Integrating Risk and Stakeholder Management in Construction Projects: A Systematic Review and Future Agendas

Towards integrating construction risk management and stake-
holder management: A systematic literature review and future
research agendas
Nini Xia a , Patrick X.W. Zou b , Mark A. Griffin c , Xueqing Wang a,⁎, Rui Zhong a
a College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, No. 92 Nankai District, Tianjin 300072, PR China
b Department of Civil and Construction Engineering & Centre for Sustainable Infrastructure, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia
c Centre for Safety, The University of Western Australia Business School, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
Received 18 November 2017; received in revised form 17 February 2018; accepted 18 March 2018
Available online xxxx
Abstract
We propose that integrated management of construction risk and stakeholder is feasible and can promote the effectiveness of both risk
management (RM) and stakeholder management (SM). A systematic literature review is conducted on the current construction literature involving
both RM and SM, through which we identify four linkage modes between risk and stakeholder management. We further suggest future directions
that enable integrating risk and stakeholder management to benefit the management process and/or management outcome of RM and SM. These
linkages and directions shed light on enhancing the effectiveness of RM and SM through new ways of thinking about, analyzing, and then
managing risks and stakeholders in a holistic and integrated way, but not the traditional endeavor in individual areas. Integrating risk and
stakeholder management is challenging, but can be a novel way for improving project performance for which this research conceptually justifies its
feasibility and benefits, which merits further study.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA.
Keywords: Integrated management; Risk management; Stakeholder management; Construction project; Literature review
1. Introduction
“No construction project is risk free” (Latham, 1994, p. 14).
To pursue the success of construction projects, risk should be
managed effectively (Chapman and Ward, 2004; Du et al., 2016;
Zou et al., 2007). Construction projects are also frequently faced
with complex problems related to stakeholders, including conflict
among project team members such as clients and contractors
(Hwang and Ng, 2016; Lehtiranta, 2014), as well as protest from
external parties such as the affected community (Mok et al., 2015;
Olander, 2007). Meta-analyses of stakeholder theory applications
in a project context have shown that management of stakeholders
is vital to the successful implementation of various kinds of
projects, among which the construction industry is a dominant
sector (Achterkamp and Vos, 2008; Littau et al., 2010). Despite
the salience of both risk management (RM) and stakeholder
management (SM) in construction projects, there are still
numerous project failures resulting from poor management in
risk and stakeholder (Flyvbjerg et al., 2002; Mok et al., 2015). It
thus calls for much more effort from the theory and practice on
these two critical issues.
Efforts have been devoted to promoting the effectiveness of
both RM and SM. However, these efforts are largely undertaken
in isolation, with little crossover between the two areas. That is,
the existing literature mostly endeavors to improve either RM or
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [e-mail] (N. Xia), [e-mail]
(P.X.W. Zou), [e-mail] (M.A. Griffin), [e-mail]
(X. Wang), [e-mail] (R. Zhong).
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.006
0263-7863/00 © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701 – 715

SM in individual areas, whereas integrated management of risks
and stakeholders is an overlooked and under-researched area,
impeding theoretical and practical developments of an overall
approach to risk–stakeholder management. We propose that
integrated management of construction risk and stakeholder is
feasible and can promote the effectiveness of both RM and SM.
We distinguish that both RM and SM comprise a process domain
and an outcome domain, and the effectiveness of RM and SM
covers the process and outcome domains. Integrated management
in the project and the organization context has been demonstrated
to reduce objective conflict, achieve more efficient resource
allocation, improve mutual management effectiveness, and bring
new perspectives for managerial practices, sustainable develop-
ment, and so on (Bernardo et al., 2015; Kerzner, 2001; Loushine
et al., 2006; Love et al., 2016; Rebelo et al., 2016). Hence, risk–
stakeholder integrated management, if feasible, will be of benefit
to project managers who, in many cases, have to concurrently
manage complex, multiple tasks.
We first conduct a systematic literature review to better
understand whether and how RM and SM might be connected,
namely, the possible linkage modes between construction risk and
stakeholder management. After the identification of possible risk–
stakeholder linkage modes, we aim to identify two-way benefits
for construction RM and SM effectiveness through thematic
analysis and discussion on each linkage. Finally, we propose
future research directions for each risk–stakeholder linkage and an
overall research roadmap for enabling mutual effectiveness in RM
and SM and ultimately the establishment of IMSs for construction
risks and stakeholders. With the research framework outlined in
Fig. 1, the overall goal is to address the following two unanswered
questions in the literature: (1) how do RM and SM connect
according to the literature; (2) is risk–stakeholder integration
feasible in construction and if feasible, can integration produce
mutual benefits to the effectiveness of construction risk and
stakeholder management in their management processes and/or
management outcomes.
2. Risk, stakeholder, and their similarities in the construction
context
In the construction project context, the current state-of-art
research defines risk as an uncertain event that, if it occurs, has
a negative (threat) or positive (opportunity) impact on one or
more project objectives (Chapman and Ward, 2003; Lehtiranta,
2014; Olsson, 2007; PMI, 2013). Following this definition, the
purpose of project RM is to increase the likelihood and impact
of positive events, and reduce those of negative events in the
project (Arashpour et al., 2017; Hwang et al., 2014). To fulfill
this aim, RM in construction projects is normally characterized by
a systematic process of collecting documents and making plans
for RM, identifying and classifying, analyzing and assessing,
responding, and controlling project risks (Lyons and Skitmore,
2004; J. Wang et al., 2016; Zou et al., 2007). By providing
information for risk decision-making, risk analysis and assess-
ment is the core of RM process (Aven, 2016) and this RM stage
often involves analyzing the causes and consequences of risks and
making judgments about how large or small the risk is. Various
metrics were used for assessing risk among different domains,
for example, in finance risk management, metrics include both
moment-based (e.g., expected loss functions and quantile-based
(e.g., Value-at-Risk (VaR)) metrics (Alexander and Sarabia, 2012;
Aven, 2016); in the construction industry, the dominant metric is
the multiplication of the risk's probability and severity (Taroun,
2014).
Compared to the widely acknowledged risk concept, a clear
definition of stakeholder in the project context is lacking
(Achterkamp and Vos, 2008). The stakeholder concept originated
in 1963 at the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International,
Inc.) (Freeman, 1984). A fundamental question in the stakeholder
literature is “who are the stakeholders” (Littau et al., 2010;
Mitchell et al., 1997) and there have been two general directions
for developing the stakeholder concept. The dominant direction is
the broad stakeholder perspective, which argues that the ignorance
of any entity can prevent the achievement of organizational
purpose, and so encompasses all potential stakeholders (e.g.,
Freeman, 1984). From this perspective, Freeman (1984) defined
stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is
affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives.”
The other direction adopts a narrow stakeholder perspective by
contending that organizations should or can only deal with finite
stakeholders due to limitations in factors such as resources
and capability (e.g., Clarkson, 1995). As argued by construction
studies (Oppong et al., 2017; Xia et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2014),
a broad stakeholder definition seems to best fit construction
Fig. 1. Research framework.
702 N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

projects because their wide range of economic, social influences,
involvement of a large number of diverse stakeholder groups, as
well as the potentially adverse consequences of neglecting certain
stakeholder groups.
A stakeholder's position toward the project may vary from
being supportive to opponent to the project (McElroy and Mills,
2000). McElroy and Mills (2000) proposed five different stake-
holder positions toward a project: active opposition, passive
opposition, not committed, passive support, and active support.
Accompanying the stakeholder diversity are the various and
normally competing interests and concerns among project stake-
holders (Olander, 2007; Olander and Landin, 2005). Normally,
SM is aimed to identify and address the concerns of stakeholders,
mitigate and prevent conflicts, and win supports from them
(Bourne and Walker, 2005; Freeman, 1984; Jergeas et al., 2000).
Traditionally, full SM process in construction projects involves
the following steps: collecting stakeholder-related document and
making stakeholder management planning, stakeholder identifi-
cation and classification, stakeholder analysis and assessment
(assessing stakeholder interests/attributes and relationships in a
qualitative and/or quantitative way), developing strategies for
managing stakeholders, and executing and controlling SM
strategies (Aaltonen et al., 2015; Karlsen, 2002; Mok et al., 2015).
Below, we compare the concepts and management principles
of risk and stakeholder management in construction projects, as
summarized in Fig. 2. Regarding the concept of each area we
note, (1) both risk and stakeholder are an inherent attribute of
the project with possible influences on project objectives,
(2) both risk and stakeholder are in fact a dual variable, which
can be positive or negative to the project, and (3) risk and
stakeholder issues can arise from both the project and its external
environment. As we defined, the process domain and the
outcome domain together reflect the effectiveness of RM and
SM, and elements of RM and SM share similarities in each
domain. The stages for the RM and SM process are similar in
identifying and classifying elements (risks or stakeholders),
analyzing and assessing, responding, and ultimately controlling
each element. Outcomes of RM include reduced negative events,
increased positive events, reduced uncertainty (or improved
ability in coping with uncertainty), and improved chances of the
achievement of project objectives. On the other hand, benefits of
effective SM consist of meeting stakeholder concerns, reduced
stakeholder conflicts, improved stakeholder cooperative behav-
ior, as well as alignment among stakeholders for the best value
for projects but not for their own interests. To conclude, risk
and stakeholder management share certain similarities in the
definitions, management processes, and outcomes, and these
similarities lay the basis for possible connections between these
two fields.
3. Methodology
Systematic literature review is an important research method-
ology, capable of synthesizing the existing body of knowledge,
Fig. 2. Conceptual framework: similarities between risk and stakeholder concepts, management processes, and outcomes.
703N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

creating new knowledge on a wider scale than is possible with
empirical studies, and identifying new agendas for future research
(Denyer and Tranfield, 2009; Taroun, 2014; Tsai and Wen,
2005). Consistent with the suggestions made by Denyer and
Tranfield (2009), Mostafa et al. (2016), and Tranfield et al.
(2003), we implemented the literature review in three stages as
shown in Fig. 3.
3.1. Stage 1 (planning the review and computer search)
The first stage includes review planning and searching for
relevant articles using electronic databases. The plan for a
systematic literature review consists of establishing the literature
review purpose and protocol (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009;
Tranfield et al., 2003). The purpose of this literature review was
clearly defined by the research questions proposed in the
Introduction section, while the three-stage protocol can be seen
in Fig. 3. Research papers in English were searched in three
academic databases, namely, Scopus, ASCE, and ScienceDirect.
The search rule employed in the title/abstract/keyword (T/A/K)
field of the selected databases was (“stakeholder” OR “project
participant”) AND (“construction project” OR “infrastructure
project” OR “civil engineering project”) AND (“risk”). The scope
of the research is restricted before 2016/12/19. Book reviews,
editorials, and papers in conference proceedings were eliminated,
and only peer-reviewed papers were considered in this research.
At this stage, a total of 85 papers were retrieved for further
analysis, and the search result indicates that the following jour-
nals have at least four papers: Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management (JCEM), Journal of Management
in Engineering (JME), International Journal of Project Manage-
ment (IJPM), Construction Management and Economics (CME),
Journal of Infrastructure Systems (JIS), Engineering, Construc-
tion and Architectural Management (ECAM), Built Environment
Project and Asset Management (BEPAM), Journal of Computing
in Civil Engineering (JCCE), Leadership and Management in
Engineering (LME). The target journals (i.e., JCEM, JME, IJPM,
CME, and ECAM) fall into the top five construction journals
(Chau, 1997); using quality journals as a basis for inclusion
of reviewed papers is a good strategy for conducting literature
review in the management field (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009;
Wallance and Wray, 2016).
Fig. 3. Research design and stages for literature review in this study.
704 N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715