The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1471-4175.htm

Infrastructure
Sustainability principles project
in infrastructure project delivery: delivery

establishing the broader

implementation strategies for
decision-making Received 23 October 2022
Revised 9 July 2023
27 November 2023
Taofeeq D. Moshood, James O.B. Rotimi and Shahzad Wajiha Accepted 11 December 2023
School of Built Environment, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to get a clearer knowledge of the reasons for, approaches to and
challenges associated with integrating sustainable development concerns into pipeline construction projects
in New Zealand. To achieve this, this study delves deeply into sustainable construction to understand the
reasons behind and incorporate sustainable development trials into their newly established product
management and development procedure. As a result, this study looks at identifying key elements of
sustainable construction practices and various interpretations of sustainability in the construction industry;
offering a strategy for incorporating sustainable construction practices into the pipeline construction project
in New Zealand; and benefits and difficulties that the construction industry encounters when implementing
sustainable construction. Finally, a framework is developed to help in understanding the issues and potential
solutions for integrating sustainable building methods into the pipeline construction project in New Zealand.
Design/methodology/approach – This study followed a four-step method (Figure 1), beginning with
the identification of the data, continuing with the first screening of the data, determining eligibility and,
finally, including the data. This data collection is being done to provide knowledge and direction for further
research. Data were collected from various websites on the Web of Science and from Scopus databases.
Additionally, data were gathered with the assistance of aggregator databases such as Scopus (scopus.com)
and publishing databases such as Elsevier (sciencedirect.com), Inderscience, Taylor and Francis (tandfonline.
com), Emerald Insight (emeraldinsight.com) and Google Scholar. These databases have been considered by a
number of scholars to be reputable databases.
Findings – This research provided a thorough description of the key justifications for sustainable
construction. This study demonstrated how the idea worked in practice by reviewing the literature on the
relevance and analysis of sustainability in construction. This body of research identified crucial components
of sustainable construction techniques and varied interpretations of sustainability in the construction
industry. To better grasp the current application considerations in the construction sector, it also offered
literature on sustainable construction methods. To determine the most effective strategy to make certain
adjustments to the current construction processes, the literature also includes a wide range of sustainability-
related topics in both developed and developing country contexts. This study also demonstrated the many
perspectives and strategies for sustainable behaviors. Because the purpose of this study was to develop a
strategy for implementing sustainable construction in New Zealand, it was of the utmost importance to shed
light on the most well-known and prominent sustainable construction applications from across the world. The
output of this aim provided the literature on construction practices to acquire insight into the ongoing
conversations on sustainable practices and systems in the construction industry. This was done to obtain
insight into the existing talks.

Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous financial support the CanConstructNZ Construction Innovation
research program provides through the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) © Emerald Publishing Limited
1471-4175
Endeavour Fund, administered within the School of Built Environment at Massey University. DOI 10.1108/CI-10-2022-0273
CI Originality/value – This research’s contribution to the body of knowledge is demonstrated by the fact
that this study has led to a better understanding of sustainable construction practices in the construction
industry as well as the identification of the most significant challenges that businesses, organizations,
educators and policymakers must face to improve their ability to put these strategies into practice. This
research has provided a solid foundation for future research that aims to advance knowledge in this field by
providing options for future research to evaluate the influence that the approach has had on enhancing the
implementation of sustainable construction. Additionally, this study presents options for future research to
evaluate the influence the approach has had on improving the implementation of sustainable construction.
The successful completion of the research aim in the more traditional forms of higher education in the built
environment can contribute to a better representation of new trends in the practice area associated with
expanding and improving the construction industry sustainably.
Keywords Sustainability, Sustainable construction,
Strategies decision-making and triple bottom line (TBL) approach
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
In the latter half of the 20th century, there was a significant increase in calls for sustainable
development (Hendiani and Bagherpour, 2019). The long-term viability of society, the
economy and the environment is at stake, and sustainable development has become a top
priority for governments worldwide (Lima et al., 2021). Activities connected to the built
environment have had detrimental effects on society and the natural environment, and this
has led to the sustainable development concept being at the forefront.
The urgency highlighted by Davies et al. (2018) underscores the paramount global focus
on sustainable development by governments worldwide. As articulated by Zuo et al. (2012a),
achieving sustainable development necessitates a delicate equilibrium between satisfying
escalating human needs for energy, nourishment, transportation, shelter, efficient waste
management and the preservation of environmental quality and crucial natural resources,
indispensable for ongoing life and progress. Khalil (2018) emphasizes that without the
maintenance of Earth’s natural, physical, chemical and biological systems, achieving
sustainability while catering to long-term human requirements remains unattainable.
However, as noted by Opoku et al. (2015), despite a broader comprehension of ideas, the
terms “construction” and “sustainable” still evoke difficulty because of varying perspectives
regarding their scope and significance. In the construction context, the principles of
practicability typically serve as guiding principles when discussing sustainability. This
encompasses a spectrum of concerns outlined by Ashley et al. (2003), encompassing social,
economic and environmental considerations integral to the construction process and its
outcomes. Moreover, these considerations extend to encompass social and managerial issues,
alongside technical challenges. This insight emphasizes the multifaceted nature of sustainability
within construction, encapsulating not only environmental aspects but also social and economic
dimensions crucial to fostering sustainable development. Elkington and Rowlands’ (1999) “triple
bottom line” concept of sustainability, which prioritizes the economic, environmental and social
components, has remained prominent and is the focus of the current research.
Sustainability remains influential and at the forefront of global concerns (Bamgbade et al.,
2022). Du Plessis (2002) presented specific enablers for persuading nations to embrace the
sustainability mindset, and Afzal et al. (2017) proposed a framework that comprehensively
addresses all facets of adopting sustainability. The framework recognizes the need for a well-
established and qualified construction industry with the capacity to manage sustainability
concerns. It highlights the risk of failing to integrate sustainable practices into construction
businesses’ operations, strategies and long-term vision. Opoku and Ahmed (2015) suggest poor
results from many reform programs and interventions, thus a continuing detrimental impact Infrastructure
on society and the environment. According to Govindan (2018) and Raut et al. (2017), sector project
stakeholders play a key role in genuine commitments to sustainability, which can become
rewarding to organizations that seek active implementation of sustainability initiatives.
delivery
Increasingly, business competitiveness correlates with the health of their communities
(Calabrese et al., 2019). This awareness encourages governments and professional
organizations in many nations to be more pragmatic in resolving this problem without
compromising the need for progress (Ye et al., 2015). However, a deeper understanding of
sustainability is necessary to successfully implement sustainable construction activities that
are impacted by the knowledge and engagement of everyone working in the industry
(Omardin et al., 2015). Practices in most developing and developed nations are unsustainable
(Karim, 2017). New Zealand’s primary limiting factors are resistance to change, poor
implementation initiatives, weak public knowledge base and poor government interventions
and assistance. To address these issues, the current study aims to establish the reasons for,
approaches to and challenges associated with integrating sustainable development concerns
into infrastructure projects in New Zealand. This study delves into sustainable construction
to identify critical elements of sustainable construction practices and various interpretations
of sustainability in the construction industry. This study offers a strategic decision-making
framework for incorporating sustainable construction practices into infrastructure projects
in New Zealand. This study outlines the benefits and difficulties that the construction
industry encounters when implementing sustainable construction. Finally, a framework is
developed for understanding the issues and potential solutions for integrating sustainable
building methods into infrastructure projects in New Zealand.

2. Methodology
This study used a systematic literature review approach to select targeted academic
publications. The systematic literature review, specifically the Metadata Analyses (PRISMA)
procedure (Rousseau et al., 2008; Tseng et al., 2019), was used, offering a practical approach to
identifying themes and selecting keywords for the initial screening of the most relevant
contributions related to the intended research topic (Liu et al., 2022). Following these guiding
principles, the study takes a methodical approach to collecting and classifying articles and the
aforementioned body of literature based on topic interpretation and suggestions for further
research (Tseng et al., 2019). According to Thornhill et al. (2009), the first step in conducting a
complete literature review is to pick appropriate keywords to locate and retrieve publications
from databases while also providing a literature study. According to the arguments of
Tranfield et al. (2003), a literature review aims to detect gaps in the literature as well as
information restrictions. Seuring et al. (2005) also explain how a literature review examines and
categorizes the most recent research based on fundamental subjects and recommends future
efforts. Thus, this study used a four-step method (Figure 1) commencing from the identification
of related articles, followed by an initial screening of articles information, then determining
their eligibility and, finally, including the most appropriate data for the systematic review. The
successive steps follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metadata
Analyses (PRISMA) method (Moher et al., 2009).

2.1 Identification of the data

To meet the research criteria, aggregator databases like Scopus (scopus.com) and publishing
databases such as Elsevier (sciencedirect.com), Taylor and Francis (tandfonline.com) and
Emerald Insight (emeraldinsight.com) were used. Initially, the research phase involved
selecting keywords like “Construction,” “Building,” “Sustainable,” “Projects” and “Strategies
CI Records identified
Identification
through databases
searching.
(n =566)

Records screened,
Screening removed duplicates.
(n = 205 papers
considered for
analysis)

Eligibility Full-text articles Full-Text articles

assessed for excluded, with
eligibility. reasons.
(n =181 from (n = 24)
databases)

Inclusion Studies included in

Figure 1. the qualitative
Overview of paper synthesis.
identification, (n = 181)
selection and
inclusion process
Source: Created by authors

Decision-Making.” These keywords were used to search within the document titles and
designated keyword fields. This initial search yielded a total of 566 articles, using four
different keyword combinations (Figure 1). For a comprehensive view, Table 1 illustrates
the specific keywords used throughout this search process.

2.2 Screening initial data

The initial search results were obtained from a wide range of sources, including conference
papers, articles, magazines and books. However, later in the process, magazines were
excluded. The analysis focused exclusively on peer-reviewed journal articles, books and
conference proceedings to ensure rigorous scrutiny of academic subjects through reliable and
influential publications (Thornhill et al., 2009). Furthermore, only publications written in

Search engines and database Keywords

Academic research databases TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Construction” OR Building” AND Sustainable”

Scopus AND Projects” AND “Strategies Decision-Making”) AND (LIMIT-TO
(PUBYEAR, 2023)
Table 1. Taylor and Francis, Infrastructure Construction Projects, Sustainable Construction,
Elsevier, sustainability, Building Projects and Strategies Decision-Making
Search engines, Emerald Insight
scholarly databases, Inderscience
phrases used and
keywords Source: Created by authors
English were considered for inclusion. After removing duplicates, a total of 181 documents Infrastructure
were selected for the purpose of the insights’ presentation. project
delivery
2.3 Determining eligibility
To ensure a comprehensive analysis across academic disciplines, this study exclusively
considered journal papers and conference proceedings recognized for their managerial impact
(Moshood et al., 2021a, 2021b; Thornhill et al., 2009). The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in
2005 stands out as a pivotal milestone in global sustainability efforts, aligning with the focus of
this study and the extensive research on sustainable integration (Rajeev et al., 2017). This
investigation primarily centered on noteworthy achievements in efficiency, global sustainability,
implementation of infrastructure projects, construction initiatives and the dissemination of
cutting-edge publications. In summary, the research followed a four-step protocol (Figure 1)
comprising data identification, initial data screening, eligibility assessment and data inclusion.
The temporal scope of this inquiry spanned from 2005 to 2023.

2.4 The inclusion of the data

This is the last step in the PRISMA process where the most appropriate articles that are
included in the qualitative synthesis are extracted. The articles found were subjected to
screening, filtration and validation to determine whether or not they should be included in
the analysis. It is important that information originating from exceptionally reliable sources
are used in the analysis so that they provide comprehensive insights and potential
directions, (Moshood et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Tseng et al., 2019). Furthermore, the
summary of the data should lend itself to subjective judgements (Fahimnia et al., 2015;
Malviya and Kant, 2015). Each phase of the evaluation is structured into distinct sections:
Processes, Findings and Discussion. This format enables the reader to delve deeper into the
evaluation process, comprehend the assessment of data and track the implications and
outcomes generated from the evaluation (Moshood et al., 2020a, 2020b).

3. Literature review
3.1 Metadata analysis and observations
In the following section, you will find a comprehensive analysis of metadata and valuable
insights derived from it. The purpose of conducting a time analysis in this study is twofold.
Firstly, it aims to analyze the temporal trend and distribution of research on sustainable
construction. Secondly, it seeks to identify the key factors influencing this trend over time. To
achieve these objectives, the researchers organized and examined 566 papers obtained from
the Scopus database, which were stored in an Excel file, in chronological order. The number
of papers related to sustainable construction over the past 20 years is presented in Figure 2.
As depicted by the trend line, the first study on sustainable construction dates back to 2005.
From that point until November 2023, there has been a consistent publication trend in this
field. The total number of papers gradually increased until 2007. Between 2010 and 2023,
there has been a steady increase, with approximately ten additional papers published each
year. However, starting from 2017, the growth rate of publications doubled each year,
reaching 94 units by the 2023. Therefore, it can be observed that the interest in sustainable
construction has remained relatively stable from 2005 to 2023, with an exponential increase
since 2005.
The author also establishes a connection between the trend in papers and significant
events. Specifically, the analysis reveals links between sustainable development, political
situations and smart/digital research. The literature suggests that the increasing number of
papers in this field has been influenced by the focus on sustainable initiatives and global
CI environmental policies, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the EU 2020 Strategy, which
emphasize sustainable growth and the reduction of CO2 emissions. These factors have
played a substantial role in shaping investments in smart cities. Consequently, the strategies
and research on sustainable construction are the result of both technological advancements
and environmental consciousness. These two factors explain the majority of papers
published on sustainable construction and the exponential increase observed after 2017.
Articles analyzed offered new insights into sustainable construction’s environmental,
economic and social aspects. However, there’s an evident disparity in research focus, with
less attention given to social and economic facets in comparison to environmental aspects in
studies related to the TBL of sustainable construction. This study sought to expand its
scope, including social, environmental and economic considerations, aligning with bulk
sustainable construction practices (Table 2).
The research in Table 2 encompasses various aspects like methodology, indicators and
findings, focusing on critical sustainable construction issues – social, environmental and
economic hotspots and metrics for measuring sustainability. It requires an extensive
examination of procedures and scopes beyond this study’s limits. While sustainable
construction has seen substantial research, a significant body of literature underscores
various factors, predominantly focusing on the economic, social and environmental aspects,
alongside additional dimensions like political, ethical, cultural and managerial factors.
Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos (2023) rank sustainable project management indicators. Gu et al.
(2023) apply the TBL and emphasize financial pressure as a hurdle. Ogunmakinde et al.
(2023) identify barriers, including poor training, execution of ethics and awareness. Maqbool
and Amaechi (2022) highlight sustainable construction designs as drivers and price-focused
approaches as impediments. Gehlot and Shrivastava (2022) advocate simplified strategies
for stakeholders. Stanitsas et al. (2021) identify 82 sustainability indicators. Karji et al. (2020)
pinpoint key challenges, including pre-construction, managerial, legislative and financial
constraints.
However, as highlighted by Büyüközkan and Karabulut (2018) and supported by
Al Harazi et al. (2023), Gehlot and Shrivastava (2022), Karji et al. (2020) and Opoku et al.
(2019), the significance attributed to certain elements in defining sustainable construction
reflects specific project priorities. Table 2 provides a summary of the emphasis given by
different authors to various aspects of sustainable construction. Sustainable construction
research has been more abundant in developed and developing nations. Limited use of the
TBL technique in sustainable construction research is noted, and this study seeks to assess

Publicaons By Year
94
100
75 71
80
Number of Papers

54
60 46
38
40 31
20 19 21 20
13 14 15
20 7 5 8 6 9

0
Figure 2.
Publications on –20
sustainable Years
construction by year
Source: Created by authors
References Types Method Findings Indicators

Stanitsas and Quantitative Life cycle assessment The implementation of the relative Climate impacts, recycling, environmental
Kirytopoulos survey importance index approach revealed effects, carbon emissions and waste
(2023) that environmental indicators held the management
highest significance in the analysis
Gu et al. (2023) Systematic Triple bottom line The findings reveal that the High costs, technical impact and society
literature review construction industry is primarily
motivated by financial interests. Initial
green construction incurs additional
costs, making financial pressure a
significant obstacle to implementing
sustainable construction
Ogunmakinde Systematic reviews Life cycle assessment The meta-analysis pinpointed several Society, product responsibility and health
et al. (2023) and meta-analysis primary barriers, including insufficient and safety
training and education among
construction professionals, deficient
implementation of sustainability ethics,
negative public attitudes toward
sustainability, limited awareness and
understanding, absence of precise data
and integrated studies and misaligned
priorities regarding sustainability
Al Harazi et al. Literature review Triple bottom line This study’s findings were reviewed GHG emissions, health and safety, high
(2023) and grey Delphi with the involved experts, leading to costs, technical impact, energy recovery
unanimous agreement. It was and waste management
emphasized that proactive engagement
from both construction project
participants and public authorities is
key to enhancing the competitiveness of
sustainable construction
(continued)

construction
sustainable
challenges and
dimensions,
Sustainability
Table 2.
delivery
project
Infrastructure

indicators for
 CI

Table 2.
References Types Method Findings Indicators

Maqbool and RII analysis Triple bottom line The RII analysis unveiled that Waste management, responsibility to the
Amaechi (2022) sustainable construction designs community, high costs and accessibility
significantly drive sustainable
construction practices. Conversely, an
excessive emphasis on pricing emerged
as the primary impediment to
sustainable construction practices
Gehlot and Questionnaire Life cycle assessment The findings emphasized the need to Saving fossil energy and reducing GHG
Shrivastava survey communicate simplified strategies and emissions, human rights, societal
(2022) encourage participative efforts among commitment and customers issues
all stakeholders involved in specific
projects and among industry
practitioners. This approach aims to
augment the development of sustainable
environments within the building
construction industry
Lima et al. (2021) Quantitative Life cycle assessment This research outlines the End-of-life assessment, global warming
developmental progression of studies, potential and waste management
key subject areas, primary certifications
and methodologies applied in
environmental assessments, alongside
the allocation of on-site work stages as
detailed in the articles
Stanitsas et al. Systematic Triple bottom line A total of 82 sustainability indicators End-of-life, GHG emissions, human rights,
(2021) literature review associated with project management societal commitment, customers issues and
practices in construction projects were high costs
identified. These indicators were then
categorized into economic,
environmental, and social/management
sustainability dimensions
(continued)
References Types Method Findings Indicators

Karji et al. (2020) Comprehensive Life cycle assessment The findings indicate that the industry Waste management, initial costs,
literature review encounters four major influential technological difficulties and lack of
challenges in promoting sustainable awareness, financial and planning and
construction: pre-construction legislative constraints
constraints, managerial constraints,
legislative constraints and financial and
planning constraints
Martek et al. Literature review Life cycle assessment This study confirmed various technical Energy consumption and carbon emissions
(2019) shortcomings obstructing sustainability
transition. Yet, a fundamental barrier
lies in a dysfunctional sustainability
ecosystem where segmented interest
groups exploit ineffective transition
regimes in Australia for their own
advantage
Oke et al. (2019) Meta-analysis Life cycle assessment Key catalysts for embracing sustainable Eco-system integrity, legislation, building
construction practices encompass legal regulations and awareness
mandates, building codes, heightened
advocacy, the establishment of
regulatory mechanisms and the demand
from clients
Opoku et al. Literature review Life cycle assessment Study findings reveal primary factors Carbon emissions, waste management,
(2019) such as perceived initial costs, initial costs, technological difficulties and
inadequate understanding of lack of awareness
Environmental Sustainability (ES),
technological challenges, external
influences in adopting ES practices and
environmental conditions in developing
nations as critical barriers
(continued)

Table 2.
delivery
project
Infrastructure
 CI

Table 2.
References Types Method Findings Indicators

Durdyev et al. Questionnaire Life cycle assessment The findings indicate poor industry- End-of-life, GHG emissions, human rights,
(2018) survey wide adoption of Sustainable societal commitment, lack of government
Construction (SC) practices, primarily incentives, lack of professional capabilities
attributed to limited awareness and and high costs
knowledge, along with hesitance in
embracing new sustainable technologies
Büyüközkan and Systematic Life cycle assessment The results suggest that sustainability Energy consumption and carbon emissions
Karabulut (2018) literature review performance evaluation models should
be more balanced, with clearly defined
criteria and interrelations, considering
the subjectivity of qualitative
sustainability indicators
Afzal et al. (2017) Systematic Triple bottom line The findings indicate that financial High costs, waste management, society,
literature review performance remains the primary focus product responsibility, health and safety
for most organizations. European
contractors are regarded as excelling in
sustainability reporting, while
Australasian contractors are perceived
as the weakest in disclosing their
sustainability efforts
Aarseth et al. Systematic Life cycle assessment This study unveiled two different Energy consumption, waste generation and
(2017) literature review outlooks on managing sustainability organization responsibility
challenges in projects: one perspective
focuses on the project organization,
while the other delves into the host
organization, which has an influence on
and is impacted by the project
(continued)
References Types Method Findings Indicators

Oke et al. (2017) Systematic Triple bottom line When examining the hindrances to Waste management, society, product
literature review sustainable construction, the traditional responsibility, health and safety and high
aspects of physical, economic and socio- costs
cultural components have been found
inadequate, leading to the inclusion of
new elements such as professional,
technical (technological) and political
(legislative) factors, particularly in
developing economies
Chang et al. Content analysis Triple bottom line The findings indicate variations in Climate change, GHG emissions, financial
(2016) strategic sustainability behaviors performance, empowerment, responsibility
among the firms studied. Notably, there to the community
is a weaker focus on environmental
sustainability compared to economic
and social sustainability practices
AlSanad (2015) Literature review Life cycle assessment Key findings highlight low Environmental performances, cost efficient,
implementation of Sustainable cost, technical impact, lack of awareness
Construction (SC) in Kuwait’s and government incentives
construction sector. There is a need for
increased strategies to encourage and
enhance its efficient application in
future projects. Lack of awareness
emerged as the primary barrier to
implementing SC approaches in Kuwait
Ametepey et al. Systematic Multidimensional The primary barriers to implementing Global warming potential, financial impact,
(2015) literature review perspective sustainable construction in Ghana eco-efficiency, participation, accessibility,
include resistance to cultural change, health and safety and lack of professional
insufficient government commitment,
concerns about increased investment
costs, lack of professional knowledge
and inadequate legislation
(continued)

Table 2.
Infrastructure

delivery
project
 CI

Table 2.
References Types Method Findings Indicators

Gan et al. (2015) Literature review Multidimensional This study demonstrates that economic End-of-life, materials and services,
perspective feasibility, awareness and legislation/ transformation, sale, costs, consumption,
regulation are the most significant health and safety, regulation and
factors hindering owners from adopting awareness
sustainable construction practices
Alex Opoku Systematic Fuzzy analytical The findings indicated that while Environmental management, pollution,
et al. (2015) literature review hierarchy there’s no universally perfect leadership dangerousness, reliability, responsiveness,
style, leaders overseeing sustainable flexibility, financial performance, human
construction generally exhibit a rights, societal commitment and customers
strategic approach issues

Source: Created by authors

long-term sustainability, incorporating insights from the studies mentioned. It emphasizes Infrastructure
the importance of establishing sustainability aspects, assessment procedures and project
performance indicators. Furthermore, it addresses critical factors affecting long-term
sustainability, innovation and strategic decision-making in the construction industry. This
delivery
research can benefit operations managers, government agencies and organizations.

3.2 Overview of infrastructure pipeline projects in New Zealand

The construction industry in New Zealand has experienced tremendous growth over the past
two decades. The industry remains robust, with a substantial infrastructure pipeline and
ongoing projects (Construction in New Zealand H1, 2021). Information on the construction
pipeline is produced by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment with
collaborative efforts between the Building Research Association of New Zealand BRANZ and
a private consultancy, Pacifecon (NZ) Ltd. The primary objective of this is to enhance
awareness of the anticipated pipeline of infrastructures and construction work. It aims to
support effective planning among all stakeholders in the sector, facilitate strategic allocation
of resources in terms of skills and capital to meet future demands and foster improved
coordination of construction procurement, particularly between central and local government
entities. Over an extended period, the New Zealand Government has placed significant
emphasis on infrastructure development, residential construction activity and non-residential
construction projects. However, recent high-profile failures within the construction industry
have brought heightened scrutiny to the industry’s performance and behavior, highlighting
the need for closer examination (Construction Sector Accord, 2019). Furthermore, the boom-
and-bust cycles within industry have led to negative consequences for productivity,
innovation, employment, skill levels and quality. Improvements in the areas mentioned
might assist in mitigating the severity of these cycles (National Construction Pipeline Report,
2022).
Consequently, the New Zealand Government focuses on providing a sustainable construction
sector centered on high performance, high productivity, enhanced innovation and improving
community well-being through a better-built environment. A sustainable construction sector
ensures suitable construction sector capability, enhances the sector’s resilience and restores New
Zealander’s confidence in the industry. A sustainable construction sector helps deliver safe,
healthy, durable, affordable buildings and infrastructure. It is crucial to comprehend and explore
the principles of sustainability in infrastructure project delivery, along with implementing
strategies for informed decision-making, to foster the sustainability of the construction industry.

3.3 Overview of construction innovation

Construction is “the broad process or approach for developing human settlements and
constructing infrastructure that supports expansion” (Yeheyis et al., 2013). This includes
activities such as collecting and processing raw materials, manufacturing construction
supplies and parts, the life cycle of a construction project from feasibility to deconstruction
and the administration and maintenance of the built environment (Shafique and Rafiq, 2019).
Every individual involved in the construction industry plays a pivotal role in shaping the
built environment, contributing across various stages – from planning and development to
production, design, construction, modification and ongoing maintenance. Rahmani et al.
(2017) highlight the diversity of stakeholders within this sector, encompassing customers,
contractors, suppliers, facility end users, consultants and manufacturers of construction-
related goods and materials. Customers, constituting a significant portion, drive the industry
forward.
CI As emphasized by Bokor et al. (2019), the construction industry stands as a fundamental
pillar driving national economic growth. It shoulders the responsibility of erecting physical
structures and essential infrastructure, crucial for facilitating economic and social activities,
including service provision and business operations. Rodríguez-Robles et al. (2015) underscore
how this sector contributes significantly to expanding the workforce and accumulating wealth
within national economies, fostering opportunities for both local and international investments.
Despite its pivotal role, the construction industry has long grappled with various
challenges outlined by Sadeghi et al. (2022) ranging from inadequate productivity, delayed
payments, narrow profit margins, regulatory compliance issues, trust deficits, to insufficient
communication among stakeholders. These persistent challenges have hindered the sector’s
ability to effectively implement sustainability principles, embrace digital transformation
and harness the benefits of advancing technologies. Addressing these challenges is crucial
for the construction industry to evolve, innovate and align itself with sustainable practices
and technological advancements necessary for its growth and enhanced contribution to
societal and economic development. McNamara and Sepasgozar (2021) suggests the concept
of construction 4.0 is to enable the construction industry to increase its performance at a rate
that is comparable to that of other industries.
Sustainability is now a critical need and a technological challenge in the digital era. The
development of intelligent technologies is essential if one wants to ensure that future
industrial systems will be sustainable (Sadeghi et al., 2022). Leng et al. (2020) report that a
significant volume of research has been carried out on the topic of internet of things-enabled
sustainable production in industry 4.0 from the technological, commercial, organizational
and operational points of view. According to Müller et al. (2018), adopting construction 4.0
technologies has the potential to significantly boost both competitiveness and innovation
while ensuring the continued viability of the existing industrial infrastructure over the long
term. In the not-too-distant future, industry 4.0 will play a big role in developing more
environmentally friendly industrial value (Stock and Seliger, 2016).
At the outset, the primary goal of environmentally responsible production is to ensure
economic viability. According to Maqbool and Amaechi (2022), favorable construction to the
environment is important for the long-term evolution of global civilization and crucial.
According to Ghobakhloo (2018), the basic trend of the aforementioned sustainable building
concepts is the populated interconnectedness of socialized manufacturing resources and
open-architecture goods. Digitalization and environmental friendliness are two themes that
should be considered throughout the entire production process (Sadeghi et al., 2022). The
fourth industrial revolution is anticipated to benefit productivity, flexibility and resource
efficiency (e.g. the use of big data for predictive maintenance). According to Waibel et al.
(2017), some of these future technologies include closed-loop construction systems that
integrate equipment, information systems and products, as well as stakeholder participation
and cooperation. However, the construction industry has not taken into account the concept
of sustainability in relation to the economy, society and the natural environment (Maqbool
et al., 2023).

3.4 Sustainability as a global demand

Numerous global events aiming at raising environmental and socio-economic sustainability
awareness have occurred since the Bruntland commission introduced the idea of sustainable
development in 1987 (Abidin, 2009). The contemporary concept of sustainable development
accepts the difficulties and opportunities presented by a more globalized societies (Jones
et al., 2010; Moshood et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2022c). Reports from significant UN conferences
highlight the current emphasis placed on sustainable development globally. Khalil (2018)
notes that by the close of the 20th century, sustainable development was adopted as the Infrastructure
leading paradigm for global progress. This paradigm, as described by Bell and Morse project
(2013), emphasizes an operational focus requiring deliberate action orientations. Even today,
sustainable development retains strong support from numerous organizations aiming to
delivery
expand global resources responsibly.
Waas et al. (2014) emphasize that sustainable development, acknowledged as essential, is
imperative for safeguarding the interests of current and future generations amid
interconnected environmental and socio-economic challenges. Opoku et al. (2019) remark on
the escalating desire to reverse unsustainable practices, acknowledged across governments,
organizations, businesses and society at large, acknowledging the necessity for greater
consideration within the framework of sustainability. There is a global consensus as noted
by Khalil (2018) that sustainable development is a primary policy objective for international
organizations such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Businesses
worldwide are reevaluating their operations to minimize environmental impact and align
economic goals with social consciousness, as nations increasingly integrate sustainability
into their developmental agendas.
Customers’ increasing preference for sustainable products is shaping future markets, as
mentioned by Opoku et al. (2019), influencing numerous stakeholders and prompting
nations to prioritize sustainability in their growth plans. Khalil (2018) highlights the efforts
of many third-world nations crafting their models of sustainable consumption and lifestyle.
Additionally, Afzal et al. (2017) note the growing recognition among governments and
multilateral organizations that separating environmental challenges from economic
progress is impractical. Various modes of development, as mentioned, tend to deplete
natural resources, posing threats to economic growth, thus underlining the urgent need for
sustainable practices across all developmental aspects. Environmental issues worldwide are
seen to have poverty as one of their key causes. Hence, addressing environmental issues
without acknowledging the root causes of global poverty may prove ineffective (Belfitt et al.,
2011). The construction industry emphasizes sustainability, pressuring firms to enhance
performance (Opoku et al., 2019).

3.5 Elements of sustainability

Even Hamilton et al. (2006) have suggested that if it is to have any coherency as a notion, it
must somehow be susceptible to measurement because of the complexity and lack of
agreement in its definitions. Along with the many varied viewpoints on the event, several
actors are involved, each with their own interpretations (Carew and Mitchell, 2003).
Although sustainable development is generally considered a new development model that
first gained popularity in the late 20th century, it has a far longer history (Waas et al., 2014).
There are as many points of view on the idea as academics are studying it. Munier (2005)
asserts that the notion is a challenging, intricate and elusive problem. His claim is confirmed
by Phillis and Andriantiatsaholiniaina (2001), who label sustainable development as an idea
that is fundamentally ill-defined, unclear and polymorphous and whose precise scope and
meaning are still not widely acknowledged. Any strategy for sustainability must be
adaptable enough to work in a particular situation (Ma, 2017). In fact, Placet et al. (2005) and
Brand and Karvonen (2007) strongly backed the call for the local specificity of sustainable
developments, arguing that rather than trying to apply a “one size fits all” approach,
sustainability strategies need to be tailored to resonate with local interpretations. However,
local programs should be assessed using generally acknowledged sustainability principles.
Despite the various difficulties around how sustainability is understood, a few fundamental
components or guidelines may be noted (Moshood et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2022c).
CI Three essential components of corporate sustainability have been identified by Dyllick and
Hockerts (2002) and Keeys (2012): embracing long- and short-term perspectives, consuming the
organization’s income but not its capital, and integrating social and environmental perspectives
alongside economic imperatives. Numerous explanations have been offered for why the phrase
appears to have an uncertain meaning. Waas et al. (2014) state that the normative nature of
sustainability, the variety of disciplines and professional orientations of scholars researching the
topic, the competition over the concept’s meaning and the means by which it can be realized in
practice, the recognition of the concept’s significance for the social future and its prominence in
many discourses all play a role (Moshood et al., 2021a, 2021b). However, most of the ideas put out
include the notion of three interdependent pillars: environmental, economic and social
sustainability. The term “triple bottom line” is often used to describe this idea, which has
received widespread acceptance among academics from many fields and backgrounds (Lima
et al., 2021). The intersection of the three circles represents the goal of sustainable development,
which is to maximize the advantages across all three systems. Figure 3 depicts the sustainable
innovation components.
Sustainability can serve as a driving force for innovation and business advancements,
while innovative ideas, in turn, contribute to sustainability by providing fresh approaches to
address economic, social and environmental concerns (Liu and Stephens, 2019). This
mutually beneficial relationship between sustainability and innovation, depicted in Figure 3,
creates a dynamic feedback loop. Key participants and facilitators within this interaction
include industries (such as corporations, vendors and competitors), universities, research and
development institutions, government bodies, users and non-governmental organizations.
Through their collaborative efforts, a sustainable innovation ecosystem emerges,
characterized by the long-term development of products, services, processes, business models
and networks. This ecosystem nurtures continuous improvements and transformative
solutions that integrate sustainability principles, leading to positive environmental, social
and economic outcomes. By embracing sustainable practices and fostering innovation,
organizations can unlock new opportunities, enhance their competitive edge and contribute
to a more sustainable future (Shen et al., 2023).

Sustainability

SOCIAL
Workers Wellbeing,
Community & User Benefit’s.
-Promote Human Development
-User Comfort & Satisfaction Outcome (Sustainable
Key Players/Enablers -Safety Issues Innovation)
-Companies -Accessibility. -Product
-Universities -Service
-R&D Institutes ECONOMIC -Process
-Government Micro & Macro Benefits. ENVIRONMENTAL -Lean Business Model
-Suppliers -Cost Efficiency Built Environment & Natural Canvas
-Competitors -Image & Business Resources. -Business Network.
-Industrial Associations Enhancement -Energy Conservation
-Risk Assessment -Pollution Control
-NGOs
-Legislation Compliance. -Waste Minimization.
-Water Quality
-Material Selection

Figure 3.
The elements of Strategic Decision-Making
sustainable
innovation
Source: Created by authors
According to Fischer et al. (2020), three pillars highlight the multifaceted nature of Infrastructure
sustainable development. In addition, Du Plessis (2007) argued that any sustainable project
development plan that results in the creation of jobs at the expense of the environment or
any renewable energy project that does not take into consideration the effects that it will
delivery
have on the environment and society uproots thousands of people and reduces biodiversity
is counterproductive to the goals that were intended to be achieved. In a broader sense,
much like Plessis (2007) did, one might argue that sustainable development should be seen
as an integrative and all-encompassing philosophy to achieve harmony and equilibrium
between the three circular representations.

3.6 Implementing sustainability in strategic decision-making

Organizations are finding it increasingly difficult to implement sustainable practices because
of tougher government rules that force businesses do so (Bergström and Edstrand, 2021).
According to Calabrese et al. (2019), stakeholders like investors and consumers who are
becoming more aware of enterprises’ implications on the transition toward sustainability in
society might benefit businesses involved in sustainable operations. However, businesses
who attempt to engage in sustainability without having a strategic approach run the danger
of committing their time and effort to activities that do not support their business plan. This
is something that must be accomplished to attain both competitiveness and the welfare of
stakeholders and workers. According to Porter and Kramer (2006), strategies for
sustainability need to be developed to provide shared benefits for the many stakeholders.
According to Cabot et al. (2009), one way to include sustainability in decision-making is to
consider it an extra demand that the company or system must fulfill. According to Kiesnere
and Baumgartner (2020), for a company’s efforts to incorporate sustainability into its
operations to be effective, the initiative must originate from the highest levels of management
and trickle down through the organization. In that case, the effort for sustainable practices
runs the danger of not receiving the necessary support and attention. According to Shields
and Shelleman (2015), the most significant obstacle that both large and small organizations
face is that they do not have the organizational structure to include sustainability in decision-
making.

3.7 Overview of sustainable construction and strategic decision-making

There are several definitions of sustainable construction, just like its primary model,
sustainable development, but none are entirely satisfactory. Sustainable construction
generally refers to implementing sustainable development ideals within the construction
sector (Adaloudis and Roca, 2021; Hendiani and Bagherpour, 2019; Kiani Mavi et al., 2021).
This assertion receives support from Parkin et al. (2003), who define sustainable construction
as a process that integrates the key pillars of sustainable development. The construction
sector has a platform thanks to sustainable construction to help achieve sustainability
objectives while considering environmental, social and cultural concerns (Bamgbade et al.,
2022). Zuofa and Ochieng (2016) said that environmentally friendly construction operation
and maintenance practices are more significant than environmentally conscious construction
designs. The authors emphasized that the sources of these resources must also be sustainable
in addition to the sustainable manufacturing of those products.
Du Plessis (2007) provides a concept of sustainable construction that goes beyond
minimizing harmful environmental effects, which appears to be the case for other definitions
supplied. The topic of sustainable construction has recently gained attention (Mosurovi
c
Ružici
c et al., 2021). The challenge of defining “construction” and “sustainable” succinctly is
exacerbated by the fact that both words have a variety of meanings. Although the phrase
CI “sustainable construction” lacks a clear definition, it has gained considerable attention in the
literature (Berardi, 2013), even going so far as to be thought of as the sector’s equivalent of
“sustainable development” (Cristina and Diana, 2014). Identifying sustainability principles
for the construction sector is essential for modern management’s emphasis on sustainable
growth (Moshood et al., 2021a, 2021b).
Hill and Bowen (1997) established a framework that is based on the concepts of
sustainability. The primary objective of this framework is to design buildings in compliance
with environmental standards and resource efficiency. This method was critiqued by Ofori
and Hinson (2007), who pointed out that it ignores the challenges faced by rising nations. It
was also challenged by Conte and Monno (2012) and Berardi (2013) for placing an excessive
amount of emphasis on environmental factors while disregarding other significant ones.
Despite this, it should not come as a surprise that issues concerning the reduction of waste,
the management of pollution and the efficient use of energy, water and other natural
resources are now essential components of any framework for sustainable construction
(Akadiri et al., 2013). According to the conception that was presented by Plessis (2007),
sustainable architecture entails creating harmony between the natural and artificial worlds.
A structure of this kind should support human dignity rather than only serve the purposes
of economic enterprise. Berard (2013) emphasizes the constraints and unpredictability
brought on by the time, size, domain and societal restraints that face sustainable
construction diminish the significance of such laudable aspirations, even though they are
good in and of themselves. It is necessary to strike a balance between the conflicting
demands of society and environmental concerns and the economic imperatives of
maximizing profits (Silvius and Schipper, 2015). Despite the fact that this equilibrium is
typically referred to as the “triple bottom line of sustainability,” other models have been
built to demonstrate how the three parts of the bottom line interact with one another
(Carvajal-Arango et al., 2019).
Mitchell (2013) and Dania et al. (2014) represented the three subsystems as three
concentric rings, with the environmental subsystem being the broadest circle, including the
social subsystem and the economic subsystem being at the center of the three circles. In
contrast, Silvius and Schipper (2015) used a Venn diagram to illustrate the interrelationships
between the three subsystems. The overlapping center part of the figure represents the
concurrent sustainability of social, economic and environmental systems. Every one of these
diagrams is an attempt to show, in some fashion, how the three facets of sustainability –
environmental, economic and social – are intertwined with one another (Carew and Mitchell,
2008). Even though these examples try to show how the three different subsystems interact
with one another to foster sustainability, the problem of the lack of a widely acknowledged
definition continues to exist (Baumgartner and Ebner, 2010; A. Oke et al., 2019). On the other
hand, attempts have been made to construct techniques for assessing environmentally
friendly buildings (Vidakovi
c et al., 2020).
These evaluation programs have developed into frameworks for environmentally
responsible construction practices (Berardi, 2013). Construction companies are under pressure to
adopt proactively sustainable practices because of the acceptance of these frameworks,
notwithstanding the lack of definitional clarity about the term “sustainable practices” (Stanitsas
et al., 2021). As a result, it should not be surprising that these evaluation systems have
limitations and tend to prioritize environmental issues above other considerations (Silvius and
Schipper, 2016). As sustainability entails a long-term evaluation, multi-scale effect and multi-
domain criteria, a new paradigm of sustainable construction is currently being developed. This
new paradigm represents an important advance beyond the straightforward environmental
approach, and it is currently being designed. Moreover, technologies that are part of the
Construction 4.0 movement have the potential to usher in an age of intelligent construction. The Infrastructure
sector is now able to follow, monitor and respond to circumstances in the same way that people project
do, as well as learn from each other’s experiences thanks to advancements in machine learning
and artificial intelligence (Balasubramanian et al., 2021). In addition, by merging several
delivery
technologies from Construction 4.0, it is possible to produce an intelligent environment. A smart
construction site integrates many different technologies, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, the
internet of things and automated machinery that can operate with minimal or no assistance from
humans and respond to changes in the surrounding environment. For example, a robot working
at a building site must be able to halt work when it realizes that the weather is likely to take a
turn for the worse (Oztemel and Gursev, 2020). Through the use of machine learning, systems
are able to adapt to appear as though they are learning. The most advanced simulation
approaches use data collected in real-time to mimic the execution of the remaining tasks in
accordance with the present state of the working environment (You and Feng, 2020). Similarly,
the discrete event simulation approach might be used to test the project’s feasibility, progress,
possible conflicts, productivity dynamics and resource consumption. On the other hand, agent-
based simulations could be used to assess various adjustments to construction planning (You
and Feng, 2020). Cybersecurity is essential in the fight against cyberattacks and systemic
breaches, such as data theft from building projects that use the digital infrastructure and
intelligent environments (Mantha et al., 2021). According to Pearce (2006), there is a requirement
for a definition of sustainable construction that is more all-encompassing. Figure 4 depicts the
sustainability practice for the construction industry.

Internal
Organizational
Determinants
Performance
-BIM
Effective - Eco-Design.
Communication - Blockchain.
-3D Printing.
- Smart Contract.
Top Management - Digital Twins.
- Eco-Innovation. Economic
-Pre-Fabrication. Performance
- Green Purchasing.
Workforce - Green Certification.
- Cleaner Production.
-Machining Leaning Environmental
- Technology Transfer. Performance
- Investment Recovery.
External - Green Logistic Management.
Determinants - Green Information Disclosure.
- Socially Responsible Investment.
Government - Communication on Sustainability. Social
Agency - Green Supply Chain Management. Performance
- Strategic Environmental Assessment.

Customers
Attitude

Intelligent
Other Environment
Stakeholders
Integration and
Digitalization
Collaboration
Figure 4.
Construction The sustainability
4.0
practice for
construction industry
Source: Created by authors
CI The purpose of the framework is to investigate the influence that strategic decision-making
has on construction 4.0 and sustainability. Although it is generally accepted that
Construction 4.0 will contribute to larger sustainable development goals, it is possible that
the technology may provide a solution to some of the problems now confronting the
industry (Balasubramanian et al., 2021). As a result, continuous attempts are being made to
produce a more comprehensive formulation that strikes a balance between the three
fundamentals subsystems and construction 4.0.
3.7.1 Social practices. According to Parkin et al. (2003), understanding the social aspect of
sustainable construction might be more challenging for some people. The social
sustainability component of sustainable construction methods includes conducting business
that upholds the industry’s ethical, legal and moral commitments to its many stakeholders,
including its suppliers, workers and the neighborhood in which it works. It seeks to improve
people’s quality of life (Kinnunen et al., 2022). Social sustainability considers human
contributions, such as skills, health, knowledge and motivation, and human sentiments,
such as security, contentment, safety and comfort (Abidin, 2010). To maintain social
sustainability, construction projects and settlement designs must consider cultural
continuity, social inclusion and other quality-of-life concerns. Social sustainability practices
are included in this subsection. To fulfill the social “pillar” of sustainable construction,
practitioners must:
3.7.1.1 Apply indoor quality environment. As it is believed that people spend most of
their time inside, indoor quality environments are considered a crucial component of the
built environment (Wei et al., 2015). Overexposure to often harmful interior surroundings
and frequent indoor pollution sources, including combustion gases from oil, gas, wood and
cleaning agents, make spending too much time inside risky (Xiong et al., 2015). In addition,
temperature, humidity and the amount of toxin absorption in the air all have an impact on
how good indoor living is. In addition to the possibility of lung cancer from breathing
hazardous air, sick-building syndrome, a condition related to indoor air quality, has been
identified (Jomehzadeh et al., 2017). On the other hand, carefully using potentially hazardous
or harmful substances might improve the air quality (Kibert, 2016). This means using
solvent-based coatings, adhesives, carpets and other materials as little as possible because
all of these things can contribute to “sick building syndrome.” This also applies to the use of
pesticides and other persistent toxic chemicals in the prevention of soil and water pollution,
as well as the use of hazardous wastes such as metal polish, paint thinners, ammonia-based
cleaners and chlorine bleach, all of which should not be disposed of down the drain or sink
(Durdyev et al., 2018).
3.7.1.2 Site selection and planning. Site selection may be governed by sustainability in
construction by adhering to local laws and avoiding locations near loud areas. Additionally,
all possible precautions must be taken to prevent harming scenic, architectural or culturally
significant locations (Moshood et al., 2020a, 2020b). Other measures include reducing energy
use and pollution (Brotchie et al., 2017). To choose and implement the optimum land use
choices, a good site assessment comprises analyzing its land and water potential,
possibilities for land use and economic and social factors. Its goal is to choose and
implement land uses that will best fulfill people’s needs while protecting resources for the
future (Yao, 2016). A moral dilemma arises when designing sustainable places because of
commitments to future generations. Future issues might result from the loss and depletion
of natural resources combined with the anticipated population growth (Schaltegger et al.,
2017).
In the same way, manufactured things may be kept, replaced, destroyed and recycled,
land cannot simply be destroyed and recreated. It is a sophisticated biological system that
has evolved over a lengthy period of time (Bergstrom, 2022). Because of natural or man- Infrastructure
made factors, the land may no longer be suitable for development or other uses. Reclamation project
methods must be adapted to the particular demand to restore their capability for useful use
while safeguarding the environment.
delivery
3.7.2 Economic practices. A project’s financial advantages and profitability to investors
and other stakeholders, and eventually to society through successful project completion, are
concerned with economic sustainability (Abidin, 2010). Additionally, it discusses economic
opportunities, including employment growth, increased competitiveness and low operating
and maintenance expenses. The techniques of economic sustainability are listed in this
subsection. The “pillar” of sustainable construction practices that address the economy calls
on practitioners to:
3.7.2.1 Reuse building resources. Reusing construction resources extends the life of
current buildings and eliminates the need to choose new disposal locations while minimizing
trash. Additionally, it lessens the requirement for raw resources, advancing the second
discipline of reducing resource usage (Khalil, 2018). Waste might also be used as a substitute
for raw materials to make goods that use less energy and are more profitable. Additionally,
it would decrease the consumption of new materials and reduce the strain on landfills
(Amponsah et al., 2015). Buildings can be reused with some adjustments if they are intended
to be flexible for many applications rather than being constructed from scratch (Varma et al.,
2014). When destruction is unavoidable, every bit of valuable material may be saved for
future projects (Olawumi and Chan, 2018). The goal should be to recycle everything that
cannot be used directly and reuse as much of the structure as possible on another project.
3.7.2.2 Reduce building resource consumption. This strategy, which pertains to all four
general resource inputs – energy, water, materials and land – addresses the root cause of a
great deal of environmental degradation and overconsumption of resources (Schaltegger
et al., 2016). Strong attention should be paid to energy, water, material and land conservation
at every project life cycle step (Kibert, 2016). Reduced embodied and operational energy is
required (Kim, 2014). The total energy consumed throughout all production stages,
spanning from raw material extraction to final product delivery, is termed as the embodied
energy of building materials and products. As outlined by Leiserowitz et al. (2006), this
process involves the use of energy sources and water. Moreover, De Santoli et al. (2017)
affirm that the energy efficiency of sustainable buildings can be impacted by multiple
factors, such as insulation, technical system features, building location and orientation
relative to climate and exposure, use of renewable energy sources and the overall indoor
environmental quality.
3.7.3 Environmental practices. The environmental sustainability aspect of sustainable
building encompasses both the built and natural environments, considering the construction
industry’s impact on ecosystems (Abidin, 2010; Parkin et al., 2003). The “constructed
environment” refers to activities within the physical realm of a building project, while the
“natural environment” encompasses the biosphere (Abidin, 2010). Environmentally
sustainable approaches aim to mitigate permanent damage to these environments through
various measures, including resource extraction and utilization, waste reduction and
management and optimizing energy and water consumption. Implementing these practices
reduces ecological footprints, safeguarding ecosystems for future generations (Mellado and
Lou, 2020; Olawumi and Chan, 2019).
Baloi and Price (2003) elaborate that environmental considerations span various building
stages: design, construction, operation, maintenance and deconstruction. The primary goal
across these stages is to minimize adverse effects on the surrounding environment. This
section offers a comprehensive overview of ecologically friendly strategies applicable in
CI these domains. The following responsibilities of professionals are included in the “pillar” of
the sustainable construction environment.
3.7.3.1 Minimize pollution and negative environmental impacts. Numerous studies
confirmed that efforts to minimize the negative environmental consequences of construction
g operations had been made to reduce waste creation and improve procedures (Zhang, 2015).
Considerable research has focused on environmental concerns within the construction
sector, specifically addressing the industry’s rapid expansion and its impact on natural
surroundings (Tan et al., 2011). Initiating measures to mitigate air, land and water pollution
at any phase of a project’s life cycle can have significant impacts at regional or global scales.
Addressing pollutants and hazardous emissions globally holds potential to halt the
progression of ozone layer depletion and mitigate the acceleration of global warming
(Martek et al., 2019). In terms of the local scope, conservation measures can reduce
construction-related noise, dust, odor, vibrations and sanitary waste. These factors create an
unpleasant environment (Olawumi et al., 2018). Finally, the construction industry needs to
consider animals, birds and other species to prevent habitat destruction and potential
extinction because of human activities.
3.7.3.2 Use recyclable building resources. Recycled construction material may be
“remade and reused as a construction material once the structure is deconstructed,”
according to Gao et al. (2005). Waste may be decreased with fewer negative effects on
landfills and the use of new raw materials by increasing the number of recycled resources
(Johnson, 2000). While it is impossible to use non-renewable resources responsibly, their
“life” can be increased dramatically by using renewable alternatives wherever possible
(Amanullah et al., 2016).

3.8 Benefits of sustainable construction practices

To raise developers’ knowledge of the significance of sustainability, several research projects
have focused on the topic of sustainable construction (Abidin, 2010). A rising number of
people are worried about sustainable development and green construction techniques
(Singhaputtangkul et al., 2014). As a result, the researcher divides the advantages of using
sustainable construction processes into three categories based on sustainability: economic,
social and environmental. The three primary benefits of using sustainable construction
techniques are highlighted in the following sections.
3.8.1 Social benefits. According to Riffat et al. (2016), eco-friendly practices lead to elegant
structures that improve both the experiences of people and the community. Therefore, the
community may benefit from sustainable construction through better quality of well-being.
Health, comfort and productivity have been cited as three unique benefits of sustainable
construction approaches for both individuals and the community. These three problems are
typically related yet entail different ideas and methods (Zhang, 2015). In addition to considering
the simplicity of use, elegance and ambience, architects and designers have considered health,
comfort and productivity issues. Environmental specialists with a physiological focus and
social psychologists looking at well-being and mental health connected to the environment
have been particularly interested in this (Chegut et al., 2014).
3.8.1.1 Enhance building occupant health and safety. It is commonly accepted that the
health benefits of sustainable construction are mostly connected to the quality of the
environment inside the building, notably the quality of the air inside the building. It is
common knowledge that environmental factors can negatively impact health when they
interact with the physiological systems of the body, particularly the respiratory, cutaneous,
neurological and visual pathways. Smoking is an example of an interaction that can have
this kind of effect (Kucukvar and Tatari, 2013). In addition, Amasyali and El-Gohary (2016)
recognize that sickness symptoms manifest themselves when external elements (such as Infrastructure
chemicals or airborne germs) interfere with the physical systems of the bodies of susceptible project
individuals. Numerous studies have shown that office buildings have significant problems
with the air quality and with their tenants’ health.
delivery
3.8.1.2 Improve satisfaction of occupants. According to Shove and Walker (2007), one of
the primary objectives of sustainable construction techniques is to provide thermal comfort
for building occupants, significantly impacting the whole construction sector. Providing
thermal comfort is one of the main goals of sustainable construction techniques. In addition,
Cole and Sterner (2000) argue that construction users can achieve their desired level of
comfort by adopting environmentally friendly construction practices. He said the structure
should be built to create a thermal environment within the conventional range for the
particular kind of accommodation, considering the temperature, the season and the cultural
context (Pero et al., 2017). This is because people adapt more quickly to thermal settings
similar to those they are already familiar with. In reality, the psychological effects of
comfort, contentment and well-being are created by perceptual and sensory processes that
interpret information received from the environment regarding how it will affect the needs,
activities and preferences currently being experienced (Gardiner, 2009). Nevertheless, one of
the primaries focuses of post-occupancy assessments is on the level of ease and happiness
experienced by building tenants concerning the facility’s conditions.
3.8.2 Economic benefits. Reduced operating and utility expenses, low maintenance costs
and overall improvements in the performance and efficiency of the structure are the key
economic advantages of sustainable design. According to research, sustainable construction
practices enhance contractors’ competitiveness, demonstrating a direct and favorable
association between sustainable products and company competitiveness (Baloi, 2003). Yi
et al. (2017) further validated the sustainable financial advantages of construction, including
reduced energy and water costs and smaller mechanical equipment. According to Dobson
et al. (2013), the commercial advantages of sustainable construction include lower capital
costs, lower operating expenses, higher investment returns, improved productivity,
employee retention and recruitment, more effective resource usage, a better corporate image
and marketing spill overs.
3.8.2.1 Reduce overall building lifecycle cost. According to Miah et al. (2017), lifecycle
costing evaluates “[. . .] costs and benefits during the life of a specific product, technology,
or system.” It is interesting to note that the concept of environmentally responsible
construction typically integrates life cycle costing, sometimes known as full life costing. The
total cost of an asset during its full useful life, less any value it may have retained, considers
its planning and design and its acquisition, operation and maintenance expenses (Higham
et al., 2015). Most of the cost savings come from decreased utility bills and cost reductions in
construction operations and maintenance. Determining how much money can be saved is as
simple as taking the total direct costs associated with the building’s components and
subsystems and subtracting them from the anticipated savings in utility bills, maintenance
costs and operating costs over the building’s useful life. As the price of energy and water
continues to climb, the owner has a greater financial incentive to reduce the amount of
money spent on utilities during the life of the construction. Internally and externally,
operations have the potential to become more efficient by reducing the amount of energy
(gas and electricity) and water (including sewage) that are used.
Nevertheless, Kutnar and Hill (2017) state that sustainable construction development is
significant for building evolution (Opoku and Fortune, 2011). Given sustainability aims, one
may argue that a built asset with a low initial cost that would result in high operating and
maintenance costs for end users is not sustainable. This is because the original cost was low,
CI but the running and maintenance costs will be high. In point of fact, a life cycle cost is an
essential instrument for developing assets more consistent with sustainable construction
(Hendiani and Bagherpour, 2019).
3.8.2.2 Decreased initial costs for reused and recycled materials. Renewable resource
advantages are always much larger when life cycle costs, rather than just construction
expenditures, are considered (Khalil, 2018). Reclaiming discarded materials and avoiding
overburdening landfills can result in significant advantages and cost savings. This method
reduces the danger of water contamination, which benefits the environment. Reusing
materials do have a cost associated with it; however, it is typically less expensive than
buying new materials (Bringezu, 2017). Additionally, contractors, dealers and owners that
produce trash from buildings and demolition should anticipate decreased long-term material
and disposal expenses. Garbage producers can potentially have new revenue streams
because of the growth of new markets for their waste. On the other side, buying recycled
materials typically costs less than buying similar new things (Dobson et al., 2013).
Therefore, waste recovery is viewed as the most advantageous method for managing
sustainable construction and demolition waste from both an economic and ecological
standpoint (Rhyner et al., 2017).
3.8.2.3 Reduce building resources consumption costs. According to Dinçer et al. (2017),
balancing the rising demands on global natural resource consumption with the “carrying
capacity” of the physical bio-space has become necessary in light of the conflicting scenarios
of the rapid depletion of global natural resources and the ever-increasing world population.
The primary benefits of sustainable design are lower running and repair costs because of
reduced energy and water use (Rahman et al., 2017). Research on savings routinely evaluates
the lower energy consumption of sustainable construction compared to conventional code-
compliant structures, as energy efficiency is one of the defining aspects of using sustainable
construction practices. As a bonus, the benefits of sustainable construction practices are
either long-lasting or intangible, such as lower running expenses during the structure’s
lifetime (Khalil, 2018).
3.8.3 Environmental benefits. Halliday (2008) listed a few advantages the sector has
regarding the environment. These include reducing waste, the savings from reducing waste,
the amount of time needed to repair environmental damage, the risk of legal fees (fines), a
higher firm profile, better tender prospects, fewer problems with nearby neighbors and
lower demand for resources. The three primary environmental advantages are discussed in
the following subsections.
3.8.3.1 Reduced waste production and increased recycling. Construction generates solid
municipal waste, much of which may be recycled, according to Robertson (1997). Reducing
trash is one of the sustainable construction techniques which lessens the burden on landfills.
Additionally, using recycled materials in construction encourages the development of new
industries that produce recycled items, minimizing the garbage disposal requirements and
using virgin resources (Hoffman et al., 2014). In addition, Hoffman et al. (2014) mentioned
that the fundamental principles of sustainable design are to reduce waste as much as
possible, which includes recycling, storing and collecting it. The construction design must
be such that it makes it possible to collect and store recyclable materials.
In addition, the contractor may be able to reuse, recycle or otherwise make productive use
of wastes generated by construction, demolition and land-clearing activities during
construction, preventing these wastes from being disposed of in landfills (Yuan, 2012). In
addition, designers can use environmentally beneficial materials such as recycled materials.
It is recommended that designers follow the rules that respected organizations or other
sources have developed. Construction designers can also use modular or standard-size
materials and avoid unnecessary finishing (Adams et al., 2017). Throughout the design Infrastructure
process, architects and building designers should keep the longevity of the products they project
create to meet sustainability goals. When things do not need to be changed frequently,
demolition creates less waste and a lower need for virgin resources to be used in
delivery
replacements (Osmani and Villoria-S
aez, 2019).
3.8.3.2 Increase the production of renewable resources. According to Johnston et al.
(2017), many sustainable construction techniques positively influence eco-systems and natural
resources. Each renewable energy source has different advantages and disadvantages, and
various studies have noted the advantages of the energy technology used in construction.
International recognition has also been given to promoting creative methods for reducing
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused by the energy used in building construction and
maintenance. Because of this, the energy efficiency of sustainable construction significantly
impacts the long-term sustainability of the built environment (Ghose et al., 2017). Wiersma
(2016) assertion further backs these ideas that energy considerations and sustainable
construction techniques are closely related. As a result, sustainable energy sources like waste
energy sources have a significant impact on improving sustainability. On the other hand,
renewable energy sources like the sun, wind and waves also play a significant part in
sustainable construction (Omer, 2017). However, choose renewable resources over non-
renewable ones wherever possible. Energy and building materials can both be used to provide
this advantage (Johnston et al., 2017).
3.8.3.3 Maintain the integrity of the environment. Lower air pollution and CO2 emissions
are two environmental advantages of sustainable construction that may be pretty simply
measured. Through energy-efficient design, the use of renewable energy, and building
commissioning, emissions are decreased (Reddy, 2016). The calculations also show how
much pollution would be reduced for every energy unit saved. Lowering the fuel and energy
used in the buildings also reduces CO2 emissions (Cullen and Mansur, 2017). On the other
hand, sustainable construction practices might help businesses reduce methane emissions to
the atmosphere. The adverse consequences of the accumulation of gases in the atmosphere
may include implications on communities and human health because of weather changes.
Sustainable construction approaches can result in significant positive environmental
externalities and benefits from various stakeholders throughout the construction life cycle
(Cole and Sterner, 2000). The eco-system and biodiversity would be greatly protected by
using sustainable construction techniques and land usage (Bianchini and Hewage, 2012).
Additionally, according to Zhang (2015), considering sustainability during construction will
cut down on waste and carbon dioxide emissions during the construction, operation and
demolition stages.

3.9 Challenges of implementing sustainable construction practices

Some implementation issues for sustainable construction are covered in the following
subsections.
3.9.1 Challenges related to regulations. Regulation-related obstacles to successfully
implementing sustainable construction have well-documented impacts (Dania et al., 2014).
They are commonly acknowledged as “legislation, government commitment, sustainable
construction codes, and government policies/support” (Rydin et al., 2006). Furthermore,
Akadiri (2015) believes that limitations imposed by construction codes and governmental
laws are crucial in influencing construction professionals to adopt sustainable techniques.
Although there are many acknowledged regulatory challenges, according to several
researchers, including Du Plessis (2007), the difficulty in enforcing and implementing
regulations necessitates radical improvement in the capacity of governmental institutions to
CI actively participate in creating and implementing laws and policies that support sustainable
construction. Furthermore, Rohracher (2001) argues that construction authorities and other
public stakeholders still require increased public participation in the construction industry.
For instance, Djokoto et al. (2014) argue that laws mandating collaboration and cooperation
between sustainability initiatives by stakeholders, including the government, might make
the notion of sustainable construction more viable. Additionally, several policy papers were
created, which led to the enforcement of sustainability throughout the entire development.
Tan et al. (2011) note that the achievement of sustainable construction techniques depends
on the government’s commitment, assistance and the creation of legislation.
3.9.2 Challenges related to finance. It is well acknowledged that financial obstacles are
some of the biggest and most important ones facing the adoption of sustainable construction
techniques. Häkkinen and Belloni (2011) identified these problems’ rising initial investment
costs and financial resources as significant elements. Furthermore, many studies have
identified a key obstacle to developing solutions to increase sustainability in construction as
a lack of funding. The views of these benefits are not quantified in terms of financial return,
even when the long-term benefits are specified as an initial investment augmentation.
Instead, the emphasis is on providing environmental and social support using modern
methods or technology (Nelms et al., 2005). The lack of financial resources for sustainable
projects is usually highlighted as a barrier to adopting sustainable practices, as it does not
help mitigate the risks of unforeseen expenditures. As clients grow worried about the
greater risks associated with traditional buildings because of “the absence of prior expertise,
additional testing, and inspection in construction,” financial and incentive solutions are
being used to encourage the adoption of sustainable techniques (Larsson and Clark, 2000).
3.9.3 Challenges related to management. The success of sustainable construction
techniques depends on excellent management and leadership, with leadership capacity and
effective communication being these obstacles. It is common knowledge that management
and leadership throughout the construction sector and within specific organizations are
crucial to successfully implementing new initiatives (Nelms et al., 2005). The ability to
establish and implement an effective plan and provide the essential resources and support
required to handle any deviations from it depends on the dedication of the management and
leader. Importantly, the project can encounter several difficulties without this assistance,
creative management and direction (Osaily, 2010). Häkkinen and Belloni (2011) state that
potential process-related difficulties include “models of collaboration and networking,
communication models, responsibilities of different players, decision-making and
management procedures, and scheduling.” The proper scheduling and the attendance of all
necessary participants are also regularly emphasized as essential conditions for project
success. Numerous studies have emphasized the importance of having access to experts and
information from the early project stages. When the options and ideal design choices are not
carefully considered early enough, a large portion of the potential for sustainable
construction may be lost. This is crucial for both the ongoing construction projects and the
earlier planning stages.
3.9.4 Challenges related to technology. Another substantial barrier to sustainable
construction practices lies in technical challenges, comprising factors such as limited
knowledge regarding sustainable materials or products, readily available guidance and
technical expertise. These barriers are categorized as technical because they directly affect
the practical application of sustainable construction principles (Hydes and Creech, 2000).
According to Rydin et al. (2006), designers in the construction sector frequently feel
uncertain and less confident when dealing with difficult sustainable construction designs.
Thus, built environment professionals must become conversant with innovative sustainable
solutions so they can implement them. The availability of local “green building products” Infrastructure
has also been cited by Osaily (2010) as a barrier to achieving sustainability targets in project
construction projects because these products often need to be imported. This negates
sustainability principles. Further, technical data in the correct format must be easily
delivery
accessible to design professionals and contractors who will ultimately be responsible for
implementing the designs, according to Sabboubeh and Farrell (2017). Such data will need to
be managed and shared for efficient and effective use. The skills and expertise of project
managers are central to sustainable performance achievements (Ling, 2004). Furthermore,
the use of environmentally friendly building materials and products presents challenges,
including concerns relating to their quality assurance, availability and pricing (Ojo et al.,
2014). Their overall performance is the main factor to consider when using more sustainable
construction products. Consequently, selecting appropriate technologies is critical to
enhancing sustainability and its potential benefits.
3.9.5 Challenges related to awareness. According to Häkkinen and Belloni (2011), a
collective understanding of “sustainability, professional knowledge and awareness of
clients, and education and training” was the challenges that the stakeholders identified as
being the most important to the success of the implementation of sustainable construction
practice (Williams and Dair, 2007). Furthermore, Mousa (2015) finds evidence that most
stakeholder groups in the construction business lack mutual understanding. Stakeholders
have acknowledged in several instances that they were ignorant of or uninformed about
sustainable solutions within their purview. New skills and expertise are needed to
implement sustainable technology and materials. Even though it was clear from the study
that not all persons having obligations in this area have the knowledge or skills necessary to
confront the challenge (Williams and Dair, 2007). Clients, consultants and contractors are
just a few of the numerous construction business actors with differing viewpoints; thus, to
ensure the practical completion of a project, they must come together and operate as a team
(Williams and Dair, 2007). Additionally, because customer demand and preferences may
ultimately influence the creation of sustainable construction, these factors are connected
with others, including supply, expertise, techniques, costs and value. Few investors
consciously seek to invest in or desire to own sustainable construction, according to Bon and
Hutchinson (2000). The challenge of determining the structures’ profitability or cost
consequences grows as the scope of sustainable development rises. Therefore, the
stakeholders’ shared knowledge of sustainable practices might improve collaboration and
develop novel solutions.
3.9.6 Challenges related to culture and society. According to Williams and Dair (2007),
the most significant barrier to implementing environmentally responsible construction
practices is a shift in cultural norms. Although there are additional challenges to sustainable
design and construction, such as a propensity to stick with tried-and-true practices of the
past and a resistance to innovation (Dempsey et al., 2011). It is important to note that
opposition to change may reduce the demand for construction projects from customers and
other stakeholders, which may eventually influence supply. Similarly, Kershaw and Simm
(2014) highlighted a stakeholder’s lack of sustainability measures as the most commonly
cited difficulty. They also added that a client’s lack of demand is another generally
acknowledged barrier. Both of these findings are in line with previous research. These
challenges may be substantial drawbacks because a construction project may not be
completed sustainably unless the owner or developer fully supports sustainable principles
(Chan et al., 2014). However, this obstacle can be conquered if there is a significant amount
of client demand and a trend to promote the development of sustainable construction. This
has been done in the UK, where owner-occupiers typically purchase buildings or properties
CI because they are less constrained by market norms. Additionally, these owner-occupants
have a tendency to at least be conscious of green building methods, which is connected to
the broader public’s understanding of environmental concerns as a whole (Djokoto et al.,
2014). Nevertheless, there is a continuing requirement that all stakeholders, including
owners, designers, legislators, the general public and construction workers, have a greater
knowledge and comprehension of sustainability. Even if a significant number of residents in
the area recognize that contamination of the environment is a significant issue, other social
problems typically take precedence.

4. A framework for implementing sustainable construction practice

It is believed that by applying sustainable construction practices, a guiding framework may
help the construction sector become more competitive. Guidelines for applying suitable
sustainable construction practices may be found in sustainability policies and strategies
(Tan et al., 2011). To identify the issues and enable continual development, review and
correction are used. An improvement in sustainability performance will increase company
competitiveness by successfully adopting sustainable construction practices. Figure 5
depicts the developed framework for implementing sustainable construction practices.

4.1 Sustainability principles and legislation

Since the late 1980s, one of the primary study areas has been sustainability in construction,
although its practical viability is limited (Kibert, 2016). The phrase “development and

Leadership & Decision-Making

Process Technical Ability & IT Skills
- Use Efficient Communication - Provide Software Design
Methods Within the Organization. Courses to the Users.
-Provide Training Courses for the - Use Technical Information &
Management Decision Makers. Integrated Design Tools.
- Develop the Current Management - Use Easily Accessible Guidance
Systems & Frameworks. for Design Tool & Method.

Knowledge &
Organizational Technology &
Steering Cost
Technical

Awareness of Stakeholders
about Sustainability Familiarity With the New
- Educate the Professionals Technologies Sustainability
Continual Improvement - Create Technology Transfer
on Sustainability.
Channels.
-Increase Public Awareness
-Promote New Technologies
about Sustainability.
Within the Public.
-Create Better Mechanisms
- Improve the Telecommunication
for Transference of
Sustainability Sustainability Sustainable Sustainable Review and Infrastructure.
Knowledge.
Principles & Policy Strategy Construction Correction
Legislation Practice
Capital & Investment cost
Government Policies &
Sustainability.
Legislation - Clear - Compliance with - Identify the - Provide Fiscal Incentives.
- Environmental - Commitment to
- Create Strong Government - Economic Sustainability. Sustainability Sustainability Issues that Arise in - Alternatives from Financial
Legislation & Building - Social - Compliance with Strategy for Legislation. Actual Practise. Institutions.
Standards. - Technological Legislation. Improving - Design & - Area Require any - Avoided Complexity in Design
-Modernization Codes & - Process - Communication to Sustainability Procurement. Adjustments or
Performance. - Technology & Phase.
Systems Related to every Employee. Revisions.
Innovation.
Sustainability. Cost of Green Materials &
- Organizational
Structure & Process. Products Sustainability
- Education & - Manufacture Green Materials
Training. Locally.
- Measurement & - Reduce Import Taxes on Green
Reporting. Materials.

Figure 5. Availability of Green Materials

Information & Specifications
Framework for - Use Guideline, Systems &
Database.
implementing - Consider Initiatives such as

sustainable Training Professional.

construction practice
Source: Created by authors
responsible maintenance of a healthy built environment based on resource-efficient and Infrastructure
ecological principles” is frequently used to describe sustainable construction. Reduced project
environmental effects and increased social and economic contribution are required for
construction operations (Tan et al., 2011). The concepts of sustainable construction should
delivery
be incorporated into the strategy when the construction sector creates one and should be
understood by all personnel. Sustainability regulations require the construction sector to
take steps to safeguard the environment and to undertake its social and economic
responsibilities through business operations. The building sector is required by the
enforcement requirements on air pollution control to incorporate action in their construction
plans. When using sustainable construction techniques, the construction industry must fully
comprehend and abide by these requirements.

4.2 Sustainability policy

Environmental policies within the construction sector are essential, given growing
sustainability awareness. The senior management’s commitment to achieving certain
objectives is expressed in the sustainability policy (Zuo et al., 2012b). The environment will
be safeguarded, and socioeconomic responsibility will be improved. The policy is declared to
be in effect in accordance with pertinent sustainability laws and principles. But considering
the background and traits of the certain construction industry, the strategy is exclusive to
that business sector (Tan et al., 2011). Every organization employee should get a clear
explanation of the policy, which should also be made public. The policy should specify the
target degree of sustainability performance and instructions for creating particular project
policies.

4.3 Sustainability strategy

The construction industry must have a defined sustainability plan and follow sustainability
policy to meet its objectives. Construction sustainability performance should be improved, and
the relationship between the two should be strengthened using sustainable solutions.
Nevertheless, many businesses practice sustainability management and release sustainability
reports without having a defined sustainability strategy, or in many cases, the connection is
absent (Baumgartner and Ebner, 2010). By integrating long-term profitability with their efforts
in sustainable development, such as strengthening environmental and socioeconomic
responsibility, businesses may gain a competitive edge by implementing sustainability
strategies (Tan et al., 2011). Managers should pursue implementing sustainability plans based on
the study of their particular conditions. To govern commercial organizations, the sustainable
strategic management concept has developed from a simple notion to a sophisticated framework
(Stead and Stead, 2008). To increase future competitiveness, the construction industry must
create its sustainability plan based on its unique history.

4.4 Sustainable construction practice

The building sector should identify its own sustainable construction techniques after
developing a clear sustainability plan to fulfill its responsibilities. Sustainability policy
compliance, designing and procurement, innovation and technological advancements,
organizational process, structure training, education, measurement and reporting are the five
main topics sustainable construction practices cover (Tan et al., 2011). Different firm traits will
influence other decisions about sustainable construction methods. The overall plan should be
congruent with the sustainable construction techniques used (Ortiz et al., 2009). The correct
balance between regulation and environmental protection need to be achieved with improved
regulation but without disproportionately driving up costs or discouraging compliance
CI (Tan et al., 2011). Before construction ever starts, sustainable design greatly influences a
project’s sustainability. Sustainable purchasing creates a green supply chain system in which
all materials and equipment supplies are made environmentally friendly (Vanegas, 2003).
Technology R&D is crucial to sustainable construction, and successful R&D will lead to
significant advancements in sustainability performance (Tan et al., 2011). Determine roles,
authority, lines of communication, procedures and the resources required to establish
sustainable management systems using the proper organizational structure and procedures.
Many governments and non-governmental organizations have emphasized the significance of
education and training for sustainable development, as it is extensive and transforms how we
view nature (Tan et al., 2011).

4.5 Review and correction

The upper management of the construction industry must conduct management reviews
regularly to assess the industry’s performance in terms of sustainability, identify the issues
that arise in actual practice and ascertain whether or not their organizational policy,
strategy and procedures in this area require any adjustments or revisions (Tan et al., 2011).
The assessment considers the growth of environmentally responsible building practices
within the construction sector and any responses or complaints from clients or third parties.
For a more seamless incorporation of sustainability into the construction industry, the
evaluation must also take into account the contribution that sustainability makes to the
competitiveness of businesses (Dobrovolskiene_ and Tamošiūniene_ , 2015). The primary goal
of applying sustainable construction practice is to continually improve both the
performance of sustainability and the competitiveness of businesses.

5. Discussion
The study provided a thorough description of the key justifications for sustainable
construction. It demonstrated how this works in practice by analyzing and reviewing the
literature on the relevance of sustainability in construction. Thus, the crucial components of
sustainable construction techniques and varied interpretations of sustainability in the
construction industry are identified. To better grasp the current practice considerations in
the construction sector, it also offered literature on sustainable construction approaches.
Additionally, this study includes a wide range of sustainability-related topics in both
developed and developing country contexts to determine the most effective strategy to make
certain adjustments to the current construction practices. It also demonstrated the many
perspectives and strategies for sustainable behaviors. To develop a strategy for
implementing sustainable construction in New Zealand, this study sheds light on the most
well-known and prominent sustainable construction applications from across the world.
The output provided insights into ongoing conversations on sustainable practices and
systems in the construction industry. Also, to better understand how to incorporate change
into the current construction practices in New Zealand, several studies on sustainable
change in diverse contexts are presented.
As a result, various viewpoints and strategies for sustainable behaviors have emerged
from the study. To integrate sustainability into the early stages of strategic decision-
making, it is essential to take a comprehensive approach (top-down view), consistent
protocol and the inclusion of sustainability in formal procedures. A conceptual strategy was
developed based on a foundational understanding of the subject, which was refined using
the additional information from the literature review. The conceptual strategy can be
delineated into several major categories (Figure 5), which correspond to the primary
difficulties encountered in the implementation of sustainable construction. The execution of
sustainable construction is challenged by several issues that fall under each category Infrastructure
identified in Figure 5. Theses conceptualization encompasses further steps that may be project
performed to address the difficulties associated with each major category.
The implementation of sustainable construction may be enhanced through the adoption
delivery
of sustainable construction practices. However, there are limited studies on how they affect
corporate competitiveness. Thus, a framework for putting sustainable construction
strategies into practice is created. By using this framework, both corporate competitiveness
and construction performance in terms of sustainability could be enhanced. As the
construction industry faces a growing need for sustainable development, the framework
provides a valuable guide for formulating sustainability policies, strategies and practices. In
addition, a comparison was made between sustainable practices and conventional
construction design approaches, thus highlighting how the overall quality of construction
could be improved while benefiting the environment.
On another note, the advantages of sustainable construction techniques over conventional
ones were explored. Energy consumption in construction has decreased, which is consistent
with the advantages of sustainable construction approaches that have already been mentioned.
Aspects like resource reuse and an increase in renewable energies were also present along with
these advantages. The recommendations for implementing sustainable construction techniques
have been highlighted, which could be applied in the New Zealand context. From the study
investigations, the implementation of sustainable construction approaches faces significant
obstacles because of the construction industry’s lack of regulations and sustainability rules.
Other difficulties mentioned were the premiums associated with environmentally friendly
buildings and design. Ineffectual organizational leadership and management were also found
to be critical barriers to implementing sustainable construction practices coupled with poor
knowledge and expertise. Technological concerns are also related to poor technical skills and
expertise.

5.1 Implication of the knowledge

This research has made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge by enhancing
the understanding of sustainable construction practices within the construction industry.
This study identified the most significant challenges that construction businesses, educators
and policymakers must address to enhance their capacity to implement sustainability
strategies effectively. This research has provided valuable insights for future studies aiming
to advance knowledge in this field. It also provides opportunities for future research to
evaluate the influence of the approach on enhancing the implementation of sustainable
construction. Moreover, the successful achievement of the current research objectives
contributes to a more comprehensive representation of emerging trends in sustainable
construction, which could foster the expansion and improvement of the construction
industry in a sustainable manner.

5.2 Practical implications

This study examines how sustainability is incorporated into construction practices and the
level of consideration given to it by construction organizations. Although numerous studies
have identified the shortcomings in the implementation of sustainable construction, it is
worth mentioning that limited research has assessed the extent of incorporation and
implementation of key aspects of sustainability-environmental, economic and social
sustainability in practice. The current study provides a comprehensive explanation of
sustainability and its application in construction to serve as the foundation for current
practices. It also highlights the challenges associated with integrating sustainability into
CI construction while acknowledging the advantages associated with adopting sustainable
approaches that could influence decision-making within the sector. This study reveals that
poor knowledge and awareness of sustainable construction impact the regulatory
environment and practices that shape operators in the sector. The absence of appropriate
legislation and insufficient institutional capacity stifles the implementation of sustainable
practices. Additionally, the limited awareness, knowledge and expertise of construction
professionals substantially influence the commitment to sustainable practices. In the
absence of clear requirements and effective enforcement of sustainable initiatives through
government mandates and regulations, the construction sector may display indifference
toward sustainable project delivery. Therefore, the proposed strategy presented in the
current study offers valuable guidance for enhanced understanding and for improved
sustainable practices. Thus, the construction industry is enabled to manage current and
future construction projects sustainably. When embraced by professionals, decision-makers
and government representatives on projects, it can be a suitable strategy and reference
document to address sustainable construction challenges.

References
Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A. and Andersen, B. (2017), “Project sustainability
strategies: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35
No. 6, pp. 1071-1083.
Abidin, N.Z. (2009), “Sustainable construction in Malaysia–developers’ awareness”, World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 53, pp. 807-814.
Abidin, N.Z. (2010), “Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept
by Malaysian developers”, Habitat International, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 421-426.
Adaloudis, M. and Roca, J.B. (2021), “Sustainability tradeoffs in the adoption of 3D concrete printing in
the construction industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 307, p. 127201.
Adams, K.T., Osmani, M., Thorpe, T. and Thornback, J. (2017), “Circular economy in construction:
current awareness, challenges and enablers”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Waste and Resource Management, Vol. 170 No. 1, pp. 15-24.
Afzal, F., Lim, B. and Prasad, D. (2017), “An investigation of corporate approaches to sustainability in
the construction industry”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 180, pp. 202-210.
Akadiri, P.O. (2015), “Understanding barriers affecting the selection of sustainable materials in
building projects”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 86-93.
Akadiri, P.O., Olomolaiye, P.O. and Chinyio, E.A. (2013), “Multi-criteria evaluation model for the
selection of sustainable materials for building projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 30,
pp. 113-125.
Al Harazi, A.K., Zhang, W., Shah, S.A.A., Al Asbahi, A.A.M.H., Al Harazi, Y.K. and Alwan, S.Y. (2023),
“Multidimensional study of factors influencing sustainable construction adoption in Yemen:
insights for implementing sustainable practices”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 20650-20672.
AlSanad, S. (2015), “Awareness, drivers, actions, and barriers of sustainable construction in Kuwait”,
Procedia Engineering, Vol. 118, pp. 969-983.
Amanullah, M.M., Hamid, M., Hanif, H.M., Muzaffar, M., Siddiqui, M.T., Adhi, F., Ahmad, K., Khan, S.
and Hasan, Z. (2016), “Effect of steroids on inflammatory markers and clinical parameters in
congenital open heart surgery: a randomised controlled trial”, Cardiology in the Young, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 506-515.
Amasyali, K. and El-Gohary, N. (2016), “Building lighting energy consumption prediction for
supporting energy data analytics”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 145, pp. 511-517.
Ametepey, O., Aigbavboa, C. and Ansah, K. (2015), “Barriers to successful implementation of Infrastructure
sustainable construction in the Ghanaian construction industry”, Procedia Manufacturing,
Vol. 3, pp. 1682-1689.
project
Amponsah, O., Vigre, H., Schou, T.W., Boateng, E.S., Braimah, I. and Abaidoo, R.C. (2015), “Assessing
delivery
low quality water use policy framework: case study from Ghana”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 97, pp. 1-15.
Ashley, R., Blackwood, D., Butler, D., Davies, J., Jowitt, P. and Smith, H. (2003), “Sustainable decision
making for the UK water industry”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Engineering Sustainability, Vol. 156 No. 1, pp. 41-49.
Balasubramanian, S., Shukla, V., Islam, N. and Manghat, S. (2021), “Construction industry 4.0 and
sustainability: an enabling framework”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 71, pp. 1-19.
Baloi, D. (2003), “Sustainable construction: challenges and opportunities”, Annual ARCOM Conference
UK, Vol. 1, pp. 3-5.
Baloi, D. and Price, A.D.F. (2003), “Modelling global risk factors affecting construction cost
performance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 261-269.
Bamgbade, J.A., Nawi, M.N.M., Kamaruddeen, A.M., Adeleke, A.Q. and Salimon, M.G. (2022), “Building
sustainability in the construction industry through firm capabilities, technology and business
innovativeness: empirical evidence from Malaysia”, International Journal of Construction
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 473-488.
Baumgartner, R.J. and Ebner, D. (2010), “Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and
maturity levels”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 76-89.
Belfitt, R.J., Sexton, M., Schweber, L. and Handcock, B. (2011), “Sustainable procurement–challenges for
construction practice”, TSBE EngD Conference, pp. 1-9.
Bell, S. and Morse, S. (2013), Measuring Sustainability: Learning from Doing, Routledge.
Berardi, U. (2013), “Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building”,
Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 8, pp. 72-78.
Bergström, B. and Edstrand, H. (2021), “Managing sustainability in strategic decision-making, life cycle
thinking for sustainable innovation,-a case study at Volvo cars”.
Bergstrom, J.C. (2022), “Reflections on the historical development of natural resource and
environmental economics”, In Teaching Environmental and Natural Resource Economics,
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bianchini, F. and Hewage, K. (2012), “How ‘green’ are the green roofs? Lifecycle analysis of green roof
materials”, Building and Environment, Vol. 48, pp. 57-65.
Bokor, O., Florez, L., Osborne, A. and Gledson, B.J. (2019), “Overview of construction simulation
approaches to model construction processes”, Organization, Technology and Management in
Construction: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1853-1861.
Bon, R. and Hutchinson, K. (2000), “Sustainable construction: some economic challenges”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 310-314.
Brand, R. and Karvonen, A. (2007), “The ecosystem of expertise: complementary knowledges for
sustainable development”, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 21-31.
Bringezu, S. (2017), “Visions of a sustainable resource use”, In Sustainable Resource Management,
Routledge, pp. 155-215.
Brotchie, J., Newton, P., Hall, P. and Nijkamp, P. (2017), The Future of Urban Form: The Impact of New
Technology, Routledge.
Büyüközkan, G. and Karabulut, Y. (2018), “Sustainability performance evaluation: literature review and
future directions”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 217, pp. 253-267.
CI Cabot, J., Easterbrook, S., Horkoff, J., Lessard, L., Liaskos, S. and Maz
on, J.-N. (2009), “Integrating
sustainability in decision-making processes: a modelling strategy”, 2009 31st International
Conference on Software Engineering-Companion Volume, pp. 207-210.
Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Levialdi, N. and Menichini, T. (2019), “Integrating sustainability into strategic
decision-making: a fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 139, pp. 155-168.
Carew, A.L. and Mitchell, C.A. (2003), “Visiting the hall of mirrors: engineering academics, conceptions
of sustainability”, 14th Annual AAEE Conference, Melbourne.
Carew, A.L. and Mitchell, C.A. (2008), “Teaching sustainability as a contested concept: capitalizing on
variation in engineering educators’ conceptions of environmental, social and economic
sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 105-115.
Carvajal-Arango, D., Baham
on-Jaramillo, S., Aristiz
abal-Monsalve, P., V
asquez-Hern
andez, A. and
Botero, L.F.B. (2019), “Relationships between lean and sustainable construction: positive impacts
of lean practices over sustainability during construction phase”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 234, pp. 1322-1337.
Chan, Y.H., Lee, B.C.T. and Lee, J.C. (2014), “Sustainability in the construction industry in Malaysia: the
challenges and breakthroughs”, International Journal of Economics and Management
Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1218-1222.
Chang, R., Zuo, J., Soebarto, V., Zhao, Z., Zillante, G. and Gan, X. (2016), “Sustainability transition of the
Chinese construction industry: practices and behaviors of the leading construction firms”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 4, p. 5016009.
Chegut, A., Eichholtz, P. and Kok, N. (2014), “Supply, demand and the value of green buildings”, Urban
Studies, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 22-43.
Cole, R.J. and Sterner, E. (2000), “Reconciling theory and practice of life-cycle costing”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 368-375.
Construction in New Zealand H1 (2021), “Recovery in 2021 with construction sector forecast to grow by
5.5% post COVID-19 - ResearchAndMarkets.com j business wire”, available at: www.businesswire.
com/news/home/20210519005361/en/Construction-in-New-Zealand-H1-2021-Recovery-in-2021-with-
Construction-Sector-Forecast-to-Grow-by-5.5-Post-COVID-19–-ResearchAndMarkets.com
Construction Sector Accord (2019), “Construction sector accord. April, 24”.
Conte, E. and Monno, V. (2012), “Beyond the building centric approach: a vision for an integrated
evaluation of sustainable buildings”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 34, pp. 31-40.
Cristina, B. and Diana, A. (2014), “The perspective of concept sustainability”, Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 116, pp. 2257-2261.
Cullen, J.A. and Mansur, E.T. (2017), “Inferring carbon abatement costs in electricity markets: a
revealed preference approach using the shale revolution”, American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 106-133.
Dania, A.A., Larsen, G.D. and Ewart, I.J. (2014), “Sustainable construction: exploring the capabilities of
Nigerian construction firms”, 30th Annual ARCOM Conference.
Davies, R.J., Pratama, M.M.A. and Yusuf, M. (2018), “BIM adoption towards the sustainability of
construction industry in Indonesia”, MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 195, p. 6003.
de Santoli, L., Mancini, F., Clemente, C. and Lucci, S. (2017), “Energy and technological refurbishment of
the school of architecture Valle Giulia, Rome”, Energy Procedia, Vol. 133, pp. 382-391.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. and Brown, C. (2011), “The social dimension of sustainable
development: defining urban social sustainability”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 289-300.
Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S. and Adalı, Z. (2017), “Identifying causality relationship between energy
consumption and economic growth in developed countries”, International Business and
Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 71-81.
Djokoto, S.D., Dadzie, J. and Ohemeng-Ababio, E. (2014), “Barriers to sustainable construction in the Infrastructure
Ghanaian construction industry: consultants perspectives”, Journal of Sustainable Development,
Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 134. project
Dobrovolskien_e, N. and Tamošiūnien_e, R. (2015), “An index to measure sustainability of a business delivery
project in the construction industry: Lithuanian case”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 14.
Dobson, D.W., Sourani, A., Sertyesilisik, B. and Tunstall, A. (2013), “Sustainable construction: analysis
of its costs and benefits”, American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 32-38.
Du Plessis, C. (2002), “Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries”, CSIR Report
BOU E, Vol. 204, pp. 2-5.
Du Plessis, C. (2007), “A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 67-76.
Durdyev, S., Zavadskas, E.K., Thurnell, D., Banaitis, A. and Ihtiyar, A. (2018), “Sustainable construction
industry in Cambodia: awareness, drivers and barriers”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 2, p. 392.
Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002), “Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability”, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 130-141.
Elkington, J. and Rowlands, I.H. (1999), “Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century
business”, Alternatives Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, p. 42.
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J. and Davarzani, H. (2015), “Green supply chain management: a review and
bibliometric analysis”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 162, pp. 101-114.
Fischer, D., Brettel, M. and Mauer, R. (2020), “The three dimensions of sustainability: a delicate
balancing act for entrepreneurs made more complex by stakeholder expectations”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 163 No. 1, pp. 87-106.
Gan, X., Zuo, J., Ye, K., Skitmore, M. and Xiong, B. (2015), “Why sustainable construction? Why not? An
owner’s perspective”, Habitat International, Vol. 47, pp. 61-68.
Gao, S.S., Heravi, S. and Xiao, J.Z. (2005), “Determinants of corporate social and environmental
reporting in Hong Kong: a research note”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 233-242.
Gardiner, J. (2009), Sustainability and Construction-Scale Rapid Manufacturing: Opportunities for
Architecture and the Construction Industry, Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
Gehlot, M. and Shrivastava, S. (2022), “Sustainable construction practices: a perspective view of Indian
construction industry professionals”, Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 61, pp. 315-319.
Ghobakhloo, M. (2018), “The future of manufacturing industry: a strategic roadmap toward industry
4.0”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 910-936.
Ghose, A., McLaren, S.J., Dowdell, D. and Phipps, R. (2017), “Environmental assessment of deep energy
refurbishment for energy efficiency-case study of an office building in New Zealand”, Building
and Environment, Vol. 117, pp. 274-287.
Govindan, K. (2018), “Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: a conceptual
framework”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 195, pp. 419-431.
Gu, J., Guo, F., Peng, X. and Wang, B. (2023), “Green and sustainable construction industry: a
systematic literature review of the contractor’s green construction capability”, Buildings, Vol. 13
No. 2, p. 470.
Häkkinen, T. and Belloni, K. (2011), “Barriers and drivers for sustainable building”, Building Research
and Information, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 239-255.
Halliday, S. (2008), Sustainable Construction, Routledge.
Hamilton, K., Hamilton, K. and Atkinson, G. (2006), Wealth, Welfare and Sustainability: Advances in
Measuring Sustainable Development, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hendiani, S. and Bagherpour, M. (2019), “Developing an integrated index to assess social sustainability
in construction industry using fuzzy logic”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 230, pp. 647-662.
CI Higham, A., Fortune, C. and James, H. (2015), “Life cycle costing: evaluating its use in UK practice”,
Structural Survey, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 73-87.
Hill, R.C. and Bowen, P.A. (1997), “Sustainable construction: principles and a framework for
attainment”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 223-239.
Hoffman, M., Lubell, M. and Hillis, V. (2014), “Linking knowledge and action through mental models of
sustainable agriculture”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 111 No. 36,
pp. 13016-13021.
Hydes, K.R. and Creech, L. (2000), “Reducing mechanical equipment cost: the economics of green
design”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 403-407.
Johnson, S.D. (2000), “The economic case for ‘high performance buildings”, Corporate Environmental
Strategy, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 350-361.
Johnston, J.M., de Jesus Crespo, R., Harwell, M., Jackson, C., Myer, M., Seeteram, N., Williams, K., Yee, S.
and Hoffman, J. (2017), “Valuing community benefits of final ecosystem goods and services:
human health and ethnographic approaches as complements to economic valuation”, National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Computational Exposure Division.
Jomehzadeh, F., Nejat, P., Calautit, J.K., Yusof, M.B.M., Zaki, S.A., Hughes, B.R. and Yazid, M.N.A.W.M.
(2017), “A review on windcatcher for passive cooling and natural ventilation in buildings, part 1:
indoor air quality and thermal comfort assessment”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Vol. 70, pp. 736-756.
Jones, T., Shan, Y. and Goodrum, P.M. (2010), “An investigation of corporate approaches to
sustainability in the US engineering and construction industry”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 971-983.
Karim, A.H.M.Z. (2017), Understanding Africa: The Stories of Culture and Change, Partridge
Publishing Singapore.
Karji, A., Namian, M. and Tafazzoli, M. (2020), “Identifying the key barriers to promote sustainable
construction in the United States: a principal component analysis”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 12,
p. 5088.
Keeys, L.A. (2012), “Emerging sustainable development strategy in projects: a theoretical framework”,
PM World Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-12.
Kershaw, T. and Simm, S. (2014), “Thoughts of a design team: barriers to low carbon school design”,
Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 11, pp. 40-47.
Khalil, A. (2018), Developing a Strategy for the Implementation of Sustainable Construction Practices in
Libya, University of Salford (United Kingdom).
Kiani Mavi, R., Gengatharen, D., Kiani Mavi, N., Hughes, R., Campbell, A. and Yates, R. (2021),
“Sustainability in construction projects: a systematic literature review”, Sustainability, Vol. 13
No. 4, p. 1932.
Kibert, C.J. (2016), Sustainable Construction: green Building Design and Delivery, John Wiley and Sons.
Kiesnere, A.L. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2020), “Top management involvement and role in sustainable
development of companies”, Responsible Consumption and Production, Springer, Cham,
pp. 827-839.
Kim, S.B. (2014), “Quantitative evaluation on organizational knowledge implementation in the
construction industry”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Kinnunen, J., Saunila, M., Ukko, J. and Rantanen, H. (2022), “Strategic sustainability in the construction
industry: impacts on sustainability performance and brand”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 368, p. 133063.
Kucukvar, M. and Tatari, O. (2013), “Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the US
construction industry”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 958-972.
Kutnar, A. and Hill, C. (2017), “Life cycle assessment–opportunities for forest products sector”, Infrastructure
BioProducts Business, pp. 52-64.
project
Larsson, N. and Clark, J. (2000), “Incremental costs within the design process for energy efficient
buildings”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 413-418.
delivery
Leiserowitz, A.A., Kates, R.W. and Parris, T.M. (2006), “Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors:
a review of multinational and global trends”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 413-444.
Leng, J., Ruan, G., Jiang, P., Xu, K., Liu, Q., Zhou, X. and Liu, C. (2020), “Blockchain-empowered
sustainable manufacturing and product lifecycle management in industry 4.0: a survey”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 132, p. 110112.
Lima, L., Trindade, E., Alencar, L., Alencar, M. and Silva, L. (2021), “Sustainability in the construction
industry: a systematic review of the literature”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 289,
p. 125730.
Ling, J.U. (2004), The Project Manager’s Personal Characteristic, Skills and Roles in Local Construction
Industry, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Liu, Z. and Stephens, V. (2019), “Exploring innovation ecosystem from the perspective of sustainability:
towards a conceptual framework”, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and
Complexity, Vol. 5 No. 3, p. 48.
Liu, Y., Yao, F., Ji, Y., Tong, W., Liu, G., Li, H.X. and Hu, X. (2022), “Quality control for offsite
construction: review and future directions”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 148 No. 8, p. 3122003.
McNamara, A.J. and Sepasgozar, S.M.E. (2021), “Intelligent contract adoption in the construction
industry: concept development”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 122, p. 103452.
Ma, U. (2017), No Waste: managing Sustainability in Construction, Routledge.
Malviya, R.K. and Kant, R. (2015), “Green supply chain management (GSCM): a structured literature
review and research implications”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 7,
pp. 1360-1394.
Mantha, B., de Soto, B.G. and Karri, R. (2021), “Cyber security threat modeling in the AEC industry: an
example for the commissioning of the built environment”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 66,
p. 102682.
Maqbool, R. and Amaechi, I.E. (2022), “A systematic managerial perspective on the environmentally
sustainable construction practices of UK”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 29
No. 42, pp. 64132-64149.
Maqbool, R., Saiba, M.R., Altuwaim, A., Rashid, Y. and Ashfaq, S. (2023), “The influence of industrial
attitudes and behaviours in adopting sustainable construction practices”, Sustainable
Development, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 893-907.
Martek, I., Hosseini, M.R., Shrestha, A., Edwards, D.J. and Durdyev, S. (2019), “Barriers inhibiting the
transition to sustainability within the Australian construction industry: an investigation of
technical and social interactions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 211, pp. 281-292.
Mellado, F. and Lou, E.C.W. (2020), “Building information modelling, lean and sustainability: an
integration framework to promote performance improvements in the construction industry”,
Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 61, p. 102355.
Miah, J.H., Koh, S.C.L. and Stone, D. (2017), “A hybridised framework combining integrated methods
for environmental life cycle assessment and life cycle costing”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 168, pp. 846-866.
Mitchell, J. (2013), “Construction in the fastest growing national market in the world”, Role of
Construction in Development and Economic Growth: Challenges and Opportunities for Developing
and Emerging Economies.
CI Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. and Group*, P. (2009), “Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, Annals of Internal Medicine,
Vol. 151 No. 4, pp. 264-269.
Moshood, T.D., Nawanir, G. and Mahmud, F. (2021a), “Sustainability of biodegradable plastics: a
review on social, economic, and environmental factors”, Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, Vol. 42
No. 6, pp. 892-912.
Moshood, T.D., Adeleke, A.Q., Nawanir, G. and Mahmud, F. (2020a), “Ranking of human factors
affecting contractors’ risk attitudes in the Malaysian construction industry”, Social Sciences and
Humanities Open, Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 100064.
Moshood, T.D., Sorooshian, S., Nawanir, G. and Okfalisa, S. (2022c), “Efficiency of medical technology
in measuring service quality in the Nigerian healthcare sector”, International Journal of Africa
Nursing Sciences, Vol. 16, p. 100397, doi: 10.1016/j.ijans.2022.100397.
Moshood, T.D., Nawanir, G., Mahmud, F., Sorooshian, S. and Adeleke, A.Q. (2021b), “Green and low
carbon matters: a systematic review of the past, today, and future on sustainability supply chain
management practices among manufacturing industry”, Cleaner Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 4, p. 100144, doi: 10.1016/j.clet.2021.100144.
Moshood, T.D., Nawanir, G., Sorooshian, S., Mahmud, F. and Adeleke, A.Q. (2020b), “Barriers and
benefits of ICT adoption in the Nigerian construction industry. A comprehensive literature
review”, Applied System Innovation, Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 46.
Moshood, T.D., Nawanir, G., Mahmud, F., Mohamad, F., Ahmad, M.H. and AbdulGhani, A. (2022a),
“Sustainability of biodegradable plastics: new problem or solution to solve the global plastic
pollution?”, Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, Vol. 5, doi: 10.1016/j.
crgsc.2022.100273.
Moshood, T.D., Nawanir, G., Mahmud, F., Mohamad, F., Ahmad, M.H., AbdulGhani, A. and Kumar, S.
(2022b), “Green product innovation: a means towards achieving global sustainable product
within biodegradable plastic industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 363, p. 132506, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132506.
Mosurovi
c Ružici
c, M., Mileti
c, M. and Dobrota, M. (2021), “Does a national innovation system
encourage sustainability? Lessons from the construction industry in Serbia”, Sustainability,
Vol. 13 No. 7, p. 3591.
Mousa, A. (2015), “A business approach for transformation to sustainable construction: an
implementation on a developing country”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 101,
pp. 9-19.
Müller, J.M., Kiel, D. and Voigt, K.-I. (2018), “What drives the implementation of industry 4.0? The role of
opportunities and challenges in the context of sustainability”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 247.
Munier, N. (2005), Introduction to Sustainability, Springer.
National Construction Pipeline Report (2022), “National construction pipeline report 2022”, available at:
www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/23241-national-construction-pipeline-report-2022
Nelms, C., Russell, A.D. and Lence, B.J. (2005), “Assessing the performance of sustainable technologies
for building projects”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 114-128.
Ofori, D.F. and Hinson, R.E. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) perspectives of leading firms
in Ghana”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 178-193.
Ogunmakinde, O.E., Egbelakin, T., Sher, W., Omotayo, T. and Ogunnusi, M. (2023), “Establishing the
limitations of sustainable construction in developing countries: a systematic literature review
using PRISMA”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment.
Ojo, E., Mbowa, C. and Akinlabi, E.T. (2014), “Barriers in implementing green supply chain
management in construction industry”, International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Operations Management.
Oke, A., Aghimien, D., Aigbavboa, C. and Musenga, C. (2019), “Drivers of sustainable construction Infrastructure
practices in the Zambian construction industry”, Energy Procedia, Vol. 158, pp. 3246-3252.
project
Oke, A.E., Aigbavboa, C.O., Oke, A.E. and Aigbavboa, C.O. (2017), “Sustainability in construction”,
Sustainable Value Management for Construction Projects, Springer, Cham, pp. 87-106.
delivery
Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W.M. (2018), “Identifying and prioritizing the benefits of integrating BIM
and sustainability practices in construction projects: a Delphi survey of international experts”,
Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 40, pp. 16-27.
Olawumi, T.O. and Chan, D.W.M. (2019), “Critical success factors for implementing building
information modeling and sustainability practices in construction projects: a Delphi survey”,
Sustainable Development, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 587-602.
Olawumi, T.O., Chan, D.W.M., Wong, J.K.W. and Chan, A.P.C. (2018), “Barriers to the integration of
BIM and sustainability practices in construction projects: a Delphi survey of international
experts”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 60-71.
Omardin, M.A., Abidin, N.Z. and Ali, W.D.W. (2015), “Concept of environmental sustainability
awareness strategies in pre-construction stage”, Journal of Tropical Resources and Sustainable
Science (JTRSS), Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 103-116.
Omer, A.M. (2017), “Sustainable development and environmentally friendly energy systems”,
International Journal of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-39.
Opoku, A. and Fortune, C. (2011), “Organizational learning and sustainability in the construction
industry”, The Built and Human Environment Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 98-107.
Opoku, A. and Ahmed, V. (2015), “Drivers and challenges to the adoption of sustainable construction
practices”, In Leadership and Sustainability in the Built Environment, Routledge, pp. 83-95.
Opoku, A., Ahmed, V. and Cruickshank, H. (2015), “Leadership style of sustainability professionals
in the UK construction industry”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 5
No. 2.
Opoku, D.-G.J., Ayarkwa, J. and Agyekum, K. (2019), “Barriers to environmental sustainability of
construction projects”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 292-306.
Ortiz, O., Castells, F. and Sonnemann, G. (2009), “Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of
recent developments based on LCA”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 28-39.
Osaily, N.Z. (2010), The Key Barriers to Implementing Sustainable Construction in West Bank–Palestine,
University of Wales, UK, p. 63.
Osmani, M. and Villoria-S
aez, P. (2019), “Current and emerging construction waste management status,
trends and approaches”, Waste, Academic Press, pp. 365-380.
Oztemel, E. and Gursev, S. (2020), “Literature review of industry 4.0 and related technologies”, Journal
of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 127-182.
Parkin, S., Sommer, F. and Uren, S. (2003), “Sustainable development: understanding the concept and
practical challenge”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability,
Vol. 156 No. 1, pp. 19-26.
Pearce, D. (2006), “Is the construction sector sustainable? Definitions and reflections”, Building Research
and Information, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 201-207.
Pero, M., Moretto, A., Bottani, E. and Bigliardi, B. (2017), “Environmental collaboration for
sustainability in the construction industry: an exploratory study in Italy”, Sustainability, Vol. 9
No. 1, p. 125.
Phillis, Y.A. and Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L.A. (2001), “Sustainability: an ill-defined concept and its
assessment using fuzzy logic”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 435-456.
Placet, M., Anderson, R. and Fowler, K.M. (2005), “Strategies for sustainability”, Research-Technology
Management, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 32-41.
CI Plessis, C.D. (2007), “A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries a
strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries”, Construction
Management and Economics ISSN, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 67-76, doi: 10.1080/01446190600601313.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), “The link between competitive advantage and corporate social
responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.
Rahman, F.A., Aziz, M.M.A., Saidur, R., Bakar, W.A.W.A., Hainin, M.R., Putrajaya, R. and Hassan, N.A.
(2017), “Pollution to solution: capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) and its
utilization as a renewable energy source for a sustainable future”, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, Vol. 71, pp. 112-126.
Rahmani, F., Maqsood, T. and Khalfan, M. (2017), “An overview of construction procurement methods
in Australia”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 593-609.
Rajeev, A., Pati, R.K., Padhi, S.S. and Govindan, K. (2017), “Evolution of sustainability in supply chain
management: a literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 162, pp. 299-314.
Raut, R., Cheikhrouhou, N. and Kharat, M. (2017), “Sustainability in the banking industry: a strategic
multi-criterion analysis”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 550-568.
Reddy, V.S. (2016), “Sustainable construction: analysis of its costs and financial benefits”, International
Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering and Management, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 522-525.
Rhyner, C.R., Schwartz, L.J., Wenger, R.B. and Kohrell, M.G. (2017), Waste Management and Resource
Recovery, CRC Press.
Riffat, S., Powell, R. and Aydin, D. (2016), “Future cities and environmental sustainability”, Future
Cities and Environment, Vol. 2, pp. 1-23.
Robertson, L.D. (1997), “Monitoring viable fungal and bacterial bioaerosol concentrations to identify
acceptable levels for common indoor environments”, Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 6 No. 5,
pp. 295-300.
Rodríguez-Robles, D., García-Gonz
alez, J., Juan-Vald
es, A., Mor
an-del Pozo, J.M. and Guerra-Romero, M.
I. (2015), “Overview regarding construction and demolition waste in Spain”, Environmental
Technology, Vol. 36 No. 23, pp. 3060-3070.
Rohracher, H. (2001), “Managing the technological transition to sustainable construction of buildings: a
socio-technical perspective”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 137-150.
Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J. and Denyer, D. (2008), “11 Evidence in management and organizational
science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses”, Academy
of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 475-515.
Rydin, Y., Amjad, U., Nye, M., Moore, S. and Whitaker, M. (2006), “Sustainable construction and
planning: the academic report”, CEPG, London School of Economics.
Sabboubeh, H. and Farrell, P. (2017), “Adapting sustainability in Palestine; barriers and motivators in
the implementation of green architecture”, 13th International Postgraduate Research Conference
2017, p. 891.
Sadeghi, M., Mahmoudi, A. and Deng, X. (2022), “Adopting distributed ledger technology for the
sustainable construction industry: evaluating the barriers using ordinal priority approach”,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 10495-10520.
Schaltegger, S., Etxeberria, I.Á. and Ortas, E. (2017), “Innovating corporate accounting and reporting
for sustainability–attributes and challenges”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 113-122.
Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E.G. and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016), “Business models for sustainability:
origins, present research, and future avenues”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 3-10.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., Westhaus, M. and Morana, R. (2005), “Conducting a literature review—the Infrastructure
example of sustainability in supply chains”, Research Methodologies in Supply Chain
Management, Physica-Verlag HD, pp. 91-106.
project
Shafique, M. and Rafiq, M. (2019), “An overview of construction occupational accidents in Hong Kong:
delivery
a recent trend and future perspectives”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 10, p. 2069.
Shen, L., Ochoa, J.J. and Bao, H. (2023), “Strategies for sustainable urban development—exploring
innovative approaches for a liveable future”, Buildings, Vol. 13 No. 3, p. 764.
Shields, J. and Shelleman, J.M. (2015), “Integrating sustainability into SME strategy”, Journal of Small
Business Strategy, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 59-78.
Shove, E. and Walker, G. (2007), “CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice, and sustainable
transition management”, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 763-770.
Silvius, G. and Schipper, R. (2015), “Developing a maturity model for assessing sustainable project
management”, The Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, p. 112.
Silvius, G. and Schipper, R. (2016), “Exploring the relationship between sustainability and project
success-conceptual model and expected relationships”, International Journal of Information
Systems and Project Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 5-22.
Singhaputtangkul, N., Low, S.P., Teo, A.L. and Hwang, B.-G. (2014), “Analysis of criteria for decision
making to achieve sustainability and buildability in building envelope design”, Architectural
Science Review, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 20-30.
Stanitsas, M. and Kirytopoulos, K. (2023), “Investigating the significance of sustainability indicators for
promoting sustainable construction project management”, International Journal of Construction
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 434-448.
Stanitsas, M., Kirytopoulos, K. and Leopoulos, V. (2021), “Integrating sustainability indicators into
project management: the case of construction industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 279,
p. 123774.
Stead, J.G. and Stead, W.E. (2008), “Sustainable strategic management: an evolutionary perspective”,
International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 62-81.
Stock, T. and Seliger, G. (2016), “Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in industry 4. 0”, Procedia
CIRP, Vol. 40, pp. 536-541, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.129.
Tan, Y., Shen, L. and Yao, H. (2011), “Sustainable construction practice and contractors’
competitiveness: a preliminary study”, Habitat International, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 225-230.
Thornhill, A., Saunders, M. and Lewis, P. (2009), Research Methods for Business Students, Pearson
Education, Essex.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tseng, M.-L., Islam, M.S., Karia, N., Fauzi, F.A. and Afrin, S. (2019), “A literature review on green
supply chain management: trends and future challenges”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 141, pp. 145-162.
Vanegas, J.A. (2003), “Road map and principles for built environment sustainability”, Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. 37 No. 23, pp. 5363-5372.
Varma, K., Chaurasia, M., Shukla, P. and Ahmed, T. (2014), “Green building architecture: a literature
review on designing techniques”, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications,
Vol. 583.
Vidakovi
c, D., Hadzima-Nyarko, M. and Marenjak, S. (2020), “The contribution of workers’ attributes
on sustainability of construction project realization goals—survey on the impact on productivity
in Croatia”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 23, p. 9946.
CI Waas, T., Hug
e, J., Block, T., Wright, T., Benitez-Capistros, F. and Verbruggen, A. (2014),
“Sustainability assessment and indicators: tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable
development”, Sustainability, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 5512-5534.
Waibel, M.W., Steenkamp, L.P., Moloko, N. and Oosthuizen, G.A. (2017), “Investigating the effects of
smart production systems on sustainability elements”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 8,
pp. 731-737.
Wei, W., Ramalho, O. and Mandin, C. (2015), “Indoor air quality requirements in green building
certifications”, Building and Environment, Vol. 92, pp. 10-19.
Wiersma, B. (2016), Public Acceptability of Offshore Renewable Energy in Guernsey: Using Visual
Methods to Investigate Local Energy Deliberations, University of Exeter.
Williams, K. and Dair, C. (2007), “What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers
experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments”, Sustainable Development,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 135-147.
Xiong, Y., Krogmann, U., Mainelis, G., Rodenburg, L.A. and Andrews, C.J. (2015), “Indoor air quality in
green buildings: a case-study in a residential high-rise building in the northeastern United
States”, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 225-242.
Yao, Y. (2016), “Geographic landscape planning and design”, In Nanjing: Historical Landscape and Its
Planning from Geographical Perspective, Springer, pp. 195-208.
Ye, K., Zhu, W., Shan, Y. and Li, S. (2015), “Effects of market competition on the sustainability
performance of the construction industry: China case”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 141 No. 9, p. 4015025.
Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M.S., Eskicioglu, C. and Sadiq, R. (2013), “An overview of construction
and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis approach to sustainability”,
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 81-91.
Yi, H., Feiock, R.C. and Berry, F.S. (2017), “Overcoming collective action barriers to energy
sustainability: a longitudinal study of climate protection accord adoption by local governments”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 79, pp. 339-346.
You, Z. and Feng, L. (2020), “Integration of industry 4.0 related technologies in construction industry: a
framework of cyber-physical system”, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 122908-122922.
Yuan, H. (2012), “A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste management”,
Waste Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1218-1228.
Zhang, X. (2015), “Green real estate development in China: state of art and prospect agenda—a review”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 47, pp. 1-13.
Zuo, J., Jin, X.-H. and Flynn, L. (2012a), “Social sustainability in construction–an explorative study”,
International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 51-63.
Zuo, J., Zillante, G., Wilson, L., Davidson, K. and Pullen, S. (2012b), “Sustainability policy of
construction contractors: a review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 6,
pp. 3910-3916.
Zuofa, T. and Ochieng, E. (2016), “Sustainability in construction project delivery: a study of experienced
project managers in Nigeria”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 44-55.

Corresponding author
Taofeeq D. Moshood can be contacted at: taofeeqmoshood@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com