-term goals, whereas
project goals are generally short-term oriented [7]. In addition, extra expenses caused
by addressing sustainability are often due to the internalisation of externalities [1],
which, again, can’t be justified at project level without a previous approval of the
project sponsor.
Decisions on sustainability must be set at a strategic level and, then, cascaded
to professionals managing the tactical level, otherwise not even the best project
managers having the highest competence on sustainability will have the power to
implement sustainability principles [15]. This is very clear, for example, in civil
(mega)projects where sustainability rating systems, such as LEED for buildings or
Envision for infrastructures, can be applied (see following sections). These frame-
works cause direct costs of resources to carry them on all along the project duration,
and indirect cost for extra-design required and for non-standard solutions to address
sustainability goals [16, 17]: these direct and indirect extra costs cannot be estab-
lished in the project phase, but must be determined before the decision of developing
the project is taken.
This approach for including sustainability goals into projects is potentially in
conflict with the definition of project management: “The application of knowledge,
skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirement”
[8]. In fact, if project requirements only include project goals and requirements
needed for the project’s specific purpose, probably sustainability has no chance to
be present in project management. Instead, project requirements must include points
that consider the organization’s long term strategy: in this way, sustainability can be
seen as sustainable for business purposes [18].
This fact is particularly critical on megaprojects that are often developed through
Special Purpose Entities (SPEs): in fact, SPEs are established just for executing the
single megaproject, and it is harder and harder to include into their goals something
exceeding the megaproject itself. To correct this phenomenon, most of International
Funding Institutions (IFIs), starting from the 90s, adopted specific policies related to
sustainability goals that committed to be applied to any funded project [19–23]. So,
in the case of projects developed by SPEs, the strategic part to be adopted into the
business case and, following, the project charter, is to come from the sustainability
policy of the funding entity.
This paper focus on identifying principles for developing a business case for a
(mega)project including sustainability, in order to evaluate the implications of incor-
porating a 3P framework in the way projects are selected, tying environmental and
social goals to economic and financial sustainability, incorporating both direct and
indirect benefits. Sustainability goals are economically sustainable if considered in
the organizational framework (long-term). If only the short-term focus is maintained,
sustainability goals cannot be supported because this violates the economic sustain-
ability. “It is no longer just about risk and compliance, but also about innovation and
opportunity and how to simultaneously achieve excellence in both sustainability and
18 E. Favari

financial performance. (…) not just thinking about corporate social responsibilities
and risks, but also about corporate social opportunities” [24].
In the following section of this paper, the Author will list strategies to implement
sustainability in projects within a 3P framework, classified within distinct business
sectors, and provide hints for evaluating direct and indirect costs and benefits, to work
as an input for a business case and an economic evaluation of the project [25–31].

2.2 The Business Case

According to [8]: “A business case captures the reasoning for initiating a project”.
For megaprojects, several evaluation approaches are possible. According to what
presented in this paper, as long as 3P sustainability isn’t assessed in a integrated way,
in a kind of sustainability iron triangle, in which each environmental or sustainability
goals is clearly linked to economic and financial ones, sustainability will stay a fair
topic, only good for public speeches, but minimally addressed. Moreover, in some
circles, sustainability is even addressed from a mystic perspective, and this does not
support the pragmatic analysis of balancing the breakeven of implementing it.
All along this paper, we provide points for evaluating costs and benefits
sustainability-related, that allows to develop detailed business analyst to carefully
evaluate the feasibility of sustainability goals. The paper provides a list of direct and
indirect costs and benefits to be included in business cases to consider sustainability
principles. Furthermore, a description is given of which tools and techniques are
needed by the project manager to lead a sustainable project: this is done to let the
business analyst, when drafting the business case, being able to evaluate operational
activities needed for reaching project’s sustainability.
The hope of the Author is that a detailed and accurate business case is drafted
for any project, to carefully evaluate the level of sustainability that is sustainable for
the performing organization and the community of stakeholders in which the project
take place. Only by avoiding dealing with sustainability in a rhetoric manner can
lead project to concrete sustainability.

2.3 Drafting a Business Case for (Mega)Projects

Sustainability

2.3.1 Economic Direct and Indirect Benefits of Applying

Sustainability to (Mega)Projects

In this section we will enlist sustainability topics to be evaluated when drafting a

business case for a project. These are points that can provide benefit to the performing
organization and stakeholders of projects, including SPEs and funding entities.
2 Sustainability in (Mega)Project Management—A Business … 19

Financial profit
• Direct cost savings due (mainly) to environmental sustainability, such as reducing
the use of material and energy during project development;
• Reduced operations costs including fines and litigation costs;
• Regulatory compliance: “Government regulations ad industry codes of conduct
require that companies must increasingly address to sustainability” [24]. Address-
ing sustainability in a project will enable the result of the project to have a longer
lifecycle and to avoid extra-cost of compliance to new regulations and policies;
• Lower capital costs;
• Organization’s share value increase and received investments due to implemen-
tation of sustainable practices.

Benefit related to customers and stakeholders

• Increased Customer and stakeholders satisfaction;
• Innovation related to listening to the voice of the customer/stakeholder;
• Market share increase of the performing organization due to the increasing demand
of sustainable products worldwide;
• Mastering sustainability can lead to the development of new and innovative
product and services;
• Stronger reputation;
• New market opportunities.

Operational benefits
• Innovation in processes;
• Productivity improvement due to operational waste minimization;
• Design for Sustainability [32];

Organizational benefits
• Employees satisfaction, personnel turn over reduction, and attractiveness for
qualified professional, in implementing sustainability principles;
• Improved shareholders and stakeholders relationship;
• Lower level of risk and impact by implementing sustainable practices;
• Increased resilience and organizational learning;
• Better decision-making process, improving resilience, due to the resolution of
ethical dilemmas and improving corporate governance, becoming an accountable
organization;
• Performing organization’s brand value increase, leading to increased sales due to
better corporate reputation.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
you’re all safe—no, no, you needn’t trouble yourself to take a chair—
if you stop to set down, it’s fifty to five an’ a chaw o’ tobacco, ’t you
never git up agin ... why! ... there’s Mary Wa’cote and that air Judith
Hubbard you see ... (lowering his voice) an’ I don’t know how many
more o’ the Shapes out there in the wood waitin’ for you....
Poh.
Lord, what a power o’ faces I did see! when the moon came out, as I
was crackin’ away over the path by the edge o’ the wood.... I’ve
brought you father’s grey stallion, he that carried off old Ci Carter
when the Mohawks were out ... are you all ready?
All ready?
Yes, all—all—you’re in for’t too, Lizzy Dyer, and so are you, aunt
Rachel—an’ so—and so—shall I bring up the horse?
No—
No—yes, but I will though, by faith!
Robert!
Why Robert, thee makes my blood run cold—
Never you mind for that, Lizzy Dyer.
Robert Eveleth, I am afraid thy going to sea a trip or two, hath made
thee a naughty boy, as I told thy mother it would.
No no, aunt Rachel, no no, don’t say so; we never swear a mouthful
when we’re out to sea, we never ketch no fish if we do—but here am
I; all out o’ breath now, and you wont stir a peg, for all I can say or do
and be—gulp to you!
Here Burroughs interrupted the boy, and after informing the sisters of
what had occurred while he was with Mr. Paris and the poor children,
he made the boy go over the whole story anew, and having done so,
he became satisfied in his own soul, that if the conspirators were at
work to destroy the poor girl before him, there would be no escape
after she was once in their power.
Be of good cheer, Elizabeth, said he, and as he spoke, he stooped
down to set his lips to her forehead.
George—George—we have no time to lose—what are we to do?
said Rachel, putting forth her hand eagerly so as to stay him before
he had reached the brow of Elizabeth; and then as quickly
withdrawing it, and faltering out a word or two of self-reproach.
If you think as I do, dear Rachel, the sooner she is away the better.
I do think as thee does—I do, George ... (in this matter.) Go for the
black mare, as fast as thee can move, Robert Eveleth.
Where shall I find her ... it’s plaguy dark now, where there’s no light.
On thy left hand as the door slips away; thee’ll find a cloth and a
side-saddle over the crib, with a—stop, stop—will the grey horse
bear a pillion?
Yes—forty.
If he will not, however, the mare will ... so be quick, Robert, be
quick....
Away bounded the boy.
She has carried both of us before to-day, and safely too, when each
had a heavier load upon her back than we both have now. Get thee
ready sister—for my own part—I—well George, I have been looking
for sorrow and am pretty well prepared for it, thee sees. I knew four
months ago that I had wagered my life against Judith Hubbard’s life
—I am sorry for Judith—I should be sorry to bring her to such great
shame, to say nothing of death, and were it not for others, and
especially for that poor child, (pointing to Elizabeth) I would rather lay
down my own life—much rather, if thee’ll believe me George, than do
her the great mischief that I now fear must be done to her, if our
Elizabeth is to escape the snare.
I do believe you—are you ready?—
Quite ready; but why do thee stand there, as if thee was not going
too?—or as if thee had not made up thy mind?
Ah—I thought I saw a face—
I dare say thee did; but thee’s not afraid of a face, I hope?
I hear the sound of horses’ feet—
How now?—it is not for such as thee to be slow of resolve.
He drew a long breath—
George—thee is going with us?
No, Rachel—I’d better stay here.
Here! shrieked Elizabeth.
Here!—what do thee mean, George? asked her sister.
I mean what I say—just what I say—it is for me to abide here.
For thee to abide here? If it is the duty of one, it is the duty of
another, said Elizabeth in a low, but very decided voice.
No, Elizabeth Dyer, no—I am able to bear that which ought never to
be expected of you.
Do thee mean death, George?—we are not very much afraid of
death, said Rachel—are we Elizabeth?
No—not very much—
You know not what you say. I am a preacher of the gospel—what
may be very proper for me to do, may be very improper for a young
beautiful——
George Burroughs—
Forgive me Rachel—
I do ... prepare thyself, my dear Elizabeth, gird up thy loins; for the
day of travail and bitter sorrow is nigh to thee.
Here am I sister! And ready to obey thee at the risk of my life. What
am I to do?
I advise thee to fly, for if they seek thy death, it is for my sake—I
shall go too.
Dear sister—
Well?—
Stoop thy head, I pray thee, continued Elizabeth—I—I—(in a
whisper)—I hope he’ll go with thee.
With me?—
With us, I mean—
Why not say so?
How could I?
Mary Elizabeth Dyer!
Nay nay—we should be safer with him—
Our safety is not in George Burroughs, maiden.
But we should find our way in the dark better.
Rachel made no reply, but she stood looking at her sister, with her
lips apart and her head up, as if she were going to speak, till her
eyes ran over, and then she fell upon her neck and wept aloud for a
single moment, and then arose and, with a violent effort, broke away
from Elizabeth, and hurried into their little bedroom, where she staid
so long that Elizabeth followed her—and the preacher soon heard
their voices and their sobs die away, and saw the linked shadows of
both in prayer, projected along the white roof.
A moment more and they came out together, Rachel with a steady
look and a firm step, and her sister with a show of courage that awed
him.
Thee will go with us now, I hope, said Rachel.
He shook his head.
I pray thee George—do not thou abide here—by going with us thee
may have it in thy power to help a——in short, we have need of thee
George, and thee had better go, even if thee should resolve to come
back and outface whatever may be said of thee—
What if I see an angel in my path?
Do that which to thee seemeth good—I have no more to say—the
greater will be thy courage, the stronger the presumption of thy
innocence, however, should thee come back, after they see thee in
safety—what do thee say Elizabeth?—
I didn’t speak, Rachel—but—but—O I do wish he would go.
I shall come back if I live, said Burroughs.
Nay nay George—thee may not see thy way clear to do so—
Hourra there, hourra! cried Robert Eveleth, popping his head in at
the door. Here we be all three of us—what are you at now?—why
aint you ready?—what are you waitin’ for?
George—it has just occurred to me that if I stay here, I may do
Elizabeth more good than if I go with you—having it in my power to
escape, it may be of weight in her favor—
Fiddle-de-dee for your proof cried Robert Eveleth—that, for all your
proof! snapping his fingers—that for all the good you can do
Elizabeth—I say, Mr. Burroughs—a word with you—
Burroughs followed him to a far part of the room.
If you know when you are well off, said the boy—make her go—you
may both stay, you and Elizabeth too, without half the risk; but as for
aunt Rachel, why as sure as you’re a breathin’ the breath o’ life now,
if you don’t get her away, they’ll have her up with a short turn; and if
you know’d all, you’d say so—I said ’twas you when I fuss come, for
I didn’t like to frighten her—but the fact is you are only one out o’ the
three, and I’d rather have your chance now, than either o’ their’n—
Why? Robert—
Hush—hush—you stoop down your head here, an’ I’ll satisfy you o’
the truth o’ what I say.... Barbara Snow, and Judy Hubbard have
been to make oath, and they wanted Bridgy Pope to make oath too
—they’d do as much for her they said—how ’t you come to their bed-
side about a week ago, along with a witch that maybe you’ve heerd
of—a freckled witch with red hair and a big hump on her back—
No no—cried the preacher, clapping his hand over the boy’s mouth
and hastily interchanging a look with Elizabeth, whose eyes filled
with a gush of sorrow, when she thought of her brave good sister,
and of what she would feel at the remark of the boy ... a remark, the
bitter truth of which was made fifty times more bitter by his age, and
by the very anxiety he showed to keep it away from her quick
sensitive ear.
But Rachel was not like Elizabeth; for though she heard the remark,
she did not even change color, but went up to the boy, and put both
arms about his neck with a smile, and gave him a hearty kiss ... and
bid him be a good boy, and a prop for his widowed mother.
A moment more and they were all on their way. It was very dark for a
time, and the great wilderness through which their path lay,
appeared to overshadow the whole earth, and here and there to
shoot up a multitude of branches—up—up—into the very sky—
where the stars and the moon appeared to be adrift, and wallowing
on their way through a sea of shadow.
Me go too? said a voice, apparently a few feet off, as they were
feeling for a path in the thickest part of the wood.
The preacher drew up as if an arrow had missed him. Who are you?
said he—
No no, George ... let me speak—
Do you know the voice?
No—but I’m sure ’tis one that I have heard before.
Me go too—high!
No.
Where you go?—high!
Rachel pointed with her hand.
Are you afraid to tell? asked the preacher, looking about in vain for
somebody to appear.
I have told him—I pointed with my hand—
But how could he see thy hand such a dark night? said Elizabeth.
As you would see it in the light of day, said the preacher.
High—high—me better go too—poo-ka-kee.
No, no—I’d rather not, whoever thee is—we are quite safe—
No—no, said the voice, and here the conversation dropped, and they
pursued their way for above an hour, at a brisk trot, and were already
in sight of a path which led to the Providence Plantations, their city of
refuge—
High—high—me hear um people, cried the same voice. You no safe
much.
And so do I, cried Burroughs. I hear the tread of people afar off—no,
no, ’tis a troop of horse—who are you—come out and speak to us—
what are we to do?—the moon is out now.
High, poo-ka-kee, high!
Yes—come here if thee will, and say what we are to do.
Before the words were well out of her mouth, a young savage
appeared in the path, a few feet from the head of her horse, and
after explaining to her that she was pursued by a troop, and that he
and six more of the tribe were waiting to know whether she wanted
their help, he threw aside his blanket and showed her, that although
he was in the garb of a swift-runner, he did not lack for weapons of
war.
No, no, not for the world poor youth! cried the woman of peace,
when her eye caught the glitter of the knife, the tomahawk and the
short gun—I pray thee to leave us ... do leave us—do, do!—speak to
him George ... he does not appear to understand what I say—entreat
him to leave us.
High—high! said the young warrior, and off he bounded for the sea-
shore, leaving them to pursue their opposite path in quietness.
Rachel and Elizabeth were upon a creature that knew, or appeared
to know every step of the way; but the young high-spirited horse the
preacher rode, had become quite unmanageable, now that the moon
was up, the sky clear, and the shadows darting hither and thither
about her path. At last they had come to the high road—their peril
was over—and they were just beginning to speak above their breath,
when Burroughs heard a shot fired afar off—
Hush—hush—don’t move; don’t speak for your lives, cried he, as the
animal reared and started away from the path ... soh, soh—I shall
subdue him in a moment—hark—that is the tread of a horse—
another—and another, by my life—woa!—woa!—
My heart misgives me, George—that youth—
Ah—another shot—we are pursued by a troop, and that boy is
picking them off—
O Father of mercies! I hope not.
Stay you here—I’ll be back in a moment—woa—woa!—
George——George—
Don’t be alarmed—stay where you are—keep in the shadow, and if I
do not come back immediately, or if you see me pursued, or if—woa,
woa—or if you see the mare prick up her ears, don’t wait for me, but
make the best of your way over that hill yonder—woa!—keep out o’
the high road and you are safe.
Saying this, he rode off without waiting for a reply, intending to follow
in the rear of the troop, and to lead them astray at the risk of his life,
should they appear to be in pursuit of the fugitives. He had not gone
far, when his horse, hearing the tread of other horses—a heavy
tramp, like that of a troop of cavalry on the charge, sounding through
the still midnight air, gave a loud long neigh. It was immediately
answered by four or five horses afar off, and by that on which the
poor girls were mounted.
The preacher saw that there was but one hope now, and he set off at
full speed therefore, intending to cross the head of the troop and
provoke them to a chase; the manœuvre succeeded until they saw
that he was alone, after which they divided their number, and while
one party pursued him, another took its way to the very spot where
the poor girls were abiding the issue. He and they both were
captured—they were all three taken, alive—though man after man of
the troop fell from his horse, by shot after shot from a foe that no one
of the troop could see, as they galloped after the fugitives. They
were all three carried back to Salem, Burroughs prepared for the
worst, Rachel afraid only for Elizabeth, and Elizabeth more dead
than alive.
But why seek to delay the catastrophe? Why pause upon that, the
result of which every body can foresee? They put him upon trial on
the memorable fifth day of August (1692) in the midst of the great
thunder-storm. Having no proper court of justice in the Plymouth-
colony at this period, they made use of a Meeting-House for the
procedure, which lasted all one day and a part of the following night
—a night never to be forgotten by the posterity of them that were
alive at the time. He was pale and sick and weary, but his bearing
was that of a good man—that of a brave man too, and yet he shook
as with an ague, when he saw arrayed against him, no less than
eight confessing witches, five or six distempered creatures who
believed him to be the cause of their malady, Judith Hubbard, a
woman whose character had been at his mercy for a long while (He
knew that of her, which if he had revealed it before she accused him,
would have been fatal to her) John Ruck his own brother-in-law, two
or three of his early and very dear friends of the church, in whom he
thought he could put all trust, and a score of neighbors on whom he
would have called at any other time to speak in his favor. What was
he to believe now?—what could he believe? These witnesses were
not like Judith Hubbard; they had not wronged him, as she had—
they were neither hostile to him, nor afraid of him in the way she was
afraid of him. They were about to take away his life under a deep
sense of duty to their Father above. His heart swelled with agony,
and shook—and stopped, when he saw this—and a shadow fell, or
appeared to fall on the very earth about him. It was the shadow of
another world.
 CHAPTER XVIII.
A brief and faithful account of the issue ... a few words more, and the
tale of sorrow is done. “The confessing witches testified,” to give the
language of a writer who was an eye-witness of the “trial that the
prisoner had been at witch-meetings with them, and had seduced
and compelled them to the snares of witchcraft; that he promised
them fine clothes for obeying him; that he brought poppets to them
and thorns to stick into the poppets for afflicting other people, and
that he exhorted them to bewitch all Salem-Village, but to do it
gradually.”
Among the bewitched, all of whom swore that Burroughs had
pursued them for a long while under one shape or another, were
three who swore that of him which they swore of no other individual
against whom they appeared. Their story was that he had the power
of becoming invisible, that he had appeared to them under a variety
of shapes in a single day, that he would appear and disappear while
they were talking together—actually vanish away while their eyes
were upon him, so that sometimes they could hear his voice in the
air, in the earth, or in the sea, long and long after he himself had
gone out of their sight. They were evidently afraid of him, for they
turned pale when he stood up, and covered their faces when he
looked at them, and stopped their ears when he spoke to them. And
when the judges and the elders of the land saw this, they were
satisfied of his evil power, and grew mute with terror.
One of the three chief accusers, a girl, testified that in her agony, a
little black man appeared to her, saying that his name was George
Burroughs, and bid her set her name to a book which he had with
him, bragging at the time that he was a conjuror high above the
ordinary rank of witches. Another swore that in her agony, he
persuaded her to go to a sacrament, where they saw him blowing a
trumpet and summoning other witches therewith from the four
corners of the earth. And a third swore, on recovering from a sort of
trance before the people, that he had just carried her away into the
top of a high mountain, where he showed her mighty and glorious
kingdoms which he offered to give her, if she would write in the book.
But she refused.
Nor did they stop here. They charged him with practices too terrible
for language to describe. And what were the rulers to say? Here was
much to strengthen a part of the charge. His abrupt appearance at
the trial of Sarah Good, his behaviour, his look of premature age—
that look whereof the people never spoke but with a whisper, as if
they were afraid of being overheard—that extraordinary voice—that
swarthy complexion—that bold haughty carriage—that wonderful
power of words—what were they to believe? Where had he gathered
so much wisdom? Where had he been to acquire that—whatever it
was, with which he was able to overawe and outbrave and subdue
everything and everybody? All hearts were in fear—all tongues mute
before him. Death—even death he was not afraid of. He mocked at
death—he threw himself as it were, in the very chariot-way of the
king of Terrors; and what cared he for the law?
His behavior to the boy, his critical reproduction of the knife-blade,
whereby their faith in a tried accuser was actually shaken, his bright
fierce look when the people gave way at his approach ... his
undaunted smile when the great black horse appeared looking in
over the heads of the people, who crowded together and hurried
away with a more than mortal fear ... and his remarkable words
when the judge demanded to know by what authority he was abroad
... all these were facts and circumstances within the knowledge of
the court. By the authority of the Strong Man, said he; who was
that Strong Man? By authority of one who hath endowed me with
great power; who was that one?
Yet more. It was proved by a great number of respectable and
worthy witnesses, who appeared to pity the prisoner, that he, though
a small man, had lifted a gun of seven feet barrel with one hand
behind the lock and held it forth, at arm’s length; nay, that with only
his fore-finger in the barrel he did so, and that in the same party
appeared a savage whom nobody knew, that did the same.
This being proved, the court consulted together, and for so much
gave judgment before they proceeded any further in the trial, that
“George Burroughs had been aided and assisted then and there by
the Black Man, who was near in a bodily shape.”
And it being proved that he “made nothing” of other facts, requiring a
bodily strength such as they had never seen nor heard of, it was
adjudged further by the same court, after a serious consultation, that
“George Burroughs had a devil.”
And after this, it being proved that one day when he lived at Casco,
he and his wife and his brother-in-law, John Ruck, went after
strawberries together to a place about three miles off, on the way to
Sacarappa—“Burroughs on foot and they on horseback, Burroughs
left them and stepped aside into the bushes; whereupon they halted
and hallowed for him, but he not making them any reply, they went
homeward with a quick pace, not expecting to see him for a
considerable time; but when they had got near, whom should they
see but Burroughs himself with a basket of strawberries newly
gathered, waiting for his wife, whom he chid for what she had been
saying to her brother on the road; which when they marvelled at, he
told them he knew their very thoughts; and Ruck saying that was
more than the devil himself could know, he answered with heat,
saying Brother and wife, my God makes known your thoughts to me:
all this being proved to the court, they consulted together as before
and gave judgment that “Burroughs had stepped aside only that by
the assistance of the Black Man he might put on his invisibility and in
that fascinating mist, gratify his own jealous humor to hear what they
said of him.”
Well prisoner at the bar, said the chief judge, after the witnesses for
the crown had finished their testimony—what have you to say for
yourself?
Nothing.
Have you no witnesses?
Not one.
And why not?
Of what use could they be?
You needn’t be so stiff though; a lowlier carriage in your awful
situation might be more becoming. You are at liberty to cross-
examine the witness, if you are so disposed—
I am not so disposed.
And you may address the jury now, it being your own case.
I have nothing to say ... it being my own case.
Ah! sighed the judge, looking about him with a portentous gravity—
You see the end of your tether now ... you see now that He whom
you serve is not to be trusted. It is but the other day you were clad
with power as with a garment. You were able to make a speech
whereby, but for the mercy of God——
I was not on trial for my life when I made that speech. I have
something else to think of now.... Let me die in peace.
Ah, sighed the chief judge, and all his brethren shook their heads
with a look of pity and sorrow.
But as if this were not enough—as if they were afraid he might
escape after all (for it had begun to grow very dark over-head)
though the meshes of death were about him on every side like a net
of iron; as if the very judges were screwed up to the expectation of a
terrible issue, and prepared to deal with a creature of tremendous
power, whom it would be lawful to destroy any how, no matter how,
they introduced another troop of witnesses, who swore that they had
frequently heard the two wives of the prisoner say that their house
which stood in a very cheerful path of the town was haunted by evil
spirits; and after they had finished their testimony Judith Hubbard
swore that the two wives of the prisoner had appeared to her, since
their death, and charged him with murder....
Repeat the story that you told brother Winthrop and me, said Judge
Sewall.
Whereupon she stood forth and repeated the story she had sworn to
before the committal of Burroughs—repeated it in the very presence
of God, and of his angels—repeated it while it thundered and
lightened in her face, and the big sweat rolled off the forehead of a
man, for whose love, but a few years before, she would have laid
down her life—
That man was George Burroughs. He appeared as if his heart were
broken by her speech, though about his mouth was a patient proud
smile—for near him were Mary Elizabeth Dyer and Rachel Dyer, with
their eyes fixed upon him and waiting to be called up in their turn to
abide the trial of death; but so waiting before their judges and their
accusers that, women though they were, he felt supported by their
presence, trebly fortified by their brave bearing—Elizabeth pale—
very pale, and watching his look as if she had no hope on earth but
in him, no fear but for him—Rachel standing up as it were with a new
stature—up, with her forehead flashing to the sky and her coarse red
hair shining and shivering about her huge head with a frightful fixed
gleam,—her cap off, her cloak thrown aside and her distorted shape,
for the first time, in full view of the awe-struck multitude. Every eye
was upon her—every thought—her youthful and exceedingly fair
sister, the pride of the neighborhood was overlooked now, and so
was the prisoner at the bar, and so were the judges and the jury, and
the witnesses and the paraphernalia of death. It was Rachel Dyer—
the red-haired witch—the freckled witch—the hump-backed witch
they saw now—but they saw not her ugliness, they saw not that she
was either unshapely or unfair. They saw only that she was brave.
They saw that although she was a woman upon the very threshold of
eternity, she was not afraid of the aspect of death.
And the story that Judith Hubbard repeated under such
circumstances and at such a time was—that the two wives of the
prisoner at the bar, who were buried years and years before, with a
show of unutterable sorrow, had appeared to her, face to face, and
charged him with having been the true cause of their death; partly
promising if he denied the charge, to reappear in full court. Nor
should I wonder if they did, whispered the chief judge throwing a
hurried look toward the graves which lay in full view of the judgment
seat, as if he almost expected to see the earth open.
The multitude who saw the look of the judge, and who were so eager
but a few minutes before to get nigh the prisoner, though it were only
to hear him breathe, now recoiled from the bar, and left a free path-
way from the graveyard up to the witness-box, and a visible quick
shudder ran throughout the assembly as they saw the judges consult
together, and prepare to address the immoveable man, who stood
up—whatever were the true cause, whether he felt assured of that
protection which the good pray for night and day, or of that which the
evil and the mighty among the evil have prepared for, when they
enter into a league of death—up—as if he knew well that they had
no power to harm either him or his.
What say you to that? said major Saltonstall. You have heard the
story of Judith Hubbard. What say you to a charge like that, Sir?
Ay, ay—no evasion will serve you now, added the Lieutenant
Governor.
Evasion!
You are afraid, I see—
Afraid of what? Man—man—it is you and your fellows that are afraid.
Ye are men of a terrible faith—I am not.
You have only to say yes or no, said Judge Sewall.
What mockery! Ye that have buried them that were precious to you—
very precious—
You are not obliged to answer that question, whispered the lawyer,
who had been at his elbow during the trial of Martha Cory—nor any
other—unless you like—
Ah—and are you of them that believe the story? Are you afraid of
their keeping their promise?—you that have a—
What say you to the charge? I ask again!
How dare you!—ye that are husbands—you that are a widower like
me, how dare you put such a question as that to a bereaved man,
before the Everlasting God?
What say you to the charge? We ask you for the third time.
Father of love! cried Burroughs, and he tottered away and snatched
at the bare wall, and shook as if he were in the agony of death, and
all that saw him were aghast with fear. Men—men—what would ye
have me say?—what would ye have me do?
Whatever the Lord prompteth, said a low voice near him.
Hark—hark—who was that? said a judge. I thought I heard
somebody speak.
It was I—I, Rachel Dyer! answered the courageous woman. It was I.
Ye are all in array there against a fellow-creature’s life. Ye have
beset him on every side by the snares of the law.... Ye are pressing
him to death—
Silence!—
No judge, no! I marvel that ye dare to rebuke me in such a cause,
when ye know that ere long I shall be heard by the Son of Man,
coming in clouds with great glory to judge the quick and the dead—
Peace ... peace, woman of mischief—look to yourself.
Beware Peter! and thou too Elias! Ye know not how nigh we may all
be to the great Bar—looking up to the sky, which was now so
preternaturally dark with the heavy clouds of an approaching
thunder-storm, that torches were ordered. Lo! the pavillion of the
Judge of Judges! How know ye that these things are not the sign of
his hot and sore displeasure?
Mark that, brother; mark that, said a judge. They must know that help
is nigh, or they could never brave it thus.
Whatever they may know brother, and whatever their help may be,
our duty is plain.
Very true brother ... ah ... how now!
He was interrupted by the entrance of a haggard old man of a
majestic stature, who made his way up to the witness-box, and stood
there, as if waiting for the judge to speak.
Ah, Matthew Paris ... thou art come, hey? said Rachel. Where is
Bridget Pope?
At the point of death.
And thy daughter, Abigail Paris?
Dead.
George ... George ... we have indeed little to hope now.... Where is
Robert Eveleth?
Here ... here I be, cried the boy, starting up at the sound of her voice,
and hurrying forward with a feeble step.
Go up there to that box, Robert Eveleth, and say to the judges, my
poor sick boy, what thee said to me of Judith Hubbard and of Mary
Walcott, and of their wicked conspiracy to prevail with Bridget Pope
and Abby Paris, to make oath....
How now ... how now ... stop there! cried the chief-judge. What is the
meaning of this?
Tell what thee heard them say, Robert—
Heard who say? asked the judge ... who ... who?
Bridget Pope and Abigail Paris.
Bridget Pope and Abigail Paris—why what have we to do with
Bridget Pope and Abigail Paris?
I pray thee judge ... the maiden Bridget Pope is no more; the child of
that aged man there is at the point of death. If the boy Robert
Eveleth speak true, they told him before the charge was made——
They—who?
Bridget Pope and Abigail Paris told him—
No matter what they told him ... that is but hearsay—
Well, and if it be hear say?—
We cannot receive it; we take no notice of what may occur in this
way—
How!—If we can prove that the witnesses have conspired together to
make this charge; is it contrary to law for you to receive our proof?
asked Burroughs.
Pho, pho—you mistake the matter—
No judge no ... will thee hear the father himself?—said Rachel.
Not in the way that you desire ... there would be no end to this, if we
did—
What are we to do then judge? We have it in our power to prove that
Judith Hubbard and Mary Walcott proposed to the two children,
Bridget Pope and Abigail Paris, to swear away the life—
Pho, pho, pho—pho, pho, pho—a very stale trick that. One of the
witnesses dead, the other you are told at the point of death—
It is no trick judge; but if ... if ... supposing it to be true, that Judith
Hubbard and her colleague did this, how should we prove it?
How should you prove it? Why, by producing the persons to whom,
or before whom, the proposal you speak of was made.
But if they are at the point of death, judge?
In that case there would be no help for you—
Such is the humanity of the law.
No help for us! Not if we could prove that they who are dead, or at
the point of death, acknowledged what we say to a dear father?—
can this be the law?
Stop—stop—thou noble-hearted, brave woman! cried Burroughs.
They do not speak true. They are afraid of thee Rachel Dyer.
Matthew Paris—
Here am I, Lord!—
Why, Matthew—look at me.... Do you not—know me?
No—no—who are you?
 CHAPTER XIX.
Enough—enough—cried Burroughs, on finding Matthew Paris so
disturbed in his intellect—enough—there is no hope now, Rachel.
The father himself would be no witness now, though he had been
told by our witnesses upon their death-bed, while they expected to
die, just what, if it could be shown here, would be a matter of life and
death to us. But still, before I give up, I should like to know the
meaning of that rule of evidence you spoke of the other day, which
would appear to make it necessary for me to produce only the best
evidence which the nature of the case admits of. We have done that
here ... a rule which being interpreted by the men of the law is said to
be this ... that we are to give such evidence only, as that none better
may appear to be left behind—we have done that now—
We are weary of this—what have you to say to the charge made
against you by the apparition of your wife? Before you reply
however, it is our duty to apprise you, that whatever you may happen
to say in your own favor will go for nothing—
Nevertheless I am ready to reply.
—We do not seek to entrap you—
So I perceive. Repeat the charge.
You are charged with having—what ho, there!—lights—lights—more
lights—
Lights—more lights! cried the people, what, ho there! How dark it
grows—
And how chill the air is—
Ay ... and quiet as the grave.
—You are charged I say, with having caused the death of your two
wives ... who have partly promised, if you deny the charge, to
confront you here.
The people began to press backward from each other, and to gasp
for breath.
You have only to say yes or no, and abide the proof.
Indeed—is that all?
Yes—all—
Then ... behold me. As he spoke, he threw up his arms, and walked
forth into a broad clear space before the bench, where every body
could hear and see him, and was about to address the jury, when he
was interrupted by a crash of thunder that shook the whole house,
and appeared to shake the whole earth. A dreadful outcry ensued,
with flash after flash of lightning and peal after peal of thunder, and
the people dropped upon their knees half blinded with light and half
crazy with terror; and covered their faces and shrieked with
consternation.
Why, what are ye afraid of judges? And you, ye people—cried the
prisoner, that ye cover your faces, and fall down with fear ... so that if
I would, I might escape.
Look to the prisoner there ... look to the prisoner.
—Ye do all this, ye that have power to judge me, while I ... I the
accused man ... I neither skulk nor cower. I stand up ... I alone of all
this great multitude who are gathered together to see me perish for
my sins ... the Jonah of this their day of trouble and heavy sorrow.
Not alone, said Rachel Dyer, moving up to the bar.
If not altogether alone, alone but for thee, thou most heroic
woman.... O, that they knew thy worth!... And yet these people who
are quaking with terror on every side of us, bowed down with mortal
fear at the voice of the Lord in the Sky, it is they that presume to deal
with us, who are not afraid of our Father, nor scared by the flashing
of his countenance, for life and for death—
Yea George—
Be it so—