Main.pdf

Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Exploring the project manager's intention to address sustainability in the project board A.J. Gilbert Silvius a, b, *, Marc de Graaf c a

LOI University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands University of Johannesburg, South Africa c Wortell, the Netherlands b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 27 March 2018 Received in revised form 6 September 2018 Accepted 10 October 2018 Available online 17 October 2018

Projects are recognized to play a crucial role in the sustainable development of organizations and the academic debate on the relation between project management and sustainability is emerging. Several publications highlight the role of the project manager in the sustainable management of a project and it can be concluded that the central position of the project manager provides him/her with the opportunity to influence many aspects of the project. This article reports a study into the factors that influence the project manager's intention to address the sustainability of the project with the project board. With the Theory of Planned Behavior as conceptual starting point, an exploratory study was performed in order to identify the factors that project managers perceive as influencing their intention to discuss sustainability with the project board. Based on open interviews with 21 respondents from the target group, a conceptual model of 13 salient factors was developed. This model was subsequently tested in a survey based study (N ¼ 134) with quantitative data analysis. Exploratory factor analysis of the data revealed four factors: Moral compass & Personal ability, Potential benefit, Potential risk and Organizational fit, that influence the project manager's intention to address the sustainability of the project with the project board. Three of the four factors, influence the intention to address positively, whereas Potential risk is negatively influencing the intention. By identifying the factors that positively or negatively influence to behavior of project managers with regards to sustainability, the study contributes to the understanding of the ‘soft side’ of sustainability. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project Project management Sustainability Triple constraint Theory of planned behavior

1. Introduction As projects are recognized to play a crucial role in the sustain
daba able development of organizations and society (Marcelino-Sa et al., 2015), the academic debate on the relation between project management and sustainability emerged. A growing number of publications explores how this sustainability perspective influences project management (Silvius and Schipper, 2014; Aarseth et al., 2017; Silvius, 2017) and ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ project management’ is identified as one of the most important trends in project management (Alvarez-Dionisi et al., 2016). And where Brones et al. (2014) and Martens and Carvalho (2016) concluded

* Corresponding author. LOI University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.J.G. Silvius), [email protected] (M. de Graaf). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.115 0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

that the existing standards of project management do not specifically or systematically consider sustainability and environmental issues, Silvius (2017) more recently observed that the most recent standards of project management, “are explicitly referring to sustainability as a perspective that should be taken into account in the management and governance of projects”. Several publications highlight the role of the project manager in the sustainable management of a project. For example, Hwang and Ng (2013) conclude that “Today's project manager fulfils not only traditional roles of project management but also must manage the project in the most efficient and effective manner with respect to sustainability.” (Hwang and Ng, 2013:273). And Taylor recognizes that “Project and Programme Managers are significantly placed to make contributions to Sustainable Management practices” (Association for Project Management, 2006: 7). This pivotal role of the project manager (Maltzman and Shirley, 2013) is also acknowledged by Goedknegt (2013) who concludes that the project

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

manager has “a lot of” influence on the application of sustainability principles in or to the project. It is therefore concluded that the project manager has a central position in the project and that this position provides the opportunity to influence many aspects of the project (Silvius, 2016a). As it can be argued that also the project owner or sponsor, as the ‘client’ of the project, has the most influential position in the sustainability of the project, as this role typically decides upon the requirements and conditions of the project (Goedknegt, 2013). However, Silvius et al. (2012) argue that the project manager has the ‘power of agenda’ and can take initiative to address the sustainability of the project with the governing body of the project. The question whether the project manager uses his/her ‘power’ to take initiative to address the sustainability of the project is, however, may be influenced by several factors or circumstances. The study reported in this paper aimed to explore these factors and circumstances and investigates the question What factors influence the project manager's intention to address the sustainability of the project with the project board? With ‘project board’, the governing body of the project is implied, that logically includes the project owner or project sponsor (Zuchi, 2018), but may also include other roles in the organization, such as the quality manager or the project management office (International Organization for Standardization, 2017). The article is organized as follows. In the following paragraph, the concepts of sustainability, their impact on project management and the role of the project manager in sustainability are explored. The next paragraph will report the chosen research strategy and present the conceptual model of the study. Following this, the findings of the study will be reported in paragraph 4 and the conclusions and limitations in the final paragraph. 2. Literature 2.1. Sustainability Sustainability implies that “the natural capital remains intact. This means that the source and sink functions of the environment should not be degraded. Therefore, the extraction of renewable resources should not exceed the rate at which they are renewed, and the absorptive capacity of the environment to assimilate waste, should not be exceeded.” (Gilbert et al., 1996). Concerns about the sustainability of natural resources may date back as far as the early 18th century (for example Carlowitz, 1713). Despite these early warnings about the effects of human actions on the balance of nature, the more contemporary concerns about sustainability and the use of natural resources did not attract broad attention until the second half of last century. The 1972 book “The Limits to Growth” (Meadows et al., 1972) predicts that the exponential growth of world population and world economy will result in overshooting the planet's capacity of natural resources. Today, it is estimated that mankind is using up 1.5 to 1.6 times earth's annual bio capacity every year (Toderoiu, 2010). The Limits to Growth report, fueled a public debate, leading to the installation of the UN World Commission on Development and Environment. This commission, often referred to as ‘the Brundtland Commission’ after its chair, defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). By stating that “In its broadest sense, sustainable development strategy aims at promoting harmony among human beings and between humanity and nature”, the Brundtland commission implied that sustainability requires also a social and an environmental perspective, next to the economic perspective, on development and

1227

performance. Elkington identifies this as the ‘Triple Bottom line’ concept: Sustainability is about the balance or harmony between economic sustainability, social sustainability and environmental sustainability (Elkington, 1997). The Triple Bottom line concept helped in operationalizing the concept of sustainability. However, this operationalization also introduced the risk that the interrelations between the three perspectives are overseen and that the social, environmental and economic perspectives are each considered in isolation. A holistic understanding of the integration of economic, environmental and social perspectives is crucial for sustainability (Linnenluecke et al., 2009). However, the social and environmental impacts of human actions may not be visible or noticeable in the short-term. In order not to compromise “the ability of future generations to meet their needs”, as stated in the Brundtland definition, sustainability therefore requires a balance between both short and long term, and therefore a life-cycle orientation. The International Institute for Sustainable Development elaborated on the Brundtland definition of sustainable development in a definition more focused on sustainable management of organizations: “Adopting business strategies and activities that meet the needs of the enterprise and its stakeholders today while protecting, sustaining and enhancing the human and natural resources that will be needed in the future.” (Deloitte and Touche, 1992). Next to the concepts of Triple Bottom Line and life-cycle orientation discussed earlier, this definition also mentions the interests of stakeholders. In the so called “stakeholder theory”, Freeman (1984) developed the notion that all stakeholders of a company or an organization, and not just the shareholders/financiers, have the right and legitimacy to receive adequate management attention that takes into account their interests (Julian et al., 2008). The interests of all stakeholders should be embraced by the organization and win-win situations should be sought (Eskerod and Huemann, 2013). In the context of organizations, sustainable development relates to the concepts of (Corporate) Social Responsibility (CSR) (Ebner and Baumgartner, 2006). (C)SR is defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 26000 as the “responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethical behavior that: contributes to sustainable development, including health and the welfare of society; takes into account the expectations of stakeholders; is in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international norms of behavior; is integrated throughout the organization and practiced in its relationships.” (International Organization for Standardization, 2010). Next to the concepts mentioned before, this definition highlights the responsibility or accountability that an organization has for the societal impact of its decisions and actions, and the transparency and ethicality of its behavior. With the mentioning of ethics and norms of behavior, a normative aspect is introduced. Sustainability is a value based concept, reflecting values and ethical considerations of society (Robinson, 2004; Martens, 2006). And its integration into business decisions and actions should go beyond being compliant with legal obligations. Dahlsrud (2008) therefore points out the voluntariness dimension of CSR. 2.2. Sustainability and projects The concepts of sustainability identified earlier have an impact on the way projects are performed and managed. From the emerging literature on sustainability and project management, it appears that the relationship between sustainability and project management can be interpreted in two ways (Silvius and Schipper, 2015): the sustainability of the project's product (the deliverable that the project realizes) and the sustainability of the project's

1228

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

process (the delivery and management of the project). The Triple Bottom line perspectives provide input for integrating sustainability requirements into the content related aspects of the project, such as the specifications and design of the project's deliverable (Brones et al., 2014; Aarseth et al., 2017), materials used (Akadiri, 2015), benefits to be achieved (Weninger and Huemann, 2013; Silvius et al., 2012), quality and success criteria (Martens and Carvalho, 2017). Studies on the integration of sustainability into project management that take this content related perspective, often focus on operationalizing the Triple Bottom line by developing sets of indicators on the different perspectives (For example
ndez-Sa
nchez and Rodríguez-Lo
pez, Bell and Morse, 2003; Ferna 2010; Keeble et al., 2003; Labuschagne and Brent, 2008; Martens and Carvalho, 2017). Considering sustainability in these aspects will most of all result in a more sustainable project in terms of a more sustainable deliverable, however, this approach bears the risk of lacking the holistic approach of the integration of the economic, environmental and social perspectives. Other studies focus on the integration of the dimensions of sustainability into the processes of project management and delivery, such as the identification and engagement of stakeholders
nchez, 2015), the process of pro(Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; Sa curement in the project (Molenaar and Sobin, 2010), the development of the business case (Weninger and Huemann, 2013), the monitoring of the project (S
anchez, 2015), the identification and management of project risks (Silvius, 2016b), the communication in and by the project (Pade et al., 2008), and the selection and organization of the project team (Silvius and Schipper, 2014). Several authors conclude that the sustainability perspective on both the content and the process of a project implies a scope shift in project management: from managing time, budget and quality, to managing social, environmental and economic impact (Haugan, 2012; Silvius et al., 2012). However, adding new perspectives to the way projects are considered also adds complexity (Silvius et al., 2012; Eskerod and Huemann, 2013). Project management therefore needs a more holistic and less mechanical approach (Gareis et al., 2013), The integration of sustainability therefore also requires a paradigm shift (Silvius et al., 2012). From an approach to project management that can be characterized by predictability and controllability of both process and deliverable, to an approach that is characterized by flexibility, complexity and opportunity. 2.3. The role of the project manager Integrating sustainability into project management raises the question of responsibility. What is the responsibility of the project manager, or the project team, for the sustainability of the project? Is it not the project owner that carries the bulk of the responsibility for this? This question is addressed by a number of authors (Turner, 2010; Goedknegt, 2013; Silvius et al., 2012). The conclusion of these studies suggest that all roles in the project can influence the sustainability of the project (Goedknegt, 2013), with most influence expected from both the project owner and the project manager (Silvius et al., 2012). The project manager is, also without formal responsibility for many content aspects of the project, well positioned to have a strong influence on the sustainability of the project and its project management. And given the growing attention for sustainability in professional standards and codes of conduct (for example Project Management Institute, 2010; International Project Management Association, 2015), it can be questioned whether the project manager can ignore a certain responsibility for applying this influence in order to make his/her project more sustainable (Silvius et al., 2012).

Another conclusion from the earlier mentioned studies is that other project roles allot more influence on the sustainability of the project to the role of project manager than the project managers themselves do (Goedknegt, 2013). Silvius and Schipper (2014) therefore conclude that integrating sustainability into project management also requires a mind shift of the project manager. This mind shift relates to the way the project manager sees his/her role (Crawford, 2013) and is the foundation for the scope and paradigm shifts described in the previous section. Traditionally, project managers position themselves as subordinate to the project sponsor and manage their projects around scope, stakeholders, deliverables, budget, risks and resources as specified by the stakeholder's requirements. However, the conclusion that project managers are well positioned to play a significant role in the implementation of the concepts of sustainability in organizations and business (Association for Project Management, 2006; Tharp, 2013) requires that project managers take up a responsibility for sustainability and position themselves as partner or peer of all stakeholders (Crawford, 2013; Tam, 2010). In this mind shift, the change a project realizes is no longer a given fact nor exclusively the responsibility of the project sponsor. The sustainable project manager realizes that the project positively or negatively impacts society and takes responsibility for minimizing negative impacts while boosting positive contributions, with ethics and transparency as a basic touchstone (Silvius and Schipper, 2014). 2.4. Factors influencing sustainable behavior The implementation of sustainability considerations in organizations has traditionally been discussed as a top-down process, in which external pressure mounts up and organizations react by addressing sustainability in their strategies (Tulder et al., 2014). However, the transformation towards sustainability also requires new competences and behavior in the organizations (Hassi et al., 2009). This ‘soft side’ of sustainability (Brones et al., 2017) has only more recently been addressed in studies. The consideration of sustainability in the behavior of individuals has mostly been studied in the context of consumer behavior (For example by Mont and Plepys, 2008; Barr et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Chen and Hung, 2016). One of the most influential frameworks that is used to explain sustainable behavior, is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). TPB aims to better understand, describe, predict and control behavior, by linking beliefs and behavior. According to the TPB, (intended) human behavior is guided by three kinds of considerations: - Behavioral beliefs: beliefs about the likely outcomes of the behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes. These beliefs produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the behavior. - Normative beliefs: beliefs about the normative expectations of others and motivation to comply with these expectations. These beliefs result in perceived social pressure or a subjective norm. - Control beliefs: beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behavior and the perceived power of these factors. These beliefs give rise to perceived behavioral control. In combination, attitude towards the behavior, subjective norm, and perception of behavioral control lead to the formation of a behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991). As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived behavioral control, the stronger should be the person's intention to perform the behavior in question. TPB is a popular way to examine underlying constructs of

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

1229

This paragraph presents the research strategy and design of the study. The study was designed as a mixed methods ‘qual þ QUAN’ (Johnson et al., 2007) study. The quantitative phase of the study was dominant and aimed at extracting the factors that influence the project manager's intention to address sustainability with the project board, what was the main research question. The qualitative phase was aimed at identifying a relevant set of salient factors that are underlying the beliefs of the project manager. Based on the findings of the qualitative part of the study, the conceptual model for the quantitative phase should be developed.

For this phase, targeted convenience sampling and snowball sampling were used with a sample size of 21 respondents from the Netherlands that all fitted in the target group of the study. Data collection was done, using a questionnaire with open questions, in order to ensure a maximum freedom to answer. The answers were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using the open coding logic. First the responses are separated into broad categories (for the most part aligned with the initial question they belonged to) and positive and negative responses were grouped. After this, statements made in the answers were labelled for the key-words in the answer. For example ‘Risk’, ‘Reputation’ or ‘Benefits’. As the third step in the analysis, the labels (codes) were grouped into categories. The responses to the neutral question (any other thoughts) were assigned to the question they corresponded to. Table 1 presents the results of this coding and the number of times the categories were mentioned. This qualitative phase was completed by developing a conceptual model for the quantitative part of the study. This was done by selecting the salient factors that were mentioned at least five times in the interviews (highlighted in grey in Table 1). In addition to the factors appearing from the interviews, two factors were added based on the literature. The first one (PC1) being the freedom of choice to act on the intention to discuss sustainability with the project board. The second one being the competence or ability of the project manager to address sustainability (PC2). Based on the final set of 13 salient factors, the conceptual model presented in Fig. 1 was developed for the quantitative phase of the study.

3.1. Qualitative phase

3.2. Quantitative phase

In this phase, an open questions questionnaire was developed to capture the salient factors underlying the beliefs of the project managers. The TPB model of behavioral, normative and behavioral control beliefs (Ajzen, 1991) acted as a structure for the organization of the interview questions and the coding of the answers, without explicitly being revealed to the respondents in order not to influence them. In the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to keep in mind the statement “In my project, I intent to put sustainability on the agenda of the project board” and to respond to the following questions.

In this phase of the study, a survey based study was conducted to test the conceptual model of salient factors that was presented in Fig. 1. In the questionnaire, these factors were rewritten to accommodate a (five-point) Likert-type scale of questioning. Three questions were formulated to measure the dependent variable of the respondent's intention to address the sustainability of the project with the project board. Table 2 provides an overview of the questionnaire. The data from the survey were coded 1 to 5 and analyzed using SPSS release 23, thereby following the ‘intervalists’ view of Likerttype scales (Carifio and Perla, 2008). Sampling was done using targeted convenience and snowball sampling within the target group. Data collection was done over a three month time-window to collect as many responses as possible. The questionnaire was published in an online survey tool (Typeform). About 500 project managers were approached for the study, through email and social media, of which 134 (26.8%) provided a complete response. This was considered satisfactory, as Francis et al. (2004) argue that for the confirmatory phase a sample size of 80 would be acceptable and Reio and Shuck (2015) recommend a participant-to-variable ratio of 5:1 or greater and strongly recommend at least 100 participants. Sampling was done based from the Netherlands, but through social media and personal networks reaching out internationally in Europe, North America and South Africa. As sustainability is inevitably a normative concept (Robinson, 2004; Martens, 2006), its understanding is prone to cultural differences. And although the sample of the study showed some level of cultural diversity, it cannot be excluded that the findings of the study have been influenced by the dominant (Western) culture of the sample. When we assume a total populations of project managers of over 1 million in the regions that were included in the sample, the sample provides a confidence interval of 8.47% at a 95% confidence

behavior. Some studies have examined the efficacy of the TPB in the form of a meta-analysis. The most inclusive meta-analysis has been conducted by Armitage and Conner (2001). Based upon an analysis of 185 independent studies, the predictive value of the TPB showed to be significant. And although the relationship between sustainability considerations and human behavior is mostly studied in the context of consumer behavior, several studies also applied TPB in studies of sustainable behavior in the professional context of the individual. For example Cordano and Frieze (2000) in a study on the behavior of environmental managers. The study reported in this article selected the TPB as conceptual foundation for its exploration of the factors that influence the project manager's intention to address the sustainability of the project with the project board. 3. Research strategy

 Addressing attitude believes: What advantages, benefits, opportunities come to mind when thinking about displaying this behavior? What disadvantages, detriments, threads come to mind when thinking about displaying this behavior? Concluding with the neutral question: Are there any other factors you associate with this behavior and if so: In what way?  Addressing normative believes: What individuals or groups would approve of you displaying this behavior? What individuals or groups would disapprove of you displaying this behavior? Are there any other individuals or groups influencing your decision and in what way?  Addressing behavioral control believes: What factors or circumstances would facilitate the behavior? What factors or circumstances would complicate the behavior? What factors or circumstances would prevent the behavior? Are there any other circumstances influencing your decision on this behavior?

1230

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

Table 1 Categories of salient beliefs and number of mentions in the interviews.

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

1231

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the quantitative study.

level. Given the 5-point Likert scales that were used in the questionnaire, this confidence interval is satisfactory. Table 3 provides an overview of the demographic data of the respondents. Table 3 shows that the age groups of 31e60 are overrepresented in the sample. This could be explained by the fact that project management is rarely a young professionals position but required some years of experience in other jobs. Also the project management profession normally requires a higher level of education, resulting in more years in school. At the other end of the scale the retirement age is around 65, explaining why this category might not be as large as the others. Just over 20% of the population stated that they did not have a lot of experience with the concepts of sustainability in projects. The largest part of the sample assessed themselves to be somewhat experienced.

4. Findings This paragraph presents the findings of the study. First the data will be reported in a descriptive manner, followed by the results of the correlation analysis and the exploratory factor analysis. 4.1. Descriptive results Table 4 presents the scores of the salient factors that appeared from the survey. The attitude factors all scored on the positive side, 3.31 to 3.97 on a 1e5 scale, with Reputation impact (A1) scoring highest. The perceived Impact on project results (A2) scored relatively low, indicating that the respondents are not fully convinced that the consideration of sustainability in the project board will have a positive impact on the project results. This seems to be contradicted by the more positive score on the perceived Impact on project

1232

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

Table 2 Overview of the questionnaire design. No. Summary

Question

Introduction Name Informed consent Definition Explanation of scale Research question

Answering format

Name is asked to personalize the survey experience. Listed in appendix 8.4 The Brundtland definition of sustainable development is provided as a common reference The Likert scale is explained with an example The research question is provided: This survey aims to investigate the considerations of you (the project manager) to start (or stay away) from the discussion with the project board (or steering committee) to integrate concepts of sustainability in the project Questions to the respondent's beliefs A1 Reputation impact Discussing sustainability with the project board (steering committee) is [________] my reputation.

Can be a fictitious name. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

5-point Likert scale. (Really bad for e Really good for) A2 Impact on project Sustainability will [________] the project bottom line 5-point Likert-scale. (Significantly results harm - Significantly improve) A3 Relationship with Discussing sustainability in the board meeting [________] my relationship with the project board 5-point Likert-scale. (Significantly project board (Steering committee). harm - Significantly benefit) A4 Impact on project Integrating sustainability into the project will [________] the project success. 5-point Likert-scale. (Significantly success harm - Significantly benefit) S1 Opinion of friends My friends and family think I [________] discuss integrating sustainability in the project with the 5-point Likert scale. (Very negative and family project board. Very positive) S2 Opinion of the The project board [________] about integrating sustainability 5-point Likert scale. (Very negative project board Very positive) S3 Opinion of the The organization [________] sustainability initiatives in projects 5-point Likert scale. (Very negative organization Very positive) S4 Opinion of the direct My manager is [________] about me addressing sustainability with the project board 5-point Likert scale. (Very negative manager Very positive) S5 Right thing to do Discussing sustainability in projects is the right thing to do 5 point Likert scale. (Fully disagree (Ethics) Fully agree) PC1 My decision Whether I discuss sustainability in the project board meeting or not, is entirely up to me 5-point Likert scale. (Not at all (freedom of choice) Totally) PC2 My ability I feel confident that I am able to discuss sustainability with the project board. 5-point Likert scale. (Not at all (knowledge and skills) Totally) PC3 Sustainability part The presence of a sustainability strategy in the organization would [________] to discuss sustainability 5-point Likert scale. (Not at all of strategy with the project board Totally) PC4 Possibilities for My projects generally have good application for sustainability. 5-point Likert scale. (Not at all sustainability Totally) Questions to measure intention to discuss sustainability with the project board I1 Motivation Do you want to discuss sustainability with the project board? Yes/No answer I2 Expectation Do you expect to discuss sustainability with the project board? Yes/No answer I3 Confidence level How confident are you that you will discuss sustainability with the project board in the near future? Select one from list. (Not going to Very confident) Descriptive questions about respondent and work context Industry What industry do you work in Select one from list Project focus Projects are multidisciplinary endeavors. But there usually is a main focus or component that best Choose all that apply from predefined describes the end result. Please select it below. list with free text option. Experience with How familiar are you with the concepts of sustainability? Select one from list sustainability in projects Project size (in dollars) What is your estimated average project size? Select one from list Gender What is your gender Select one from list Age What is your age Select one from list Comments If you would like to leave a comment you can use the space below. Textbox

success (A4). However, it should be noted that both these factors (A2 and A4) had a relatively high standard deviation in the answers indicating that there was a discussion amongst the respondents as to how to assess these two impacts, The factor Impact on the project results (A2) is also suffering from Kurtosis and the project success distribution is heavily skewed. The next group of factors, S1 to S5, related to the subjective norm or peer pressure that the respondents perceive. Of these subjective norm factors, the Right thing to do (Ethics) (S5) factor stood out with a score of 4.54 and a relatively low standard deviation. The respondents apparently agreed that taking initiative to discuss the sustainability of the project is something a project manager should do. On the other four factors, the opinion was also on the positive side, 3.54 to 3.86, although not as spectacular as the ethics factor S5. Remarkable may be that the Opinion of the direct manager (S4) does not score very high. Apparently the intention to address sustainability with the project board is more internally motivated than externally.

Severe skewness and kurtosis is observed for the S5 Ethics question. For the other distributions some skewness and kurtosis is observed but within boundaries. The results for the third group of factors, PC1 to PC4, related to perceived behavioral control, showed the most positive score for the factor related to the integration of sustainability into the strategy of the organization (PC3). This was not unexpected, as the relationship between the consideration of sustainability in a project and the organization's strategy showed also from Silvius et al. (2013). More interesting may be that the Possibilities for sustainability in the project (PC4) scored lowest in this group of factors, indicating that the intention of addressing sustainability in the project board is most of all an internally motivated intention and not that much a pragmatic behavior. It appeared that the project manager that sees the addressing of sustainability as something good, will address sustainability in every type of project. Again some skewness is observed for own competence and organization strategy. Kurtosis is well within limits.

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

1233

Table 3 Demographics of the sample of the quantitative study. Variable

Answers

Freq.

Percent

Valid Percent

Cum. Percent

Age

21e30 31e40 41e50 51e60 61e70 Do not want to share Total Male Female Total <100,000 >100,000 < 1 million >1 million < 10 million >10 million < 100 million >100 million < 1 billion >1 billion Total Beginner Somewhat experienced Very experienced Senior advisor Total Healthcare Banking & Finance Government Cross Industry Retail Education Manufacturing Total

6 36 47 29 11 5 134 103 31 134 16 55 43 15 3 2 134 29 72 26 7 134 9 13 21 59 8 10 14 134

4.5 26.9 35.1 21.6 8.2 3.7 100 76.9 23.1 100 11.9 41 32.1 11.2 2.2 1.5 100 21.6 53.7 19.4 5.2 100 6.7 9.7 15.7 44 6 7.5 10.4 100

4.5 26.9 35.1 21.6 8.2 3.7 100 76.9 23.1 100 11.9 41 32.1 11.2 2.2 1.5 100 21.6 53.7 19.4 5.2 100 6.7 9.7 15.7 44 6 7.5 10.4 100

4.5 31.3 66.4 88.1 96.3 100

Gender

Project size [in $]

Experience with sustainability in projects

Industry

76.9 100 11.9 53 85.1 96.3 98.5 100 21.6 75.4 94.8 100 6.7 16.4 32.1 76.1 82.1 89.6 100

Table 4 Descriptive statistics for the salient factors. Factor

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Skewness

Std. Error of Skewness

Kurtosis

Std. Error of Kurtosis

A1 Reputation impact A2 Impact on project results A3 Relationship with project board A4 Impact on project success S1 Opinion of friends and family S2 Opinion of the project board S3 Opinion of the organization S4 Opinion of the direct manager S5 Right thing to do (Ethics) PC1 My decision (freedom of choice) PC2 My ability (knowledge and skills) PC3 Sustainability part of strategy PC4 Possibilities for sustainability

134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134

3.97 3.31 3.74 3.70 3.54 3.65 3.86 3.60 4.54 3.72 4.04 4.27 3.24

.785 1.147 .813 1.195 .923 .758 .833 .859 .679 1.073 .949 .860 1.152

-.232 -.094 .003 -.555 .158 -.047 -.440 .307 1.924 -.522 -.734 1.055 -.151

.209 .209 .209 .209 .209 .209 .209 .209 .209 .209 .209 .209 .209

-.665 1.053 -.678 -.715 -.333 -.343 .146 -.792 5.680 -.406 -.145 .775 -.725

.416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416 .416

The intention was measured using three indicators: motivation (I1), expectation (I2) and confidence (I3). Combined they form the intention of discussing the integration of concepts of sustainability in the project with the project board. Fig. 2 visually presents the results of the motivation and expectation questions. From this figure it can be concluded that virtually all respondents are motivated to display the behavior under research. Only 13 of the respondents (10%) are not motivated to discuss sustainability with the project board. The expectation result shows that motivation alone is not enough, as another 28 (21%) do not expect to act upon their motivation. Fig. 3 shows that almost half (47%) of the respondents in the sample is somewhat to very confident that they will discuss sustainability with the project board. 24% is neutral. 4.2. Correlation analysis As a first step in the analysis of the data, the correlation between

the factor and impact scores was determined, as presented in Table 5. From this table it shows that a large number of factors (9 of the 13) show significant correlations with the intention questions. However, these correlations are generally weak. 4.3. Exploratory factor analysis The first step in conducting the EFA was to check for inter-item correlations. As the correlation matrix (Table 5) did not show any strong correlations, collinearity was not an issue. As the second step, a Cronbach's Alpha test was performed to check for internal consistency. Table 6 shows the results of this test. As removal of the PC1 My decision factor would increase internal reliability to 0.750, this factor was excluded from the EFA analysis. The initial factor analysis discovered four factors. The test ran again using this cut off. The Oblimin rotation was added for the final run. Also the small coefficients (below 0.30) were suppressed.

1234

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

Fig. 2. Motivation and expectation to discuss sustainability.

Fig. 3. Confidence to discuss sustainability with frequency scores.

Table 7 shows the total variance explained in this statistical analysis to be 58.025%, which was less than the “75% or more” textbook recommendation by Stevens (1996), but more than the 52% average total variance explained that Henson and Roberts (2006) report in their analysis of 60 EFA studies. The total variance explained was therefore considered satisfactory. The structure matrix (Table 8) was used to find the new model for the loadings of the EFA. It shows how the 12 remaining factors load into four different components. From Table 8 it can be observed that the component loadings do not follow the TPB model of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control but tend to mix the factors in a different manner, creating a new model. The four components were analyzed to find their respective contribution to the intention using a multivariate regression

analysis. Tables 9e11 present the result of this analysis. Based on the regression analysis the effect of the four independent variables (factors 1, 2, 3 and 4) on the dependent variable (Intention) was found to be:Intention (I) ¼ 14.149 þ 0.482 * Factor 1 þ 0.487 * Factor 2e1.983 * factor 3 þ 1.004 * Factor 4. The exploratory factor analysis resulted in four factors contributing to the intention of project managers to address the sustainability of the project with the project board. Fig. 4 presents the resulting model. In this model, the four factors that resulted from the EFA have been labelled in order to give them meaning: Factor 1: Moral compass & Personal ability, Factor 2: Potential benefit, Factor 3: Potential risk and Factor 4: Organizational fit. Not all variance could be explained by the model. Part of this might have to do with subconscious factors that come into play

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

1235

Table 5 Factor correlations matrix. Factor

A1 A2

A1 Reputation impact

Pearson corr. 1 Sig. (2-tailed) A2 Impact on project results Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) A3 Relationship with project board Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) A4 Impact on project success Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) S1 Opinion of friends and family Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) S2 Opinion of the project board Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) S3 Opinion of the organization Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) S4 Opinion of the direct manager Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) S5 Right thing to do (Ethics) Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) PC1 My decision (freedom of choice) Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) PC2 My ability (knowledge and skills) Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) PC3 Sustainability part of strategy Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) PC4 Possibilities for sustainability Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) I1 Motivation Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) I2 Expectation Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed) I3 Confidence Pearson corr. Sig. (2-tailed)

A3

A4

.161 .447** .191* .063 .000 .027 1 .121 .458** .164 .000 1 .159 .066 1

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

PC1

PC2

PC3

PC4

I1

i2

I3

.023 .795 .242** .005 .191* .027 .333** .000 1

.260* .002 .015 .864 .326** .000 .166 .056 .178* .039 1

.143 .099 .086 .322 .156 .072 .146 .092 .072 .409 .361** .000 1

.261** .002 .038 .666 .376** .000 .145 .093 .137 .115 .393** .000 .413** .000 1

.214* .013 .088 .311 .205* .017 .230** .008 .303** .000 .155 .074 .164 .058 .263** .002 1

-.046 .599 -.013 .884 -.103 .237 .039 .655 .013 .882 -.114 .190 -.138 .112 -.125 .151 -.013 .878 1

.305** .000 .229** .008 .269** .002 .224** .009 .281** .001 .325** .000 .170* .050 .216* .012 .254** .003 .352** .000 1

.235** .006 .089 .305 .220* .011 .152 .080 .165 .057 .215* .013 .253** .003 .198* .022 .263** .002 .042 .626 .188* .030 1

.349** .000 .176* .041 .228** .008 .271** .002 -.003 .972 .131 .131 .161 .063 .174* .044 .198* .022 -.121 .163 .142 .103 .170* .049 1

.342** .000 .090 .301 .361** .000 .108 .213 .030 .734 .148 .088 .248** .004 .229** .008 .190* .028 -.063 .467 .229** .008 .221* .010 .354** .000 1

.327** .000 .111 .200 .366** .000 .174* .045 .129 .137 .228** .008 .199* .021 .368** .000 .248** .004 .051 .558 .340** .000 .246** .004 .364** .000 .494** .000 1

.483** .000 .250** .004 .263** .000 .317** .000 .207* .017 .347** .000 .236** .006 .369** .000 .281** .001 -.004 .966 .430** .000 .234** .006 .339** .000 .359** .000 .489** .000 1

Table 6 Cronbach's Alpha for independent variables. Factor

Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

A1 Reputation impact A2 Impact on project results A3 Relationship with project board A4 Impact on project success S1 Opinion of friends and family S2 Opinion of the project board S3 Opinion of the organization S4 Opinion of the direct manager S5 Right thing to do (Ethics) PC1 My decision (freedom of choice) PC2 My ability (knowledge and skills) PC3 Sustainability part of strategy PC4 Possibilities for sustainability

45.22 45.87 45.45 45.49 45.64 45.54 45.33 45.59 44.64 45.47 45.14 44.92 45.95

29.494 28.653 29.377 26.748 29.615 29.980 30.177 29.387 30.382 32.958 27.747 29.685 28.636

.429 .309 .423 .452 .328 .386 .316 .390 .390 -.028 .512 .356 .308

.690 .705 .690 .682 .700 .695 .702 .693 .696 .750 .676 .697 .705

Table 7 Variance explained with 4 component extraction (Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis). Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

3.352 1.466 .1.167 .978 .935 .785 .724 .642 .547 .498 .464 .442

27.937 12.214 9.727 8.149 7.791 6.545 6.033 5.347 4.558 4.147 3.871 3.684

27.937 40.150 49.877 58.025 65.816 72.361 78.393 83.741 88.298 92.445 96.316 100.000

3.352 1.466 1.167 .978

27.937 12.214 9.727 8.149

27.937 40.150 49.877 58.025

1236

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

address sustainability with the project board appeared to be influenced by a combination of ‘hard’ factors, such as the role that sustainability plays in the organizational environment of the project, the opportunities that the project provides for considering sustainability and the expected benefits of this, and ‘soft’ factors, such as the project manager's personal convictions, moral compass and expectations of how addressing sustainability would influence his/her relationship with the project board. The EFA revealed in total four factors that influence the intention of project managers to address the sustainability of the project with the project board, of which two factors can be characterized as ‘hard’ and two as more ‘soft’. The following section provides a short description of these four factors.

Table 8 Structure matrix for EFA with 4 components (Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization). Component 1 S1 Opinion of friends and family PC2 My ability (knowledge and skills) S5 Right thing to do (Ethics) A2 Impact on project results A4 Impact on project success A1 Reputation impact A3 Relationship with project board PC4 Possibilities for sustainability S3 Opinion of the organization S4 Opinion of the direct manager S2 Opinion of the project board PC3 Sustainability part of strategy

2

3

4

.792 .605 .578 .811 .796

.461

-.841 -.702 -.620 .829 .741 .685 .438

4.4.1. Factor 1: Moral compass & personal ability The first factor that appeared from the study is related to the moral and ethical beliefs of the project manager. The survey question related to ethics and sustainability were formulated as “Discussing sustainability in projects is the right thing to do” and “Doing the right thing is [less important — more important than] other factors influencing my intentions to integrate sustainability in my projects”. The moral compass factor is formed by the above ethical considerations and the opinion of closest social contacts, such as family. From work/family border theory it is known that the social systems of work and family are interconnected (Clark, 2000), and that work behavior is influenced by family's opinions. It can be expected that family members will view situations probably mostly from an ethical perspective, as they may not be involved in all relevant business considerations. It is therefore likely that a person's moral and ethical considerations are influenced by those of family and significant others (Clark, 2000). The EFA added also the project manager's ability to discuss sustainability to this factor. This may not be surprising, as a relationship between competence and morality has been established

with all human behavior. Instincts, needs and drives that are not rational neither planned but just occur when certain factors come into play. Finding agreement between conclusions of different studies, one quantitative and the other qualitative is undoubtedly the greatest challenge and most notable accomplishment in the area of mixed or multiple methods (Kidder and Fine, 1987). 4.4. Discussion Cordano and Frieze (2000) found that attitudes and other social psychological variables influence managerial behavior, thereby providing a behavioral perspective on sustainability (Brones et al., 2017). The four factors influencing the intention of project managers to address the sustainability with the project board, that the study reported in this article found, confirm this ‘soft side’ (Brones et al., 2017) of sustainability. The intention of project managers to

Table 9 Model summary. Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

Change Statistics R Square Change

F Change

df1

df2

Sig. F Change

1

.666a

.444

.427

3.18400

.444

25.775

4

129

.000

a

Predictors: (Constant), Component 1, Component 2, Component 3, Component 4.

Table 10 ANOVA. Model 1

Regression Residual Total

Sum of Squares

df

Main Square

F

Sig.

1045.228 1307.787 2353.015

4 129 133

261.307 10.138

25.775

.000

t

Sig.

51.441 1.664 1.730 6.674 3.346

.000 .099 .086 .000 .001

a. Predictors: (Constant), Component 1, Component 2, Component 3, Component 4. b. Dependent Variable: Itot.

Table 11 Coefficients of the multivariate regression model. Model

1

(Constant) Factor Component Factor Component Factor Component Factor Component

Dependent Variable: Itot.

1 2 3 4

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

B

Std, Error

Beta

14.149 .482 .487 1.983 1.004

.275 .290 .281 .297 .300

.115 .115 -.472 .239

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

1237

Fig. 4. Model of factors influencing the project managers intention.

earlier (Wojciszke, 2005). A positive attitude and intrinsic motivation to do ‘what's right’ will benefit the gaining of knowledge about the subject. 4.4.2. Factor 2: Potential benefit The second factor relates to the potential benefits of considering sustainability in the project, such as bottom line and project success. The more favorable the respondents beliefs the outcome of considering sustainability will be, the more likely he/she is willing to discuss the integration of concepts of sustainability with the project board. The relationship between project success and sustainability has been addressed by a number of authors. Craddock (2013) discusses the evolution in thinking about project success and concludes that “views on project success have changed over the years from definitions that were limited to the implementation phase of the project life cycle to definitions that reflect an appreciation of success over the project and product life cycle”. From the reference to the life cycle in this conclusion, he links project success to excellence in organizations and ‘business excellence models, such as the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model. And as one of the EFQM

model's eight fundamental concepts of excellence is “Taking responsibility for a sustainable future” (Craddock, 2013), the conceptual relationship between sustainability in projects and success is established. Tiron-Tudor and Ioana-Maria (2013) studied the level of integration of sustainability into projects and the success of projects in a sample of 35 companies. Based upon an analysis of the correlation between integrating sustainability considerations and project success, they found that this correlation has certain controversies. They found cases where successful projects were not necessarily induced by sustainability, and also cases where a sustainable practice did not lead to success. They concluded that there should be other factors influencing projects outcomes. However, they also concluded that “On the whole, the two compared variables, sustainability integration within project management and projects success, seem to fluctuate in the same trend and there are no significant discrepancies between them”. Silvius and Schipper (2016) developed a conceptual map of the expected relationships between the dimensions of sustainability and different criteria for project success. This mapping showed that a positive impact of considering sustainability in the project is

1238

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

Table 12 Comparing the EVA results with the TPB model. Salient belief

TPB factor

EFA model

S1 Opinion of friends and family PC2 My ability (knowledge and skills) S5 Right thing to do (Ethics) A2 Impact on project results A4 Impact on project success PC4 Possibilities for sustainability A1 Reputation impact A3 Relationship with project board PC4 Possibilities for sustainability PC3 Sustainability part of strategy S3 Opinion of the organization S4 Opinion of the direct manager S2 Opinion of the project board

Subjective norm Perceived behavioral Subjective norm Attitude Attitude Perceived behavioral Attitude Attitude Perceived behavioral Perceived behavioral Subjective norm Subjective norm Subjective norm

Factor 1 Moral compass & Personal ability

expected on the success criteria that are related to the satisfaction of stakeholders of the project and the management of risks. However, the relationship between considering sustainability and completing the project on schedule and within budget remains uncertain. The impact of the factor Potential benefits may therefore be depending on how success is defined or considered in the project. 4.4.3. Factor 3: Potential risk The third factor refers to the risk that addressing sustainability with the project board could potentially bring to the project manager, and may be considered is more or less the opposite of the second factor. The questionnaire included the question how discussing sustainability with the project board may impact the reputation of the project manager and his/her relationship with the project board. And although the respondents scored this question on average positively, the EFA showed that the expectation that bringing up sustainability may hurt their reputation or relationships, is a relevant consideration for the project managers. A relationship between sustainability and reputational risk is not unknown in literature, however, this relationship is mostly studied in the context of organizations. For example Bebbington et al. (2008) demonstrated that an organization's performance on social and environmental responsibility performance effects its reputation. Studies on individual reputation management are just evolving. 4.4.4. Factor 4: Organizational fit This fourth factor relates to the organizational context of the project and the opinions about sustainability of actors in this context. Next to the perceived opinion about sustainability of the organizational in general, the specific opinions of the direct manager of the project manager and the members of the project were addressed in the questionnaire. As it can be expected that the attitudes of these actors towards sustainability are influenced by the strategy of the organization with respect to sustainability, the presence of PC3 “Sustainability part of strategy” in this factor makes sense. Logically, the attitudes and opinions of managers and employees in an organization interact with its strategy. Corporate strategy reflects the opinions and attitudes of the main stakeholders of the organization, including managers and employees, and (potential) employees are also attracted by organizations that demonstrate values and ambitions that match theirs (Renwick et al., 2016). The role of sustainability in this mutually influencing relationship is recognized in the human resource management (HRM) domain, and its influence on HRM addressed as ‘Green HRM’ (Jackson and Seo, 2010). Green HRM is considered to constitute of the

control Factor 2 Potential benefit control Factor 3 Potential risk control control

Factor 4 Organizational fit

implementation of sustainability principles in HRM, as well as advancing organizational sustainability through the alignment of HRM with environmental goals of the organization (Gholami et al., 2016). This implies that projects should not always comply with the general opinion of the actors in their organizational context, as they also play a role in changing that context. 4.4.5. Fit with TPB model The model of four factors influencing the project manager's intention to address the sustainability of the project with the project board, that this study found, deviates from the TPB model (Ajzen, 1991), that is commonly used to explain underlying constructs of behavior. Table 12 compares the four factors of the model that appeared from the EFA of our study to the factors of the TPB model. Most notable is the fact that in the model resulting from the EFA, one factor appeared that had a negative impact on the intention to address sustainability: Factor 3 Potential risk. In TPB, all factors have a positive effect on the intended behavior. The option to extend the TPB with factors that have a negative impact was also recognized by Conner and Armitage (1998) in their study on extensions of the TPB. 5. Conclusions The study this article reported set out to explore the factors that influence the project manager's intention to address the sustainability of the project with the project board. With the TPB as conceptual starting point, an exploratory study was performed in order to identify the factors that project managers perceive as influencing their intention to discuss sustainability with the project board. Based on open interviews with 21 respondents from the target group, a conceptual model of 13 salient factors was developed. This model was subsequently tested in a survey based study with quantitative data analysis. Based upon the analysis of the data from 134 respondents, the study could identify four factors: Moral compass & Personal ability, Potential benefit, Potential risk and Organizational fit, that influence the project manager's intention to address the sustainability of the project with the project board. Three of the four factors, Moral compass & Personal ability, Potential benefit and Organizational fit, influence the intention to address positively, whereas Potential risk is negatively influencing the intention. By identifying the factors that positively or negatively influence to behavior of project managers with regards to sustainability, the study contributes to the understanding of the ‘soft side’ of sustainability and to the much needed implementation of sustainable project management as a new ‘school of thought’ in project

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

management. Given the fact that project managers act in many different contexts and environments, and have different cultural backgrounds, experiences and attitudes, a suggestion for further research would be to investigate the factors that influence the consideration of sustainability in projects from a diversity perspective. In this perspective, the research strategy should be aimed at identifying differences between groups of respondents by employing for example Q-methodology. The model of influencing factors developed in this study provides a theoretical starting point for such a study. 5.1. Limitations The sampling strategy used in the study introduces a potential bias. Firstly, because the targeted population for this study, project managers, was hard to reach. Many professionals that manage projects do not formally identify themselves as project managers. This makes a random sampling impossible and introduces a potential bias. Secondly, the response rate of the survey may be influenced by the varying levels of knowledge about the topic, that potential respondents may have had and that may have affected their willingness or ability to contribute to the study. Another limitation is that not all variance could be explained by the model found in the study. Part of this might have to do with subconscious factors that come into play with all human behavior. Instincts, needs and drives that are not rational neither planned but just occur when certain factors come into play. References Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., Andersen, B., 2017. Project sustainability strategies: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6), 1071e1083. Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179e211. Akadiri, P.O., 2015. Understanding barriers affecting the selection of sustainable materials in building projects. J. Build. Eng. 4, 86e93. Alvarez-Dionisi, L.E., Turner, R., Mittra, M., 2016. Global project management trends. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Proj Manag. 7 (3), 54e73. Armitage, C., Conner, M., 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a metaanalytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 471e499. Association for Project Management, 2006. APM Supports Sustainability Outlooks. Retrieved from. http://www.apm.org.uk/page.asp?categoryID¼4. on January 2nd, 2011. Barr, S., Gilg, A., Shaw, G., 2011. Helping people make better choices: exploring the behaviour change agenda for environmental sustainability. Appl. Geogr. 31, 712e720. Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., Moneva, J.M., 2008. Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Acc. Audit. Acc. J. 21 (3), 337e361. Bell, S., Morse, S., 2003. Measuring Sustainability Learning from Doing. Earthscan, London. Brones, F.A., Carvalho, M.M., Zancul, E.S., 2014. Ecodesign in project management: a missing link for the integration of sustainability in product development? J. Clean. Prod. 80 (1), 106e118. Brones, F., Carvalho, M.M., Zancul, E.S., 2017. Reviews, action and learning on change management for ecodesign transition. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 8e22. Carlowitz, H.C. von, 1713. Sylvicultura Oeconomica: Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturm€ aßige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum-Zucht. Braun, Leipzig. Carifio, L., Perla, R., 2008. Resolving the 50 year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Med. Educ. 42, 1150e1152. Chen, S.-C., Hung, C.-W., 2016. Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: an extension of theory of planned behavior. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 112, 155e163. Clark, S.C., 2000. Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance. Hum. Relat. 53, 747e770. Conner, M., Armitage, C.J., 1998. Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues for further research. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28, 1429e1464. Cordano, M., Frieze, I.H., 2000. Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental managers: applying Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 627e641. Craddock, W.T., 2013. How business excellence models contribute to project sustainability and project success. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing. Crawford, L., 2013. Leading sustainability through projects. In: Silvius, A.J.G.,

1239

Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing, Hershey, PA. Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (1), 1e13. Deloitte, Touche, 1992. Business Strategy for Sustainable Development: Leadership and Accountability for the 90s. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Ebner, D., Baumgartner, R.J., 2006. The Relationship between Sustainable Development and Corporate Social Responsibility. www.crrconference.org. (Accessed 12 April 2013). Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone Publishing Ltc, Oxford. Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., 2013. Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: what standards say. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 36e50.
ndez-Sa
nchez, G., Rodríguez-Lo
pez, F., 2010. A methodology to identify susFerna tainability indicators in construction project managementdapplication to infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecol. Indicat. 10, 1193e1201. Francis, J., Johnston, M., Walker, M., Grimshaw, A., Bonetti, D., Foy, R., Eccles, M., 2004. Constructing Questionnaires Based on the TPB. University of Newcastle: Centre for health services research, Newcastle. Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pitman/Ballinger, Boston. Gareis, R., Huemann, M., Martinuzzi, R.-A., with the assistance of, Weninger, C., Sedlacko, M., 2013. Project Management & Sustainable Development Principles. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA USA. Gholami, H., Rezaei, G., Saman, M.Z.M., Sharif, S., Zakuan, N., 2016. State-of-the art Green HRM system: sustainability in the sports center in Malaysia using a multi-methods approach and opportunities for future research. J. Clean. Prod. 124, 142e163. Gilbert, R., Stevenson, D., Girardet, H., Stern, R. (Eds.), 1996. Making Cities Work: the Role of Local Authorities in the Urban Environment. Earthscan Publications Ltd. Goedknegt, D., 2013. Responsibility for adhering to sustainability in project management. In: 7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization, Trondheim, pp. 145e154. Haugan, G., 2012. The New Triple Constraints for Sustainable Projects, Programs, and Portfolios. CRC press, Boca Raton, FL USA. Hassi, L., Peck, D., Dewulf, K., Wever, R., 2009. Sustainable innovation - organization and goal finding. In: Conference Proceedings Joint Actions on Climate Change. Henson, R.K., Roberts, J.K., 2006. Use of exploratory factor Analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 66 (3). Hwang, B.-G., Ng, W.J., 2013. Project management knowledge and skills for green construction: overcoming challenges. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (2), 272e284. International Organization for Standardization, 2010. ISO 26000. Guidance on Social Responsibility, Geneva. International Organization for Standardization, 2017. ISO 21505:2017, Project, Programme and Portfolio Management. Guidance on governance, Geneva. International Project Management Association, 2015. Individual Competence Baseline for Project. Programme & Portfolio Management, Nijkerk, 4th version. Jackson, S.E., Seo, J., 2010. The greening of strategic HRM scholarship. Org. Manag. J. 7, 278e290. Julian, S.D., Ofori-Dankwa, J.C., Justis, R.T., 2008. Understanding strategic responses to interest group pressures. Strat. Manag. J. 29, 963e984. Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Turner, L.A., 2007. Towards a definition of mixed method research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 1 (2), 112e133. Keeble, J.J., Topiol, S., Berkeley, S., 2003. Using indicators to measure sustainability performance at a corporate and project level. J. Bus. Ethics 44 (2e3), 149e158. Kidder, L., Fine, M., 1987. Qualitative and quantitative methods: when stories converge. In: Mark, M.M., Shotland, R.L. (Eds.), Multiple Methods in Program Evaluation, Jossey-bass, pp. 57e75. Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., 2008. An industry perspective of the completeness and relevance of a social assessment framework for project and technology management in the manufacturing sector. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (3), 253e262. Linnenluecke, M.K., Russell, S.V., Griffiths, A., 2009. Subcultures and sustainability practices: the impact on understanding corporate sustainability. Bus. Strat. Environ. 18 (7), 432e452. Maltzman, R., Shirley, D., 2013. Project manager as a pivot point for implementing sustainability in an enterprise. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing.
rez-Ezcurdia, A., Gonza
lez-Jaen, L.F., 2015. Using Project Marcelino-S
adaba, S., Pe Management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a framework definition. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 1e16. Martens, P., 2006. Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 2 (1), 36e41. Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2016. The challenge of introducing sustainability into project management function: multiple-case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 117, 29e40. Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2017. Key factors of sustainability in project management context: a survey exploring the project managers' perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6), 1084e1102. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens, W.W., 1972. The Limits to Growth. Universe Books. Molenaar, K.R., Sobin, N., 2010. A synthesis of best-value procurement practices for sustainable design-build projects in the public sector. J. Green Build. 5 (4), 148e157. Mont, O., Plepys, A., 2008. Sustainable consumption progress: should we be proud

1240

A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

or alarmed? J. Clean. Prod. 16, 531e537. Project Management Institute, 2010. Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA. Pade, C., Mallinson, B., Sewry, D., 2008. An elaboration of critical success factors for rural ICT project sustainability in developing countries: exploring the dwesa case. J. Inf. Technol. Cases Appl. 10 (4). Reio Jr., T.G., Shuck, B., 2015. Exploratory Factor Analysis: implications for theory, research and practice. Adv. Develop. Hum. Resour. 17, 12e25. Renwick, D.W., Jabbour, C.J., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T., Wilkinson, A., 2016. Contemporary developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27 (2), 114e128. Robinson, J., 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 48, 369e384. S
anchez, M.A., 2015. Integrating sustainability issues into project management. J. Clean. Prod. 96, 319e330. Silvius, A.J.G., 2016a. Sustainability as a competence of project managers. PM World J. V (IX), 1e13. Silvius, A.J.G., 2016b. Integrating sustainability into project risk management. In: Bodea, S., Purnus, A., Huemann, M., Hajdu, M. (Eds.), Managing Project Risks For Competitive Advantage in Changing Business Environments. IGI Global. Silvius, A.J.G., 2017. Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1479e1493. Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., 2014. Sustainability in Project Management: a literature review and impact analysis. Soc. Bus. 4 (1). Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., 2015. Developing a maturity model for assessing sustainable project management. J. Mod. Proj. Manag. 3 (1), 16e27. Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., 2016. Exploring the relationship between sustainability and project success - conceptual model and expected relationships. Int. J. Inform. Syst. Proj. Manag. 4 (3), 5e22. Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., Nedeski, S., 2013. Consideration of sustainability in projects and project management: an empirical study. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing, Hershey, PA.

€hler, A., 2012. SustainSilvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., Planko, J., van den Brink, J., Ko ability in Project Management. Gower Publishing, Farnham. Stevens, J., 1996. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, third ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Tam, G., 2010. The program management process with sustainability considerations. J. Proj. Prog. Portf. Manag. 1 (1). Tharp, J., 2013. Sustainability in project management: practical applications. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing, Hershey, PA. Tiron-Tudor, A., Ioana-Maria, D., 2013. Project success by integrating sustainability in project management. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing. Toderoiu, F., 2010. Ecological footprint and biocapacity: methodological and regional and national dimensions. Agric. Econ. Rural Dev. VII (2), 213e238. New Series. Tulder, R. van, Tilburg, R. van, Francken, M., da Rosa, A., 2014. Managing the Transition to a Sustainable Enterprise: Lessons from Frontrunner Companies. Earthscan by Routledge. Turner, J.R., 2010. Responsibilities for sustainable development in project and program management. In: Knoepfel, H. (Ed.), Survival and Sustainability as Challenges for Projects. International Project Management Association, Zurich. Wang, P., Liu, Q., Qi, Y., 2014. Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors: a survey of the rural residents in China. J. Clean. Prod. 63, 152e165. Weninger, C., Huemann, M., 2013. Project initiation: investment analysis for sustainable development. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing. Wojciszke, B., 2005. Morality and competence in person- and selfperception. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 16, 155e188. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Zuchi, D., 2018. The maturity of the project owner: how can it Be developed? In: Silvius, G., Karayaz, G. (Eds.), Developing Organizational Maturity For Effective Project Management. IGI Global.