MAJOR REPORT

Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Achieving Sustainability: Case Studies in Ireland’s Construction Projects

Students : Du Vu Hoang Tuan (15202513)

Shane O’Reilly (12310956)

Module Title : Major Report

Module Code : BMGT 43770

Supervisor : Assoc.Prof.Dr. Virpi Turkulainen

Class : Project Management Full-Time

School : UCD Michael Smurfit Business School

Date Submitted : Friday 12th August 2016

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

We hereby certify that the submitted work is our own work, was completed while registered

as a candidate for the degree stated on the title page, and we have not obtained a degree

elsewhere on the basis of the research presented in this submitted work.

Student Name: Du Vu Hoang Tuan Student Number: 15202513

Student Name: Shane O’Reilly Student Number: 12310956

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank a number of individuals for the help they gave throughout the project.

Firstly, we would like to thank our thesis supervisor, Dr. Virpi Turkulainen for guidance and

periodical group meeting sessions. In particular, we appreciated her fast responses to our

emails. In addition, we would like to thank our friends and families for their unwavering

support during our project. We would also like to thank LIDL for allowing us to conduct

research within their new headquarters in Tallaght. Without the help of these individuals and

organisations, this major report would not have been possible.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 2

1.1. Background of the Study..................................................................................................... 2

1.2. Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 4

1.3. Level of Analysis ................................................................................................................. 4

1.4. Study Structure .................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 6

2.1. Fundamentals of Sustainability ........................................................................................... 6

2.1.1. The Definition of Sustainability ............................................................................................. 6

2.1.2. The Triple Bottom Line .......................................................................................................... 9

2.1.3. Sustainability in Management Research ............................................................................. 11

2.2. Stakeholder Inclusiveness Framework............................................................................... 12

2.2.1. Stakeholder Theory ............................................................................................................. 12

2.2.2. The Definition of Stakeholder ............................................................................................. 13

2.2.3. Stakeholder Management Process ..................................................................................... 15

2.2.4. Stakeholder Identification ................................................................................................... 17

2.2.5. Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................................................... 20

2.3. The Relationship between Sustainability and Stakeholder Inclusiveness ............................ 22

2.3.1. Stakeholders in Environmental Sustainability ..................................................................... 24

2.3.2. Stakeholders in Social Sustainability ................................................................................... 25

2.3.3. Stakeholders in Economic Sustainability ............................................................................. 25

2.4. Sustainability and Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Construction Projects ................................ 26

2.4.1. Sustainability in Construction Projects................................................................................ 26

2.4.2. Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Construction Projects............................................................ 27

2.4.3. Integrating Sustainability and Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Construction Projects ........... 28

iii

2.5. Overview of the Construction Industry of Ireland .............................................................. 30

2.5.1. The Construction Industry of Ireland .................................................................................. 30

2.5.2. Sustainability in the Construction Industry of Ireland ........................................................ 32

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 35

4.1. Research Design ............................................................................................................... 35

4.2. Research Philosophy......................................................................................................... 37

4.3. Research Approach ........................................................................................................... 38

4.4. Research Strategy ............................................................................................................. 40

4.5. Research Choice ............................................................................................................... 43

4.6. Time Horizons .................................................................................................................. 44

4.7. Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................. 44

4.7.1. Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 44

4.7.2. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 47

4.7.3. Research Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 48

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 50

5.1. St. James’ New Children’s Hospital Case Study .................................................................. 50

5.1.1. Project Management Overview .......................................................................................... 50

5.1.2. Stakeholder Identification ................................................................................................... 51

5.1.3. Sustainability in the St. James’ New Children’s Hospital Case Study .................................. 55

5.1.4. Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in St. James’ New Children’s Hospital ............ 58

5.2. Capital Docks Case Study .................................................................................................. 59

5.2.1. Project Management Overview .......................................................................................... 60

5.2.2. Stakeholder Identification ................................................................................................... 60

5.2.3. Sustainability in the Capital Docks Case Study .................................................................... 64

5.2.4. Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in Capital Docks Case Study ............................ 65

5.3. LIDL Headquarters Case Study .......................................................................................... 66

5.3.1. Project Management Overview .......................................................................................... 66

iv

5.3.2. Stakeholder Identification ................................................................................................... 67

5.3.3. Sustainability in LIDL Headquarters Case Study .................................................................. 69

5.3.4. Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in LIDL Headquarters Case Study ................... 70

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 73

6.1. Summary of Research Findings ......................................................................................... 73

6.2. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 82

6.2.1. Theoretical Contribution ..................................................................................................... 82

6.2.2. Practical Contribution ......................................................................................................... 84

6.3. Research Limitations ........................................................................................................ 84

6.4. Future Implications .......................................................................................................... 85

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 86

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: The Definition of Sustainability .............................................................................................. 7

Table 2.2: Definitions of Stakeholders .................................................................................................. 14

Table 2.3: Stakeholder Management Process in the Literature ........................................................... 16

Table 2.4: The Attributes of Stakeholders ............................................................................................ 18

Table 2.5: Stakeholder Classification According to Attributes ............................................................. 19

Table 2.6: Strategy for Stakeholders ..................................................................................................... 20

Table 3.1: The Main Concepts of Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 33

Table 4.1: Summary of Four Research Designs ..................................................................................... 36

Table 4.2: Summary of Research Philosophies ..................................................................................... 37

Table 4.3: Summary of Research Approach .......................................................................................... 39

Table 4.4: Summary of Research Strategy ............................................................................................ 41

Table 4.5: Summary of Research Choice ............................................................................................... 43

Table 4.6: Criteria for Case Selection .................................................................................................... 46

Table 4.7: General Information of Case Studies ................................................................................... 46

Table 5.1: Stakeholders of the St. James’ New Children’s Hospital ...................................................... 53

Table 5.2: Stakeholders of the Capital Docks Case Study ..................................................................... 62

Table 5.3: Stakeholders of the LIDL Headquarters Case Study ............................................................. 68

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Structure of the study ........................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2.1: Stakeholder Classification According to Attributes ............................................................ 19

Figure 2.2: Model of Stakeholder Management and Moral Treatment ............................................... 21

Figure 2.3: The Stakeholder-Urban Evaluation Model.......................................................................... 29

Figure 2.4: Stakeholder Interactions Based on Sustainability............................................................... 30

Figure 3.1: Research Framework .......................................................................................................... 33

Figure 4.1: Research Onion ................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 4.2: Secondary Data ................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 5.1: Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in St. James’ New Children’s Hospital ............ 59

Figure 5.2: Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in Capital Docks Case Study ........................... 66

Figure 5.3: Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in LIDL Headquarters Case Study ................... 71

Figure 6.1: Model of the Relationship between Stakeholder Inclusiveness and Sustainability ........... 73

1

ABSTRACT

It is without a doubt that the business environment has undergone significant changes, with

respect to environmental, social and economic dimensions. The goal to achieve economic

prosperity without compromising environmental and social benefits for the next generations

becomes a challenge to any organisation. Sustainability, in turn, has become a key driver in

organisations in general and in projects in particular, hinting a strong relationship between

the concept of sustainability and project management. Within the area of project

management, the embracement of project stakeholders in achieving sustainability has started

to gain more prominence. This report provides an analysis of the current implementation of

stakeholder inclusiveness in obtaining sustainability in construction projects in Ireland, using

a case study approach. Based on the assessment of the scenarios, the authors would like to

propose the framework for the adoption of the concept in project stakeholder inclusiveness

within the context of the construction industry.

2

This chapter aims to provide an introductory insight into the scope of the research. The

background of the study is presented to lay the groundwork for the research gap and

questions. Afterwards, the level of analysis of the research as well as the structure of this

report are provided.

1.1. Background of the Study

Undoubtedly, sustainability has shown a growing prominence in almost every sector of the

socio-economy (Mebratu, 1998; Harris, 2003; Pope et al., 2004; Ness et al., 2006; Sartori et

al., 2013; Emas, 2015). This is true especially in this day and age when turbulence has become

an increasing factor (Silvia, 2015). In fact, there are various changing scenarios that encourage

the adoption of sustainability, for example, economic crisis, climate change or bio-diversity

loss. One of the most visible applications of the concept is in the business sector (Sanchez,

2014).

In general, the concept of sustainability implies the integration of economic, environmental

and social aspects, all of which will be considered in both the short and long term (Silvius and

Schipper, 2014b). As a consequence, sustainability in project management refers to the

integration of economic, environmental and social aspects in the management and delivery

of projects (Silvius and Schipper, 2014b). The three concepts, namely economic,

environmental, and social form the Triple-Bottom Line.

The relationship between sustainability and project management has attracted academic

scholars over the past few years, with over 200 academic articles and conference proceedings

(Silvius and Schipper, 2014a). The reason for this is that projects are the most useful tools for

executing change in businesses, which, in turn, paves the way for sustainability. Okland (2015)

claimed that projects have made up a third of the aggregate products of the world, implying

that the incorporation of sustainability principles in project management certainly leads to a

positive impact. In addition, sustainability has a large influence on a wide range of sectors

within the scope of project management, one of the most notable of which is stakeholder

management (Silvius and Schipper, 2014a).

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

3

Stakeholder management has a central position in the stakeholder theory, which was initiated

since the landmark publication by Freeman in 1984, in which a group of people with close link

to the focal organisation, in this case, the project, should be taken into serious consideration

(Freeman, 1984; Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009; Reed et al., 2009; Eskerod and Huemann, 2013).

Furthermore, the relationship between stakeholders and sustainability has been growing

strongly (Eskerod et al., 2015). Within the area of stakeholder management, stakeholder

inclusiveness and engagement has been credited as a challenge and success factor, without

which sustainability cannot be achieved (Penzenstadler, 2013). Stakeholder inclusiveness

refers to the involvement or the embodiment of a wide variety of project stakeholders

(Eskerod et al., 2015).

Reviewing the literature across this topic shows a lack of both academic and empirical

research on the relationship between sustainability and stakeholder inclusiveness. The

importance of project stakeholder inclusiveness is undeniable as it paves way for every step

forward in the stakeholder management process (PMI, 2013; Eskerod et al., 2015).

Considering each of the triple bottom lines of sustainability, there is a concern about how to

include or ensure the engagement, participation and involvement of project stakeholders in

the sustainable development of the project. Moreover, there has been academic research on

the relationship between the two constructs in a number of industries, namely the forest

products industry (Sharma and Henriques, 2005); wine industry (2009), mining industry

(Lingenfelder and Thomas, 2011), nuclear industry (Banerjee and Boonefous, 2011),

hospitality industry (Perez and Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014), marketing (Kumar et al., 2016)

and so on, but there is still a shortage of research in the construction industry.

As a result, the purpose of this research is to investigate the issues of stakeholder inclusiveness

in relation to sustainability, and suggest implications for the construction industry in Ireland.

Looking into the academic theories in the fields of sustainability and stakeholder inclusiveness

combined with empirical findings from case studies in construction projects, the authors aim

to advance the comprehension of the aforementioned topic. Likewise, the authors would like

to introduce a framework which engages construction project stakeholders considering

sustainable development to contribute to the research issue.

4

1.2. Research Questions

To study the relationship between stakeholder inclusiveness and sustainability, the research

aims to address three research questions as follows:

Who are the main stakeholders of construction projects?

How is sustainability determined from a triple bottom line approach in construction

projects?

How are stakeholders included in the sustainability in construction projects?

1.3. Level of Analysis

With respect to theory, the academic literatures of sustainability and stakeholder theory are

reviewed to provide the research basis for the study. These two major areas are then

combined to signify the importance of research on the relationship between them, and

particularly how sustainability issues and stakeholder inclusiveness can be integrated into

each other in a project.

The study chose the construction industry of Ireland as the focal empirical subject to work on.

Firstly, the construction industry has an important role to play in the socio-economy of Ireland

as a whole (SCSI, 2015). Secondly, sustainability practices are most obvious in this industry,

due to its relevance from environmental, social and economic viewpoints (Silvius and

Schipper, 2014; Marcelino-Sadaba et al., 2015). Thirdly, one of the most prominent features

of the construction industry is its complexity and the involvement of various different

stakeholders throughout the project life cycle (Doloi, 2012). That is, the construction industry

embraces in a representative way both sustainability and stakeholder management issues.

Owing to time constraints in conducting the study, three main aspects of sustainability or the

triple bottom line (environmental, social and economic), as well as stakeholder theory,

focusing on stakeholder inclusiveness from a managerial point of view are considered in the

empirical part of the study. Three case studies of three construction projects in Ireland are to

be analysed, with a view to answering the research questions.

5

Last but not least, there has been a lack of a consensus on the integration of sustainability and

stakeholder inclusiveness in academic literature. As a consequence, the theoretical

framework chapter concentrates on the definitions of these given concepts.

1.4. Study Structure

This reports consists of two major parts, the theoretical one and the empirical one. The

theoretical part opens the study with an introduction, raising the concern about the

relationship between sustainability and stakeholder inclusiveness in projects, which provides

the basis for the research questions of the study. Then the review of literature comprises an

overview of the construct of sustainability and stakeholder theory focusing on stakeholder

inclusiveness, prior to merging the two to highlight their relationship. This leads to the third

segment of the theoretical part, the theoretical framework of the research, which requires

supplements from the case study analysis in later parts.

The first part of the empirical part is the research methodology, providing a breakdown of

how this study is carried out, as well as the research design, approach, methodology, data

collection and data analysis. It is followed by the research findings, consisting of the key

findings of selected case studies in relation to the review of literature. Then the summary of

findings, discussion of results, the contribution of this study in terms of theory and

management, research limitations and future implications which constitute the last chapter

of the empirical part and the study.

Overall, the study includes two major parts with six chapters as presented in the following

figure.

Figure 1.1: Structure of the study

LITERATURE REVIEW

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

THEORETICAL PART

EMPIRICAL PART

STR

UC

TUR

E O

F TH

E ST

UD

Y

6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of literature covering a wide range of

concepts, focusing on two theoretical settings: sustainability and stakeholder management,

as part of addressing the research questions theoretically.

The first part of this chapter reviews fundamentals of sustainability, comprising sustainability

definition, the triple bottom line and sustainability in management research. Following that,

the second part continues with stakeholder theory including stakeholder definition,

stakeholder management process, stakeholder identification and engagement. The third part

shows how the previous two sections merge into each other, resulting in the relationship

between sustainability and stakeholder management.

2.1. Fundamentals of Sustainability

2.1.1. The Definition of Sustainability

Sustainability has been a major concern from a very long time. While Alhaddi (2015) argued

that the origin of sustainability can be traced back to more than ten decades ago, others, such

as Mebratu, 1998; Hughes, 2001; Clifton and Aran, 2011 and Pietrosemoli and Monroy (2013)

pointed out the root of the concept might date back to ancient history. For instance, in

religious beliefs and traditions of multiple regions around the world, humans have embraced

the environmental value or living in harmony with nature, which has since become one of the

core areas of the concept of sustainability. Besides, various economic theories have forecasted

the need for sustainability in an ever-changing society, where devastating effects started to

emerge as a result of man’s industrial revolution such as environmental pollution.

In fact, it was not until 1987, when the World Commission on Environment and Development

(WCED), also known as Brundtland Commission was organised, that the construct of

sustainability started to achieve prominence (Mebratu, 1998; Pope et al., 2004; Robinson,

2004, Ness et al., 2006; Clifton and Amran, 2011; Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; Sartori et al.,

2013; Emas, 2015). To illustrate, it began with the definition of the term “sustainable

development” as:

7

“…The development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability

of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987).

It contains two sub-concepts:

The concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which

overriding priority should be given; and

The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on

the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.

Despite having been cited as a basis for the majority of publications over the last two decades,

this definition has also received numerous criticisms for its vagueness and lack of practicality

(Barbosa et al., 2014; Silvius and Schipper, 2014a).

In response to the rising significance of sustainability in the socio-economy (Diesendorf, 1999),

such as international and national policies, the construct has since been evolved with a diverse

range of definitions and interpretations (Mebratu, 1998; Robinson, 2004; Prezioso and

Coronato, 2013; Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; Sartorie et al., 2013; Silvius and Schipper,

2014b; Alhaddi, 2015). There have been over 200 definitions for sustainability up to the

present (Circular Ecology, 2016). Some of the most notable definitions are as follows:

Table 2.1: The Definition of Sustainability

Author(s) Year Definition

EPA 1969 “Create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations”

Lele 1991 “The existence of the ecological conditions necessary to support human life at a specific level of wellness through future generations, and this is ecological sustainability and not sustainable development”

Dovers and Handmer

1992 “The ability of a human system, natural or mixed, to resist or adapt to endogenous or exogenous change indefinitely”

8

Sachs 1997 “A dynamic concept that encompasses a process of change and the concept is subdivided into five dimensions: social, economic, ecological, geographical and cultural”

Dyllick and Hockerts

2002 “The societal development and evolution in the direction of a wealthy and more comfortable world where the natural environment and cultural accomplishments are reserved for future generations. In addition to benefiting future generations, sustainability delivers value and financial gains in the present”

Cavalcanti 2003 “The possibility of obtaining continuously conditions equal to or greater life for a group of people and their successors in given ecosystem”

Hart and Milsten

2003 “The expectations of improving the social and environmental performance of the present generation without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their social and environmental need”

Horbach 2005 “A state in which three types of interests (or conflicts) are met (or resolved) simultaneously:

the interests of the current generation to improve their actual life conditions (economic sustainability)

the search for an equalization of living conditions between rich and poor (social sustainability)

(iii) the interests of future generations that are not committed to meeting the needs of the current generation (environmental sustainability)”

Ayres 2008 “A normative concept about how humans should act in relation to nature, and how they are responsible for each other and future generations. In this context, it is noted that sustainability is conducive to economic growth based on social justice and the efficient use of natural resources”

Aras and Crowther

2009 “A fundamental and complex construct that mandates the balance of several factors in order for the planet to continually exist”

P&G 2009 “Ensuring a better quality of life, now and for generations to come, embracing environmental protection, social responsibility and economic development”

UNESCO 2016 “Sustainability is a paradigm for thinking about the future in which environmental, societal and economic considerations are balanced in the pursuit of an improved quality of life”

Overall, it can be seen that the definition of sustainability has changed gradually, from

focusing on ecological issues (EPA, 1969; Lele, 1991; Dovers and Handmer, 1992) to targeting

wider applications from three main aspects: environmental, social and economic

9

development. Nonetheless, the goal of securing the lives of future generations (which derives

from the sustainable development concept) remains constant among these definitions. In this

study, the authors choose the overall definition of UNESCO (2016) as the basis for our

continued development of the theme, with its 3 strands (environmental, societal and

economic) being presented in the following section. Furthermore, sustainability has seen its

application in a wide variety of aspects, such as politics, business, environment and so forth

(Clifton and Amran, 2011).

2.1.2. The Triple Bottom Line

The triple bottom line refers to the three factors aforementioned, environmental, social and

economic, which constitute the three pillars of sustainability (Sartori et al., 2013). Doloi (2012)

stated that the objective of sustainability of a project is not always the economic benefit but

the social and environmental concerns that fulfil human needs. Devised by Elkington (1997),

it is true that triple bottom line and sustainability are two closely linked constructs that can be

utilised interchangeably in the literature. The research of Silvius and Schipper (2014a) shows

that nearly 90% of all sustainability-related publications have interpreted the concept in the

light of the “Triple Bottom Line”.

In fact, sustainability is regarded as the driver for the triple bottom line to measure business

performance and success by the use of three bottom lines: environmental, social and

economic. Furthermore, each of the triple bottom lines receives an equal amount of emphasis,

adding more coherence into the construct (Elkington, 1997; Alhaddi, 2015).

2.1.2.1. Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability refers to the “dematerialisation of economic activity” (Sartori et

al., 2013, p. 4). In other words, the environmental line of the triple bottom line implies the

practices that do not sacrifice the environmental resources for the benefits of the future

generation, for instance, using energy resources efficiently, reducing greenhouse gas

emissions and so forth (Alhaddi, 2015).

To be more specific, the reduction of materials used in the present generation can lead to the

decline of pressure on the natural environment, while guaranteeing its contribution to

10

economic growth. Activities such as over-exploiting renewable resources and depleting non-

renewable resources are avoided, and the diversity of natural system is maintained (Sartori et

al., 2013).

2.1.2.2. Social Sustainability

Social sustainability refers to the fairly beneficial business practices to “the labour, human

capital, and to the community” as a way of giving back to society (Elkington, 1997). Doloi

(2012) defined social sustainability as the link between the society and the nature. For

example, it is reflected on the homogeneity or fairness in opportunity, namely access to

fundamental health and educational services, gender equality and political participation

(Harris, 2003; Sartori et al., 2013). Another important example is the corporate social

responsibility of businesses in general, which comes at a high economic cost if it is

compromised and which has the ethics, social responsibilities and marketing benefits resulting

from the activities of the organisation (Doloi, 2012). Goel (2010) claimed that social

sustainability shows the strong relationship between organisations and the community.

2.1.2.3. Economic Sustainability

Economic sustainability refers to the impact of organisations’ activities on the economic

system (Elkington, 1997). It illustrates the surviving and evolving capabilities of the economy

such as the way that the economic prospers from the value the organisations bring about,

with a view to supporting the later generations (Alhaddi, 2015). For example, economic

sustainability implies the ability to ensure the natural capital to prevent economic de-growth.

In addition to that, it is necessary to guarantee the continued provision of goods and services,

the operation of government, and so forth (Sartori et al., 2013).

In short, to achieve sustainability, which comprises the long-term stability of not only the

economy but also the environment, three factors need to be taken into serious consideration

during the decision-making process, namely environmental integrity, social equity and

economic prosperity (Diesendorf, 1999; Emas, 2015). These three principles are closely linked

and have impacts on each other. Without each of them, neither sustainable development nor

sustainability is achievable (Hubbard, 2009), or in other words, the integration of all three

plays an essential role in the framework of both key concepts (Dernbach, 2003).

11

As a result, in this study, the construct of sustainability is expressed by the triple bottom line,

or three aspects, environmental, social and economic, are used as the illustrations for

sustainability.

2.1.3. Sustainability in Management Research

Among business-related topics, project management has stood out for its stronger

relationship with sustainability. Sustainability requires change, and projects are the tools to

execute and realise change within an organisation (Silvius and Schipper, 2015). Elkington

developed “the concept of Triple Bottom Line which proposed that business goals were

inseparable from the societies and environments within which they operate” (Elkington,

1997). It is clear that “sustainability was adopted by many companies through their mission

statement and strategy. However, the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability

are difficult to incorporate in programs and projects as vehicles for executing the

organization’s strategy” (Sánchez, 2015). Projects are the core means for introducing this

change in organisations and in society (Tufinio et al., 2013). Okland (2015) claimed that

projects have made up a third of the aggregate products of the world, which means the

incorporation of sustainability principles in project management will definitely have a positive

impact on a more sustainable future.

Also, there is an increasing pressure on organisations to adopt the sustainability practices into

policies and activities (Labuschagne and Brent, 2005). Association for Project Management

(past-) Chairman Tom Taylor recognised that the current world is filled with a diverse range of

fundamental sustainability threats, and project management is very important from the point

of view of making a significant contribution to sustainability management practices

(Association for Project Management, 2006). The triple bottom lines of sustainable

development are currently not addressed in an effective manner. To align these frameworks

with the principles of sustainability, one must understand the various life cycles in a project

and the interactions among them (Labuschagne and Brent, 2005).

In the current project management methodologies, the management of projects is dominated

by the ‘triple-constraint’ variables time, cost and quality (PMI, 2008). The reality of this

approach in project management is often in contrast to the KPIs of the more ‘holistic view’ of

the triple bottom lines of environmental, social, and economical. The present use of the triple-

12

constraints “clearly puts emphasis on the profit ‘P’” (Silvius and Schipper, 2015). The social

and environmental aspects “may be included as aspects of the quality of the result, but they

are bound to get less attention” (Silvius and Schipper, 2015). It is therefore easy to see that

the environmental and social aspects are the more neglected aspects of the triple bottom line

in the reality of Project Management methodologies.

Aside from the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social and economic), scholars

have determined ten other dimensions that links sustainability directly with project

management, namely: Time, Geography, Performance, Participation, Waste, Transparency,

Accountability, Culture, Risk and Politics (Silvius and Schipper, 2014a). Their relative impacts

on project management have been identified in a number of domains within project

management, such as project success, risk management, and project procurement, among

others (Silvius and Schipper, 2014a).

2.2. Stakeholder Inclusiveness Framework

2.2.1. Stakeholder Theory

The literature of stakeholder management concentrates on stakeholder theory in the area of

strategic management (Mainardes et al., 2011; Eskerod & Huemann, 2013; Eskerod and

Vaasagar, 2014; Eskerod et al., 2015). The landmark for that was the seminar work “Strategic

Management: A Stakeholder Approach” of Edward Freeman that was released in 1984 (Phillips

et al., 2003; Laplume et al., 2008; Mainardes et al., 2011; Eskerod and Vaasagar, 2014).

Stakeholder management is applied in the context of a focal organisation, which could either

be a permanent or a temporary endeavour (Eskerod and Vaasagar, 2014). Since a project is an

example of a temporary endeavour (PMI, 2013), the stakeholder theory is thereby applicable

within project context.

The stakeholder theory implies in its simplest form that organisations in general should

manage the interests of their stakeholders rather than shareholders only and take them into

consideration when making strategic decisions (Freeman, 1984; Persson and Olander, 2004;

Laplume et al., 2008; Aaltonen, 2010; Mainardes et al., 2011). Phillips et al. (2003) agreed with

that, citing that stakeholder management should be given more priority over the maximisation

of wealth of equity shareholders. That is, the theory focuses on the interests and well-being

13

of stakeholders who can assist or have the power to hinder the activities of the focal

organisation (Phillips et al., 2003), which bears resemblance to other alternative models for

strategic management like the resource dependence theory (Froman, 1999).

Since then, the theory has attracted more interest and a higher level of importance and depth

among scholars and practitioners alike (Jensen and Sandstrom, 2011). There are a number of

scholars who have significantly contributed to the development of the theory, namely Savage

et al. (1991), Mitchell et al. (1997), Crawford (2005), Atkin and Skitmore (2008), Jespen and

Eskerod (2009), Aaltonen (2010), Harrison et al. (2010), Parmar et al. (2010), Eskerod and

Huemann (2013), Horisch et al. (2014) and so forth.

Within the area of stakeholder theory, it is undeniable that stakeholder inclusiveness and

engagement should receive special attention. Stakeholder inclusiveness refers to “the extent

to which every stakeholder is taken into account by the focal organisation” (Eskerod et al.,

2015, p. 43). That is, despite the variations in their characteristics, all stakeholders should be

identified, and then engaged during the project (Eskerod et al., 2015).

This is because in this day and age, the perspective of project stakeholder management should

be revised, in order to adapt to many changes and demands on the project, of which

sustainability is one (Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; Eskerod et al., 2015). One of the notable

responses of projects is the increasing number of stakeholders with different requirements,

concerns, interests and powers (Jepsen and Sandstrom, 2011). As a result, this has led to the

concern about stakeholder inclusiveness in projects (Lingenfelder and Thomas, 2012).

In the context of this section, to understand stakeholder inclusiveness, relevant concepts from

the literature of stakeholder theory are studied, namely stakeholder definition, identification

and engagement.

2.2.2. The Definition of Stakeholder

The definition of the term “stakeholder” must be clarified in the first place. Across the

literature of stakeholder management, there have been a number of different definitions of

stakeholders, some of the most notable of which are summarised as below:

14

Table 2.2: Definitions of Stakeholders

Author(s) Year Definition

Freeman 1984 “Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation’s objectives”

Bowie 1988 “Groups or individuals without whose support the organisation would cease to exist”

Nutt and Backoff

1992 “All parties who will be affected by or will affect the organisation’s strategy”

Cochran 1994 “A wide range of different constituents including stockholders, customers, workers, managers, and so on who have economic relationship to the organisation”

Andersen 1995 “Those who are capable of influencing or being impacted by the project”

Campbell 1997 “Groups to whom the company should be concerned or from whom they need loyalty”

Shankman 1999

“Individuals or groups with legitimate interests in the ongoing activities of the firm do so to obtain benefits (economic or otherwise) and that there is no prima facie priority of one set of interests over each other”

Gibson 2000 “A stakeholder is any individual or group with power to be a threat or a benefit”

Kochan and Rubinstein

2000 “Those who need to supply critical resources or assets to the enterprise, ... must be affected by the fate of the enterprise, ... and amass sufficient power ... in organisations”

Phillips 2003 “Any individual or group that is the legitimate object of managerial attention”

Foley 2005

“Those who possess both:

the means of bringing attention to their needs

the ability to take action if those needs are not met “

Reed et al. 2009 “Any naturally occurring entity that is affected by organisational performance”

PMI 2013 “Individuals and organizations that are actively involved in the project or whose interest may be affected as a result of project execution or project completion”

15

It is apparent that there are different views of stakeholders, mostly in terms of the inclusion

of relevant subjects, such as broad views of such as Shankman (1999) to a narrower

perspective like Kochan and Rubinstein (2000). However, they still share some common

characteristics as follows:

- Stakeholders can be either individual or group of people (Kumar et al., 2016);

- Stakeholders must have the link with the organisation or the project;

- Stakeholders have “economic relationships within a general context of moral

management” (Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005, p. 714) with the project.

Similar to the construct of sustainability, the level of specificity among these different

definitions of stakeholders varies, depending on the actual purpose of use of users. In this

research, the authors choose to follow the definition of PMI (2013) as it enables a broad

perspective of people and groups to be involved. This is to ensure the “inclusiveness” of

stakeholders as much as possible. Also, this definition is directly relevant to the domain of

project management that runs through this research.

2.2.3. Stakeholder Management Process

Stakeholder management refers to the partnership between one organisation and its

stakeholders, which consists of communication, negotiation, contractual agreement, and

relationship management (Boesso and Kumar, 2009). No projects can exist without the

involvement of stakeholders, whose interest, demand and power can have an ultimate impact

on the success of the project (Aaltonen, 2010), for which stakeholder management is often

considered one of the core factors that can influence the success of any organisation or project

(Werhane and Freeman, 1999).

In project management, stakeholder management is regarded as one of its critical

components, especially when there is an increase in the number of high-profile project failures

(Boesso and Kumar, 2009). Therefore, its importance has been signified through a number of

studies over the years, which shows that the appropriate treatment to project stakeholders

will result in the long-term survival and development (Aaltonen, 2010).

16

There are several stakeholder management processes in the literature of stakeholder

management developed as below:

Table 2.3: Stakeholder Management Process in the Literature

Author(s) Year Process

Karlsen 2002 - Stakeholder Identification

- Stakeholder Analysis

- Stakeholder Communication and Sharing

- Strategy Development

- Follow-up Action

Preble 2005 - Stakeholder Identification

- Stakeholder Nature Claims and Power Implications

- Performance Gap Determination

- Stakeholder Demand Prioritisation

- Response Strategy

- Stakeholder Monitoring and Control

Tan et al. 2005 - Stakeholder Identification

- Stakeholder Interest Determination

- Interest-Based Stakeholder Management Strategy

Olander 2006 - Stakeholder Identification

- Stakeholder Information Gathering

- Stakeholder Mission Identification

- Stakeholder Analysis (Strengths and Weaknesses)

- Stakeholder Strategy Identification

- Stakeholder Behaviour Projection

- Stakeholder Management Strategy Implementation

Young 2006 - Stakeholder Identification

- Stakeholder Information Collection

- Stakeholder Influence Analysis

Walker et al. 2008 - Stakeholder Identification

- Stakeholder Prioritisation

- Stakeholder Visualisation

- Stakeholder Engagement

- Stakeholder Communication Monitoring

17

Jepsen and

Eskerod

2009 - Stakeholder Identification

- Stakeholder Characterisation:

+ Necessary contributions

+ Expectations in terms of rewards for stakeholder contributions

+ Power of stakeholders

- Stakeholder Influence Strategy

PMI 2013 - Stakeholder Identification and Analysis

- Stakeholder Management Planning

- Stakeholder Engagement Management

- Stakeholder Engagement Control

The table illustrates some prominent stakeholder management process from different

scholars in different period of time. While it is difficult to single out the best model that can

be applied universally for any project (Mushka, 2015), it paves way for organisations to adopt

flexibility in their own stakeholder management process.

Also, stakeholder identification is the only stage that is included in all models, confirming the

important role of defining stakeholders for carrying out the later stages. Furthermore, these

other steps, despite having different names, have a common purpose, which is to engage

stakeholders actively. As a result, these two significant aspects, stakeholder identification and

stakeholder engagement, are given deeper analysis in the next sections.

In this report, the process of PMI (2013) is chosen for use thanks to its project-related nature

and the inclusion of all the necessary steps regarding stakeholder management.

2.2.4. Stakeholder Identification

As aforementioned, stakeholder identification plays an essential role in stakeholder

management. There are a number of approaches to identifying stakeholders in a project. It

should be noted that stakeholders of an organisation or a project can change with the passing

of time, and this can depend on various different factors such as culture or legislation (Garvare

and Johansson, 2010).

18

2.2.3.1. Stakeholders Classified According to Contractual Relationship

One of the most significant ways to identify stakeholders is to divide stakeholders into internal

and external ones (Jones, 1995; Persson and Olander, 2004; Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005;

Aaltonen, 2010):

- Internal stakeholders refer to individuals or groups that are formal members of the

project coalition, which support the project and have a formal, official or

contractual relationship with the project, such as employees, project team or

project manager (Aaltonen, 2010; Molwus, 2014; Mushka, 2015).

- External stakeholders are, by contrast, not formal members of the project

coalition. Nevertheless, they still have an effect or are affected by the project.

Some of the examples are the government and neighbourhood (Malkat and Kang,

2012; Mushka, 2015).

Another method of delineating stakeholders in this classification is marking the difference

between primary and secondary stakeholders (Carroll, 1993; Mushka, 2015). The former

refers to those who have a direct stake in the project while the latter implies those with a

representational stake in the project (Roloff, 2007), which makes them more difficult to

define.

2.2.3.2. Stakeholders Classified According to Characteristics

Mitchell et al. (1997), proposed a three characteristics of stakeholders, namely power,

legitimacy and/or urgency. Doloi (2012) claimed that power and legitimacy are the most

important factors. It was then adopted and developed by Walker et al. (2008) in his

publication, with the addition of one more attribute, namely proximity.

Table 2.4: The Attributes of Stakeholders

19

Based on that, Mitchell et al. (1997) built a classification of stakeholders with regard to either

one attribute or a combination of more than one as follows:

Figure 2.1: Stakeholder Classification According to Attributes

From this basis, he divided stakeholders into seven types as follows:

Table 2.5: Stakeholder Classification According to Attributes

20

2.2.5. Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement refers to the practices of involving stakeholders that have been

defined, regardless of the closeness of the stakeholders to the project (Sloan, 2009), in a

positive approach in relation to organisational activities (Greenwood, 2007).

The role of stakeholder engagement is immense and undeniable (Greenwood, 2007; Ayuso et

al., 2011; Molwus, 2014; Mushka, 2015), for example, increasing accountability and trust for

an organisation, improving performance and further growth in the long-term, strengthening

management quality (Sloan, 2009). Similarly, Ayuso et al. (2011) added that stakeholder

engagement enables organisations to increase and consolidate anticipation, comprehension

and response to the ever-changing business environment; plus more opportunities to propose

effective business solutions for both the organisation and the stakeholders. In addition to that,

Donaldson and Preston (1995), Jones (1995), Jones and Wicks (1999), and Ayuso et al. (2011)

linked the positive contribution of stakeholder engagement to the financial benefit to

organisations. Stakeholder engagement is also considered as a rare, valuable, non-

substitutable and imperfectly imitable resource, which will create competitive advantage for

the organisation according to the resource-based theory (Barney, 1991; Rodriguez et al., 2002;

Ayuso et al., 2011)

In order to engage stakeholders in projects, scholars and practitioners have developed various

engagement processes. For instance, after having mapped stakeholders in the power/interest

matrix, the next step is to prioritise stakeholder groups in the order of importance and develop

engagement strategy for each type of stakeholders as follows:

Table 2.6: Strategy for Stakeholders

21

Greenwood (2007) also contributed to the development of stakeholder engagement through

her model of stakeholder management and moral treatment.

Figure 2.2: Model of Stakeholder Management and Moral Treatment

Source: Greenwood, 2007

Her model shows the level of stakeholder engagement in the horizontal axis, which consists

of a process of “consultation communication, dialogue and exchange” (Mushka, 2015, p. 34).

To be more specific, high stakeholder engagement means more diverse activities of higher

quality and vice versa. The Y-axis is the stakeholder agency, which illustrates the treatment of

different stakeholders. The two axes result in four quadrants: responsibility, paternalism,

neoclassic and strategic. Each quadrant is further divided in two, each of which represents

different level of stakeholder participation (Greenwood, 2007).

To sum up, it is apparent that stakeholder engagement has a powerful part to play within each

and every organisation, especially when it comes to projects. The three models have different

perspectives and approaches; however, their purposes are similar, which is to engage the

most with each type of stakeholders that have previously been defined. It is obvious that those

who receive the most attention are those with high power, interest or influence on the

project. The others, despite lower priority, need a different engagement strategy to ensure

their inclusive association with the project.

22

2.3. The Relationship between Sustainability and Stakeholder Inclusiveness

It is true that sustainability and stakeholder inclusiveness have a strong relationship with each

other (Garvare and Johansson, 2010; Gibson, 2012; Kumar et al., 2016). This is due to the fact

that stakeholder theory, which covers stakeholder inclusiveness, is one of the most significant

starting points for sustainability management research and analysis, particularly the

environmental, social and economic aspects (Horisch et al., 2014). Mushka (2015) claimed that

stakeholder engagement and inclusiveness is a powerful force in driving projects to attain

sustainability (Achterkamp and Vos, 2006). Therefore, in this section, the relationship

between the two constructs are analysed in relation to the triple bottom line approach. First,

an overview of the relationship between the two is presented. It is followed by the integration

of the stakeholder identification into the triple bottom line.

First, their relationship is inevitable due to the change in the business environment nowadays

(Garvare and Johansson, 2010). It is true that the business environment is challenged by an

increasingly turbulent and unpredictable scenario (Tufinio et al., 2013). According to Silvia

(2015), what organisations have to encounter these days is the combination of “extreme

volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity”. Therefore, remaining focus on only the

economic benefit while neglecting social and environmental concerns would not be an ideal

strategic step. This is the basis for several scholars to challenge the shareholder theory, and

welcome the stakeholder theory (Garvare and Johansson, 2010; Banjerjee and Boonefous,

2011; Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; Eskerod et al., 2015).

Banerjee and Boonefous (2011) stated that what makes stakeholder theory a superior one is

that it involves a broader inclusion of internal and external actors other than only

shareholders. That is, the concentration has been enlarged to a broader range of stakeholders

(Garvare and Johansson, 2010). This paves the way for its application in sustainability, in which

the main three aspects (environmental, social and economic) constitute an inevitable part.

Besides, with a view to achieving sustainability, particularly in a highly volatile environment in

the long run, satisfying the demands of a wide variety of stakeholders is mandatory (Eskerod

et al., 2015). Stakeholders can cause unacceptable damage to the project feasibility when their

interests are unlikely to be fulfilled. If a long-term balance among the interests of stakeholders

23

is achieved, a steady state where not only humans but also nature are in harmony, certainly

follows (Garvare and Johansson, 2010).

Second, stakeholder inclusiveness plays an active role in achieving sustainability (Gabzdylova

et al., 2009). The significance of stakeholders has been put forward in a number of studies, in

which its role is associated with the survival and development of the focal organisation

(Aaltonen, 2010). Scholars have pointed out that the concept of stakeholder inclusiveness has

had to evolve relentlessly in order to respond to various issues such as risk and sustainability.

In fact, the stakeholder element has been increasingly adopted in the definition of

sustainability over time (Penzenstadler, 2013; Perez and Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014).

According to the European Commission (2012), sustainability refers to the integration of social

and environmental factors into business activities and notably relationships with

stakeholders. Similarly, the World Bank (2004) pointed out the goal of improving life quality

for the current and future generations must be achieved without compromising the

relationship with and the demands of stakeholders, namely employees, households and the

community. This opinion has also been confirmed by a number of other scholars, who

incorporated the stakeholder theory into sustainability management research, for example

stakeholder interaction (van Marrewijk, 2003), stakeholder satisfaction (Dyllick and Hockerts,

2002 and Hopkins, 2003). That is, the construct of sustainability has been broadened in terms

of not only enhancing life quality but also ensuring the benefits for people who are related to

the focal organisation (Perez and Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014). They confirmed that

sustainability should be determined as a function of project stakeholders who derive the most

advantages by it.

Stakeholder inclusiveness constitutes an important part of the stakeholder theory, which

confirms the role of the involvement of stakeholders (Mainardes et al., 2012). Penzenstadler

et al. (2013) also agreed that failure adequately to stakeholders in decision-making would

dampen the chance of attaining sustainability for any organisation as it is one of the key driving

forces. They further explained that without stakeholder involvement an issue will eventually

disappear without attention. Once projects fail to involve stakeholders with their needs, the

project performance will be adversely impacted (Perez and Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014).

24

Stakeholder inclusiveness for sustainability implies the higher chance for, namely, the project

manager and the project team to find out incentives for stakeholders to invest in sustainable

projects, since these incentives can be aligned with the objectives of these stakeholders. This

alignment implies a “win-win” opportunity for both as sustainability can be obtained while

their objectives are also achievable (Penzenstadler et al., 2013). Eskerod and Huemann (2013)

have also pointed out some criteria for the integration of stakeholders and sustainability,

including the considerations of future stakeholders in tandem with the balance of project

stakeholders’ interests in the triple bottom line. From a stakeholder perspective, Perez and

Rodriguez del Bosque (2014) claimed that sustainability should be mandatory for a project or

any other organisation to have towards the activities of stakeholders. As a result, the role of

stakeholder inclusiveness in sustainability can never be overlooked.

To sum up, stakeholder inclusiveness contributes positively to the sustainability of the project.

With a view to fulfilling stakeholder needs and demands in the long future, project stakeholder

inclusiveness and sustainability practices should be aligned and integrated with each other

(Eskerod and Huemann, 2013).

Regarding the triple bottom line, stakeholders are able to contribute significantly in each of

the three aspects: environmental, social and economic.

2.3.1. Stakeholders in Environmental Sustainability

Environmental issues have become growingly complicated and uncertain with a wider range

of effects on multiple subjects. This has led to the fact that decision-making must become

more flexible and transparent under the changing circumstances. Plus, a broader perspective

of knowledge needs to be adopted in these decisions, given the volatility of the environment.

As a result, the involvement of stakeholders is undeniably important in environmental

sustainability-oriented decision-making (Reed, 2008).

The involvement of a wide variety of stakeholders in decision-making associated with the

environment has been included in legal documents, such as the United Nations Economic

Commission for Europe in 1998. The basis for this is that stakeholder participation in

environmental sustainability will improve the opportunity for more credible decisions, given

25

the fact that a diverse number of stakeholders and multiple aspects of environment-human

interactions are considered (Reed, 2008; Hauck et al., 2016).

2.3.2. Stakeholders in Social Sustainability

Apart from environmental sustainability, stakeholders can also make a considerable

contribution to the social side of sustainability. With the rise of sustainability, stakeholders

are more demanding in terms of social behaviours and accountability that surpass that of

shareholders (Perez and Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014). For example, the government, the

project team and the clients can all have immense impacts on social sustainability issues.

To be more specific, the impact on social sustainability is rooted in the dependency on

resources provided by stakeholders (Ehrgott et al., 2010). Clients, thereby, play a big part in

this relationship with their buying power. If they recognise the availability of more innovative

or sustainable products or services, they are likely to choose them over those without the

desired characteristics. This creates a framework and incentive for an organisation to shape

their social sustainability to guarantee the social records of customers (Yeung, 2016).

In addition to that, the government is another example of a social sustainability contribution.

Through their tools such as regulations and laws, organisations are required to not only

comply with higher standards but also set a high social standard for themselves to avoid any

change in the future, allowing them to create a competitive advantage over other

competitors. That is, according to Yeung (2016), government can pressurise organisations to

adopt a more socially sustainable practices.

Internally, the project team is another important driving force. According to Ehrgott et al.

(2010), the project manager can act as the one cultivating the positive value for the staff and

helping them instil this value. The match between the team’s values and the project as a whole

is essential to form and enhance social sustainability (Yeung, 2016).

2.3.3. Stakeholders in Economic Sustainability

Economic sustainability is possibly the most visible aspect of the stakeholder contribution.

This is because a large number of stakeholders have an impact on and are impacted by the

26

economic performance of the project (Gibson, 2012). To illustrate, every project needs

financial resources to draw on, and positive financial performance is one of the key factors

representing project success. The majority of stakeholders of the project are involved in

economic sustainability, such as shareholders (Schlange, 2009). Not only are they able to

derive huge financial benefits from their activities but they also have to take considerable

economic and financial risks.

2.4. Sustainability and Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Construction Projects

2.4.1. Sustainability in Construction Projects

In this research, the authors focus on the adaptation of sustainability in project management

in the construction industry. Sustainability has been accorded rising prominence in the

construction industry (Ugwu and Haupt, 2005). The application of sustainability in

construction projects, especially, has gained more prominence since around the early-1990s

with the introduction of, for example, Agenda 21 and Earth Summit in 1992 (Fernandez-

Sanchez and Rodriguez-Lopez, 2010).

In fact, sustainability has been more generally introduced in terms of economic and

environmental aspects rather than the social aspect (Silvius and Schipper, 2014; Marcelino-

Sadaba et al., 2015). There are several reasons for the significance of the role of sustainability

in construction projects.

- First, a sustainable construction sector is a “key element of any properly

functioning economy and following several years of declines in output” (SCSI,

2015). Also, this industry is regarded as one of the most challenging business

sectors (Bal et al., 2013). More than ever, the construction industry is concerned

with affecting the social, economic and environmental indicators of sustainability,

both positively and negatively.

To be more specific, the construction sector is credited for its consistently large

GDP contribution, employment opportunities and providing infrastructure to fulfil

human demand. Simultaneously, it is often criticised for its environmental damage

such as waste generation and greenhouse gas emission (Zuo et al., 2012).

27

- Second, in many countries, the construction industry has become one of the first

industries targeted to address sustainable development issues in many countries.

Regardless of the level of economic development, this industry in whichever

country in the world consumes large quantities of materials and energy, whose

products have a long-term impact on the economy, society, and environment.

Strategies utilised by project managers to obtain sustainability in construction

projects are crucial for the operational level of the industry (Wang et al., 2014).

- Third, the construction has been facing a number of external and internal changes

that make it increasingly complex and challenging, such as higher technical

constraints, resource shortage, climate change or globalisation. Together, the

impacts of these changes have gradually accumulated with the size and complexity

of the project. In turn, the need for adopting sustainability in this sector is

inevitably required (Pietrosemoli and Monroy, 2013).

All in all, it is highly recommended that the construction industry should transform to adopt

more proactive and sustainable practices. The construction industry to be qualified as

sustainable must fulfil environmental challenges such as declining adverse environmental

impact whilst guaranteeing economic sustainability and high quality and value to clients and

users. As a result, this leads to the need for a framework for sustainability indicators in the

construction industry evaluating the performance in terms of the triple bottom line (Bal et al.,

2013).

2.4.2. Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Construction Projects

In this day and age, stakeholder inclusiveness plays an increasingly important part in the

construction industry. For instance, stakeholder inclusiveness and project stakeholder

communication plans are mandatory in project scope (Bal et al., 2013). Yang et al. (2009) has

summarised various reasons for the importance of including stakeholders in construction

projects. To be more specific, they highlighted the fact that construction projects are complex

with the involvement of a number of relevant parties, and each party is required to

understand their responsibilities in the project. Besides, different stakeholders have different

interests and levels of power, for instance, which means the project should meet their needs

(Yang et al., 2009).

28

The success of a construction project relies on whether stakeholders’ expectations are met

during the life of this project. Inability to address those of project stakeholders will lead to

various project failures. For example, the increase in the complexity and uncertainty of

construction projects has resulted in a poor record of stakeholder identification, classification

and management overall over the past two decades, such as failure to identify invisible

stakeholders, lack of communication and then lack of stakeholder engagement afterwards

(Yang et al., 2009). Also, project stakeholders have possessed the majority of resources

required for the execution of the project, which gives them the power the stop the

construction project. As a consequence, there is a need for identifying stakeholders and

managing their relationships (Atkin and Skitmore, 2008).

With a view to increasing the inclusiveness of stakeholders in construction projects, it is

suggested that their characteristics be identified such as their interest, power and attitude

toward the project, as the stakeholder theory claims. To be more specific, those having high

interest, high power and positive attitude are the most useful stakeholders for the project and

need to be taken into careful and serious consideration in terms of response strategy (Persson

and Olander, 2004; Boesso and Kumar, 2009; Bal et al., 2013; Petri et al., 2014).

The number of stakeholders in a construction project is often considerable (Ali, 2014). Notable

stakeholders in construction projects are Shareholders, Contractors, Subcontractors,

Employees, Customers, Engineers, Legal Authorities, Architects, Project Manager, Financial

Institutions, Suppliers, Designers, Quantity Surveyors, Insurance Companies, Area

Development Agencies, Community Representatives, The Media, Facilities Suppliers and other

specialist consultants (Malkat and Kang, 2012; Bal et al., 2013; Ali, 2014). Despite the large

number, they would have impact at different levels on the project in different stages

throughout the life cycle rather than all at every stage, due to the fact that they have different

interests (Ali, 2014).

2.4.3. Integrating Sustainability and Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Construction Projects

The merge between sustainability and stakeholder inclusiveness is necessary in the field of

construction (Malkat and Kang, 2012). The construction sector is responsible for the

consuming a large amount of natural resources such as energy and water and each

construction project needs to fulfil the requirements of minimising environmental impact and

optimising benefits. These demands have led the sector closer to sustainability (Persson and

Olander, 2004).

29

According to Atkin and Skitmore (2008), the stakeholder framework has become an essential

function in construction projects, especially with the concentration on sustainability in the

delivery of these projects. In fact, the management of construction projects requires the

careful process of planning as well as managing activities to deliver the result, all of which are

related to the involvement of a large number of stakeholders. According to Persson and

Olander (2004), the cross-disciplinary nature of sustainable construction implies multiple

stakeholders are engaged, which means they should be considered with the aim of achieving

sustainability solutions (Atkin and Skitmore, 2008).

There have been several models developed to depict the relationship between stakeholder

inclusiveness and sustainability. Persson and Olander (2004) presented a model named

Stakeholder-Urban Evaluation (STURE) to highlight the issue of sustainable construction,

based on empirical research on stakeholder management. It consists of four steps:

stakeholder analysis, condition determination, sustainability programme and application of

the programme. In this model, stakeholder views and influences form a fundamental part of

the input of sustainability factors, or they can be credited for the attainment of sustainability.

Figure 2.3: The Stakeholder-Urban Evaluation Model

Source: Persson and Olander, 2004

30

Besides, Horisch et al. (2014) developed a conceptual framework for the contribution of the

inclusion of stakeholders to sustainability. In this model, he emphasised the importance of

education, regulation and value creation in boosting the interactions between project

stakeholders. Furthermore, it shows that sustainability is a mutual interest for all project

stakeholders and with what mechanisms the project can involve all these stakeholders in a

sustainable contribution. This requires the role of the project manager to balance the power

and interests of this wide variety of stakeholders.

Figure 2.4: Stakeholder Interactions Based on Sustainability

Source: Horisch et al., 2014

2.5. Overview of the Construction Industry of Ireland

2.5.1. The Construction Industry of Ireland

The construction industry plays an important role in the Irish socio-economy, particularly GNP

contribution and employment creation. In fact, the sector has made a great contribution to

providing and sustaining the physical infrastructures and buildings for every other industry

31

and the society as a whole. Furthermore, its competitive and dynamic nature, plus the

relevant property market have had a crucial role in the business environment and in boosting

the investment and growth of enterprises (Forfas, 2012). Some of the main features of this

industry are noted as follows:

The Irish construction industry consists of 3 sub-sectors: the public capital programme,

private commercial development and the private residential market. Due to the

lengthy effects from the global financial crisis, all of the three sub-sectors have seen a

decline in output (SCSI, 2015). To illustrate, the figure for the public programme

reduced from €9 billion to around €3.4 billion over a period of 5 years 2008 – 2013

(SCSI, 2015). Meanwhile, the residential sector saw a decrease from 89,000 units

completed to 8,300 between 2007 and 2013 (Bobek and Wickham, 2015).

The Irish construction sector underwent a somewhat steady period from the 1990s

onwards, before experiencing fluctuations with the bubble problem resulting from the

global financial crisis since mid-2000s. This has had catastrophic and long-lasting

effects on this sector until today (Bobek and Wickham, 2015; SCSI, 2015).

However, the industry has seen positive signs and a brighter prospect over the last few

years, notably in the proportion of GNP contribution, making up approximately 6.4%

in 2014 and then increasing by 5% in 2015 (SCSI, 2015). The gross value of output has

also experienced a recovery, reaching €11 billion after falling to a low in 2012 ((€9.1

billion). Its outturn also underwent a similar trend, increasing to 15.2% in 2013 (SCSI,

2015). Also, the Industrial sector has enjoyed a rise of 500% in the value of projects

starting onsite in the first quarter of 2016 (CIS, 2016).

In terms of employment, the construction industry has created over 103,000 jobs

across multiple occupations with a broad range of skills and qualifications required in

2014, accounting for 6% of the total employment in the country. This, however, saw a

decreasing trend throughout the years. In 2007, the corresponding figure reached

around 270,000 working directly and an approximate number of 100,000 people

working indirectly in the sector. It constituted nearly 13.4% of overall employment,

highest amongst countries in the EU (CSO, 2014).

32

Small companies make up the majority of the construction industry, as large

companies favour adopting subcontracting. In 2011, the majority of the companies

were those with revenue within the range €200,000 to €1milllion (23,000 enterprises,

corresponding to 82%), while the number of companies whose revenue exceeded

€50m was just 18 (Forfas, 2015).

2.5.2. Sustainability in the Construction Industry of Ireland

A sustainable construction sector is a key element of any economy (SCSI, 2015). The

aforementioned sub-section showed the economic performance in general of the

construction industry in Ireland, which is cyclical by its nature. The 1990s saw a dramatic rise

in demand, which went in tandem with an unsustainable property bubble with substantial

over-building by the mid-2000s. After the declining trend up to now owing to the influence of

national and international economic and financial crisis, the industry is heading in a more

sustainable direction (Forfas, 2012).

Besides, it should be noted that environmental considerations have not been taken into

serious consideration on the agenda in the Irish construction industry. The majority of

Ireland’s environmental and building control legislation since the 1970s has been initiated by

directives from the European Union. Energy efficiency, embodied energy and green

construction have existed mostly on paper without having been actually promoted for the

purpose of sustainability. However, recently, a responsive minority in the industry has begun

to practise and push sustainable and green building principles (Kehily, 2011).

The legal framework underpinning sustainability in the Irish construction industry can be

dated back to the EU directives on sustainable development, following the signing up by

Ireland in particular and the EU in general to Agenda 21 in Rio 1992, the Kyoto Protocol in

1997 and the Earth Summit in Johannesburg in 2002. Other than that, sustainability-related

contents can be found in the Building Regulations and the implementation of the Building

Energy Rating (BER) system. Furthermore, the Irish Green Building Council (IGBC) has been

formed to manage the sustainable development of green buildings in Ireland. BREEAM and

LEED are the 2 most notable green building rating systems in Ireland, both of which originate

in the UK (Sweeney et al., 2011).

33

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The literature review has shown that stakeholder inclusiveness has a contributive role towards

sustainability in projects. Lingenfelder and Thomas (2011) claimed that stakeholder

inclusiveness is the pre-requisite for the journey of sustainability. Besides, the review of

literature has provided the concepts that form the framework for this research, which are

presented in the following table.

Table 3.1: The Main Concepts of Theoretical Framework

However, there is still a weakness in the incorporation of stakeholder inclusiveness in

sustainability. To illustrate, it fails to provide a breakdown of inclusion of stakeholders in

achieving sustainability in a project, as well as rarely touching on the formation of temporary

organisations like projects (Eskerod and Vaasagar, 2014). Furthermore, the relationship

between stakeholder inclusiveness and sustainability has been only mentioned in theoretical

publications, without much empirical evidence to strengthen it.

In this research, the authors developed an approach drawing on the literature review, which

supports the key issue of the study: How are stakeholders included in advancing the

sustainability of the project? The approach is presented in the following graph.

Figure 3.1: Research Framework

StakeholderStakeholder

InclusivenessSustainability

Starting Point Process Endpoint

34

The objective of this framework is to highlight the link between stakeholders and the project

through inclusiveness activities that benefit sustainability. The graph illustrates that

inclusiveness of stakeholders needs as a starting point the identification of the project

stakeholders. Without identification, there will be no any engagement or involvement

activities for stakeholders. Stakeholder inclusiveness then has an impact on the attainment of

sustainability, represented as the endpoint of the process. Afterwards, the responsibilities of

the authors are to figure out the answers, in the context of the construction industry, as

regards who are the stakeholders, how sustainability is defined in the project and

consequently, the contribution of stakeholder inclusiveness to construction project

sustainability. They will be clarified with the use of case studies. The methodology for the

research and case study are discussed in the next chapter.

35

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research methodology for this research. The purpose of this chapter

is to provide an explanation for why the authors opt for specific research strategies and how

the research is carried out. Research methodology refers to the paradigm that creates the

basis for the implementation of the research. This chapter commences with a general

background of research design, in which a comparison among four most popular guiding

research designs is undertaken so that the most appropriate one is chosen. In fact, research

practices are impacted by knowledge bases supported by philosophical ideas or worldviews,

which lay the groundwork for research methods (Creswell, 2009). As a consequence, it is

necessary to select from these to elaborate on the options regarding research design. The

components of the chosen research designs are then adopted as guidelines to carry out the

research (Gibbert et al., 2008). Reliability and validity of this research is also discussed at the

end of the chapter.

4.1. Research Design

Research design can be referred to the overall plan for integrating the conceptual research

issues into the pertinent empirical research (van Wyk, 2016). The objective of a research

design is to determine the structure of the research so that the data gathered can assist in

answering the research questions in a convincing way (de Vaus, 2006).

On the one hand, it illustrates steps that need completing to conduct the research. On the

other hand, the more superior nature of a research design compared to a work plan is that it

plays a key role in guaranteeing that the empirical evidence allows researchers to answer

research questions as unambiguously as possible (Mushka, 2015; van Wyk, 2016).

There are four most popular research designs, namely Nested model developed by Kagioglou

et al., 2000; Choices model by Blaikie, 2007, Research design framework by Creswell, 2009

and Research onion by Saunders et al., 2016. Each has a different number of layers of research

design, starting with the basis for knowledge development, such as research philosophies

(Kagiolou et al., 2000; Saunders et al., 2016) prior to more detailed layers that dig deeper into

how to conduct the research or how to generate and test the theory. Each big layer must be

36

handled before going to the inner one. The following table summarises the main steps that

need to be undertaken in these research designs:

Table 4.1: Summary of Four Research Designs

Research design Nested model Research choices

Research design framework

Research onion

Author(s) Kagiolou et al.,

2000 Blaikie, 2007 Creswell, 2009

Saunders et al., 2016

Knowledge development basis

Research philosophies

Research paradigms

Philosophical worldviews

Research philosophies

Theory development and testing method

Research strategies

Research approaches

Research approaches

Selected inquiry strategies

Research strategies

Research design Choices

Time horizons

Research analysis

Research techniques

Research methods

Data collection and data analysis

Source: Molwus, 2014; Mushka, 2015

Overall, the two research designs, research design framework and the research onion are

apparently more comprehensive than the remaining two. All of them have the basis for

development of knowledge, while the other are somehow similar under different names. One

of the superior features of the research onion is its consideration of time; therefore it becomes

the most fully developed model of the four. This is the reason why the research onion

developed by Saunders et al. (2009) is chosen for this research. To be more specific, it consists

of research philosophy, research approach, research strategy, time horizons, data collection

methods and data analysis (Blaxter et al., 2010). Detail can be found in the following graph.

37

Figure 4.1: Research Onion

Source: Saunders et al., 2016

4.2. Research Philosophy

Research philosophy refers to “the development of knowledge and the nature of that

knowledge” (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 127). According to Mushka (2015), each step is drawn

on how the authors assume about the sources and the nature of knowledge.

Saunders et al. (2009) defined five branches of research philosophies, namely: Positivism,

Realism, Postmodernism, Interpretivism and Pragmatism (Saunders et al., 2016), which is

affected by practical implications. The following table depicts the main characteristics of each

philosophy.

Table 4.2: Summary of Research Philosophies

Positivism Critical Realism

Interpretivism Postmodernism Pragmatism

Nature of reality

Real, external and independent

Empirical, external, objective and independent

Socially constructed, complex and multiple meanings

Socially constructed through power relations, complex, some meanings

Complex, external, practical

38

Constitution of knowledge

Observable facts and law-like generalisations. Contributed by causal explanation

Epistemological relativism, facts as social constructions, contributed by historical causal explanation

Simplistic theories and concepts, contributed by new understandings and world views

Truth and knowledge, contributed by power relations and dominant views

Practical knowledge, contributed by solutions and future implications

Role of values

Value-free

Objective

Value-free

Objective

Subjective Value-constituted

Radically reflexive

Value-driven

Reflexive

Methods used

Large structure, measurement, quantitative, but can use qualitative

In-depth investigation, quantitative or qualitative data suited to subject matter

Inductive, in-depth investigations with small data sampling, qualitative

In-depth investigation, typically qualitative data analysis and deconstructive

Mixed or multiple method designs, quantitative and qualitative, focusing on practical solutions

Source: Saunders et al., 2016

The proposed research philosophy for this research is critical realism. The philosophy enables

the authors to investigate in-depth into the topic (de Vaus, 2006; Saunders et al., 2016). Also,

as the research would explore the relationship of the two constructs empirically, the critical

realism philosophy is appropriate as the reality is its most essential consideration (Saunders

et al., 2016) and it is best to focus on what the authors observe from data collection and

analysis. Without the empirical part analysed, it is unlikely that the authors can understand

the whole big picture. This is solved with the critical realism philosophy, which concentrates

on elaborating on observational events by seeking underlying reasons and mechanisms

(Easton, 2009; Saunders et al., 2016). An objective approach is appropriate in this case where

the authors analyse the empirical evidence regarding the relationship of sustainability and

stakeholder inclusiveness in practice.

4.3. Research Approach

There are three main research approaches, deductive, inductive and abductive – which is the

combination of the previous two approaches.

39

- Deductive approach: the researcher deduces a hypothesis (or hypotheses) based

on the current level of knowledge on a particular subject and of any theory relating

to that subject. The hypothesis (or hypotheses) is subjected to empirical testing

(Saunders et al., 2016). This approach requires the researcher to be independent

of what is being observed. Hence, the deductive approach typically corresponds

to the positivistic philosophy.

- Inductive approach: According to Saunders et al. (2009) the inductive approach

often requires the researcher to undertake interviews to understand the situation.

This then gives the researcher a better understanding of the nature of the problem,

which provides a basis to form a theory. Hence, the inductive approach is converse

to the deductive approach in that the development of a theory occurs after

obtaining the primary data.

- Abductive approach: which refers to the combination of both approaches

aforementioned. In this approach, the theoretical part is corresponding to the

deductive approach, while the empirical part is rooted in the inductive approach.

According to Eisenhart and Graebner (2007) and Lindblom and Ohlsson (2011), this

type of research approach paves way for a deeper understanding of the research

area.

Table 4.3: Summary of Research Approach

40

In the case of this research, the authors decide to choose the inductive approach. To illustrate,

generalisations are formed after data about sustainability and stakeholder inclusiveness are

collected. The findings after data analysis are then compared to the literature review to see if

there are any new phenomena that are explored or looked at from a different perspective. All

in all, the inductive approach is chosen for this research.

4.4. Research Strategy

The nature of the research is exploratory because the authors would like to investigate and

obtain a sound understanding of the relationship between stakeholder inclusiveness and

sustainability in the construction industry in Ireland. This is suited to the definition of an

exploratory study, which is to discover the current situation and have an insight into the topic

(Saunders et al., 2016). The purpose of this research is to further improve understanding of

the aforementioned topic. Besides, the exploratory nature of this research brings some clear

advantages (de Vaus, 2006). The first one is the offering of flexibility, which implies the

direction of the research can be modified in tandem with the data that can be collected and

new insights appearing during the study to guarantee the alignment and coherence (de Vaus,

2006). Besides, using an exploratory research, the authors can build up the concept more

clearly and enhance the research design, as well as stay open-minded in tackling research

questions (Dembczyk and Zaoral, 2014).

Meanwhile, research strategy refers to the overall direction of research, implying the process

based on which the research is carried out (Wedawatta, 2011). According to Saunders et al.

(2009), research strategy is impacted by research questions, research objectives, researches’

expertise, research constraint (time and resources) and research philosophy. There are eight

major research strategies in social science research: Experiment, Survey, Case Study,

Grounded Research, Ethnography and Archival Research (Saunders et al., 2016).

41

Table 4.4: Summary of Research Strategy

Research strategy

Purpose Method Research questions

Experiment Assess the relationship between variables, or between variables and their importance

Sampling How and Why

Survey Evaluate possible link between variables and develop models based on that relationship

Sampling, quantitative or qualitative

Who, What, Where, How Much, How Many

Case study Explore in-depth or challenge existing theory

Single or multiple cases (event, activity, project, individual, and so on)

What, How, Why

Grounded research

Develop theories inductively through data collection

Multiple stages: Data coding, code underpinning, abduction and theoretical sampling

Action research

Enhance organisational learning and figure out practical solutions to a defined issue

Action research process: Diagnosing – Planning – Taking Action - Evaluation

Ethnography Study groups Qualitative interviews, observations, …

Archival research

Study changes over time Administrative records and documentations

Focus on the past and changes

Narrative inquiry

Interpret an event or sequence of events through personal experiences of participants

Qualitative interview, storytelling

Source: Saunders et al., 2016

In the context of this research, the case study strategy is chosen. According to de Vaus (2006),

a case study is a unit of analysis, about which the authors can gather information and try to

develop an understanding of the case as a whole based on the context. There are many

advantages of case study strategy, as outlined by de Vaus (2006). The first one is its flexibility,

which can be applicable for a number of research designs. Second, this strategy enables the

authors to make use of various data collection approaches and a broad range of unit analysis.

In his book “Research design”, de Vaus pointed out that this reveals the shortage of selectivity

and only data linked to the concepts are presented. However, this also means the data will be

42

much closer to the literature review and more convincing (de Vaus, 2006). Accordingly,

choosing case studies provides a chance for the authors to obtain a holistic perspective of the

topic, and support understanding and explaining the issue (Baskarada, 2014).

Yin (2003) outlined some major reasons to take into account when choosing case study as the

research as follows (Baxter and Jack, 2008), including: the study concentrates on answering

“How” and “Why” questions, the behaviour of those engaged in the study should be true,

contextual conditions are closely linked to the phenomenon under the study and there is no

explicit border with its context.

In this study, the objectives of this research is to answer “What” and “How” questions.

Besides, the case study proves to be valuable when it comes to exploring existing theory in

depth and even challenging existing theory (Saunders et al., 2016), which fits the exploratory

nature of this study. The contextual condition (construction projects) is associated with both

stakeholder inclusiveness and sustainability. Besides, de Vaus (2006) added that case study is

also applicable when the research remains relatively unknown, with previous research

requiring fresher perspectives. Specifically, as aforementioned, there has been a lack of study

of the relationship between stakeholder inclusiveness and sustainability. This relationship in

the construction industry also experiences insufficient research. Therefore, using case study

strategy would be the most suitable one for this research.

When it comes to case studies, there are options between using a single case only and using

multiple cases for analysis. In the context of this research, multiple case studies (three) are

chosen over the single approach. Using multiple cases brings added value to the research, and

provides a tougher test for the theory and also enables the authors to specify various

circumstances where a theory can be held. Plus, multiple case studies prove to be more

convincing and powerful, offering more insights than the single case study as the authors can

compare and contrast the results of different cases and thereby generalise the findings

afterwards.

43

4.5. Research Choice

Research choice refers to whether the collection of data should be based on qualitative or

quantitative or a mix of them (Saunders et al., 2016). In the simplest sense, quantitative

method refers to numeric data collection and analysis, unlike qualitative method which

requires non-numeric data (Saunders et al., 2016). Besides, a combination of the two is also

utilised in social science research, for example in surveys and questionnaires with both open

questions and multiple choice questions. The following table provides a comparison among

the three methods (Creswell, 2009):

Table 4.5: Summary of Research Choice

Quantitative Qualitative Mixed

Research philosophy

Positivism Interpretivism Realist Pragmatist

Interpretivism Realist Pragmatist

Realist Pragmatist

Research approach

Deductive Inductive

Inductive Deductive

Inductive Deductive Both

Characteristics Discover the link between variables measured numerically Standard data collection Researchers independent from respondents

Study meanings and links between participants Non-standardised data collection Researchers dependent on participants and data access

Mono method or multiple methods

Research strategies

Experimental, survey Action research, case study, ethnography, narrative research, grounded theory

Source: Saunders et al., 2016

The qualitative research is chosen for this study. First, this is because of the lack of previous

research in this field, notably in the chosen field of construction industry. Second, the

qualitative choice is fits with the exploratory nature of the research and its inductive approach.

According to Miles and Huberman (1994), a qualitative method is suited to research aiming at

developing new theories or framework. Specifically, as the practices of these two areas in

construction projects are commonly qualitative, and the purpose is to develop a framework

44

from obtaining information and interpret the construction environment, the qualitative

method is chosen. This choice encourages the authors to have a greater understanding of the

topic, and minimise of likelihood of study generalisation while answering the research

questions.

4.6. Time Horizons

The time-horizon is split into two main types: cross-sectional and longitudinal. According to

Saunders et al. (2009), a cross-sectional research investigates a phenomenon at a specific

point of time. Alternatively, a longitudinal study is concerned with events over a period and,

hence, is able to investigate change and development (Saunders et al., 2016).

The research focuses on the current awareness among project managers of stakeholder

inclusiveness in the construction industry in Ireland and is not concerned with the change

over a period of time. Plus, the cross-sectional time horizon is suited to the qualitative

research strategy as well as the case study approach (Saunders et al., 2016). Hence, the

authors choose to adopt a cross-sectional survey strategy.

4.7. Data Collection and Analysis

4.7.1. Data Collection

Data collection refers to the exploration of a phenomenon, the identification of themes, and

the arrangement of them into a conceptual framework and evaluate its validity with

subsequent and further analysis (Saunders et al., 2016). With a view to collecting data, the

authors use primarily secondary data as they are more suited to the case study research

strategy aforementioned. The reason for the choice of secondary data is the limit with regard

to time, money and ability to have access to primary data sets (de Vaus, 2006; Saunders et al.,

2016).

The main type of secondary data used in this research is documentary, either text or non-text.

Regarding text, the data are collected mainly from articles, journals, newspapers, books, the

internet and industrial and firm reports. Non-text secondary data, including images and

presentation, are also included in the data collection.

45

Figure 4.2: Secondary Data

Source: Saunders et al., 2016

The research aims to analyse stakeholder identification taking into consideration the

relationship with sustainability, and to gather empirical evidence in construction projects in

Ireland. Selecting research strategy as aforementioned, the authors would like to focus on

how the selection of case studies, which constitute the major part of this research, are carried

out in this section. To serve the exploratory nature of the research, the cases were chosen by

means of theory other than statistics or other numeric data (Saunders et al., 2016).

As mentioned above, due to the lack of research in the construction industry, this is specifically

chosen for the study. Thanks to its relevance to environmental, social and economic

considerations, this industry is suitable for the research. Regarding selecting the cases, there

are a number of construction projects executed in Ireland every year. In order to achieve the

research objective, the cases selected must have been incorporated by sustainability and

notable stakeholder networks and relationships, which need to be considered with regard to

sustainability practices (in all of the three aspects of the triple bottom line). An additional

prerequisite for choosing the case is that the project team or project sponsor has a

sustainability-related reputation, or the project has a specific sustainability department. This

enables the focused representation of the two major constructs.

A number of cases, after having been looked at, are then put into shortlist before selecting

the final three. In this study, the authors use some criteria as follows to select the most

appropriate cases to research purposes:

46

Table 4.6: Criteria for Case Selection

Criterion Explanation

Type of construction

Each of the cases has to represent each of the three sub-sectors of the construction industry

Triple bottom line

The case would address the maximum aspects of the triple bottom line (preferred three)

Timeline Although the research does not focus on the change over time, the project should start within the last ten years in order for the authors to evaluate the updated sustainability practices.

Experience of project team

Experienced professionals tend to have better conditions to incorporate sustainability and stakeholder identification practices.

To be more specific, the data for the three case studies have been extracted from a wide

variety of sources of information, which include but not limited to: Google Scholar, OneSearch

from UCD Library, UCD Engineering, industrial reports and other public domains. In addition,

the data is also collected from firm report (LIDL) thanks to the employment of one of the two

authors. Data are chosen using key words such as: Sustainability, Irish construction,

Sustainable construction, Construction stakeholders, Sustainability and stakeholder

management and so on or a combination of key words on the sources mentioned above. Being

the most cited and having most relevant contents have more weights in choosing the cases.

As aforementioned in the literature review, the construction industry in Ireland has three sub-

sectors: public programme, private commercial and private residential. In order to guarantee

the representativeness of the industry, each case chose belongs to each of the three sub-

sectors above. They are summarised in the following table:

Table 4.7: General Information of Case Studies

Number Project Sub-Sector Progress

1 St. James’ New Children’s Hospital Public Programme Under Construction

2 Capital Docks Private Residential Under Construction

3 LIDL Headquarters Private Commercial Completed

47

Once these data are acquired, the authors can analyse them to provide interpretations of the

case regarding the relationship between the two constructs, sustainability and stakeholder

inclusiveness in the construction industry and propose conclusions and recommendations for

future implications.

4.7.2. Data Analysis

Data analysis refers to the processing of data, then arranging and organising them prior to

fragmenting them into smaller but easier-to-manage units, synthesising data, selecting the

most important lessons learned and deciding which to be shown to others (Mushka, 2015).

The process is shortened into four main steps according to Miles and Huberman (1984),

consisting of data collection, data reduction, data display and conclusion.

Data collection and analysis are the two process that can happen simultaneously or

sequentially in qualitative research (Dembczyk and Zaoral, 2014). In this research, data

analysis is executed simultaneously with data collection. Besides, during the analysis, the

authors still compare and go back and forth between the literature review, data gathered and

analysis as a continuous process to form the framework at the end of the research.

The analysis of the three cases is carried out based on the theoretical framework derived from

the literature review. The main contents of the analysis are given as follows:

First and foremost, each of the cases commences with the introduction of the project, where

their fundamental information is given, namely project schedule, project budget (so far),

project output/deliverables and more importantly, project stakeholders. In the area of project

stakeholders, an overview of their identification and analysis is provided, which is to answer

the first research question (“Who are the stakeholders in construction projects?”).

Next, the sustainability aspects of the three cases are assessed. To be more specific, an

analysis of the environmental, social, and economic aspects of the construction projects are

undertaken, which responds to the second research question (“How is sustainability

determined in construction projects from the triple bottom line approach?”).

48

After that, the involvement of the project stakeholders are assessed in relation to the

sustainability of each project, as the response to the remaining research question. The authors

want to evaluate as to whether there is a positive contribution of project stakeholders to the

achievement of sustainability of these projects. Based on that, the authors would like to

develop a framework for the stakeholder identification in relation to sustainability in Ireland’s

construction projects.

To summarise, for each of the case studies, the following structure is to be applied to ensure

the coherence and enable the cross-case data comparison for the major findings of the

research. The result from the analysis helps to form a conceptual framework for stakeholder

identification within the context of sustainability in construction projects.

- Project overview:

o Schedule

o Output/Deliverables

o Stakeholders (Who? In what method?)

- The relationship between sustainability and stakeholder management

o The sustainability sides of the project (Economic, Social, Environment)

o How are stakeholders included in the sustainability of the project?

4.7.3. Research Validity and Reliability

The importance of the validity and reliability of the research is undeniable since it ensures the

quality of the research (Golafshani, 2003; Saunders et al., 2016; Dembczyk and Zaoral, 2014;

Molwus, 2014; Mushka, 2015). Reliability refers to the level of consistency and persuasiveness

of the findings from data collection and analysis (Saunders et al., 2016). Meanwhile, validity

refers to whether the findings from the research match with its proposed purpose (Saunders

et al., 2016).

First, to obtain the validity of this research, the authors try to ensure the consistency in the

evaluation of the findings to construct a theory-based framework and conclusion (Lindblom

and Ohlsson, 2011). Each research question is addressed throughout the data analysis

49

procedure, ensuring the collection of sufficient and relevant data to answer. In fact, the

development of the common structure for analysing all of the cases is constructed against the

theoretical framework, enabling it to link the theoretical and empirical part closely. Besides,

the criteria for case selection, the experience of the project team, its ability to adopt the triple

bottom line and wide networks of stakeholders, proving the highly relevance of the findings

with the theory. Meanwhile the internal validity is proved through the suitability among

research design, research philosophy, research approach, research strategy and research

choice (de Vaus, 2006).

With regard to the reliability of this research, the authors have presented the step-by-step

detail of the data collection and analysis process. Furthermore, the criteria, most cited, most

relevant from highly ranked academic journals as well as industrial reports increase the

reliability of the findings of the report.

To sum up, this chapter has displayed the fundamental principles of the process of how to

implementing this research. Overall, this chapter consists of the research design, including

philosophy, strategy, approach and choice, as well as how each of these is coherent to each

other and aligned with the overall purpose of the research. The techniques for data collection

and analyses have also been presented to further the clarity of the research.

50

CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH FINDINGS

In this chapter, the author presents the findings of the research from the case studies, namely

St. James’ New Children’s Hospital, Capital Docks and LIDL Headquarters. In each of the case

study, an overview of project management is introduced. Then the case is analysed based on

the research questions.

5.1. St. James’ New Children’s Hospital Case Study

The new children’s hospital with its world-class facility will take care of children and young

people in Ireland who suffer from complicated and serious ailments and need specialised

care. The hospital plus the two satellite centres in Dublin will offer the ‘local hospital’

paediatric secondary care to children in the local community (NCH planning, 2016). The

aim of the project is to amalgamate three children’s hospitals: Our Lady’s Children’s

Hospital Crumlin, Temple Street Children’s University Hospital and the National Children’s

Hospital at Tallaght Hospital.

5.1.1. Project Management Overview

The Project management of the project is managed by Mr. John Pollock who is an engineer

with over 30 years’ experience. The project scope and objectives are drawn out by a

multidisciplinary board, called the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board (NPHDB).

The chairperson of this board is Mr Tom Costello and he presides over a team of engineers,

architects, medical professionals, and accountants. The procurement aspect of the project

management plan is handled by Mr Paul Quinn who is the chief procurement officer. The total

project length is 46 months from initial surveys to final landscaping.

The schedule of events include site acquisition, and if required procurement of design team,

design development and preparation of planning application, Consideration of application by

An Bord Pleanála.

51

Upon granted permission, the schedule of events consists of; Procurement of construction

contractors, Demolition/decanting of existing buildings, Construction of new hospital,

Commissioning of new hospital. Of these project steps, construction is the most capital

intensive and requires the most planning. The construction of the hospital includes Site set-

up, Archaeological investigations, Demolition, excavation works, piling, foundation works,

concrete frame placement, MEP installation, Envelope and Internal Fit-out. These works must

be carried out for both the main hospital building as well as the research and family

accommodation buildings.

5.1.2. Stakeholder Identification

There is a plethora of stakeholders involved in the project management of the New Children’s

Hospital. The key stakeholder with the most at stake is the Irish Government as it is providing

the sole financing for the project. Within the Irish Government are smaller bodies who will be

the most affected by the project. These smaller bodies consist of Ambulatory and Urgent Care

Centres for greater Dublin, Irish Maternity Services, The National Paediatric Association, and

the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board. These bodies form the stakeholders who

will use the facility after the project is finished.

Other Stakeholders, who will be greatly affected by the project, include the three hospitals

that will be combined to form St. James; Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital Crumlin, Temple Street

Children’s University Hospital, and The National Children’s Hospital. Secondly, An Bord

Pleanala is a stakeholder in the project scheme. As the overall planning authority, it needs to

ensure that the building conforms to building regulations and does not disrupt the city in its

construction and final phase.

Consulting companies participated to provide reports on various sectors on the project scope,

including McKinsey & Company, Rawlinson Kelly & Whittlestone, and KPMG.

The construction professionals involved in the project also constitute a significant portion of

the stakeholders. These stakeholders consist of the Architects, BDP and O’Connell Mahon, as

well as the Engineers, OCSC and ARUP. The Quantity Surveyor is Bruce Shaw while the Project

Supervisor is headed up by Healy Kelly Turner & Townsend and planning by GVA.

52

There are several ways to group stakeholders. First, stakeholders can be divided into five

principal groups according to functional role, namely the Client Team Stakeholders, The

Project Scope, The Project Design, The Construction, and finally the Facility Management.

Second, the stakeholders are classified according to their contractual relationship and third,

they are grouped based on their attributes.

Detail of stakeholders can be found at Table 5.1.

53

Table 5.1: Stakeholders of the St. James’ New Children’s Hospital

Stakeholder(s) Responsibilities Expected Reward

Contractual Relationship

Attribute Classification

Functional Role

Classification

Triple Bottom Line

Government of Ireland Project

Sponsors

Functional and

Effective Hospital

Internal Definitive Client Social

Economic Environmental

Dublin 8 Community Beneficial Building

Internal Discretionary Client Social

Economic Environmental

An Bord Pneanala

Planning

Permission

Compliant Building which

enhances Dublin

External Dominant Scope Social

Environmental

McKinsey & Company

Consultancy (Ireland’s paediatric services)

Consultant Fees

External Discretionary Scope Economic

Rawlinson Kelly & Whittlestone

Consultancy (Ambulatory and Urgent

Care Centres for Greater

Dublin)

Consultant Fees

External Discretionary Scope Economic

54

Stakeholder(s) Responsibilities Expected Reward

Contractual Relationship

Attribute Classification

Functional Role

Classification

Triple Bottom Line

KPMG Consultancy

(Irish Maternity Services)

Consultant Fees

External Discretionary Scope Economic

Matthew Hague, CEnv, MCIEEM. Consultancy

(Ecology) Consultant

Fees External Discretionary Scope Environmental

Bruce Shaw Quantity Surveyor

Fees Internal Dominant Construction Economic

OCSC Civil &

Structural Engineers

Fees Internal Dominant Construction Economic

Healy Kelly Turner & Townsend Project

Supervisor Management

Fees Internal Dominant Construction Economic

ARUP

Traffic & Mobility

Mechanical & Electrical

Fees Internal Dominant Construction Social

Economic

BDP Architects 10% of

Spending & Prestige

Internal Dominant Design Social

Environmental Economic

GVA Planning Fees Internal Dominant Design Social

Environmental

55

5.1.3. Sustainability in the St. James’ New Children’s Hospital Case Study

The incorporation of sustainability into the construction of the case was given great priority in

the project management plan. The Project Management has looked at “the incorporation of

a sustainable design approach. The project’s approach to sustainability has been progressed

with a view to minimizing the environmental impact of the buildings from the outset.” The

project to a lesser extent also considers the economic and social sustainability of the project.

(NCH planning, 2016).

The project offers a significant opportunity to develop “a sustainable exemplar at an

affordable cost during its lifecycle. This project is following the formal requirements of the

standard IS 399:2014 “Energy efficient design management”, which means any features or

approaches that may reduce energy consumption are considered and the process of their

consideration is clearly documented” (NCH planning, 2016). This provides sustainability from

both an economic and environmental perspective.

The New Children’s Hospital is evaluated according to a number of sustainability criteria, such

as the BREEAM criteria. This utilisation supports the consideration of the wider perspectives

of environmental impact and the aspiration for “excellent” rating for the hospital building will

guarantee high degree of standard of sustainability” (NCH planning, 2016).

The Triple Bottom Line can be applied to National Children’s Hospital to analyse the project’s

sustainability in environmental, economic, and social aspects.

5.1.3.1. Environmental Sustainability

The New Children’s Hospital placed a strong emphasis on the environmental aspect of the

triple bottom line. New Children’s Hospital project did this firstly by ascertaining the Flora and

Fauna impact of the Hospital’s construction. It was found that “there are no known records of

rare or protected plant species within the immediate vicinity of the proposed new children’s

hospital development. There are records of tufted salt-marsh grass (puccinellia fasciculata),

hairy violet (Viola hirta), hairy St. John’s wort (Hypericum hirsutum), meadow barley

(Hordeum secalinum), opposite-leaved pondweed (Groenlandia densa) and red hemp nettle

56

(Galeopsis angustifolia) within the 10km grid square that covers the site (O13)” (NCH planning,

2016). However, these species were found to not be present at the St James’s Hospital Site.

The Site preparation and clearance works during “the construction phase will lead to the

disappearance of the existing habitats in the site of the hospital and the campus as well as on

the compound site” (NCH planning, 2016). However, the environmental reports indicate that

“their loss is predicted to be not significant. The construction works will not cause the decline

of natural habitat with important ecological value” (NCH planning, 2016).

The only environmental risk posed is that invasive plant species could be spread to the site.

The existing area of Japanese Knotweed (invasive species) identified at St. James’s Hospital

Campus “has been excluded and a management and treatment plan for eradication will be

put in place. No invasive species will be planted or imported to the site and no significant

effects are predicted” (NCH planning, 2016).

In fact, the overall project aims to improve the biodiversity of the site. Extensive landscaping

proposals, including a green roof, will result in an overall increase in the ecological and

biodiversity value of the site. “Individual trees and tree groups to be removed will be replaced

with appropriate planting. Overall it is expected that the impact on flora and fauna of the

proposed new children’s hospital will be neutral or slight positive, as a result of the increase

in species diversity and area” (NCH planning, 2016).

5.1.3.2. Social Sustainability

The social sustainability of the project was based on the idea that the project would become

a social hub for the local community. Various amenities such as crèches and parkland would

be created so as to encourage the sustainability between the hospital and the community.

Measures were taken to improve public transports links around the hospital and limit the

disruptions that construction could pose to the society. The building also aimed to create a

socially sustainable space for the user of the building by incorporating a friendly and engaging

built environment.

57

5.1.3.3. Economic Sustainability

The new children’s hospital sought to increase economic sustainability by eliminating excess

waste through prefabrication and the introduction of efficient technologies such as the

Building Information Modelling (BIM). The new project will address the economic

sustainability by introducing BIM into the conceptual planning stage and throughout its entire

project management.

BIM will be used to avoid conflicts between services and structure, services and (M&E)

Services, and so on. This will reduce the clash between construction professionals as problems

will be tackled and redesigned before building work begins. It will also eliminate the ordering

of excessive material and scheduling errors. The overall BIM model will cover both

Landscaping, Structure, Internal, FF&E, M&E, and Envelope. Therefore, it will be a

comprehensive representation of the elements of the hospital for all construction

professionals.

The BIM Model uses many interoperable software such as Codebook. Codebook can extract

information from the overall BIM model to develop a room datasheet database. Its cloud-

based nature enables clients and professionals to access with ease. This technology offers an

advantage to improving communication between construction professionals at all stages. This

will eliminate potential waste, rebuilding, and schedule delays.

The BIM Model also collaborates with NBS Create, providing a database of construction

specifications. NBS Create allows specific specifications installed into the overall model.

Construction professionals can pick each element and have the specification at their ease

immediately. Therefore, it boosts the availability of information for suppliers and declines

chances for wrong orders, delays and waste.

The BIM Model also links to Cost X, which supports project costs for BIM and the NBS Create

specifications. Thanks to the advancement of BIM, the cost certainty improves, boosting

economic sustainability.

58

Prefabrication is also used in the project to increase economic sustainability. It refers to a

manufacturing process, occurring at a specialised facility, where various materials are needed

to create a component of the final product (CIRIA, 1999).

Also, it is evident that the levels of waste reduction on construction sites are impressive (65%

- 70%) in comparison with conventional method (Jaillon and Poon, 2008). Also, prefabrication

prevents timber formworks and dedicates to the decrease of construction activities and

construction duration, thereby reducing the negative impact on the locals.

Furthermore, pollution caused by the manufacturing procedure can be managed by

prefabrication in a factory condition, avoiding wet trades on-site (Jaillon and Poon, 2008). This

helps to contribute to project savings and reduce excess spending.

5.1.4. Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in St. James’ New Children’s Hospital

The inclusion of stakeholders in the New Children’s Hospital is crucial for the triple bottom

lines to be addressed. As can be seen in the Venn diagram below the majority of stakeholders

in the construction process are concerned only in economic sustainability for monetary gain

reasons. This leaves relatively few stakeholders in the construction process to integrate the

social and environmental bottom lines in to the project.

The Consultant Ecologist, GVA, the architects and An Bord Pneanala being the only

stakeholders in the construction process concerned with the Environmental Bottom Line. This

is matched by similarly by ARUP, GVA, the architects and An Bord Pneanala being the only

stakeholders concerned by the social bottom line. It is important to leverage these

stakeholders to shift the dominance away from the economic bottom line and the traditional

view of time, scope, and budget. The documentation of the project thus far does not

demonstrate any attempt to leverage the importance of the social and environmental triple

bottom line and to minimise the dominance of the economic bottom line.

59

Figure 5.1: Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in St. James’ New Children’s Hospital

5.2. Capital Docks Case Study

The Capital Docks development will extend for over 4.8 acres on “one the most

underdeveloped sites Global real estate investment company in Dublin’s central business

district and will deliver over 660,000 sq. ft. of new space” (Case study details, 2016) on Sir

John Rogerson’s Quay in Dublin 2. The Development is headed by an Kennedy Wilson, in

collaboration with the National Asset Management Agency (“NAMA”) who hold a 15% stake

in the project.

The development will be a multi-purpose scheme of residential, office, and retail. Three

buildings approximates 316,000 sq. ft for office space. Meanwhile, the other three buildings

serve residential purpose. This derives benefits from water views on both sides, focuses on

public space with a new 1.5-acre landscaped public parking area and square, cultural area and

also ideal retail offer (Capital Docks, 2016).

60

5.2.1. Project Management Overview

Peter Collins of Kennedy Wilson is the project manager. Kennedy Wilson partner took the title

to the building and the adjacent land in 2013, completing the site at the end of 2014 after the

joint venture deal with NAMA (WIRE, 2015). The site work commenced in December 2015,

with the first office buildings available from mid-2017. The site is already substantially

remediated and takes advantage of the two-storey basement works available, for which it can

reduce the construction phase (Capital Docks, 2016). The estimated costs are likely to reach

approximately $225 million, funded by debt borrowings and equity from Kennedy Wilson and

NAMA (Capital Docks, 2016).

5.2.2. Stakeholder Identification

A myriad of Stakeholders is involved in the construction of the Capital Docks ranging from

government departments to ecologists. The Key Stakeholders in the project with the most

power are the two Investors, Kennedy Wilson and The National Asset Management Agency

(NAMA). Below them in terms of Power are Several Stakeholders who provide services to

these two main stakeholders. The first group of Service Stakeholders consist of the main

design team which are the Civil Engineers (Waterman Moylan), M&E Engineers (Axiseng),

Architects (OMP), Quantity Surveyors (AECOM), and Façade Engineers (bda). Each of these

stakeholders fulfills a crucial task necessary for the completion of the construction of the

project.

A second group of sub-stakeholders provide services of lesser importance to the construction

process such as landscape design (Dermot Foley) and Lighting Design (EQ2 Design).

A third group of stakeholders consist of consultants who are necessary for providing reports

on diverse aspects of the project, often required by law. These consist of the Archaeological

Reports (IAC), Ecological Reports (Scott Crawley), Fire Safety Reports (Maurice Johnson &

Partners), Architectural Conservation Reports (ARC), Noise/Waste management Reports (awn

consulting), and Wind Reports (RDWI).

Each of these stakeholders address different aspects of the project by providing in depth

reports about the site’s conditions. Stakeholders such as Originate Creative (Marketing) and

61

MM (Modelers/ Image Renderers) communicate the visions of the finished product ahead of

time to interest parties in renting office space, apartments and retail units. It is clear that there

is complex array of stakeholders within this project.

Detail of stakeholders can be found in Table 5.2.

62

Table 5.2: Stakeholders of the Capital Docks Case Study

Stakeholder(s) Responsibilities Expected Reward Functional Role Contractual

Relationship

Attribute

Classification

Triple Bottom

Line

Kennedy Wilson Financial Capital Large ROI on 85%

stake in Project Client Internal Definitive Economic

National Asset Management Agency Financial Capital

Return on 15%

stake in venture Client Internal Definitive Economic

Docklands Community Project Support

Value adding

building Client External Discretionary

Social

Environmental

OMP Architectural Designs and

Construction Drawings

Fees

Prestige Design Internal Dominant

Economic

Social

Environmental

EQ2LIGHT Lighting Design Fees Design Internal Dominant Economic

Environmental

Dermot Foley Landscaping Fees

Prestige Design Internal Dominant

Economic

Environmental

ModelWorks Media Image Rendering Fees

Prestige Design External Discretionary Economic

Waterman Moylan Civil Engineering Fees

Prestige Construction Internal Dominant Economic

Axiseng M&E Engineers Fees

Prestige Construction Internal Dominant Economic

63

Stakeholder(s) Responsibilities Expected Reward Functional Role Contractual

Relationship

Attribute

Classification

Triple Bottom

Line

AECOM Quantity Surveyors Fees

Prestige Construction Internal Dominant Economic

BDA Façade Engineers Fees Construction Internal Dominant Economic

AWN Consulting Noise & Waste

Management Fees Scope Internal Dominant

Social

Economic

IAC Archaeological Fees

Scope External Discretionary Social

Scott Cawley Ecological Fees Scope External Discretionary Environmental

Maurice Johnson & Partners

Fire & Access

Consultants Fees Scope External Discretionary

Economic

Social

ARC Architectural

Conservation

Fees

Architectural

Conservation

Scope External Discretionary Social

Environmental

RWDL Wind Report Fees Scope External Discretionary Economic

Originate Creative Marketing Fees Property

Management External Discretionary Economic

JLL Leasing/ Property

Management Fees

Property

Management External Discretionary Economic

CBRE Leasing/ Property

Management Fees

Property

Management External Discretionary Economic

64

5.2.3. Sustainability in the Capital Docks Case Study

The adaptation of sustainability in the project management of Capital Docks was based

primarily from an economic perspective. The project did however aim to fill the environmental

sustainability criteria by including achieving LEED Qualification in the project scope. The social

sustainability of the project was to a lesser extent addressed in the project management of

the building

5.2.3.1. Environmental Sustainability

The Capital Docks project has placed an emphasis on environmental sustainability through its

specifications. Offices at Capital Dock have been designed to follow the international LEED

Gold standard. Leadership in Energy and Environmental design Accreditations (LEED) are a

worldwide standard, offering a series of rating systems “for the design, construction,

operation, and maintenance of green buildings, homes, and community” (Boeing and Church,

2014). LEED seeks to provide a benchmark for owners and operators to be environmentally

sustainable in their use of resources. The ratings are in ascending order from certified, silver,

gold, to platinum. The Capital Docks seeks to achieve the Gold standard by an inventive mix

of elements including Panoramic floor to ceiling solar reflective glass and High energy

efficiency long life LED lighting.

5.2.3.2. Social Sustainability

The social sustainability of the project was the least documented part of the Capital Docks

project. It is unclear from our findings whether the docklands community was included in the

project scoping process of the project. The findings however, do show that the project scoping

included several socially sustainable inclusions such as open parkland, crèches, as well as

general public amenities. The project is also subject to the 10% social housing rule which states

that 10% of the residential units must be devoted to social housing.

65

5.2.3.3. Economic Sustainability

The economic sustainability of Capital Docks is one of the most important triple bottom line

to the investors, Kennedy Wilson and NAMA. The scheme is following a “build to rent”

scheme, which focuses on economic sustainability in the long run. Despite an initially high

cost, the scheme helps increase the savings over time, hence reducing operating expenditure.

This implies the mitigation of initial extra cost. According to Greg Kats, the initial investment

believed that the yields could be ten times higher than the initial costs (Kats, 2003). As the

project will last beyond construction into the operation management, the use of LEED

standards will help the economic sustainability of the Capital Docks Project.

5.2.4. Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in Capital Docks Case Study

The integration of Sustainability in Stakeholder Management was crucial for the triple bottom

lines to be fulfilled by the Capital Docks project. There was a huge multitude of stakeholders

involved in the project. Due to the prime location of the site, many social and environmental

stakeholders were included within the project. The majority of stakeholders however were

concerned mainly with the economic sustainability of the project including the project

sponsors Kennedy Wilson and NAMA. Leasing agents and the majority of the construction

team were concerned solely with economic sustainability. A significant number of

stakeholders on the Capital Docks project were concerned solely with the environmental triple

bottom line with the least amount of stakeholders being concerned with the social aspect of

sustainability.

66

Figure 5.2: Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in Capital Docks Case Study

5.3. LIDL Headquarters Case Study

The construction of the Irish LIDL Headquarters in Tallaght was to provide a centre from which

LIDL could implement their market expansion in Ireland. The clients desired an environmental-

friendly building which is durable and could foster a healthy lifestyle of the staff. The building

includes a central atrium which is capable of extending to three storeys high. The building is

also notable for the fact that there is no desk and limited internal partitions. The aim is to

provide a building free from social partitions. The building has large quantity of glazing and

black panels fixed to the concrete floor plates. Also, it includes a parking area, a fitness centre,

and a canteen.

5.3.1. Project Management Overview

In 2009, LIDL lodged an application to the council for a mixed-use development at a former

factory site, which had more than 100 apartments and residential units ranging from one to

67

nine stories tall. In 2010 the application was withdrawn after meeting opposition from local

residents. However, after consultancy with the local community, this was later changed to two

LIDL shopping centres and an office headquarters at the back. After securing the planning

permission, LIDL’s property team assembled a construction team for the projects

construction. The construction of the LIDL headquarters was completed on April 8th at a total

of 25 million euro.

5.3.2. Stakeholder Identification

There were several stakeholders involved in this project at various stages of the project. The

main stakeholder of the project was the project sponsor LIDL. They expected to get a modern

and sustainable Headquarters from the project and were the most powerful stake holder on

the project. Unusually for many project sponsors they were not solely concerned with

economic sustainability and in fact valued equally environmental and social sustainability. The

next stakeholder with high power was An Bord Pleanala, who were the planning council

associated with the build. They addressed the triple bottom lines of social and environmental

and wanted to ensure that the building would conform to building code as well as benefit

Tallaght. The architects of the project had a moderate power on the project in so far as they

were the main designers. The construction of the project was managed by the Civil and M&E

engineers as well as the KSN Quantity Surveyors. They had moderate to low power and all

were concerned with the economic triple bottom line. They expected to be rewarded well

with high fees. JVT offered sustainable design solutions to the various stakeholders and were

concerned mainly with the environmental and economic triple bottom line. The final

stakeholder was Floodprecast who were responsible for precasting concrete elements offsite

before transporting them to site. They were concerned with the economic triple bottom line

of the project but inadvertently contributed to the environmental triple bottom line by

reducing the energy footprint of the construction process. The difference of each stakeholders

contributed to the complexity of the project.

68

Table 5.3: Stakeholders of the LIDL Headquarters Case Study

Stakeholder(s) Responsibilities Expected Reward Functional

Role Contractual Relationship

Attribute Classification

Triple Bottom Line

LIDL Financial Capital

Facility Management

Modern physical

infrastructure

Client Facility

Management Internal

Definitive

Economic

Social

Environmental

An Bord Pneanala

Planning Authority

City Compliant

and beneficial

Building for

Tallaght

Scope External Dominant Social

Environmental

JVT Sustainable design

solutions Fees

Prestige Scope Internal Dominant

Environmental Economic

MCA

Architectural Designs and Construction

Drawings

Fees Prestige

Design Internal Dominant

Economic

Social Environmental

Barrett Mahony

Civil Engineers Fees Construction Internal Dominant Economic

SISK Consulting Engineers

Fees Construction Internal Dominant Economic

Winthrop M&E Engineering Fees Prestige

Construction Internal Dominant Economic

KSN Quantity Surveying Fees Construction Internal Dominant Economic

FloodPrecast Precast Concrete

Maker Fees Construction External Discretionary Economic

69

5.3.3. Sustainability in LIDL Headquarters Case Study

5.3.3.1. Environmental Sustainability

The environmental sustainability of the project was the triple bottom line given the most

emphasis on the project. The project sponsors desired a building which would achieve BREEM

standards which are notably harder to reach than LEED standards. The project planning stage

involved the consultation of a sustainable design firm, operating under the name JVT. In their

consultation with the architect they advised on several environmentally sustainable models.

The first was to incorporate a BMS (Building Management System) into the building. This

allowed the assembly of various data into the BMS display system. From here the facility

manager can manage the energy and water consumption of the building as well as the waste

disposal. The building was designed to use as little energy as possible. To facilitate this the

building incorporated 5 panes of glass for every window to prevent heat exchange between

the external and internal environment. Shades react to the trajectory of the sun to cool parts

of the building subjected to the sunrays. In addition rainwater collection systems were

implemented on the roof of the building to harvest rain water. This water is then used as

either potable water or no potable water by the buildings users. Sedum roofs allow for this

harvesting of rainwater and increase the ecological diversity of the site.

5.3.3.2. Social Sustainability

The triple bottom line of social sustainability was included during the project scoping phase

by the main clients. The scope of the project included the design of a healthy environment for

employees during the planning stage. This was facilitated by including gyms, showers, fruit

stands, and cycling accessibility for employees. The scope of the project also aimed to include

the local community in the design process to promote a culture of respect between Tallaght

residents and LIDL employees. This desire for social sustainability is seen through comments

by a local resident Jim O’Connor who said “LIDL had pre-planning meetings with us and post-

planning meetings, they engaged in consultations with us and it seems like they took our

observations into consideration. They took a big block away and also moved the building back

from the road and moved the pocket park forward – which will not only look better but means

it can be accessed by the community.

70

It is a very ultra-modern building, very different than what we had in my day, but residents

feel positive about the building now and see it as a positive development for the village.”

(Dennehy, 2015) This clearly shows a sustainable approach throughout the project

management for the triple bottom line of social sustainability through promotion of healthy

lifestyle and consultation with local residents.

5.3.3.3. Economic Sustainability

The economic sustainability of the building relies on the responsiveness of the building

management system as well as the passive installation of the building. The building

management system allows for the controlled use of external fuels. The internal heat of the

building is relegated to use external fuels to heat the building when necessary. The strong

insulation properties of the building allow this heat to be maintained with minimal use of

excess fossil fuels. Cross ventilation is managed via the building management system by use

of external air at set parts of the day. Similarly, the rainwater harvesting system reduced the

water consumption needs of the building. Sedum roofs channelled and cleaned rainwater

which was then passed either to hydro taps to purify water for drinking or to the main pipe

system for nonpotable water. This reduced the potable consumption of the building to almost

zero percent which correlated in a lower water bill. In all the triple bottom line of economic

sustainability was applied by reducing the lifecycle costs of the building.

5.3.4. Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in LIDL Headquarters Case Study

LIDL’s integration of Sustainability in Stakeholder Management was crucial for the triple

bottom lines to be addressed. The Project Sponsor, LIDL are the only project sponsors so far

to be as equally concerned with economic sustainability as they were with environmental and

social sustainability. The majority of stakeholders involved in the project were concerned with

economic sustainability or furthering monetary gain. This is shown clearly in the Venn

Diagram. Two of the key stakeholders, LIDL and MCA architects were however concerned with

each triple bottom line. In addition, the planning council An Bord Peanala was concerned with

both the social and economic triple bottom lines of the project. The LIDL project sponsors

managed to shift the focus away from solely the economic bottom line by making it clear in

the project scope that the project was to be sustainable both environmentally and socially.

71

The inclusion of sustainable design engineers, JVT, also aided in the process of producing a

more sustainably balanced triple bottom line.

Figure 5.3: Stakeholder Inclusiveness in Sustainability in LIDL Headquarters Case Study

5.4. Summary of Case Study Analysis

The case studies cover the main areas within the property industry namely public and private

projects as well as residential and commercial projects. The report also analysed projects

within inner city locations and outer city locations. It is clear that several trends have emerged

from the case studies concerning stakeholders and sustainability.

The main result of the three case studies seems to show that there is a predominance for

projects to include stakeholders involved in the economic sustainability of a project. Of the

forty-one stakeholders analysed on the projects, twenty were concerned exclusively with the

economic sustainability of the project while twenty-eight were concerned with economic

sustainability along with other triple bottom lines. This indicates that a disproportionally high

72

amount of stakeholders are concerned with the economic triple bottom line. The total number

of stakeholders concerned with the environment was nineteen which was markedly lower

than those stakeholders concerned with the economic bottom line. The stakeholders

concerned with the social triple bottom line numbered fifteen which was even lower than the

amount of stakeholders concerned with the environmental aspect of sustainability. This

presents a view of a skewed variance in the interest of stakeholders with a predominance of

stakeholders concerned with economic triple bottom lines with the environmental and social

triple bottom lines being less prioritized. The environmental triple bottom line, while lower

seems to have been more prioritized by key stakeholders in the project. This is further

emphasized when we consider the amount of stakeholders which are concerned solely with

the social triple bottom line which numbers only two. This is less than the five stakeholders

who are concerned solely with the environmental triple bottom line. It is clear that there is a

trend for stakeholders to be included in the project that focus on the economic triple bottom

line, environmental triple bottom line and social triple bottom line in descending order. The

difference between the latter two and the former is considerable.

Several other smaller trends emerged in the case studies. In every case, the architect is a

stakeholder who is concerned with all three triple bottom lines and, in the Capital Docks case,

the single stakeholder concerned with each one. The construction team of each project has

the most amount of stakeholders in each of the projects. In all case studies, each construction

team stakeholder was concerned solely with the economic triple bottom line. The local

communities where projects are located are often concerned with the majority of triple

bottom lines of a project, with two cases showing the local community being concerned with

every single one. The results show that communities are always concerned with the

environmental and social triple bottom line and often with the economic bottom line. The

findings also show that project sponsors across both the public and private sectors are often

concerned with the economic sustainability of a project.

73

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this chapter, the main findings from the case study analysis are summarised. In addition,

the result of this research is analysed against the theoretical framework in the review of the

literature. After that, the authors would like to discuss the contribution of this research in

terms of theory and management practices. This chapter then finishes with the limitations

and implications for future research.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between stakeholder

inclusiveness and sustainability in construction projects. After empirical findings, the research

illustrates that stakeholder inclusiveness has a positive contribution to sustainability

achievement in construction projects.

6.1. Summary of Research Findings

The analysis from the three cases depict a high level of consistency, which enables the authors

to answer directly the research questions. Additionally, along with the literature on the

constructs of sustainability and stakeholder inclusiveness, the authors created the model

depicting the relationship between the two, and corresponding to the three research

questions with a view to contributing to the application in the construction industry.

Figure 6.1: Model of the Relationship between Stakeholder Inclusiveness and

Sustainability

Environmental

Social

Economic

Inclusiveness Identification

STAKEHOLDER

SUSTAINABILITY

74

To be more specific, the research aims to answer the main question, “How should stakeholder

inclusiveness be applied in the context of sustainability in construction projects?” Three sub-

questions were given to make way for the answer of this question.

Question 1: Who are the stakeholders in construction projects?

Question 2: How is sustainability determined in construction projects from the triple

bottom line approach?

Question 3: How are stakeholders included in achieving sustainability in construction

projects?

Each of these questions is addressed by empirical analysis through the three case studies in

Ireland’s construction industry. Likewise, these three questions were studied against the

theoretical framework resulting from the discussions of the review of literature. They are then

applied to summarise the findings acquired through empirical analysis. Having reviewed the

constructs of sustainability and stakeholder inclusiveness as well as their relationship,

combined with the elaboration of practical evidence of them through the cases, the answer

to each question is presented as follows.

Question 1: Who are the stakeholders in construction projects?

It is true that construction projects have a vast number of different stakeholders across their

project life cycle. Each and every stakeholder has different powers, interests and concerns,

just to name a few, in regard to the project itself. As a result, different stakeholders in

construction projects possess different and unequal roles and responsibilities in the project.

For that reason, there is a need for dividing stakeholders into sub-groups according to their

roles so that they can be managed more easily. In other words, this requires a well-rounded

stakeholder identification for the project.

Due to the increase in the fragmentation and the complexity of construction projects,

stakeholder management has become more increasingly challenging (Aapaoja and Haapasalo,

2014). Despite the fact that there could be a common classification for construction

stakeholders, their roles might probably be different from project to project. As a

75

consequence, a number of approaches can be used simultaneously in order for the project

manager to have a better big-picture view of the project stakeholders. Also, this can enable

the project to maximise its possible value that stakeholders can bring about. This has been

well proved by the three case studies. In the previous chapter, stakeholders were identified

using multiple classifications, namely functional role, contractual relationship and

characteristics.

Through the three cases studies, it can be seen that stakeholders in a construction project are

often divided into groups that reflect the major phases of this project. This is the classification

based on the functional role in the project, where construction stakeholders are grouped into

Client team, Project Scope, Project Design, Construction and Facility Management/Property

Management. Regarding the contractual relationship, each case consists of both internal and

external stakeholders, albeit different numbers of them, with the National Children’s Hospital

and the LIDL Headquarters comprising mainly internal stakeholders (>80%). Among these

cases, internal stakeholders often include project sponsors, architects, project supervisors,

civil and structural engineers, and quantity surveyors, while external counterparts mainly

consist of consultancy companies and the local authorities. The balance of interests of both

internal and external stakeholders is what project management should make an effort to

achieve. According to Bal et al. (2014), internal stakeholders should be integrated while

external counterparts’ skills and knowledge should also be leveraged to contribute to the

project performance.

Likewise, in terms of characteristics, based on the power, legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell et

al., 1997), a broad range of typologies were applied in all three cases. Of these, the authors

realise that power and legitimacy are the two most significant attributes of stakeholders in

these construction projects. The three cases show the majority of stakeholders identified were

listed as either dominant (high power and high legitimacy), then discretionary (high

legitimacy). The explanation for this is that stakeholders with high power are able to increase

the level of impact on the project as well as decision-making process, while those with high

legitimacy have to shoulder the risks in the project (Olander, 2007). Therefore, it is necessary

to deal with these kinds of stakeholders fully. Furthermore, the variety in stakeholders has put

forward the issue of developing respective strategies for each. For example, dominant

76

stakeholders should be kept well-informed, while discretionary stakeholders are to be

monitored closely (Bal et al., 2014).

Beyond this, there is no common rule for an optimal size for the number of construction

project stakeholders. Instead, it depends on the size and nature of the project and varies

considerably. For example, with regard to the St. James’ National Children’s Hospital, 12 major

stakeholders were identified, the majority of them were classified into Client Team, Project

Scope team and Project Design team. Meanwhile, for the second case, Capital Docks, 20

stakeholders were named and unlike the previous case, most stakeholders were responsible

for Project Scope and Construction. The third case, LIDL headquarters, saw most of its

stakeholders under the Construction category.

Accordingly, project managers should endeavour to identify stakeholders, especially those

most significant and legitimate ones, and respond to their interests and demands. The fact is

that project stakeholders can have a direct influence on the project success, proving that the

stakeholder identification plays an important role in the entire stakeholder management

process and the mission of attaining sustainability (Olander, 2007; Bal et al., 2013; Aapaoja

and Haapasalo, 2014).

Overall, the above discussion illustrates that the issue of stakeholder identification in a

construction project is not effortless. The authors perceive that a combination of multiple

identification approaches would bring the most benefits to the project management process.

Question 2: How is sustainability determined in construction projects from the triple bottom

line approach?

Undoubtedly, the construction industry itself has never seemed to cease growing, and played

an essential role in almost every country in the world (Ortiz et al., 2009), Ireland included. The

review of the literature, as well as the analysis of the empirical case studies have not only

confirmed this fact, but also shown that sustainability has gained credibility in the construction

industry as one of the most significant goals to attain in all but none of the triple bottom line,

namely environmental, social and economic aspects.

77

The theoretical findings illustrate that the adoption of sustainability in the construction

industry is inevitable, suggesting that incorporating the mission of achieving sustainability and

turning this strategy into actions have become its important task (Ugwu and Haupt, 2005). The

explanation for this can be the result of multiple changes in the socio-economy, which has led

to the volatility of the industry. On top of that, there is no doubt that construction projects

have raised the level of complexity. The delivery of the final product must be considered along

with a number of factors, such as technical difficulties, the materials, energy sources, plus the

triple bottom line it has to guarantee (Pietrosemoli and Monroy, 2013). The greater the size

of the project is, the more frequently the project must encounter these obstacles. Accordingly,

this has resulted in the importance of sustainability in construction. Bal et al. (2013) defined

that if the construction industry fulfils environmental concerns while also meeting social needs

and ensuring economic enhancement, it is sustainable. Besides, social demands are

pressurising, with more people geared toward a building that is more comfortable, safe,

efficient, durable and flexible while still affordable. As such, the race for performance in the

industry is not sufficient anymore; instead, sustainability becomes the new goal for

development (Rangelova, 2015).

The deliverable of normal construction projects is the building structure, but the incorporation

of sustainability enables it to have affordability, quality and efficiency in the long run for the

benefits of the future generations. Overall, the final goal of adopting sustainability in

construction projects is to contribute to the overall improvement in living standards and

development of human potential (Pietrosemoli and Monroy, 2013).

Moreover, sustainability in construction implies an approach to reducing negative

environmental and social impacts and improving economic benefits (Bal et al., 2014). In other

words, this reflects how construction projects incorporate the triple bottom line

(environmental, social and economic aspects) into their delivery.

The findings from the case studies analysis illustrate also shows that the empirical analysis

follows the theoretical framework derived from the literature review. To be more specific, this

claim has been proved through the analysis of the three cases in the construction industry of

Ireland, where all three aspects of the triple bottom line were applied. The authors are going

through each of the triple bottom line to see how sustainability is achieved in construction

projects.

78

* Environmental sustainability:

Environmental sustainability has been regarded by many scholars as the most important triple

bottom line of the three (Rangelova, 2015). Due to its importance, it should be necessary for

the project manager and the project team to pay special attention to that bottom line. At the

project planning stage, where feasibility analysis is undertaken, environmental assessment

should be taken into account. Engineers and architects can try to optimise the design in order

to eliminate adverse impact on the environment as well as increase its adaptability to the

environment, such as disaster-resilient buildings (Rangelova, 2015).

Environmental sustainability can be achieved in a number of different ways. For example, it

can be obtained with the utilisation of construction practices, with new materials and

equipment, prefabrication and the application of innovation and technological advancement

in the industry such as energy efficient building. Pietrosemoli and Monroy, 2013 claimed that

this bottom line has made a contribution to the development of high-tech and knowledge-

driven construction sector. Otherwise, it can be associated with the preservation of the

biodiversity of the neighbouring community, such as eliminating or recycling waste to avoid

negative impact on nature.

The three cases also provide some valuable examples. First, in the case of the St. James’

National Hospital Children’s Hospital, environmental sustainability was reflected in the

planting and placing of flora and fauna within the proposed site, whose purpose was to

improve the biodiversity of the site. All risks related to invasive plants or loss of existing plants

had been identified with a view to minimising any effects the project might have on the

environment. The second case, Capital Docks, saw the triple bottom line in the form of the

green building of international quality standard, using a mix of environmental-friendly

materials such as long life LED lighting or solar reflective glass. Similarly, the third case, LIDL

Headquarters, was noted for its energy-efficient building, using glass window and optimising

rainwater for use.

* Social sustainability:

Social sustainability has gradually raised concerns in the domain of construction. It has since

been used as one of the criteria for assessing the feasibility in construction projects (Edum-

79

Fotwe and Price, 2009). Compared to the other two bottom lines, social sustainability has

been so far the least developed and sometimes taken for granted.

There are several ways to attain social sustainability in a construction project. Social

sustainability is often linked to community development, livability, human rights, social

responsibility, social support and so forth (Benoit and Vickery-Niederman, 2010).

For example, in terms of the St. James National Children’s Hospital, the social aspect of

sustainability was reflected on the unique tri-location of the project enabling the development

of a healthcare hub area, from which the neighbourhood can derive a huge social benefit. The

project was believed to create a number of new employment opportunities for people in the

area. Meanwhile, for the Capital Docks, social sustainability can be seen in the provision of

some open areas for the public. Simultaneously, the last case study shows the social

sustainability as the healthy environment built for LIDL’s employees while also engaging the

community in the design of the building. This was to ensure the opinions of the local

community were appreciated and the building was appropriate to the local culture.

* Economic sustainability:

The remaining pillar of sustainability, economic sustainability, refers to the economic concerns

for the project. There are various ways to attain economic sustainability in reality. For

example, it is the efficient use and design of technology that allows the project to stand out

economically. Their benefits vary, from increasing project stakeholder communication to

reducing waste, and most importantly, cutting cost and contributes to the economic bottom

line of the project.

The expression of economic sustainability can also be seen through the three cases analysed

in the previous chapter. In the case of St. James’ National Children’s Hospital, the application

of the Building Information Modelling (BIM) not only in the planning phase of the project but

also throughout its life cycle was a valuable example. This will increase project stakeholder

communication, reducing waste and project schedule delays. Besides, prefabrication of

materials is another illustration for this economic bottom line, reducing the cost for conserving

materials, reducing waste up to 70% and saving energy sources. The second case saw the

bottom line in the form of the LEED certification, allowing the project to save costs and cut

80

any extra expense. Last but not least, LIDL attained economic sustainability by reducing the

life cycle costs of construction, taking advantage of energy sources such as fuels, rain water or

external air.

What makes the findings from the case study analysis notable is that, unlike previous studies

that have shown that the environmental sustainability takes the most important position of

the three, all three case studies show that economic sustainability is the most significant. For

instance, in the case of the Capital Docks, 15 out of 19 stakeholders have contributed to this

bottom line, while the corresponding figures for environmental and social are 5 and 6,

respectively. A similar situation can be found on the other two case studies. This implies that

the triple bottom line has still experience an imbalance distribution among the three bottom

lines, with economic benefits still taking up the major place.

Overall, in order to meet the objective of sustainability, its three components, namely

environmental, social and economic, should be kept consistent. However, with the change in

business environment, technical advancement and legislation will follow its changing pattern

soon. This means the construction professionals have to be aware of the situation to

continually adapt and update in order not to being dismissed or left behind (Petri et al., 2014).

In addition, to achieve the goal of sustainability in construction projects, there is a need for

the development of institutional system, infrastructures as well as other management

practices (Bal et al., 2013). In this regard, Ireland can take advantage of that, thanks to a wide

variety of legal framework it has adopted as a mandatory regulation from the Europe Union

as well as the significant development of its infrastructure. In fact, in all three case studies,

the projects followed a certain standard in terms of sustainability (BREEAM standard for the

St. James’ National Children’s Hospital and the LEED standards for both the Capital Docks and

LIDL Headquarters). This implies the potential for further significant in the growth of

sustainability in Ireland in the future.

Question 3: How are stakeholders included in achieving sustainability in construction

projects?

From the theoretical and empirical findings, it is true that the inclusiveness of stakeholders

has been taken into consideration in the decision making as well as other activities in the

81

contribution to sustainability in construction. However, there has been no clear and regular

of rules of the inclusiveness of stakeholders in achieving sustainability. What should be noted

here is that the stakeholder inclusiveness has a project-specific nature (Aapaoja and

Haapasalo, 2014). This means it is not applicable in all projects of different size, purpose or

sector, just to name a few. In fact, each project should focus on its stakeholders and their

nature (attitude, power, interest, responsibilities and so forth) to include and involve them

during the project life cycle.

What matters in stakeholder inclusiveness in the context of sustainability is that identifying

stakeholders’ concerns and needs will support the delivery of the project to attain

sustainability in construction projects and fulfil the sustainable goals (Bal et al., 2014). The

benefit of it is that if their needs are identified early and incorporated in the, for example,

design of the building, it will promote sustainability in the construction project. Bal et al. (2013

& 2014) confirmed that the inclusiveness of stakeholders in the construction projects lead to

the more reliability in the product and attract approval from target audience.

The integration of all aspects of the triple bottom line in the decision making and activities

within projects is the principle of sustainability (Emas, 2015).

Setting the goal of achieving sustainability can enable stakeholders to determine the most

effective way in improving the quality of the project delivery, in terms of environmentally,

socially or economically (Bal et al., 2014). Stakeholders play an essential role in any project

and take the responsibility for bearing a number of risks during the construction project.

Therefore, if their interests and concerns are to be taken into account, there is a better chance

to attain sustainability (Bal et al., 2013).

The well-managed stakeholder inclusiveness and management can enable the stakeholders to

collaborate for the common goal of sustainability achievement. As a consequence,

stakeholder inclusiveness should be given high priority in any sustainability strategy in any

project (Bal et al., 2013).

The inclusiveness of stakeholders in the context of sustainability can be seen in the

involvement of internal and external stakeholders or different types of salience, in each of the

82

triple bottom line in the case study analysis. Most stakeholders tend to involve in one aspect

of the triple bottom line, be it environmental, social or economic.

Throughout the three case studies, it is apparent that both internal and external stakeholders

have made positive contribution to the project’s sustainability. For example, in the case of

LIDL Headquarters, both the project sponsor (internal) – LIDL and the Tallaght community

(external) were involved in the decision making of the building design, in order to ensure the

building would fit with the culture of the neighbourhood. Likewise, in the case of St. James

National Children’s Hospital, the project sponsor, the community and consultants (such as

Matthew Hague) were all engaged in the environmental concern for the flora and fauna of the

hospital site. In fact, there is no clear boundaries as to which bottom line is preferred by

internal or external stakeholders. Nonetheless, the trend shows that environmental and social

sustainability have attracted the likes of internal construction stakeholders more than their

external counterparts. Meanwhile, the economic sustainability has experienced the almost

equal contributions from the two.

With regard to project stakeholder salience, it is obvious from the case studies that those

stakeholders involved in all aspects of the triple bottom line tend to have the definitive

position in the project, which means possessing all characteristics, power, legitimacy and

urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997). Such powerful stakeholders, with their interest in all the three

sustainability aspects are a good sign for a construction project, implying that sustainability

can be integrated further and consolidated in the project itself. The involvement in the

decision making will enable stakeholder expectations to be met in the final delivery of the

project.

6.2. Conclusion

Overall, the data analysis has reflected its relative consistency with the literature review of

this research on the positive relationship between sustainability and stakeholder

inclusiveness, both theoretically and empirically.

6.2.1. Theoretical Contribution

The research contributes to the enrichment of current comprehension of the relationship

between stakeholder inclusiveness and sustainability. By reviewing a wide variety of different

83

definitions and understandings of the two concepts, the two main ones were chosen for the

context of this research.

First, sustainability is the attainment of the three aspects, environmental, social and economic

(the triple bottom line), to pursue a higher living standard for the present and future

generations (UNESCO, 2016). Achieving sustainability has become inevitable for projects,

especially in this day and age with the environmental changes and the rising requirement of

the socio-economy. Incorporating the triple bottom line of sustainability in a project will

enable the project delivery to contribute greatly to the quality of life. Meanwhile, project

stakeholders are those involved in the project, can affect or are affected by the project (PMI,

2013). Stakeholder inclusiveness refers to the embracement of all stakeholders by the project

(Eskerod et al., 2015).

With regard to the relationship between the two constructs, stakeholder inclusiveness has a

positive contribution to the achievement of sustainability. Project stakeholder expectations

are an integral part of a project, on which the result of the project is based. The inclusiveness

of stakeholders, therefore, implies the guarantee that the powers, needs, concerns, interests

and so forth of stakeholders are taken into consideration and in turn leads to a higher chance

of project success.

The case studies from the construction industry in Ireland chosen have also provided empirical

evidence for study of the topic. To illustrate, there are a number of stakeholders involved in

construction projects, whether they are internal or external. Also, these stakeholders are

involved in the construction project in various different phases, such as project scope, facility

management or construction. They have different salience, for which they can be classified in

different groups, mainly definitive, dominant and discretionary stakeholders. This has shown

that power and legitimacy are the most important attributes of construction project

stakeholders.

Despite variations, they all make significant contributions to the achievement of sustainability,

which has been a core goal of construction projects today. In all, the triple bottom line of the

cases (environmental, social and economic), the contributions of stakeholders are visible in a

wide variety of approaches such as energy-efficient building, employment opportunities for

local people and community engagement. Among these three aspects of sustainability, what

84

is noticeable and different from the literature review is that economic sustainability instead

of environmental sustainability is the major contribution from stakeholders.

Another feature that should be mentioned is the application of the international sustainability

standard in all the cases studied, namely BREEAM and LEED, implying a firm framework and

potential for incorporating sustainability within the construction sector. Accordingly, the

authors have developed a model depicting the relationship between the two constructs drawn

on the literature review and the data analysis. It can pave the way for more ideas regarding

how to improve the inclusiveness of stakeholders more closely and efficiently.

6.2.2. Practical Contribution

From a practical perspective, the research illustrates that there is still room for project

practitioners to adopt measures with a view to improving stakeholder inclusiveness as well as

supporting sustainability practices within projects, especially in the construction industry. The

unequal contribution of stakeholders in the triple bottom line, particularly to the economic

aspect, has led to need for the project manager to find an approach to improve the other two.

If the project manager can balance the development and concentration of all the triple bottom

line, the delivery of the project is likely to guarantee the optimal fulfilment of stakeholders’

concerns. In terms of sustainability, the application of international standards in construction

projects in terms of sustainability should be spread widely, which, in turn, proves and raises

the quality in the construction industry overall. Furthermore, a suggestion for the project

manager is to enhance inclusiveness and management of stakeholders, by identifying

stakeholders in a multiple approach. This can assist in the entire stakeholder management

aspect of the construction project as a whole, based on which the project manager can

optimise their inclusion and involvement.

6.3. Research Limitations

There are several limitations to our research. While the research covers many areas of

stakeholder inclusiveness, it does not cover every area. In fact, it views stakeholder

inclusiveness through the prism of projects of three development organisations. In this

respect, the case studies are limited by the viewpoints of these three projects.

85

In addition, the data sample of case studies is quite small. Thus the relatively small sample of

case studies inevitably limits the scope of the research. This was made necessary by the

predetermined word count of the report and the number of words necessary to describe a

case study in-depth.

Another limitation is the specific nature of the case companies selected. Every case study was

within the greater Dublin area. The authors analysed companies operating in the main

property sectors of residential, commercial and public but the authors did not include more

niche property industries such as industrial or agricultural. In addition, the organisations

selected were very large.

6.4. Future Implications

The limitations of the research has paved way for some implications of further research in the

future, which are listed as follows:

First, future studies could adopt our proposed framework and structure and be expanded to

include a larger number of cases so as to increase the accuracy of data analysis results.

Second, future studies could ascertain how country, property sector and size factors can

impact on stakeholder inclusiveness by means of testing. These studies could analyse these

factors by keeping two factors constant and allowing for the third to become a variable. This

data collection would allow for emergent trends to be seen as a result of the effects of the

variables. This would give a complete picture of how stakeholder inclusiveness relate to

sustainability in the construction industry.

Third, the research has pointed out the need for the application of sustainability in the

construction industry as a whole. As a result, further research in the future can focus on

investigating the policy and regulatory framework to increase the incorporation of

sustainability within the industry, and how they can be customised for the sub-sectors of the

industry also.

86

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaltonen, K. (2010) Stakeholder Management in Global Projects. PhD Dissertation. Aalto

University.

Aapaoja, A. and Haapasalo, H. (2014) ‘A framework for Stakeholder identification and

classification in construction projects’, Open Journal of Business and Management,

2(1), pp. 43–55.

Achterkamp, M.C. and Vos, J.F.J. (2006) ‘A framework for making sense of sustainable

innovation through stakeholder involvement’, International Journal of Environmental

Technology and Management, 6(6), p. 525.

Alhaddi, H. (2015) ‘Triple bottom line and sustainability: A literature review’, Business and

Management Studies, 1(2).

Ali, D. (2014) ‘Sustainability in Building Construction: The Management and Challenges of

Stakeholders in the Industry’, The Multi-Disciplinary Academic Conference on

Sustainable Development. Nigeria: 10 – 11 July.

Atkin, B. and Skitmore, M. (2008) ‘Editorial: Stakeholder management in construction’,

Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), pp. 549–552.

Ayuso, S., Ángel Rodríguez, M., García‐Castro, Roberto and Ángel Ariño, M. (2011) ‘Does

stakeholder engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation?’, Industrial

Management & Data Systems, 111(9), pp. 1399–1417.

Bal, M., Bryde, D., and Ochieng, E. (2014) ‘A Critical Review of Integrated Project Management

for Construction Sustainability’, International Conference on Economics, Managment

and Development. Switzerland, 22 – 24 February.

Bal, M., Bryde, D., Fearon, D. and Ochieng, E. (2013) ‘Stakeholder engagement: Achieving

sustainability in the construction sector’, Sustainability, 5(2), pp. 695–710.

Banerjee, S.B. and Bonnefous, A.-M. (2011) ‘Stakeholder management and sustainability

strategies in the French nuclear industry’, Business Strategy and the Environment,

20(2), pp. 124–140.

Barbosa, G.S., Drach, P.R. & Corbella, O.D. 2014, "A Conceptual Review of the Terms

Sustainable Development and Sustainability", Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2,

pp. 1 – 15.

87

Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008) ‘Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and

Implementation for Novice Researchers’, The Qualitative Report, 13 (4), pp. 544 – 559.

Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to Social Enquiry: Advancing Knowledge. 2nd Edition. USA:

Polity.

Bobek, A., and Wickham, J. (2015) Working Conditions in Ireland Project - Employment in the

Irish Construction Sector: A Preliminary Background Report. Irish Congress of Trade

Union.

Boeing, G. and Church, D. (2014) ‘LEED-ND and Liveability Revisited’, Berkley Planning Journal.

Boeing, G. and Church, D. (2014) ‘LEED-ND and Liveability Revisited’, Berkley Planning Journal.

Boesso, G. and Kumar, K. (2009) ‘An investigation of stakeholder prioritization and

engagement: Who or what really counts’, Journal of Accounting & Organizational

Change, 5(1), pp. 62–80.

Brook, J. W., and Pagnanelli, F. (2014) ‘Integrating sustainability into innovation project

portfolio management – A strategic perspective’, Journal of Engineering and

Technology Management, 34, pp.46 – 62.

Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. and Volm, J.M. (2013) ‘The project benefits of building information

Modelling (BIM)’, International Journal of Project Management, 31(7), pp. 971–980.

Capital Docks (2016) Available at: http://www.kennedywilson.com/kennedy-wilson-secures-

planning-permission-capital-dock-development-dublin-ireland/print (Accessed: 1

August 2016).

Case study details (2016) Available at: http://www.kennedywilson.com/case-studies/capital-

dock (Accessed: 1 August 2016).

Case study details (2016) Available at: http://www.kennedywilson.com/case-studies/capital-

dock (Accessed: 1 August 2016).

Clifton, D. and Amran, A. (2010) ‘The Stakeholder approach: A sustainability perspective’,

Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), pp. 121–136.

Clulow, V. (2005) ‘Futures dilemmas for marketers: Can stakeholder analysis add value?’,

European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), pp. 978–997.

88

Construction Industry Council (2009) Building Our Future Together. Construction Industry

Council.

Construction Information Services (2016) Construction Market Review Q1 2016. Construction

Information Services Ireland.

Creswell, J.W. (2008) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dale, A., Dushenko, W. and Robinson, P.J. (2012) Urban sustainability: Reconnecting space and

place. Canada: University of Toronto Press.

de Boer, J. (2003) ‘Sustainability labelling schemes: The logic of their claims and their functions

for stakeholders’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(4), pp. 254–264.

de Vaus, D.A. 2006, Research design, SAGE, London.

Dembczyk, A., and Zaoral, J. (2014) Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainable Entrerpreneurship

and Innovation: An Exploratory Study on Start-Ups from Germany and Sweden in

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. Master Thesis. UMEA University.

Dennehy, M. (2015) Lidl headquarters, with 320 staff, will be boost for the south Dublin

economy. Available at: https://www.echo.ie/news/article/lidl-headquarters-with-320-

Dernbach, J. C. (2003). Achieving sustainable development: The Centrality and multiple facets

of integrated decisionmaking. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 247-285.

Diesendorf, M., 2000, ‘Sustainability and sustainable development’, in Dunphy, D, Benveniste,

J, Griffiths, A and Sutton, P (eds) Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st

century, Sydney: Allen & Unwin, chap. 2, 19-37.

Ding, G.K.C. 2008, "Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools",

Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 451-464.

DKM Economic Consultant Ltd (2010) Review for the Construction Industry 2009 and Outlook

2010 – 2012. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Doloi, H. (2012) ‘Assessing stakeholders’ influence on social performance of infrastructure

projects’, Facilities, 30(11/12), pp. 531–550.

Dowsett, R. M., and Harty, C. F. (2013) ‘Evaluating the benefits of BIM for sustainable design

– A review’, In: Smith, S. D. (Ed.) and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. D. (Ed.), Proceedings 29th

89

Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK, Association of

Researchers in Construction Management, pp. 13 – 23.

Easton, G. (2010) ‘Critical realism in case study research’, Industrial Marketing Management,

39(1), pp. 118–128.

Edum-Fotwe, F.T. & Price, A.D.F. 2009, "A social ontology for appraising sustainability of

construction projects and developments", International Journal of Project

Management, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 313-322.

ELKINGTON, J. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for

sustainable development. California Management Review, v.36, n.2, p.90-100, 1994.

Emas, R. (2015) ‘The Concept of Sustainable Development: Definition and Defining Principles’,

Brief for GSDR 2015.

Eskerod, P. and Huemann, M. (2013) ‘Sustainable development and project stakeholder

management: What standards say’, International Journal of Managing Projects in

Business, 6(1), pp. 36–50.

Eskerod, P. and Vaagaasar, A.L. (2014) ‘Stakeholder management strategies and practices

during a project course’, Project Management Journal, 45(5), pp. 71–85.

Eskerod, P., Huemann, M. and Savage, G. (2015) ‘Project Stakeholder management-past and

present’, Project Management Journal, 46(6), pp. 6–14.

Eskerod, P., Huemann, M. and Ringhofer, C. (2015) ‘Stakeholder inclusiveness: Enriching

project management with general Stakeholder theory’, Project Management Journal,

46(6), pp. 42–53.

Fernández-Sánchez, G. and Rodríguez-López, F. (2010) ‘A methodology to identify

sustainability indicators in construction project management—Application to

infrastructure projects in Spain’, Ecological Indicators, 10(6), pp. 1193–1201.

Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach, Boston: Pitman.

Forfas (2013) Ireland’s Construction Sector: Outlook and Strategic Plan to 2015. Forfas.

Gabzdylova, B., Raffensperger, J.F. and Castka, P. (2009) ‘Sustainability in the New Zealand

wine industry: Drivers, stakeholders and practices’, Journal of Cleaner Production,

17(11), pp. 992–998.

90

Galuppo, L., Gorli, M., Scaratti, G. and Kaneklin, C. (2014) ‘Building social sustainability: Multi-

stakeholder processes and conflict management’, Social Responsibility Journal, 10(4),

pp. 685–701.

Gan, X., and Li, S. (2012) ‘The Study of Dynamic Stakeholder Management in Sustainable

Construction Project’, Management and Engineering, 8, p. 156 – 158.

Garvare, R. and Johansson, P. (2010) ‘Management for sustainability – A stakeholder theory’,

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(7), pp. 737–744.

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W. and Wicki, B. (2008) ‘What passes as a rigorous case study?’, Strategic

Management Journal, 29(13), pp. 1465–1474.

Greenwood, M. (2007) ‘Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate

responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), pp. 315–327.

Horisch, J., Freeman, R.E. and Schaltegger, S. (2014) ‘Applying Stakeholder theory in

sustainability management: Links, similarities, Dissimilarities, and a conceptual

framework’, Organization & Environment, 27(4), pp. 328–346.

Hubbard, G. 2009, "Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line",

Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 177-191.

Jaillon, L. and Poon, C.S. (2008) ‘Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in

dense urban environment: A Hong Kong case study’, Construction Management and

Economics, 26(9), pp. 953–966.

Jaillon, L. and Poon, C.S. (2008) ‘Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in

dense urban environment: A Hong Kong case study’, Construction Management and

Economics, 26(9), pp. 953–966.

Jensen, T. and Sandstrom, J. (2011) ‘Stakeholder theory and globalization: The challenges of

power and responsibility’, Organization Studies, 32(4), pp. 473–488.

Jepsen, A.L. and Eskerod, P. (2009) ‘Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using

current guidelines in the real world’, International Journal of Project Management,

27(4), pp. 335–343.

Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E., and Perlman, J. (2003) ‘The Costs And Financial

Benefits Of Green Buildings: A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force’.

Sustainable Building Task Force.

91

Kehily, D. (2011) ‘Going Green’, Surveyors Journal, 1 (4), pp. 22 – 23.

Krigsvoll, G., Fumo, M. and Morbiducci, R. (2010) ‘National and international Standardization

(international organization for Standardization and European committee for

Standardization) relevant for sustainability in construction’, Sustainability, 2(12), pp.

3777–3791.

Kucukvar, M. & Tatari, O. (2013) "Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of

the U.S. construction industry", The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol.

18, no. 5, pp. 958-972.

Kumar, V., Rahman, Z. and Kazmi, A.A. (2016) ‘Stakeholder identification and classification: A

sustainability marketing perspective’, Management Research Review, 39(1), pp. 35–

61.

Labuschagne, C. and Brent, A.C. (2005) ‘Sustainable project life cycle management: The need

to integrate life cycles in the manufacturing sector’, International Journal of Project

Management, 23(2), pp. 159–168.

Labuschagne, C., and Brent, A. C. (2005) ‘Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management: the need

to integrate life cycles in the manufacturing sector’, International Journal of Project

Management, 23, pp. 159 – 168.

Lacy et al. (2012) ‘Sustainability for future growth’, Strategic Direction, 28 (8), pp. 6 – 8.

Laplume, A.O., Sonpar, K. and Litz, R.A. (2008) ‘Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that

moves us’, Journal of Management, 34(6), pp. 1152–1189.

Lindblom, A., and Ohlsson, J. (2011) Stakeholders’ Influence on the Environmental Strategy of

the Firm: A Study of the Swedish Energy Intensive Industry. Masters Thesis. Halmstad

University.

Lingenfelder, D. & Thomas, A. {2011} "Stakeholder inclusiveness in sustainability reporting by

mining companies listed on the Johannesburg securities exchange", African journal of

business ethics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-13.

Lo, S-F., and Sheu, H-J. (2007) ‘Is Corporate Sustainablity a Value-Increasing Strategy for

Business’, Corporate Governance, 15(2), pp. 345 – 358.

MacDonald, M.M. (2016) BIM advances sustainability - Mott MacDonald. Available at:

http://www.mottmac.ie/views/bim-advances-sustainability (Accessed: 30 May 2016).

92

Mainardes, E., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2012) ‘A model for stakeholder classification and

stakeholder relationships’, Management Decision, 50(10), pp. 1861–1879.

Malkat, M., and Kang, B-G. (2012) ‘An Investigation on the Stakeholders of Construction

Projects in Dubai and Adjacent Regions’, International Proceedings of Economics

Development and Research, 45, pp. 77 – 82.

Marcelino-Sadaba, S., Gonzalez-Jaen, L. F., and Perez-Ezcurdia, A. (2015) ‘Using project

management as a way to sustainability: From a comprehensive review to a framework

definition’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 99 (2015), pp. 1 – 16.

Martens, M. L., and Carvalho, M. M. (2016) ‘The challenge of introducing sustainability into

project management function: Multiple-case studies’, Journal of Cleaner Production,

30 (2016), pp. 1 – 12.

Mebratu, D. (1998) ‘Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Historical and Conceptual

Review’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, pp. 493 – 520.

Molwus, R. (2014) Stakeholder Management in Construction Projects: A Life Cycle Based

Framework. PhD. Thesis. Heriot-Watt University.

Mushka, D. (2015) Creating Value for Corporate Sustainability: Stakeholder Engagement.

Masters Thesis. Lappeenranta University of Technology.

Mysen, T. (2012) ‘Sustainability as corporate mission and strategy’, European Business Review,

24 (6), pp. 496 – 509.

NCH planning (2016) Available at: http://www.nchplanning.ie/environment/ (Accessed: 20

June 2016).

Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S. & Olsson, L. 2007, "Categorising tools for

sustainability assessment", Ecological Economics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 498-508.

Noland, J. and Phillips, R. (2010) ‘Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic

management’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), pp. 39–49.

Norman, W. & MacDonald, C. 2004, "Getting to the Bottom of "Triple Bottom Line"", Business

Ethics Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 243-262.

O’Halloran, B. (2014) A Study of the Awareness of Stakeholder Management amongst Project

Managers in the Construction Industry in Ireland. MBA Thesis. Dublin Business School.

93

Okland, A. (2015) ‘Gap analysis for incorporating sustainability in project management’,

Procedia Computer Science, 64 (2015), pp. 103 – 109.

Olander, S. (2007) ‘Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management’,

Construction Management and Economics, 25(3), pp. 277–287.

Olander, S. and Landin, A. (2008) ‘A comparative study of factors affecting the external

stakeholder management process’, Construction Management and Economics, 26(6),

pp. 553–561.

Ortiz, O., Castells, F. & 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.

Paniagua-Tufinio, S., Mooi, H., Ravestijn, W., Bakker, H., and Boorsma, M. (2013)

‘Sustainability in Project Management: Where Are We?’, International Journal of

Engineering, 6 (1), pp. 91 – 100.

Penzenstadler, B., Femmer, H. & Richardson, D. 2013, "Who is the advocate?: stakeholders for

sustainability", IEEE Press, , pp. 70.

Pérez, A. and Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2014) ‘Sustainable development and stakeholder

relations management: Exploring sustainability reporting in the hospitality industry

from a SD-SRM approach’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42, pp.

174–187.

Perrini, F. and Tencati, A. (2006) ‘Sustainability and stakeholder management: The need for

new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems’, Business Strategy and

the Environment, 15(5), pp. 296–308.

Person, U., and Olander, S. (2004) ‘Methods to Estimate Stakeholder Views of Sustainability

for construction projects’, The 21st Conference on Passive and Low Energy

Architecture. The Netherlands: 19 – 22 September.

Petri, I., Beach, T., Rezgui, Y., Wilson, I.E. and Li, H. (2014) ‘Engaging construction stakeholders

with sustainability through a knowledge harvesting platform’, Computers in Industry,

65(3), pp. 449–469.

Pietrosemoli, L. and Rodríguez Monroy, C. (2013) ‘The impact of sustainable construction and

knowledge management on sustainability goals. A review of the Venezuelan

94

renewable energy sector’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27, pp. 683–

691.

Pope, J., Annandale, D. & Morrison-Saunders, A. 2004, "Conceptualising sustainability

assessment", Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 595-616.

Prezioso, M. & Coronato, M. 2013, "Sustainability in business practice: how competitiveness

is changing in Europe", Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 57.

Rangelova, F. (2015) Fundamentals of Economics in Sustainable Construction. Bultest Standard

Ltd.

Reed, M.S. (2008) ‘Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature

review’, Biological Conservation, 141(10), pp. 2417–2431.

Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H.

& Stringer, L.C. (2009) "Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods

for natural resource management", Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 90,

no. 5, pp. 1933-1949.

Robichaud, L.B. and Anantatmula, V.S. (2011) ‘Greening project management practices for

sustainable construction’, Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(1), pp. 48–57.

Robichaud, L.B. and Anantatmula, V.S. (2011) ‘Greening project management practices for

sustainable construction’, Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(1), pp. 48–57.

Robichaud, L.B. and Anantatmula, V.S. (2011) ‘Greening project management practices for

sustainable construction’, Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(1), pp. 48–57.

Robinson, J. 2004, "Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable

development", Ecological Economics, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 369-384.

Rokooei, S. (2015) ‘Building information modeling in project management: Necessities,

challenges and outcomes’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, pp. 87–95.

Rokooei, S. (2015) ‘Building information modeling in project management: Necessities,

challenges and outcomes’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, pp. 87–95.

Rokooei, S. (2015) ‘Building Information Modelling in project management: Necessities, challenges,

and outcomes’, Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 210, pp. 87 – 95.

95

Sanchez, M. A. (2015) ‘Integrating sustainability issues into project management’, Journal of

Cleaner Production, 96, pp. 319 – 330.

Sartori, S., Latronico, f. & Campos, L.M. (2014) "Sustainability and sustainable development: a

taxonomy in the field of literature", Ambiente and sociedade, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1 – 20.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2016, Research methods for business students, Seventh

edn, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.

Schlange, L.E. (2006) ‘Stakeholder identification in sustainability entrepreneurship’, Greener

Management International, 2006(55), pp. 13–32.

Schwegler, B. (2010) ‘Green BIM: Successful sustainable design with building information

modeling by Eddy Krygiel and Bradley Nies’,Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(5), pp.

859–860.

Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008) ‘From a literature review to a conceptual framework for

sustainable supply chain management’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), pp.

1699–1710.

Sharma, S. and Henriques, I. (2005) ‘Stakeholder Influences on Sustainability Practices in the

Canadian Forest Products Industry’, Strategic Management Journal, 26, pp. 159 – 180.

Silva, M. (2015) ‘A systematic review of Foresight in project management literature’, Procedia

Computer Science, 64, pp. 792 – 799.

Silvius, A. J. G., and Schipper, R. P. J. (2014a) ‘Sustainability in project management: A literature

review and impact analysis’, Social Business, 4 (1), pp. 63 – 96.

Silvius, A. J. G., and Schipper, R. P. J. (2014b) ‘Sustainability in project management

competencies: Analysing the competence gap of project managers’, Journal of Human

Resource and Sustainability Studies, 2, pp. 40 – 58.

Silvius, A. J. G., and Schipper, R. P. J. (2015) ‘A conceptual model for exploring the relationship

between sustainability and project success’, Procedia Computer Science, 64, pp. 334-

342.

Silvius, A.J. and Schipper, R. (2015) ‘A Maturity Model for Integrating Sustainability in Projects

and Project Management’

Silvius, G., Schipper, R., Planko, J. and IVONNE, P. (2012) MISIONERO DURANTE LA DICTADURA

(Spanish edition). United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing.

96

Sloan, P. (2009) ‘Redefining Stakeholder engagement’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship,

2009(36), pp. 25–40.

Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, DKM Economic Consultants & RICS (2014) Irish

Construction Prospects to 2016. Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland.

Teh, D. & Corbitt, B. 2015, "Building sustainability strategy in business", Journal of Business

Strategy, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 39-46.

Ugwu, O.O. & Haupt, T.C. 2007, "Key performance indicators and assessment methods for

infrastructure sustainability—a South African construction industry perspective",

Building and Environment, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 665-680.

Wang, N., Wei, K., and Sun, H. (2014) ‘Whole life project management approach to

sustainability’, Journal of Management Engineering, 10, pp. 246 – 255.

White, P. 2009, "Building a sustainability strategy into the business", Corporate Governance:

The international journal of business in society, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 386-394.

WIRE (2015) Kennedy Wilson. Available at:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151021005485/en/Kennedy-Wilson-

Secures-Planning-Permission-Capital-Dock (Accessed: 1 August 2016).

WIRE (2015) Kennedy Wilson. Available at:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151021005485/en/Kennedy-Wilson-

Secures-Planning-Permission-Capital-Dock (Accessed: 1 August 2016).(WIRE, 2015)

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. World

Commission on Environment and Development.

Yang, J., Shen, G.Q., Ho, M., Drew, D.S. and Chan, A.P.C. (2009) ‘Exploring critical success

factors for stakeholder management in construction projects’, Journal of Civil

Engineering and Management, 15(4), pp. 337–348. doi: 10.3846/1392-

3730.2009.15.337-348.

Yang, J., Shen, Q. and Ho, M. (2009) ‘An overview of previous studies in stakeholder

management and its implications for the construction industry’, Journal of Facilities

Management, 7(2), pp. 159–175. doi: 10.1108/14725960910952532.

97

Yang, J., Shen, G.Q., Ho, M., Drew, D.S. and Xue, X. (2011) ‘Stakeholder management in

construction: An empirical study to address research gaps in previous studies’,

International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), pp. 900–910.

Yin, R. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd Edition. USA: Sage Publications.

Zhang, X., Wu, Y., Shen, L. and Skitmore, M. (2014) ‘A prototype system dynamic model for

assessing the sustainability of construction projects’, International Journal of Project

Management, 32(1), pp. 66–76.

Zimmermann, M., Althaus, H.-. & Haas, A. 2005, "Benchmarks for sustainable construction: A

contribution to develop a standard", Energy and Buildings, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 1147-

1157.

Zuo, J., Zillante, G., Wilson, L., Davidson, K. and Pullen, S. (2012) ‘Sustainability policy of

construction contractors: A review’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6),

pp. 3910–3916.