Exploring Sustainable Project Management Drivers in Construction Industry

This study investigates the impact of coercive pressures and ethical responsibility on sustainable project management in the construction industry. Findings reveal the importance of ethical responsibility and the moderating role of green transformational leadership.

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i4.3109
1
Article
Navigating sustainable project management in construction: Exploring the
differential impact of coercive pressures and ethical responsibility using
importance-performance matrix analysis (IPMA)
Mehfooz Ullah1,*, Muhammad Waris Ali Khan2, Faisal Rana3, Ifzal Ahmad1,4, Asadullah Khan1
1 Department of Business Management, Karakoram International University, Gilgit 15100, Pakistan
2 Faculty of Business and Law, The British University in Dubai, Dubai 345015, UAE
3 School of Business Administration, American University in Dubai, Dubai 28282, United Arab Emirates
4 College of Business Administration, Umm Al Quwain University, 00000, UAE
* Corresponding author: Mehfooz Ullah, [e-mail]
Abstract: This study explores the primary drivers influencing sustainable project management
(SPM) practices in the construction industry. This research study seeks to determine whether
firms are primarily motivated by external pressures or internal values when embracing SPM
practices. In doing so, this study contributes to the ongoing discourse on SPM drivers by
considering coercive pressures (CP), ethical responsibility (ER), and green transformational
leadership (GTL) as critical enablers facilitating a firm’s adoption of SPM practices. Based on
data from 196 project management practitioners in Pakistan, structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized relationships. Results highlight that CP
influences the management of sustainability practices in construction projects, signifying firms’
concern for securing legitimacy from various institutional actors. As an ‘intrinsic value’, ER
emerges as a significant motivator for ecological stewardship, driven by a genuine commitment
to promoting sustainable development. This study also unveils the significant moderating effect
of GTL on the association among CP, ER, and SPM. Lastly, the results of IMPA reveal that ER
slightly performs better than CP as it helps firms internalize the essence of sustainability. This
research study expands our understanding of SPM drivers in construction projects by exploring
the differential impact of external pressures and the firm’s intrinsic values. These findings
provide valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners, aiding them in promoting SPM
to attain sustainable development goals.
Keywords: sustainable project management; coercive pressures; ethical responsibility; green
transformational leadership
1. Introduction
Sustainable practices are paramount in the construction industry due to their
considerable impact on environmental degradation. Construction activities remained
the primary drivers of carbon emissions throughout the industrial age (Du et al., 2021)
and they account for nearly half of the world’s energy resources and raw material
utilization worldwide. Several construction activities lead to environmental
degradation, i.e., land clearing, emissions from engine equipment, demolition, and
frequent use of harmful chemicals (Labaran et al., 2022). Hence, adopting more
sustainable approaches in managing construction projects becomes imperative,
striking a balance between economic prosperity and ecological preservation. Scholars
assert that the construction industry, through its promotion of environmental
protection, fostering economic growth, and facilitation of social progress, can help
CITATION
Ullah M, Ali Khan MW, Rana F, et al.
(2024). Navigating sustainable
project management in construction:
Exploring the differential impact of
coercive pressures and ethical
responsibility using importance-
performance matrix analysis (IPMA).
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and
Development. 8(4): 3109.
https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i4.31
09
ARTICLE INFO
Received: 30 October 2023
Accepted: 1 December 2023
Available online: 27 February 2024
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © 2024 by author(s).
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and
Development is published by EnPress
Publisher, LLC. This work is licensed
under the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
2
achieve sustainable development goals (Mavi and Standing, 2018). Extant literature
shows that identifying influential drivers and critical success factors is essential for
promoting SPM practices and achieving sustainable development in the construction
industry (Banihashemi et al., 2017). These SPM drivers can significantly enhance the
construction system’s capability to sustain its economic viability while fulfilling social
and environmental responsibilities as well as the requirements of stakeholders.
SPM is a novel research theme that is also emerging as a new school of thought
in project management literature. Silvius and Schipper (2014) define SPM as
“ensuring profitable, fair, transparent, safe, ethical and environmentally friendly
project delivery—aiming at a project deliverable that is socially and environmentally
acceptable throughout its lifecycle”. According to Sabini et al. (2019), the research on
SPM is in the budding phase, where almost 80% of the identified literature has been
published in the last few years. A critical review of the recently published literature on
SPM shows that most studies on the integration of sustainability criteria in projects are
primarily of an interpretive nature (Chang et al., 2015; Sabini et al., 2019; G. Wang et
al., 2020; Zuo et al., 2012). These studies include systematic reviews, content analysis,
and qualitative case studies (Aarseth et al., 2017; Chawla et al., 2018; Li and
Misopoulos, 2020; Ma et al., 2020; Sankaran et al., 2020) where the authors have
primarily focused on the integration of sustainability criteria in project management
practices. Besides, these studies recognize SPM enablers/drivers as an essential
research area that has received little scholarly attention. The existing literature does
not provide a comprehensive guideline on the most influential drivers of SPM,
particularly in the construction industry context (Banihashemi et al., 2017;
Fathalizadeh et al., 2022). Moreover, there exists a noticeable research gap in the
literature on the individual effectiveness of the identified drivers in promoting
sustainable practices in construction projects. Given the challenges practitioners face
in aligning project practices with sustainable development objectives, examining the
efficacy of the SPM drivers (He and Chen, 2021) using robust quantitative techniques
is necessary. Such empirical investigations will improve our understanding of
influential SPM drivers and aid firms in adopting unified and efficient project
sustainability strategies. In this backdrop, we specifically explore the role of coercive
pressures as a significant external driver of SPM. We posit that embracing
sustainability showcases environmental and social commitment to various
stakeholders, thereby enhancing legitimacy.
Secondly, we propose that ethical responsibility can be a significant internal SPM
driver of firms' intrinsic values. These values lead firms to focus on minimizing their
environmental impact- a rationale that has received limited attention in SPM research.
In addition, we seek to explore whether external institutional mechanisms influence
firms’ adoption of SPM practices or they are intrinsically motivated to manage
sustainability in construction projects. To the best of our knowledge, there is a
noticeable gap in the existing literature regarding this kind of comparative analysis of
various SPM drivers. Lastly, we seek to investigate the role of green-oriented
leadership in driving sustainability initiatives within construction firms by examining
GTL as a moderator. Taking into account the paradoxical nature of SPM practices
(Sabini and Alderman, 2021), it is highly needed to explore the subtle mechanisms
and subjective social conditions which can help a firm to enhance its sustainability

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
3
performance (Priyadarshini et al., 2023). While existing literature underscores the
significance of GTL in promoting sustainable firm performance (Zhong et al., 2023),
limited scholarly attention has been directed towards understanding the role of GTL
as a moderator in implementing SPM practices in construction projects.
In sum, this research adds to the current body of knowledge by integrating
insights from institutional theory and green transformational leadership theory,
culminating in a conceptual model that no previous study has explored. Furthermore,
our study advances the discourse on SPM implementation by employing the robust
technique of IPMA to prioritize the influential SPM drivers. The findings offer
substantial managerial and theoretical insights valuable for project managers and
policymakers alike.
The rest of the research paper is structured as follows: Section 2 explains the
relevant literature and outlines the research hypotheses. In Section 3, we discussed the
research methodology. Section 4 encompasses the key research findings and their
theoretical and practical implications. Lastly, Section 5 encapsulates the conclusions
drawn from this study and discusses its limitations.
2. Review of literature
2.1. Sustainable project management
SPM is a relatively novel concept in project management research and is rapidly
gaining prominence particularly in construction projects (Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos,
2023). Projects shape the future of corporations, and therefore, the concept of SPM, if
implemented properly, can act as a catalyst for achieving broader sustainable
development goals (Chofreh et al., 2019). Extant literature reveals that stakeholder
pressure is mounting on firms to adopt sustainability practices in their operations, and
to behave responsibly while conducting their business affairs (Govindaras et al., 2023).
Research shows that integrating sustainability into project processes improves the
overall project management value and it also has a significant effect on project success
(Blak Bernat et al., 2023). While the definitional framework for ‘sustainable
development’ has been set up by the Brundtland Commission report (Brundtland,
1987), SPM is a derivative term that has been conceptualized in diverse ways but
broadly defined as the “application of social, environmental, and economic aspects of
sustainability to project management” (Cai et al., 2009). The available SPM
definitions reinforce that this concept, in essence, refers to the consideration of triple
bottom criteria, i.e., “environmental, economic, and social” concerns in managing
projects. Thus, SPM requires the project processes to be more sustainable through
better utilization of natural resources, minimization of waste, procuring eco-friendly
materials, protection of human rights, improving working conditions, and engaging
stakeholders. It also requires the project actors to ensure transparency and
accountability regarding the project's overall environmental and social bearings on
society (Silvius and Schipper, 2014). It is widely known that activities carried out
during the construction projects have negative social and environmental impacts. Yet,
on the other hand, implementing sustainability criteria in project processes strains the
system boundaries as the triple-bottom-line constraints have a bearing on the
specifications and basic requirements of the project’s deliverable output (Ika and Pinto,

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
4
2022). Thus, integrating sustainability imposes additional criteria for project quality
evaluation, rendering SPM an emerging challenge in project management research and
practice (Banihashemi et al., 2017). Nevertheless, to tackle this challenge, researchers
have scrutinized the drivers of SPM from diverse perspectives, including internal and
external factors (Bamgbade et al., 2019). Regarding external factors, scholars argue
that organizations embrace sustainable practices in response to external pressures
exerted by many institutional actors, including stakeholders, regulatory bodies,
community, industry standards, and customer demands (Ullah et al., 2020). Other
studies highlight the indispensable role of internal drivers, such as the firm’s
capabilities, innovative technologies, nature of leadership, and strategic orientations
(Shaukat et al., 2022). The study of Banihashemi et al. (2017) comprehensively
explores multiple SPM drivers under the banner of critical success factors that
influence the integration of sustainability practices in construction projects. Oke et al.
(2019) identify legislation, advocacy, awareness, and client demand as the primary
external drivers of managing sustainability in construction projects. Likewise, some
other studies have contributed to this discourse from different perspectives, yet the
existing literature lacks robust quantitative studies on examining individual impact, of
the identified drivers on adoption of SPM by construction firms. In this context, the
study at hand explores the role of CP and ER as primary divers of adopting SPM
practices in construction projects.
2.2. Coercive pressures
CP can be defined as external constraints or influences exerted on a firm by
mechanisms or organizations it relies on for resource acquisition and legitimacy.
According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983), CP encompasses a broad spectrum of
sanctions imposed by various entities (both formal and informal) as well as by cultural
expectations within the operating environment of firms. Such pressures essentially
mandate firms to adhere to established behavioral norms. Non-compliance with these
coercive pressures may result in penalties, as illustrated by the studies of Darnall et al.
(2010) and Henriques and Sadorsky (1996). In the context of sustainability practices,
CP manifests itself in various mandates, such as regulations and standard governing
areas like pollution control, energy efficiency, and product quality.
Previous research has demonstrated that compliance with CP is a primary driver
for adopting sustainable management practices. (Phan and Baird, 2015). A firm’s
strategic decisions can be coercively influenced by sanctions, potentially jeopardizing
its social legitimacy. Empirical research also underscores that firms are embedded
within a broader social network and often grapple with aligning their behaviors to meet
institutional expectations, thereby securing social legitimacy (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983). These institutional mechanisms generally establish normative expectations and
standards that significantly influence a firm’s conduct. When firms conform to these
expectations, stakeholders endorse their role in the institutional context, bestowing
social legitimacy upon them. Social legitimacy is a crucial indicator of a firm’s societal
acceptance, granting it the essential social license to operate in a given environment
(Díez-Martín et al., 2021). As a result, firms facing institutional pressures are
motivated to maintain their legitimacy and sustain their reputation through appropriate

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
5
actions (Masocha and Fatoki, 2018). With few exceptions, scholars agree that CP is
crucial in compelling firms to embrace sustainable practices (Clemens and Douglas,
2006; Latif et al., 2020). CP may emanate from regulatory bodies, competitors,
customers, and suppliers and serve as a compelling mechanism for firms to conform
to sustainability standards. More specifically, CP catalyzes firms to institute a coherent
organizational framework that aligns the green strategic objectives across all
functional domains. However, the significance of CP as an influential external driver
of SPM remains relatively unexplored. Based on these premises, we formulate the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Coercive pressures and sustainable project management have
a significant positive relationship.
2.3. Ethical responsibility
Bansal and Roth (2000) define ER as a core internal value reflecting a firm’s
disposition towards ethical values, norms, and its overall commitment to societal well-
being. According to Carroll (1991), the primary responsibilities of firms include
maximizing profits, complying with legal requirements, adhering to prevailing moral
standards, and engaging in discretionary philanthropic activities. According to
Zamagni (2012), a firm’s responsibility points to its capacity to manage various
situations genuinely and effectively. Firms that exhibit ER demonstrate sensitivity to
societal norms, a willingness to promote the common good, and a readiness to bear
the ultimate outcomes of their intended corporate actions (Galbreath, 2010). In the
context of sustainable development, ER is a motivating force for ecological
stewardship that emanates from the genuine desire to save the natural ecology. Past
research shows that ER significantly motivates firms to participate in sustainable
management practices. Furthermore, ethical motivations are recognized as the driving
force behind corporate initiatives to reduce their environmental impact (Khan et al.,
2021). Firms guided by ecological responsibility view voluntary environmental
engagement as a moral imperative, fostering heightened environmental proactivity.
Such firms, characterized by a strong ethical responsibility, perceive sustainable
practices as the morally correct course of action (Lu et al., 2021; Stahl et al., 2020)
and actively participate in environmental and social sustainability initiatives. Likewise,
firms focusing on ER often harness their resources to promote sustainability initiatives,
which enable them to attain the desired objectives of preserving the environment and
enhancing societal well-being (Afsar and Umrani, 2020). Therefore, we propose the
second hypothesis as follows:
H2: Ethical responsibility has a significant positive relationship with sustainable
project management
2.4. Moderating role of green transformational leadership
GTL underlines the ability to conceptualize a vision for sustainability, adeptly
communicate it to others, and motivate them to collectively work towards achieving
sustainability goals (Egri and Herman, 2000). Scholars have taken a keen interest in
investigating the role of GTL in delivering green outcomes (Bano et al., 2022; Zhong
et al., 2023). These studies primarily feature GTL as an influential derivative of green

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
6
leadership that helps to improve firms’ green performance (Chen and Chang, 2013).
To address the external stakeholder pressures concerning environmental degradation,
organizations are encouraged to promote GTL practices as they effectively stimulate
environmentally responsible job behaviors among employees (Mittal and Dhar, 2016).
Empirical evidence presented by Singh et al. (2020) highlights that GTL can catalyze
employees’ environmental enthusiasm and significantly enhance firms’ capacity to opt
for green initiatives. Furthermore, GTL fosters an environment in which employees
are motivated to acquire new ecological knowledge and actively participate in
activities related to green processes and product innovation (Le and Lei, 2018). This,
in return, enables organizations to focus on environmentally friendly products and
services, subsequently improving their overall environmental performance. However,
the interaction of GTL and SPM has received little scholarly attention and the literature
on the role of green leadership abilities of project managers in adopting SPM practices
is scarce where the existing studies do not explicitly consider the role of GTL in
promoting SPM practices. (Banihashemi et al., 2017; Poon and Silvius, 2019; G.
Silvius and Schipper, 2020) Thus, there is a need to study the role of GTL juxtaposed
with external and internal drivers of SPM. Hence, we formulate the third & fourth
hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 3: GTL positively moderates the relationship between coercive
pressures and sustainable project management.
Hypothesis 4: GTL positively moderates the relationship between ethical
responsibility and sustainable project management.
Figure 1 below depicts the conceptual model of the study.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Measures
A web-based survey was designed to collect data from project practitioners to
meet the study objectives. The questionnaire items for all constructs were
adapted/adopted from the existing literature and measured using a 5-point Likert scale.
The construct of CP was measured using 04 items which were adapted from the study
of Liang et al. (2007). ER was measured using 05 items, adapted from Yue et al. (2023).

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
7
To measure GTL, 06 items were adapted from the study of Chen and Chang (2013).
SPM was treated as a 2nd order reflective-reflective construct comprised of three 1st
order constructs i.e., environmental sustainability in projects (06 items), social
sustainability in projects (06 items) and economic sustainability in projects (04 items).
SPM was adopted from the study of Ullah et al. (2020).
A panel of five experts conducted a pre-test before finalizing the survey
instrument. The team of experts included academicians and project management
practitioners. It was ensured that the team members were familiarized with the
constructs included in the model, and they could comment on the relevancy of adapted
indicators to each construct. The panel of experts evaluated the initial shape of the
instrument and indicated the ambiguities in the wording of the adapted questionnaire
items. The feedback received from the expert panel was thoughtfully considered and
integrated into the final version of the instrument. Before commencing the principal
study, a preliminary pilot study involving 30 respondents was executed to ascertain
the validity and reliability of the final survey instrument.
3.2. Respondents and data collection
Table 1. Demographic information.
Characteristics Categories (N) (%)
Gender Male 187 96.9
Female 9 3.04
Age
< 30 26 -
30–45 103 42.6
45–60 67 57.5
Job Title/Designation
Project Manager 82 61.4
Project Director 56 18.9
Planning Engineer 16 5.4
Project Engineer 42 14.1
Education
Bachelors 96 66.2
Masters 76 25.6
MS/MPhil 24 8.1
Experience with Current
Company
1 to 5 years 72 25.6
6 to 10 years 57 36.1
More than 10 Years 67 38.1
G*Power 3.1.9.2 was used to calculate a statistically significant sample size. The
power level was set at 90% with a 5% significance level and effect size of 15% (Cohen,
1992). The resultant sample size obtained was 99, representing the required threshold
number of responses. Project practitioners working in construction projects across
Pakistan were invited to participate in the survey prepared using Google Forms. These
individuals were identified through Linkedin which is a famous social media platform
for professionals. To identify the most relevant respondents, we applied search filters
of ‘construction industry, project management, and Pakistan’, which showed around
2400 project practitioners. Using a convenient sampling approach, we contacted 550

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
8
individuals. Data were collected over a period of three weeks which included a
reminder after the first week. A total of 196 responses were received making a response
rate of 35.6%. The sample demographics are summarized in Table 1.
4. Data analysis and results
This study adopted PLS-SEM for data analysis which is considered to be a robust
multivariate statistical technique used to analyze relationships among the latent
constructs included in a model. It is often performed with software like SmartPLS and
is useful for developing and validating theories in exploratory research (Hair et al.,
2017). PLS-SEM is particularly useful when the research objectives involve
explaining and estimating the target constructs as it offers superior statistical power
and efficient parameter estimations, rendering it a preferable choice for complex
models (Hair Jr et al., 2021). Since this study aims to explore the causative prediction
capabilities of the proposed research model, therefore, PLS-SEM appears to be the
most appropriate choice for data analysis (Sarstedt et al., 2016). This study used
SmartPLS4 software to apply PLS-SEM and analyze the data by assessing the
measurement model in the first step, followed by the structural model. Prior to that, a
thorough examination of multi-collinearity was undertaken which involved
regressing all the variables included in the model against a single common variable.
This step generated corresponding variation inflation factor (VIF) values which were
found to be below 3, indicating that single-source data bias did not pose a significant
concern in this research.
4.1. Measurement model estimation
The measurement model was assessed following the standard procedures
outlined by Hair et al. (2017), which included the evaluation of “indicator reliability,
internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.” The
item loadings ranged from 0.623 to 0.907, which were acceptable (threshold 0.5 or
0.430), thus confirming the reliability of individual items. Values of Cronbach alpha
and composite reliability for all constructs exceeded the threshold of 0.70, indicating
that the internal consistency reliability for each latent construct was established.
Convergent validity was confirmed by examining the values of average variance
extracted (AVE). The AVE values, ranging from 0.619 to 0.690, provided evidence of
satisfactory convergent validity as the recommended range is AVE > 0.50. Table 2
presents the results of the measurement model. Discriminant validity was examined
using the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) criterion, as recommended by Henseler et al.
(2015). HTMT values below or equal to 0.85 are considered a stricter threshold but
values up to 0.90 are also acceptable. Table 3 shows that all the HTMT values are
below 0.85. The measurement model for 2nd order construct of SPM was separately
examined by treating the 1 st order constructs as loadings of 2 nd order and the results
are presented in Table 4. Hence, it was determined that the participants in the study
could effectively differentiate among the four constructs included in the study.

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
9
Table 2. Measurement model results.
Sr. No Constructs Item Loadings Cronbach Alpha CR AVE
1 Sustainable Project Management (2nd Order)
a) Economic Sustainability in Projects
ECSP1 0.892
0.895 0.827 0.761
ECSP2 0.907
ECSP3 0.829
ECSP4 0.801
b) Environmental Sustainability in Projects
ESP1 0.832
0.867 0.902 0.606
ESP2 0.836
ESP3 0.846
ESP4 0.799
ESP5 0.623
ESP6 0.730
c) Social Sustainability in Projects
SOSP1 0.732
0.867 0.902 0.581
SOSP2 0.735
SOSP3 0.757
SOSP4 0.816
SOSP5 0.722
SOSP6 0.774
2 Ethical Responsibility
ER1 0.760
0.811 0.869 0.570
ER2 0.749
ER3 0.810
ER4 0.739
ER5 0.715
3 Coercive Pressures
CP1 0.761
0.811 0.875 0.637
CP2 0.806
CP3 0.798
CP4 0.827
4 Green Transformational Leadership
GTL1 0.817 0.890 0.916 0.647
GTL2 0.806
GTL3 0.818
GTL4 0.845
GTL5 0.774
GTL6 0.762

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
10
Table 3. HTMT results.
CP ECSP ER ESP GTL SSP
CP - - - - - -
ECSP 0.701 - - - - -
ER 0.890 0.754 - - - -
ESP 0.804 0.738 0.878 - - -
GTL 0.832 0.820 0.880 0.823 - -
SSP 0.847 0.675 0.882 0.861 0.789 -
Table 4. Measurement model for SPM as 2nd order construct.
Construct Item Loadings CR AVE
ESP 0.918 0.91 0.78
ECSP 0.827 - -
SSP 0.895 - -
4.2. Structural model-hypothesis testing
The structural model was examined to confirm the hypothesized relationships in
the model. Bootstrapping, which is a nonparametric procedure, was used with 5000
resamples to derive the corresponding t-values, p-values, and path coefficients. As
specified in Table 5 and depicted in Figure 2, CP and ER were found to be significant
determinants of SPM (CP → SPM: β = 0.335, t value= 7.072, p < 0.001), supporting
H1 and H2 (ER → SPM: β = 0.553, t value= 11.553, p < 0.001).
The R2 value is vital in gauging the predictive accuracy of a model. According to
Hair et al. (2017), R 2 values of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 represent substantial, moderate,
and weak predictive accuracy in the path model. On the other hand, Cohen (1988)
introduced slightly more relaxed thresholds for R2 values, designating 0.26 as
substantial, 0.13 as moderate, and 0.02 as weak. In our model, the R2 value was
calculated to be 0.696, which is substantial according to Cohen (1988) but is
considered moderate according to Hair et al. (2017). This indicates that the proposed
conceptual model possesses a reasonable explanatory significance. The effect size,
which essentially reflects the statistical power of a research model, was evaluated
using the effect size f2. Cohen (1988) suggests that values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35
represent small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. In our case, the f2 values
were determined to be 0.161 and 0.433, signifying the presence of medium and large
effect sizes, respectively. Furthermore, predictive relevance, i.e., Q2 value (Stone–
Geisser criterion), was assessed using the PLS-Predict feature available in SmartPLS4.
The Q2 values obtained for this study were 0.555 and 0.310. Any Q2 value greater than
zero (i.e., Q2>0) indicates that the model under exploration possesses adequate
predictive relevance.
Table 5. Hypothesis testing results.
Relationship β Std. deviation t-values f2 R2 Q2 Decision
H1 CP -> SPM 0.335 0.047 7.072 0.161 0.696 0.691 Supported
H2 ER -> SPM 0.553 0.048 11.553 0.433 - - Supported

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
11
Figure 2. SmartPls output for structural model.
4.3. Moderation analysis
The first step in moderation analysis is to assess the measurement model for the
moderating variable, which was carried out using the same standard procedure for all
other constructs included in the model. SmartPLS4 carries out the moderation analysis
by creating an interaction term. According to Ramayah et al. (2018), researchers only
need to consider the interaction term while reporting the results of moderation analysis.
The bootstrapping technique was applied to check the t- and p-value of both the
interaction terms, as suggested by Hair et al. (2017). Hypothesis 3 proposed that GTL
will positively moderate the relationship between CP and SPM, which turned out to
be significant (β = 0.0139, t = 4.058, p ≤ 0.01). Thus, H3 is supported. Hypothesis 4
proposed that GTL will positively moderate the relationship between ES and SPM,
which also turned out to be significant, therefore keeping H4 (β = 0.119, t = 3.434, p
≤ 0.01). Figure 3 shows the results of the interaction term for moderating effects.

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
12
Figure 3. 2-way interaction graph for moderation analysis.
4.4. Importance-performance matrix analysis
IPMA was conducted to confirm the practical significance of the study’s findings.
According to Ringle and Sarstedt (2016), IPMA reflects the performance level of the
latent and the manifest variables in PLS-SEM data analysis. This analysis aims to
identify the total effect of the predecessor construct’s importance (e.g., CP & ER) in
anticipating a target endogenous construct (e.g., SPM). The IPMA technique has two
dimensions: importance and performance. The total effect demonstrates the
‘importance’ of latent variables, whereas the mean value of their scores (ranging from
0 to 100) reflects their ‘performance’ (Hair et al. 2017). Thus, instead of presenting
the importance level of latent and manifest variables using path coefficients only,
applying the IPMA technique provides better insight into ranking the most important
variables affecting the target construct. Accordingly, IPMA allows prioritizing the
variables in order to improve the targeted variable which is quite helpful in identifying
the most critical activities that can enhance the dependent variable’s performance. In
sum, IPMA is advantageous and particularly important in prioritizing managerial
actions.
Tables 6 and 7 reflect the values of latent variable indices and the performance
of the two constructs. The IPMA results reveal that although ER and CP are almost
equal in performance, the former appears to be of greater importance for the targeted
construct of SPM. Figures 4 and 5 show the graphical representation of IPMA.
Table 6. IPMA- construct level.
Constructs Importance (Total Effect) Performance (Index Values)
CP 0.335 65.167
ER 0.553 68.803
Table 7. IPMA-indicator level.
Indicators Importance (Total Effects) Performance
CP1 0.060 67.314
CP2 0.062 64.949
CP3 0.050 62.669
CP4 0.063 65.794

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
13
Table 8. (Continued).
Indicators Importance (Total Effects) Performance
ER1 0.068 69.003
ER2 0.061 64.780
ER3 0.051 70.693
ER4 0.063 71.875
ER5 0.056 67.230
Figure 4. IPMA map-construct level.
Figure 5. IPMA map- indicator level.
5. Discussion
SPM is an emerging challenging in construction projects, particularly in
developing countries like Pakistan. This study intended to measure the factors
affecting the firms’ adoption of SPM practices in construction projects. We specifically
focused on evaluating the impact of CP and ER on the adoption of SPM practices by
construction firms while also examining the differential effects of these two factors.
The findings of this study provided empirical confirmation of positive and significant

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
14
relationships between CP, ER, and SPM. The findings reveal that CP significantly
influence the firm’s adoption of SPM in the construction industry. The results of PLS-
SEM analysis provide strong evidence (CP → SPM: β = 0.335, t value = 7.072) that
construction project managers perceive CP as a critical driver that influence the
integration of sustainability criteria in project management. These results support the
classic school’s position (Wong et al., 1996) and confirm the findings of past studies
(Bamgbade et al., 2019) that CP has a role in encouraging the construction industry to
focus on green initiatives. The findings further underscore the significance of ER as a
critical driver of SPM (ER→ SPM: β = 0.553, t value = 11.553). This observation also
aligns with past research, which posits that an intrinsic commitment to sustainability,
driven by ER, can play a pivotal role in developing environmentally conscious
strategies and fostering integrative capabilities. This includes coordinating efforts
across different departments and functions to ensure that sustainability goals are
effectively implemented and integrated throughout the organizational activities (Yue
et al., 2023). Thus, ER motivates various functional units within organizations to
become more inclined toward incorporating sustainability criteria into their day-to-
day activities.
A unique finding of this study is identifying the most effective and well-
performing driver of SPM using the IPMA technique. Past studies on SPM drivers
focused on identifying the external and internal drivers, but they seldom isolate and
compare them to check their distinct individual impacts (Banihashemi et al., 2017).
Our study fills this gap and enriches the current understanding of SPM drivers by
unveiling the dominant driver's importance and performance by conducting IPMA in
SmartPLS4. The IPMA results highlighted that ER slightly outer performs CP in
adopting sustainability practices in construction projects. It also appears to be more
critical in aligning strategies and coordinating processes toward achieving green
objectives in the long run. In general, firms tend to mitigate external pressures by
immediately starting operational-level green activities in projects which, in some cases,
might be of perfunctory nature and labeled as ‘greenwashing’ (Sabini and Alderman,
2021). However, ER originates from firms’ intrinsic value its effects are relatively
stable in promoting an internal ecological orientation.
This study further explored the moderating role of GTL on the relationships
between CP, ER and SPM. A critical review of the extant literature reveals that the
effectiveness of CP in a project context is debatable. Some published studies have
identified gaps between certain aspects of CP mechanisms and sustainability practices
by explicitly asserting that the regulative part of coercive pressures might not directly
impact managing ecological sustainability in construction projects (Li et al., 2019).
Similarly, the relationship between ‘intrinsic orientation’ and sustainability
performance has not always shown a positive correlation (X. Wang and Bian, 2022).
Considering these diverse findings of past research, this study opted to test the
moderating effect of GTL by framing the hypothesis that CP and ER can perform
better in the presence of green-oriented visionary leadership working at the top levels.
The results of moderation analysis show that the interactions term CP*GTL (β =
0.0139, t = 4.058) and ER*GTL (β = 0.119, t = 3.434) were significant and positive.
These findings show that the sustainability performance of firms will improve in the
presence of green-oriented leaders at the top as they can stir a holistic internal change

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
15
process towards adopting sustainability (Zhao et al., 2016). Green transformational
leaders put in place a proper sustainability assurance system and do efforts to acquire
green competencies and capabilities. This helps to conform to external
expectations/pressures by aligning them with internal ecological orientation (Singh et
al., 2020).
6. Implications and conclusion
This research study contributes to the existing literature on SPM by highlighting
the significance of CP as an external and ER as an internal SPM driver. Besides, the
differential impact of CP and ER was examined in terms of their importance and
relative performance by using IPMA. The moderation analysis confirmed that both CP
and ER perform better in the presence of green-oriented visionary leadership at the
upper echelons. Thus, our study aids to the existing SPM literature by exploring a new
research model comprised of ER, CP, and GTL with support from institutional theory
and green transformational leadership theory. This unique combination of both
theories provides a better understanding of the external and internal factors affecting
construction firms’ adoption of SPM practices, a dimension overlooked in the
literature. The past research on SPM received criticism for not setting the research
studies within a specific theoretical context (Sabini et al., 2019). Besides, to the best
of our knowledge, none of the previous study on SPM used IPMA to examine the
differential impact of external and internal enablers that influence a firm’s adoption of
SPM practices.
From managerial perspective, the findings of this study bear value for managers
and policymakers alike. Considering the growing concerns for sustainability in the
corporate world, policymakers and managers need to identify the influential drivers of
SPM to concentrate their efforts and allocate resources. Furthermore, integrating
sustainability criteria in project management is not a straightforward process. It may
require a scope shift in project management from managing time, budget, and quality
to driving social and environmental impacts. Addressing these diverging yet
interconnected concerns and incorporating them into project management practices
poses a real challenge. Against this backdrop, the findings of this study suggest that
the corporate leadership needs to work in close liaison with the regulatory bodies,
suppliers, and clients for guidance and support regarding sustainability
implementation in projects. Similarly, policymakers can count on the CP to generate
pressure that will steer the sustainability performance of construction projects. On the
other side, IPMA findings suggest that project managers should promote
consciousness and passion for sustainable practices, thereby increasing the sense of
ethical responsibility towards the environment and society. Managers can do this by
creating internal mechanisms and allocating resources, thus preparing the firm
internally ‘under external pressures’ to adopt sustainable practices. The findings of
this study also recommend firms to promote green transformational leadership at upper
tiers as they can influence the employees’ constructive reaction towards sustainability
issues with their visionary approach and individualized consideration behavior. This
will increase the probability of ‘internalizing’ the SPM adoption under external
pressures.

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
16
While this study is valuable from theoretical and managerial perspectives, some
limitations are worth considering for future investigations. First, the findings of this
study should be used with caution as the data was collected using a convenient
sampling approach due to the unavailability of an exact sampling frame. Future studies
may employ a probability sampling technique for better results. Second, SPM drivers
were exclusively explored from the perspective of project managers. This focused
perspective may introduce a bias that emphasizes the role of project managers in the
success of projects. To mitigate these limitations, further investigations should involve
validating the model by encompassing stakeholders and mid-level managers. Third,
this study used the most appropriate manifest variables from the existing literature,
where the indicators of CP, ER, and GTL are all well established. However, past
research has used a diversified set of indicators for SPM, using the triple-bottom-line
theory of sustainable development. As discussed in the introductory section, SPM is
an emerging construct, and very few studies have used this construct in a framework-
based research design. Therefore, the literature reflects diversity while measuring the
construct of SPM. Therefore, this study does not claim to represent an exhaustive list
of sustainability indicators for SPM research in the construction industry. Future
studies may use these manifest variables but with due diligence and after following
the pre-test procedures, including content validity and face validity checks. Last, this
study involved testing the moderating effect of GTL but future studies can test a
mediation effect of variables like top management, green innovation, resources
commitment, or a moderated mediation model involving GTL.
Author contributions: Conceptualization, MU and MWAK; methodology, MU,
MWA and FR; software, MU and IA; validation, MU and AK; formal analysis, MU,
MWAK and FS; resources MWAK and FR; writing—original draft preparation, MU
and MWAK; writing—review and editing, FR, IA and AK; supervision, MWAK;
project administration, MU, MWK and FR; funding acquisition, MWAK, MU and FR.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., & Andersen, B. (2017). Project sustainability strategies: A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.006
Afsar, B., & Umrani, W. A. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and pro‐environmental behavior at workplace: The role of
moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 27(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1777
Bamgbade, J. A., Kamaruddeen, A. M., Nawi, M. N. M., Adeleke, A. Q., Salimon, M. G., & Ajibike, W. A. (2019). Analysis of
some factors driving ecological sustainability in construction firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 1537–1545.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.229
Banihashemi, S., Hosseini, M. R., Golizadeh, H., & Sankaran, S. (2017). Critical success factors (CSFs) for integration of
sustainability into construction project management practices in developing countries. International Journal of Project
Management, 35(6), 1103–1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.014
Bano, R., Ahmad, I., Ullah, M. (2022). Impact of green transformational leadership on job performance: The mediating role of
psychological contract fulfillment. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 16(2), 279–298.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal,

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
17
43(4), 717–736. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556363
Blak Bernat, G., Qualharini, E. L., Castro, M. S., Barcaui, A. B., & Soares, R. R. (2023). Sustainability in Project Management
and Project Success with Virtual Teams: A Quantitative Analysis Considering Stakeholder Engagement and Knowledge
Management. Sustainability, 15(12), 9834. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129834
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future—Call for Action. Environmental Conservation, 14(4), 291–294.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892900016805
Cai, N., Zhang, S., & Li, L. (2009). Sustainable Project Management: A Balance Analysis Model of Effect. 2009 International
Conference on Management and Service Science. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmss.2009.5302357
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational
stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-g
Chang, R., Zillante, G., Zhao, Z., & Zuo, J. (2015). Research on Sustainability and Construction Firms: Current Status and Future
Agenda. ICCREM 2015. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479377.036
Chawla, V. K., Chanda, A. K., Angra, S., & Chawla, G. R. (2018). The sustainable project management: A review and future
possibilities. Journal of Project Management, 157–170. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2018.2.001
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2012). The Determinants of Green Product Development Performance: Green Dynamic Capabilities,
Green Transformational Leadership, and Green Creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 107–119.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1452-x
Chofreh, A. G., Goni, F. A., Malik, M. N., Khan, H. H., & Klemeš, J. J. (2019). The imperative and research directions of
sustainable project management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238, 117810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117810
Clemens, B., & Douglas, T. J. (2006). Does coercion drive firms to adopt ‘voluntary’ green initiatives? Relationships among
coercion, superior firm resources, and voluntary green initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 59(4), 483–491.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.09.016
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (0805802835).
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155.
Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting Proactive Environmental Strategy: The Influence of Stakeholders and
Firm Size. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1072–1094. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00873.x
Díez-Martín, F., Blanco-González, A., & Díez-de-Castro, E. (2021). Measuring a scientifically multifaceted concept. The jungle of
organizational legitimacy. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 27(1), 100131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2020.10.001
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in
Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Du, K., Cheng, Y., Yao, X. (2021). Environmental regulation, green technology innovation, and industrial structure upgrading: The
road to the green transformation of Chinese cities. Energy Economics, 98, 105247.
Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the north american environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts
of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 571–604.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1556356
Fathalizadeh, A., Hosseini, M. R., Vaezzadeh, S. S., Edwards, D. J., Martek, I., & Shooshtarian, S. (2021). Barriers to sustainable
construction project management: the case of Iran. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 11(3), 717–739.
https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-09-2020-0132
Galbreath, J. (2010). How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from Australia. European Business Review,
22(4), 411-431.
Govindaras, B., Wern, T. S., Kaur, S., Haslin, I. A., & Ramasamy, R. K. (2023). Sustainable Environment to Prevent Burnout and
Attrition in Project Management. Sustainability, 15(3), 2364. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032364
Hair, J. F. Jr., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation
modeling. Sage publications.
He, Z., & Chen, H. (2021). Critical factors for practicing sustainable construction projects in environmentally fragile regions
based on interpretive structural modeling and cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification: A case study in
China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74, 103238.
Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1996). The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: An empirical approach. Journal of
environmental economics and management, 30(3), 381–395.

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
18
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural
equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115–135.
Ika, L. A., & Pinto, J. K. (2022). The “re-meaning” of project success: Updating and recalibrating for a modern project
management. International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.08.001
Khan, S. A. R., Yu, Z., & Umar, M. (2021). How environmental awareness and corporate social responsibility practices benefit the
enterprise? An empirical study in the context of emerging economy. Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal, 32(5), 863–885.
Kiani Mavi, R., & Standing, C. (2018). Critical success factors of sustainable project management in construction: A fuzzy
DEMATEL-ANP approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 751–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.120
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-
Collaboration (ijec), 11(4), 1–10.
Labaran, Y. H., Mathur, V. S., Muhammad, S. U., Musa, A. A. (2022). Carbon footprint management: A review of construction
industry. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 100531.
Latif, B., Mahmood, Z., San, O. T., et al. (2020). Coercive, normative and mimetic pressures as drivers of environmental
management accounting adoption. Sustainability, 12(11), 4506.
Le, P. B., & Lei, H. (2018). The mediating role of trust in stimulating the relationship between transformational leadership and
knowledge sharing processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(3), 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-10-2016-
0463
Li, Y. W., & Misopoulos, F. (2020). Integrating Sustainability in Project Management: Implications in Manufacturing Industry.
Li, Y., Ding, R., & Sun, T. (2019). The Drivers and Performance of Environmental Practices in the Chinese Construction Industry.
Sustainability, 11(3), 614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030614
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of Enterprise Systems: The Effect of Institutional Pressures and the
Mediating Role of Top Management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148781
Lu, J., Liang, M., Zhang, C., Rong, D., Guan, H., Mazeikaite, K., & Streimikis, J. (2020). Assessment of corporate social
responsibility by addressing sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 28(2), 686–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2081
Ma, J., Harstvedt, J. D., Jaradat, R., & Smith, B. (2020). Sustainability driven multi-criteria project portfolio selection under
uncertain decision-making environment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106236
Masocha, R., & Fatoki, O. (2018). The impact of coercive pressures on sustainability practices of small businesses in South
Africa. Sustainability, 10(9), 3032.
Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. L. (2016). Effect of green transformational leadership on green creativity: A study of tourist hotels. Tourism
Management, 57, 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.05.007
Oke, A., Aghimien, D., Aigbavboa, C., & Musenga, C. (2019). Drivers of Sustainable Construction Practices in the Zambian
Construction Industry. Energy Procedia, 158, 3246–3252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.995
Phan, T. N., & Baird, K. (2015). The comprehensiveness of environmental management systems: The influence of institutional
pressures and the impact on environmental performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 160, 45–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.006
Poon, C., & Silvius, G. (2019). Factors That Stimulate Project Managers to Consider Sustainability; Exploring the Stimulus
Patterns of Canadian Project Managers. J. Mgmt. & Sustainability, 9, 90.
Priyadarshini, C., Chatterjee, N., Srivastava, N. K., & Dubey, R. K. (2023). Achieving organizational environmental citizenship
behavior through green transformational leadership: a moderated mediation study. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 17(6),
1088–1109. https://doi.org/10.1108/jabs-05-2022-0185
Ramayah, T., Hwa, C. J., Chuah, F., et al. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS
3.0. An updated guide and practical guide to statistical analysis. Pearson Singapore.
Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
116(9), 1865–1886. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-10-2015-0449
Sabini, L., & Alderman, N. (2021). The Paradoxical Profession: Project Management and the Contradictory Nature of Sustainable
Project Objectives. Project Management Journal, 52(4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728211007660
Sabini, L., Muzio, D., & Alderman, N. (2019). 25 years of ‘sustainable projects’. What we know and what the literature says.

Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 2024, 8(4), 3109.
19
International Journal of Project Management, 37(6), 820–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.05.002
Sankaran, S., Müller, R., & Drouin, N. (2020). Creating a ‘sustainability sublime’ to enable megaprojects to meet the United
Nations sustainable development goals. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 37(5), 813–826.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2744
Shaukat, M. B., Latif, K. F., Sajjad, A., & Eweje, G. (2021). Revisiting the relationship between sustainable project management
and project success: The moderating role of stakeholder engagement and team building. Sustainable Development, 30(1),
58–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2228
Silvius, A. J. G., & Schipper, R. P. J. (2014). Sustainability in project management: A literature review and impact analysis. Social
Business, 4(1), 63–96. https://doi.org/10.1362/204440814x13948909253866
Silvius, G., & Schipper, R. (2020). Exploring variety in factors that stimulate project managers to address sustainability issues.
International Journal of Project Management, 38(6), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.08.003
Singh, S. K., Giudice, M. D., Chierici, R., & Graziano, D. (2020). Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of
green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
150, 119762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119762
Stahl, G. K., Brewster, C. J., Collings, D. G., & Hajro, A. (2020). Enhancing the role of human resource management in corporate
sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder, multidimensional approach to HRM. Human Resource
Management Review, 30(3), 100708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100708
Stanitsas, M., & Kirytopoulos, K. (2021). Investigating the significance of sustainability indicators for promoting sustainable
construction project management. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(3), 434–448.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1887718
Ullah, M., Khan, M. W. A., Kuang, L. C., Hussain, A., Rana, F., Khan, A., & Sajid, M. R. (2020). A Structural Model for the
Antecedents of Sustainable Project Management in Pakistan. Sustainability, 12(19), 8013.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198013
Wang, G., Wu, P., Wu, X., Zhang, H., Guo, Q., & Cai, Y. (2020). Mapping global research on sustainability of megaproject
management: A scientometric review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 120831.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120831
Wang, X., & Bian, W. (2022). Analyzing the Role of Corporate Social Responsibility for Sustainable Environmental Performance:
Mediating Roles of Environmental Strategy and Environmental Outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906610
Wong, V., Turner, W., & Stoneman, P. (1996). Marketing Strategies and Market Prospects for Environmentally‐Friendly Consumer
Products1. British Journal of Management, 7(3), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00119.x
Yue, X., Huo, B., & Ye, Y. (2022). The impact of coercive pressure and ethical responsibility on cross-functional green
management and firm performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(5), 1015–1028.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-09-2021-0446
Zamagni, S. (2012). The Ethical Anchoring of Corporate Social Responsibility and the Critique of CSR. Studies in Economic
Ethics and Philosophy, 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2990-2_14
Zhao, X., Hwang, B.-G., & Lee, H. N. (2016). Identifying critical leadership styles of project managers for green building
projects. International Journal of Construction Management, 16(2), 150–160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1130602
Zhong, J., Shao, X., Xiao, H., Yang, R., & An, X. (2023). The research on the green leadership: a systematic review and
theoretical framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03960-0
Zuo, J., Jin, X. H., & Flynn, L. (2012). Social Sustainability in Construction—An Explorative Study. International Journal of
Construction Management, 12(2), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2012.10773190