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

In this research report we will discuss about mournal of project management and below are the summaries point:- Integrated management of construction risk and stakeholder management can improve project performance. Four linkage modes between risk and stakeholder management are identified through a systematic literature review. The study proposes future directions to integrate risk and stakeholder management to enhance their effectiveness.

Towards integrating construction risk management and stake-
holder management: A systematic literature review and future
research agendas
Nini Xiaa, Patrick X.W. Zoub, Mark A. Griffinc, Xueqing Wanga,⁎, Rui Zhonga
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,
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 thatintegrated managementof construction risk and stakeholderis feasible and can promote the effectiveness ofboth risk
management (RM) and stakeholder management (SM). A systematic literature review is conducted on the current constru
both RM and SM, through which we identify four linkage modes between risk and stakeholder management. We further su
that enable integrating risk and stakeholder management to benefit the management process and/or management outcom
linkages and directions shed lighton 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,butnotthe traditionalendeavorin individualareas.Integrating risk and
stakeholder management is challenging, but can be a novel way for improving project performance for which this research
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 projectteam 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 app
in a project context have shown that management of sta
is vitalto the successfulimplementation ofvarious kinds of
projects,among which the construction industry is a domin
sector (Achterkamp and Vos, 2008; Littau et al., 2010). D
the salience ofboth risk management(RM) and stakeholder
management(SM) in constructionprojects,thereare still
numerous projectfailures resulting from poor managementin
risk and stakeholder (Flyvbjerg et al., 2002; Mok et al., 20
thus calls for much more effort from the theory and pract
these two critical issues.
Efforts have been devoted to promoting the effectiven
both RM and SM. However, these efforts are largely unde
in isolation, with little crossover between the two areas. T
the existing literature mostly endeavors to improve eithe
⁎ 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 theoreticaland practicaldevelopments of an overall
approach to risk–stakeholdermanagement.We propose that
integrated managementof 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 efficientresource
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 projectmanagers who,in many cases,have to concurrently
manage complex, multiple tasks.
We first conducta systematicliteraturereview 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 effectivenessthrough 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–stakeholderintegration
feasible in construction and if feasible,can integration produce
mutualbenefitsto the effectivenessof construction risk and
stakeholder managementin their managementprocesses and/or
management outcomes.
2. Risk, stakeholder, and their similarities in the construction
context
In the construction projectcontext,the currentstate-of-art
research defines risk as an uncertain event that, if it occurs, has
a negative (threat) or positive (opportunity) impacton one or
more project objectives (Chapman and Ward, 2003; Lehtira
2014; Olsson, 2007; PMI, 2013). Following this definition, th
purpose of project RM is to increase the likelihood and impa
of positive events,and reduce those of negative events in the
project (Arashpour et al., 2017; Hwang et al., 2014). To fulfi
this aim, RM in construction projects is normally characteri
a systematic process of collecting documents and making p
for RM, identifying and classifying,analyzing and assessing,
responding,and controlling projectrisks (Lyons and Skitmore,
2004;J. Wang etal., 2016;Zou etal., 2007).By providing
information for risk decision-making,risk analysis and assess-
ment is the core of RM process (Aven, 2016) and this RM st
often involves analyzing the causes and consequences of r
making judgments about how large or small the risk is. Var
metrics were used for assessing risk among differentdomains,
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,
Aven, 2016); in the construction industry, the dominant me
the multiplication of the risk's probability and severity (Tar
2014).
Compared to the widely acknowledged risk concept, a cl
definitionof stakeholderin the projectcontextis lacking
(Achterkamp and Vos, 2008). The stakeholder concept orig
in 1963 at the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI Interna
Inc.) (Freeman, 1984). A fundamental question in the stake
literature is“who are the stakeholders”(Littau etal., 2010;
Mitchell et al., 1997) and there have been two general dire
for developing the stakeholder concept. The dominant dire
the broad stakeholder perspective, which argues that the ig
of any entity can preventthe achievementof organizational
purpose,and so encompassesall potentialstakeholders(e.g.,
Freeman, 1984). From this perspective, Freeman (1984) defined
stakeholders as “any group or individualwho can affector is
affected by the achievementof the organization's objectives.”
The other direction adopts a narrow stakeholder perspectiv
contending that organizations should or can only deal with
stakeholdersdue to limitationsin factorssuch asresources
and capability (e.g., Clarkson, 1995). As argued by constru
studies (Oppong et al., 2017; Xia et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2
a broad stakeholderdefinition seemsto bestfit 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 projectmay vary from
being supportive to opponent to the project (McElroy and Mills,
2000).McElroy and Mills (2000) proposed five different stake-
holderpositionstoward a project:active opposition,passive
opposition,not committed,passive support,and active support.
Accompanying the stakeholderdiversity are the variousand
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 preventconflicts,and win supportsfrom 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 managementplanning,stakeholder identifi-
cation and classification,stakeholderanalysisand assessment
(assessing stakeholder interests/attributes and relationships in a
qualitative and/orquantitative way),developing strategiesfor
managingstakeholders,and executingand controllingSM
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 conceptof each area we
note,(1) both risk and stakeholder are an inherentattribute of
the projectwith possibleinfluenceson projectobjectives,
(2) both risk and stakeholder are in fact a dual variable,which
can be positive ornegative to the project,and (3)risk and
stakeholder issues can arise from both the project and its
environment.As we defined,the processdomain and the
outcome domain together reflectthe effectiveness of RM and
SM, and elements ofRM and SM share similarities in each
domain.The stages for the RM and SM process are similar
identifying and classifying elements(risksor stakeholders),
analyzing and assessing, responding, and ultimately cont
each element. Outcomes of RM include reduced negative
increased positive events,reduced uncertainty (orimproved
ability in coping with uncertainty), and improved chances
achievement of project objectives. On the other hand, be
effective SM consist of meeting stakeholder concerns,reduced
stakeholder conflicts,improved stakeholder cooperative beha
ior, as well as alignment among stakeholders for the best
for projects butnotfor their own interests.To conclude,risk
and stakeholdermanagementshare certain similarities in the
definitions,managementprocesses,and outcomes,and these
similarities lay the basis for possible connections between
two fields.
3. Methodology
Systematic literature review is an important research m
ology, capable of synthesizing the existing body of knowl
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
(Denyerand Tranfield,2009;Taroun,2014;Tsai and Wen,
2005).Consistentwith the suggestions made by Denyerand
Tranfield (2009),Mostafa etal. (2016),and Tranfield etal.
(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 firststage includes review planning and searching for
relevantarticlesusing electronicdatabases.The plan for a
systematic literature review consists of establishing the literature
review purposeand protocol(Denyerand Tranfield,2009;
Tranfield et al., 2003). The purpose of this literature review was
clearly defined by theresearch questionsproposed 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 sc
of the research is restricted before 2016/12/19.Book reviews,
editorials, and papers in conference proceedings were elim
and only peer-reviewed papers were considered in this rese
At this stage,a totalof 85 papers were retrieved forfurther
analysis, and the search result indicates that the following
nals have at least four papers:Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management (JCEM), Journal of Manageme
in Engineering (JME), International Journal of Project Manag
ment (IJPM), Construction Management and Economics (CM
Journal of Infrastructure Systems (JIS),Engineering,Construc-
tion and Architectural Management (ECAM), Built Environm
Project and Asset Management (BEPAM), Journal of Comput
in Civil Engineering (JCCE),Leadership and Managementin
Engineering (LME). The target journals (i.e., JCEM, JME, IJPM
CME, and ECAM) fallinto the top five construction journals
(Chau,1997);using quality journals as a basis forinclusion
of reviewed papers is a good strategy for conducting literat
review in the managementfield (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

3.2. Stage 2 (visual examination)
In this stage, we deleted all duplicates according to the title
and authorand excluded irrelevantpapersby reading their
titles,abstracts,and keywords.This stage yielded a totalof
79 papers forthe finalcontentanalysis.The distribution of
the final papers in terms of the journal is shown in Table 1. The
annualdistribution ofthose papersin the selected journals
(Fig. 4) indicates an increasing intereston the connectedness
between construction risk and stakeholdermanagementsince
2011. This finding may indicate the emerging issues and growing
academic awareness of the connection between construction risk
and stakeholder management.
3.3. Stage 3 (content analysis)
To analyze those papers, the technique of content analysis is
employed for compressing many words of text in an organized
manner, identifying the focus of subject matter, and diagnosing
emerging patterns in the currentbody of knowledge (Elo and
Kyngäs,2008;Krippendorff,2004).This contentanalysis
comprises two parts: descriptive and thematic. The descriptive
analysis analyzes the basic information of the selected articles,
during which an initialcodebook was developed.This initial
codebook was adjusted and updated to incorporate new categories
during the interpretation of the articles untilno new categories
emerged.Table 2 shows the final codebook for the descriptive
analysis.Although acodebook wasdeveloped priorto the
descriptive analysis,the themes implied in the literature were
obtained inductively,namely,during ratherthan before the
process of literature review. Two of the present authors first coded
all the target articles published, and subsequently compared and
discussed the results case by case to resolve the discrepancies in
coding (Lombard et al., 2002). This thematic analysis resulted in
four themes connecting RM and SM in construction projects.
4. Descriptive analyses
4.1. Overview of the selected publications
Fig.5 shows specific research methods used in the literature
thatwas examined and indicatesthatthe top and second
frequently used methods are questionnaire as well as alg
modeling,and simulation.Fig.6 further depicts the country or
region where empiricaldata in those analyzed paperswere
collected from. Asia is the most common region, while re
involving multiple countries is relatively limited.This result is
understandable as both risk and stakeholderand management
practices of them are subject to national or regional cont
the projectis implemented (McCord etal.,2015;Mok etal.,
2015;Zou etal.,2007).Mostof the studies thatdo notstate
specificregionsand/orcountriesare the onesthatemploy
algorithms, modeling, and simulation research method.
Concerning the project type, most of the literature are
the general construction (N = 34) and infrastructure (N =
context. Within the infrastructure, thirteen papers discus
arrangement,indicating risk- and stakeholder-related issues
both the focus of PPPs. Other studied projects include bui
(N = 5), international (N = 4),partnering (N = 3),mega (N
= 2), urban regeneration (N = 1),and targetcostcontracts
(TCC) (N =1) projects.We further explore the phases of thos
studied projects (Fig. 7). Previous research has demonstr
the amount and complexity of risks and stakeholders pea
execution phase (e.g., Wang et al., 2017; Zou et al., 2007
it is understandable the research connecting risk and sta
also focuses this phase the most(N = 26). There is also a
considerable proportion (N = 22) of the literature conside
Table 1
Distribution of the selected journal papers.
Journal title Number of papers retrieved from search engineNumber of papers for final analysis
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (JCEM)25 22
Journal of Management in Engineering (JME) 19 19
International Journal of Project Management (IJPM) 8 8
Construction Management and Economics (CME) 7 7
Journal of Infrastructure Systems (JIS) 7 7
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management (ECAM)6 6
Built Environment Project and Asset Management (BEPAM) 6 5
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering (JCCE) 3 3
Leadership and Management in Engineering (LME) 4 2
Total 85 79
Fig. 4. Numberof relevantpaperspublished yearly from 1990 to 2016.
Note: Publications in 2016 are not complete with the search period befo
December 2016.
705N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

risk and stakeholder managementas a lasting issue during the
entire project life cycle.
4.2. Risk and stakeholder conceptions of the selected publications
We examined concepts in the existing studies in relation to
state-of-art risk concepts. The literature covered negative impact
of risk on a wide range of projectvariables,from the success
of projects (e.g.,Ashuriand Mostaan,2015) to certain project
objectivesand activities,including health and safety (e.g.,
Tymvios and Gambatese, 2016), cost (e.g., Firouzi et al., 2016),
revenue/financial viability (e.g., Jeerangsuwan et al., 2014), and
sustainable development (e.g., Shealy et al., 2016). That is, the
examined literature mainly considered risk as threats,with no
studies investigating (theoretically or practically) the upside of
risk, despite the wide acknowledgement of the dual nature of risk.
This absence of examining risk as opportunities indicated that the
risk–stakeholder literature had not considered the positive aspect
of risk when connecting management of risks and stakeholders.
In the projectrisk research,it is stated thatincluding the
opportunity view of risk in consideration will improve business
focus,projectprobabilitiesfor success,perhapsoccasionally
beyond expectations (Olsson,2007;Lehtiranta,2014).Thus,a
holistic negative and positive view on risk may also be potential
to breed benefitsfor integrated managementof risks and
stakeholders.
We also reviewed the concept of stakeholders in the exis
literature. Among the 79 publications, only one paper empl
broad stakeholder definition. That is, Van Os et al. (2015) c
the definition:“individualsor organizationsthatare either
affectedby or affect the developmentof the project”
(El-Gohary etal.,2006,p. 595).This is notsurprising as two
review papers (Achterkamp and Vos, 2008; Littau et al., 20
related to the application of stakeholder concept and stake
theory in the project context, also find that only limited pro
management papers provided a clear definition of stakeho
mainly identifying empiricalpartieswithoutreferenceto a
definition. Fig. 8 shows specific types of stakeholders ment
in the publications.The most common stakeholders are clients
contractors,and consultants,followed by subcontractorsand
project management teams.
Table 2
Partial codebook for content analysis of this study.
Code Description
Year Year of publication
Article title Title of the article
Journal title Publication in which the article was published
Research method(s) Questionnaire, interview, case study, experiment, conceptual, literature review, others
Geographical jurisdiction Country or region from which the data were collected
Stakeholder definition and/or classification How the stakeholder concept or definition, and classification is addressed
Stakeholder type Specific roles of the stakeholders included, such as clients, contractors, others
Risk definition How risks are viewed in terms of threats and/or opportunities
Risk type Categorization of risks according to the specific kind of project objective (s) they can infl
Project type Subway, building, general construction projects, others
Project phase Pre-construction (feasibility, design), construction, operation phases, project lifecycle
Research objectives/questions Research objectives and/or questions explicitly stated in the article
Major findings Major findings explicitly stated in the article
Contributions Contributions explicitly stated in the article
Fig. 5. Research methods used in the literature connecting management of risks
and stakeholders. Fig. 6. Distribution of selected publications by geographical jurisdiction.
706 N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

When categorizing those diverse stakeholders, the literature
adopts different grouping methods catering to specific research
objectives. In this paper, we summarize stakeholders into internal
and externalgroups.The internalstakeholders are those who
have formal contracts with other participants and have a role in
the actual realization of the project outcome (Xia et al.,2017).
They mainly investcapitalin the form ofphysicalmaterials,
human resources, or finance (i.e., something of value) in a project
(Cleland,1985).In contrast,externalstakeholdersare those
who are outside of the activities within the project and passively
affected by the projectoutcome.Typically,an externalstake-
holderlacksany formalprojectauthority (Aaltonen,2011;
Walker et al., 2008). The red bars in Fig. 8 represent the external
group, indicating that less attention was given to the stakeholders
external the project compared to internal ones. Furthermore, only
two external groups were involved, namely, the project-affected
community and generalpublic and governmentaldepartments.
To summarize, contrary to the broad stakeholder definitio
applies to the construction context,the examined publications
tend to adopt a narrow stakeholder perspective by emph
the internalstakeholdergroups,suggesting opportunitiesfor
risk–stakeholderintegratedmanagementby includingboth
internal and external stakeholders.
5. Thematic analyses of current risk–stakeholder
connections
Content analysis of the selected publications identified
linking modes between risk and stakeholder managemenThe
modes were (1) management of risk based on stakeholdefication, (2) internal stakeholders' responsibility and abili
RM process,(3) managementof stakeholderdifferences con-
cerning risk,and (4) interrelatedness between RM and SM a
effecton projectperformance.These themes indicate different
ways thatrisk and stakeholdermanagementwere connected.
Within each linkage mode, we also discuss how the linkag
be leveraged forpromoting managementeffectiveness in risk
and/orstakeholderfields.This evidence supports ourgeneral
hypothesis:integrated managementof construction risk and
stakeholderis feasible and thatintegrated managementcan
promote the effectiveness of both RM and SM.
5.1. Management of risk based on stakeholder identificat
This theme bridges risk and stakeholdermanagementby
describing how management of project stakeholders, par
identifying relevant stakeholders and their potential threa
help formulate risk response strategies. The literature foc
both internaland externalstakeholders to the project.Threats
posed by internal stakeholders include inefficient process
clients and delay of clients' payment (T. Wang et al., 201
change orders from the client,the contractor,or the designer
(Ashuriand Mostaan,2015).Threatsarising from external
groupsinvolvesuch as oppositionfrom projectaffected
communities (Shietal.,2015),which often address the social
objectives or responsibilities of business activities (Zhao
2012). Poor implementation of these responsibilities expe
the society can pose threats to project outcomes, the ma
which seems to be growing but are often overlooked by p
managementteams (Aaltonen,2011;Zavadskas etal.,2010).
Authors have noted criticisms of the construction industr
poor implementation of socialresponsibilities (Loosemore and
Lim, 2017).
The above studiesassociatedwith this themewere
concerned with the behavior of an individualstakeholder and
its potentialfor producing threats.Another group,which also
considered stakeholdersas a sourceof risks suggestthat
interfaces among (internal) stakeholders can constitute t
Such risk can be termed as “project network risk”, referri
specific setof risk conditions or events thatresultfrom work
linkages, interfaces among two or more stakeholders (Le
2011; Lowe and Leiringer, 2006; Shokri et al., 2016). Stak
interface threats lead to negative consequences such as
schedule delays (Shokri et al., 2016). A survey conducted
Fig. 7. Project phases involved in the selected papers. Note: The preparation phase
include projectappraisaland decision activities;the execution phase includes
design,construction,and bid activities.Severalstudies include more than one
phase; for instance, both the construction and operation phases are included in Xu
and Moon (2014).
Fig. 8. Frequency ofstakeholders mentioned in the literature in internaland
external groups. Note: The “project management team” refers to project managers,
professions, technologists, and supervisors who carry out management onsite. The
“others” group includes such as workers, the industry, and the private and public
sector in PPPs.
707N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

Singaporeconstruction industryrevealed thatmostof the
respondents were unaware of network management and none of
the participating companies implemented network management
practices in their construction projects (Hwang and Ng,2016).
Construction projects,especially mega ones,have witnessed a
booming number of stakeholders (Mok et al., 2015). Thus, there
is likely to be an increase in the number of interfaces either in
production or in management, with the number and complexity
of project network risks growing simultaneously. As such, efforts
should be devoted to ascertaining the most critical network risks
in particular contexts,and to developing practicalmeasures to
manage them. As network risks are at least related to two parties
and are largely context dependent, managerial strategies for them
may be different from the tactics developed for handling the risks
resulting from a single stakeholder.
To conclude,the underlying premise of the above two areas
of this identified theme was that the effectiveness of RM in terms
of risk response strategies would be enhanced by identifying
stakeholders and their risks (mostly threats).Under this theme,
two major research trends in the literature were proposing risk
response strategies for (1) risks (threats) posed by its wide
nal stakeholders and (2) project network risks (threats) res
from interface work among diverse internal stakeholders.
5.2. Internal stakeholders'responsibility and ability in the RM
process
The second theme in the existing risk–stakeholder literat
pertains to the ability and resources ofinternalstakeholders
to managerisks. Literaturein this themesuggestsways
thatinternalstakeholdersmightuse to managerisks.This
theme was described 59 times among the 79 selected pape
identification and classification was mentioned 13 times,risk
analysis and assessment21, risk response 10,and the entire
process 15 times.Studies raised concerns aboutconstruction
practitioners' incompetence in the process of managing ris
hence imperative calls for efficient and effective RM approa
Two variants were found within this theme.One focused on
risks in a specific occasion such as in PPPs by identifying,
prioritizing, and/or suggesting particular responses to those
Fig. 9. Current status and future directions of research on risk–stakeholder integrated management. Note: RM = risk management, SM = stake
708 N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

for responsible parties (e.g.,Ashuriand Mostaan,2015).The
other was set in a general context developing generic frameworks
for the entire RM process and/ortechniques forspecific RM
stages like risk analysis (e.g., Shahata and Zayed, 2016).
The studiesfalling into thisthemeemphasized internal
stakeholders as the source of mitigating risks, and thus mainly
focused on developing tools and approaches forcertain RM
stage(s) or the entire process. First, either focusing on the entire
RM process or certain stage(s) in it,in essence,those articles
were aimed to strengthen RM capability ofthe projectteam
who is on-site and directly implements the project,improving
RM from the process level.Another trend was that risks were
treated within one single organization ortwo organizations
(e.g.,risk allocation between the private and public sectors in
PPPs). Thatis, an emphasiswas placed on RM capability
enhancementof the project team within one or two
organizations.
5.3. Management of stakeholder differences concerning risk
One key issue within this theme concerns the differences
among stakeholders in terms of risk-related issues,such as
risk perception and risk-based decisions. This theme reflects one
type of conflictamongstakeholders,and thus a better
understanding ofrisk-related conflictcan benefitboth stake-
holder and risk management. First, variation can exist in internal
stakeholders' perceptions of the set of risks related to a specific
activity and the relative criticality of those risks. One example is
Tymvios and Gambatese (2016),which surveyed stakeholders'
perceptionsof the obstaclesand enablersfor safety-risk
prevention through design, finding that architects and engineers
identified theexistenceof economic,legal,and contractual
obstacles, whereas contractors only considered economic obsta-
cles.Discrepancies also existed between internaland external
stakeholders concerning their perceptions of risks in the project
(Shi et al., 2015).Notwithstanding thedifferencesin how
stakeholders perceive risks,the subjectivity and discordance of
stakeholdersalso concernshandlingof risk. Specifically,
risk-based decisionssuch asthe decision on the concession
periodbetweenthe public and privatesectorin a PPP
arrangementcan vary (Xu and Moon,2014) can vary among
stakeholders (e.g., Shealy et al., 2016; Van Os et al., 2015; Wang
and Yuan, 2011; J. Wang et al., 2016). Han et al. (2005) found
that when facing the same uncertainty in the market, contractors'
bid decision behavior in the selection of internationalprojects
was different.
By definition,risk perception refers to individuals' subjec-
tive judgmentof the risk (Aven and Renn,2009),which is
influencedby an individual'ssocial structures,including
interests,roles,and power differentials (Archer,1995).Social
structures togetherwith culturalsystems (sets of ideas about
whatis true or false) shape people's perceptions,actions,and
attempts to influence others (Friedman and Miles, 2002). Thus,
with diverse background, stakeholder groups in a construction
project are likely to have different views on risk structure and
criticality and make different decisions about how to deal with
risk. Humanstogetherwith theirsubjectivejudgmentare
indispensable to perceive,assess,and dealwith risks in the
construction industry (Taroun, 2014; Wang and Yuan, 20
M. Wang et al., 2016), therefore,the abovementioned
risk-relateddifferencesamong stakeholderscannot be
neglected.Recentstudieshavecalled for focuseson the
subjective aspectof risk related to stakeholders.For example,
it has been contended thatless is known abouthow risks are
perceivedby individuals(Xia et al., 2017) despitethe
prevailing Probability–Impact(P\I) risk modelevaluating
risk quantitatively and rationally (Taroun,2014).Loosemore
(2011) also argued that although construction companies
to be well-equipped with the capability of managing tech
risks,their ability to manage the human subjective percep
of risk is limited.In accord with these emerging concerns, th
literature examined has realized and explored the subjec
and differences in risk-related issues among stakeholders
5.4. Interrelatedness between RM and SM and effect on p
performance
As shown in Fig.1, both RM and SM comprise a process
domain and an outcome domain. The final theme is conc
with the effects of SM processes on RM outcomes, the eff
RM processes on SM outcomes, and the combined proces
SM and RM on project performance. The first subset exam
the effects of SM processes (e.g.,stakeholder communication)
on RM outcomes (e.g.,the numberor criticality ofthreats).
Activities involved in SM process include making plans an
allocating resources for SM,considering relevant stakeholders
paying attention to theirdemands,information sharing and
communication,and analysis of stakeholder attributes/intere
(Oppong et al., 2017; PMI, 2013). Defective SM processes
as inadequate attention to the demands of certain stakeh
the planning stage will increase potential threats at later
(Bal et al.,2013).Effective information sharing and commun
cation,for example,can allow organizationsexternalto the
project team to frequently provide valuable insights rega
functioning ofRM and thus the performance ofRM can be
improved (COSO, 2004; Du et al., 2016).
Compared to the research on the effects of SM process
RM outcomes,the reviewed literature has paid less attentio
to the effects ofRM processes (e.g.,risk allocation)on SM
outcomes (e.g., stakeholder satisfaction). As mentioned a
usageof the stakeholderconceptseemsto remain limited
and narrow in the included risk–stakeholder literature as well as
in the currentprojectmanagementliterature.In addition,the
construction industry seems to lack a well-established sc
measuring SM outcomes (Oppong et al., 2017). Thus, it c
understandable that limited attention has been paid to h
processes will influence the outcomes of SM. Among the
papers,two described this issue.One study interviewing 29
construction practitioners from eight civil infrastructure p
revealed thata risk/reward modelcan influence stakeholders'
behavior (Love et al., 2011). Another study is a survey on
buildings, finding that equitable contract risk allocation b
the governmentclientand private contractor can motivate th
contractors to engage in high performance (Rose and Ma
709N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

2010).Essentially,it is plausible that SM process variables can
influence RM outcomes and vice versa. But investigation of the
mechanisms through which RM process elements such as risk
allocation would influence SM outcomes has been rare (Zhang
et al., 2016).
The third subsetpertainsto the effectsof combined
processes of SM and RM on projectperformance.First,some
studies suggest the outcomes of both RM and SM as an indicator
of projectsuccess.As mentioned before,in the construction
context, risk was mostly demonstrated to be adverse. Accordingly,
positive outcomes of RM refers to mitigated adverse conditions or
events that can threaten project objectives, indicating good project
performance (De Bakkeret al., 2011;PMI, 2013).Likewise,
the outcomes of SM have also considered as one indicator of
project success (Davis, 2016). Numerous studies have suggested
coordination,cooperation,integration among stakeholdersas
indicators of project success (e.g., Cleland, 1988; Francom et al.,
2016;Meng,2012).Second,there is research pointing outthe
positive effects of both RM and SM processes on certain aspects
of projectperformance such as transaction costs,or the entire
successof project.Li et al. (2014)contended thatfair risk
allocation and good relationships with project stakeholders can be
effective atreducing transaction costs in construction projects.
By focusing on PPP projects,it was found that
management-related factors of risk (e.g., commencement of risk
register)and stakeholder(e.g.,open and effective stakeholder
communication) in the briefing stage are both important to PPP
success (Tang et al., 2013). Despite the articulation of the separate
effects of RM and SM processes on project success, few research
studiestheir combinedeffectson projectoutcomes.Two
exceptions in the reviewed papers are Du etal. (2016) and T.
Wang etal. (2016),which empirically testconceptualmodels
describing the relationships of partnering (process-related variable
of SM), risk management capability (process-related variable of
RM), and project performance in
Engineering-Procurement-Construction projects.
6. Future research agendas for enhancing the effectiveness
of RM and SM through integrated management
We nextoutlinefuture avenuesfor integrating risk and
stakeholder management,so as to enhance the effectiveness of
managing risk, stakeholder, involving the aspects of management
processes and/or managementoutcomes.The future directions
within each linkage mode (see Fig. 9) were derived in relation to
what has been done and especially,what remains to be under-
taken againstthe state-of-artresearch concerning the concept,
management of risks and stakeholders and their similarities (as
summarized in Fig. 1).
6.1. Including a broad stakeholder analysis in the RM process
For the first current linkage “management of risk based on
stakeholder identification”, we first suggest that future research
should move beyond the identification ofstakeholdersand
formulation ofmeasuresto cope with threatsfrom those
stakeholders, toward including a broad stakeholder analysis. This
broad stakeholder analysis will benefit not the risk respons
examined in the currentliterature,butalso otherRM stages.
Stakeholder analysis following stakeholder identification in
a description and assessment of stakeholders' interests/att
and theirrelationship.This analysiscan help to detectdeep
sources of those threat events posed by stakeholders, as w
underlying interdependences among those threats (i.e., be
risk analysis and assessment stages).
In addition,the formation of stakeholders and the attribute
of the same stakeholdercan vary in differentsituations (e.g.,
Freeman, 1984; Mitchell et al., 1997; Olander, 2007) such a
different project stages. Thus, integrating a dynamic persp
into stakeholder analysis may help us understand why cert
stakeholder-related threats occur and change, thereby form
dynamic risk managerial actions. Recent research in the ge
risk field also calls for enhancing risk assessment and mana
ment by focusing on the background knowledge and the dy
dimensions(Aven,2016).Our suggestionsof including the
analysisof stakeholdersand focusing on thedynamicsin
stakeholders in the construction RM process correspond to
knowledge and the dynamics, respectively, and thus is con
with the generic trend of enhancing RM.
Second, by focusing on threats, the publications tend to
see the negative aspectof stakeholders.This singularfocus
indicates a lack of a positive view on stakeholders and a lac
practicalapproachesto managing opportunitiesthatmay be
posedby them.We, thus, suggestthat risk–stakeholder
researchersand practitionersshould adopta broad view of
stakeholders by including both threats and opportunities in
stakeholderanalysis,which may modify risk analysisand
assessment and risk response measures. It is possible that
stakeholders' positive and cooperative behavior can be ind
by appropriate projectgovernance structures (e.g.,an alliance
structure) (Guo et al., 2014). External stakeholders can also
benefits to the projects,for example,they may provide useful
suggestionswith their “local”knowledge(Gullino,2009).
Collaboration between the internaland externalgroups may
also be possible (Cuppen et al., 2016). Thus, it requires pro
organizationsand their managersto shift from a hostile,
negative view on both internal and external stakeholders to
a more inclusive,positive perspective,and to sense and utilize
advantages of them to pursue the best value for projects. M
strategic shifts in the business environmentrequire conceptual
shifts in the minds of managers (McCaskey,1982).Academia
should make efforts to advance such a fundamentaland likely
difficult transformation, because the construction practice h
lasting negative view on the risk and the stakeholder (Wan
2017; Yang et al., 2016; Zou et al., 2007).
6.2. Enhancing RM ability through verticaland horizontal
stakeholder management
For the second currentlinkage “managementof internal
stakeholders for enhancing their ability in managing risk”,and
consistent with the studies in them, we suggest that stakeh
are the sources for managing risks and their RM ability sho
be enhanced.However,we additionally proposeenhancing
710 N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

RM ability through the improvementin the managementof
stakeholders (corresponding to stakeholder response in the SM
process), but not in the development of specific RM tools. First,
we argue that a project's ability in the RM process is not only
determined by the projectmanagementteam on site,butalso
employees occupying differentpositions in a projectand the
organization the projectbelongs to.Thus,we suggestthata
project-based organization should establish a multilevelRM
model. RM attitudes from upper leaders and RM culture among
team membersacrossdifferentlevelsare indispensablein
determining a construction stakeholder's overall RM capability
(Loosemore et al., 2006; Zou et al., 2010). However, this aspect
has beendisregardedin the existingliterature.Empirical
investigations on RM practices also show that RM attitudes or
systems at the upper organization can be poor, notwithstanding
the relatively mature techniques specific for analyzing project
risk (Choudhry and Iqbal, 2013; Mu et al., 2014). Taking safety
risk managementas an example,a meta-analysisfound
management commitment to safety was the most critical safety
climate formitigating workplace injuries and accidents (Beus
et al., 2010). Furthermore, even when senior managers in a larger
organization or projectputhigh priority to risk,RM practices
may vary across work subunits/groups (Zohar,2010).Thus,to
foster an organization's overall RM capability in a project, it is
necessary to develop a robust multilevel RM model within the
organization,advancing RM awareness and ability from upper
leadersin organizationsto team leadersto individualteam
members, where key RM dimensions for each level are likely to
vary (e.g., RM commitment from the upper management versus
RM skills from thedirectmanagerversusrisky activities
avoidance from the frontline workers).
Second,the literature within this linkage indicated lacked
theoretical foundations or practical advices for unifying multiple
organizationsto manage risksin a collaborative way.This
phenomenon was also reported in a review of RM research in
temporary multi-organizations (Lehtiranta,2014).Among the
included literature,empiricalsurveysin various countries or
regions also reveal that although practitioners desire joint RM,
in reality,the mechanism forsuch a jointeffortis lacking
(Choudhry and Iqbal, 2013; Nguyen and Chileshe,2015; Tang
et al., 2007). Thus, further efforts are needed to develop practical
measuresfor aligning diverseprojectplayersfor concerted
capability in managing project risks to achieve the best value for
the project. To summarize, in addition to the traditional way of
developing RM tools and approaches, internal stakeholders' RM
capability in a project can be enhanced through improved vertical
stakeholdermanagementwithin an organizationitself and
horizontal multiple stakeholder management around the project.
Specifically, we suggest that future research should energize risk
awareness and involvement of members across different levels at
the organization,and establish strategies for collaborative RM
across diverse internal organizations within a project.
6.3. Investigating the mechanism stakeholder differences
their variations in risk
For the third currentlinkage “managementof stakeholder
differences concerning risk”,the literature acknowledges the
differences among stakeholders and among theirperceptions
and decisionsregarding risk.However,we still know little
abouthow those differences occur and how to manage tho
differences effectively. Addressing these questions will be
the analysis and managementof conflictamong stakeholders
and among risks (corresponding to stakeholder (risk) ana
and response in the SM (RM) process).
We suggest, at the outset, it may be effective to condu
studiesfor an understanding ofhow differentstakeholders
describe,perceive,and handle risk during actual conversatio
(Cuppen et al., 2016; Van Os et al., 2015). With case stud
may find specific factors related to stakeholders and/or re
the construction project that contribute to stakeholders' v
in risk perceptions and decisions. Next, theoretically and
cally rigorousinvestigationsof the underlying mechanisms
explainingthe occurrenceof the variationin risk-related
outcomes (e.g.,risk perceptions,risk attitudes,risk decisions)
among diverse stakeholders are warranted. For instance,
of stakeholders' socialstructures (Archer,1995;Friedman and
Miles, 2002)warrantsspecificconsideration.By doing so,
stakeholders can have a better understanding of the diffe
with their partners and the roots of those differences.As such,
effective strategies can be developed to resolve conflict a
different stakeholders (benefiting stakeholder manageme
among their perceptions and managerial actions concern
(benefiting risk management),whereby mutualbenefits to thefields of risk and stakeholder management can be expect
6.4.Establishing a holistic picture among the managemen
process and outcome of RM and SM
As shown in Fig.10, the fourth currentrisk–stakeholder
linkage refers to the effects of SM processes on RM outco
project performance indicator, the effects of RM processe
outcomes as a project performance indicator, and the co
effects of SM and RM processes on projectperformance.To
Fig. 10. A framework for research on interrelatedness between RM and
effect on projectperformance.Note: RM = risk management,SM =
stakeholder management.The black solid arrows denote the currentresearch
theme; the red dashed arrows denote future directions. (For interpretat
references to colourin this figure legend,the readeris referred to the web
version of this article.)
711N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

attain a clearer picture of this linkage mode, we first suggest it is
essential to distinguish between process variables and outcome
variables,the firstsetof variables should reflectmanagement
procedures, activities, and functions of risk (e.g., risk allocation)
and stakeholdermanagement(e.g.,plansand resourcesfor
managing stakeholders),whereasthe second setof variables
should reflectthe objectivesand expectationsof RM (e.g.,
reduced threats)and SM (e.g.,increased cooperation among
stakeholders).Both sets of variablestogetherreflectthe
effectiveness of RM and SM.
In Fig. 10, the black solid lines represent the major focus in the
existing literature, namely, the effects of SM process variables on
the outcomes of RM. However, the red dashed lines indicate the
areas thatfuture research should address.The firstdirection is
how RM process variables impact the outcomes of SM,which
has received limited attention as shown by the literature review
results.As a maturescalefor measuring construction SM
outcomes is currently lacking (Oppong etal.,2017),this first
direction largely depends on the development of robust scales of
construction SM outcomes. The second direction is to understand
how elements associated with integrated management processes
of risks and stakeholders will influence the project performance
specifically related to risk and stakeholder outcomes, or a wide
range of project performance. This direction requires comparing
the benefits of RM and SM when implemented separately and
when integrated, on the evidence from realistic cases.
To summarize, the literature review revealed that construction
risk and stakeholder integrated management was feasible and can
benefit the fields of risk and stakeholder management. That said,
however, IMSs of construction risk and stakeholder is lacking. A
few studies (e.g., Du et al., 2016; T. Wang et al., 2016) indicated
that integration of management process elements concerning risk
and stakeholder would enhance projectperformance.Research
on IMSs in organizationshasalso demonstrated benefitsof
integration.For example,a literature review ofquality and
environmentIMSs has found itto be of greater benefits than
implementing quality and environment management separately,
resulting in improvements such as costsavings and a more
positive organizational image (Bernardo et al., 2015). Thus, we
think IMSs of risks and stakeholders in construction projects are
possible and promising to the field of project management. As we
illustrate in Fig.11, the establishmentof IMSs for risk and
stakeholder in construction projects relies on the advancement of
the four risk–stakeholderlinkagemodesderived from the
existing literature. The first three linkages concern integrat
the management process of construction risk and stakehol
last linkage refers to the examination of the effects of comb
RM and SM processes on project performance in terms of R
and SM outcomes or a wide definition of project performan
With both thetheoreticaladvancementand lessonslearned
from accumulated practices ofrisk–stakeholderintegration in
those four modes, it is expected IMSs for construction risk a
stakeholder management can be developed.
7. Discussion and conclusion
Traditionaleffortsfor improvingrisk and stakeholder
managementare largely undertaken in isolation.Instead,we
proposed that integrated thinking and management of risk
stakeholders is feasible and may illuminate alternatives an
ideas for improving risk and stakeholder management effec
ness.The hypothesis was conceptually validated by the curr
results obtained with the systematic literature review meth
namely,the thematicanalysisof the four risk–stakeholder
linkage modes identified in the existing literature and the f
research agendas, which were proposed against the curren
and the state-of-art research concerning the concept, mana
of risks and stakeholders and their similarities.This study thus
suggests both researchers and practitioners be aware and
approaches forthe connection and integrated managementof
construction risk and stakeholder, rather than merely mana
risk or stakeholder in isolation. Below, we summarize the mfindings and point out their implications for theory and prac
7.1. Major findings and implications
Using a systematicliteraturereview of79 construction
relevant papers, we found four risk–stakeholder linkage mo
(1) managementof risk based on stakeholderidentification,
(2) internalstakeholders' responsibility and ability in the RM
process, (3) management of stakeholder differences conce
risk, and (4) interrelatedness between RM and SM and effec
projectperformance.In the construction sector,RM has been
frequently integrated into the fields of quality, cost, schedu
safety management (Loushine et al., 2006; Love et al., 201
et al.,2009;Pawan and Lorterapong,2016).The practices in
construction projectmanagementalso suggestthatrisk and
stakeholder issues can be interwoven (Ward and Chapman
Fig. 11. A research roadmap linking the risk–stakeholder linkage modes with risk–stakeholder integrated management systems.
712 N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

Zhang,2011;Wang etal.,2017).However,these studies are
scattered; a systematic clarification of how RM and SM connect
to one another is lacking. The four linkages that were identified
provide us a picture of how RM and SM can connect and will
inspire future effort aiming to enhance the connection between
construction risk and stakeholder management.
Based on the identified four linkage modes between RM and
SM, we further justified that the effectiveness of RM and SM
can be mutually enhanced from the perspective of integration.
Specifically,we first clarified the processdomain and the
outcome domain concerning RM and SM and the conceptof
their effectiveness, and then demonstrated that certain stages of
risk and stakeholdermanagementprocess can be integrated
for mutualeffectiveness both in the process domain and the
outcome domain.This clarification and demonstration adds
knowledge to the existing literature, where specific descriptions
of the benefits from RM to SM or vice versa are rare. The idea
thatRM can benefitfrom managing stakeholder is implied by
studies such as Yang and Zou (2014),however,only one-way
benefits from SM to RM were studied and the benefits are implicit.
Othermanagementareas can be boosted through management
of risk.Luu et al.(2009) and Shokri et al.(2016),for example,
identify risk factors to project schedule and analyze the effect of
those factors using network theories,whereby schedule perfor-
mance isimproved through managementof risks(related to
schedule).However,whetherSM can be enhanced through
managementof risk remainsunclear.Research agendasfor
enhancing the effectiveness of RM and SM through integration
strategies may serve as a basis forpromoting theoreticaland
practical developments of risk–stakeholder integrated management
in the pursuit of mutual benefits and overall project performance.
Taken together, the present study contributed to the current
risk and stakeholder research in construction by proposing and
demonstrating thatmanagementprocessesand management
outcomes of risk and stakeholder management can be enhanced
through new waysof thinking about,analyzing,and then
managing risk and stakeholder issues in a holistic and integrated
way.This is meaningfulfor both theory and practice as most
previous management strategies for risk and stakeholder remain
segregated, limiting our knowledge, understanding, and practice
of risk-stakeholder integration management. The distinctness of
the different project management areas (PMI, 2013) has evoked
fruitful academic outcomes and practices in each area; it is useful
to pay attention to IMSs that support collaboration among diverse
projectmanagementareasfor improving effectivenessand
efficiency in resource allocation and improving overallperfor-
mance within the entire project.
7.2. Limitations and future research
The authors acknowledge the defects of the literature review
method,especially those concerning the literature sampling
criteria and analysis(Denyerand Tranfield,2009;Mostafa
et al., 2016).Literature searching can neverbe exhaustive.
Certain relevant publications may be not included; for example,
they may use “contractor” to refer to the stakeholder notion but
not the searched keywords “stakeholder” or “project participant”.
Related studies may be also missing for the authors' inab
relate the research topic to the connections between risk
stakeholderissues.Also, although rigorouscontentanalysis
processes were conducted by two coders,cognitive biases can
never be eliminated,and thus there may be drawbacks in the
analysis and induction of the research themes. The prese
a conceptualanalysis,merely acts as an initialattemptto the
demand for risk–stakeholder integration in construction p
Denyer et al. (2008) argue that the output of systematic
should beheuristic,namely,providing clues/ideasbut not
detailed solutions for field problems. This research thus a
inspire more successful trials and practices concerning in
managementof constructionrisk and stakeholder,testing
empirically as to how to integrate RM and SM effectively
producing two-way benefits,ultimately fulling thegoal of
establishing IMSs of risks and stakeholders.Finally,owing to
the large number of articles for reviewing,the review at times
needed to stay ata generallevel,providing a broad overview
rather than a meticulous account of very detailed finding
specific research is required to carry out in-depth analyse
identified theme.
Acknowledgements
The work of this research is fully supported by the Nati
NaturalScience Foundation ofChina (GrantNos.71231006,
71772736, 71722004). Furthermore, great appreciation e
goes to allthe participants who have greatly devoted to th
empirical surveys. The authors would also like to thank th
and anonymous reviewers for their work and contribution
References
Aaltonen,K., 2011. Project stakeholderanalysisas an environmental
interpretation process. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29 (2), 165–183.
Aaltonen,K., Kujala,J., Havela,L., Savage,G., 2015.Stakeholder dynamics
during the project front-end: the case of nuclear waste repository pro
Proj. Manag. J. 46 (6), 15–41.
Achterkamp,M.C., Vos, J.F., 2008.Investigating the use of the stakeholder
notion in projectmanagementliterature,a meta-analysis.Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 26 (7), 749–757.
Alexander,C., Sarabia,J.M., 2012.Quantile uncertainty and value-at-risk
model risk. Risk Anal. 32 (8), 1293–1308.
Arashpour,M., Abbasi,B., Arashpour,M., Hosseini,M.R., Yang,R., 2017.
Integrated managementof on-site,coordination and off-site uncertainty:
theorizing risk analysis within a hybrid project setting. Int. J. Proj. Ma
35 (4), 647–655.
Archer,M.S., 1995.RealistSocialTheory:The Morphogenetic Approach.
Cambridge University Press.
Ashuri,B., Mostaan,K., 2015.State of private financing in developmentof
highway projects in the United States. J. Manag. Eng. 31 (6), 040150.
Aven, T., 2016.Risk assessmentand risk management:review ofrecent
advances on their foundation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253 (1), 1–13.
Aven,T., Renn,O., 2009.On risk defined as an eventwhere the outcome is
uncertain. J. Risk Res. 12, 1–11.
Bal, M., Bryde,D., Fearon,D., Ochieng,E., 2013.Stakeholder engagement:
achieving sustainability in the construction sector.Sustain.For. 5 (2),
695–710.
Bernardo,M., Simon,A., Tarí, J.J., Molina-Azorín,J.F., 2015.Benefits of
managementsystems integration:a literature review.J. Clean.Prod.94,
260–267.
713N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

Beus, J.M., Payne, S.C., Bergman, M.E., Arthur, W., 2010. Safety climate and
injuries: an examination of theoretical and empirical relationships. J. Appl.
Psychol. 95, 713–727.
Bourne,L., Walker,D.H.T., 2005.Visualising and mapping stakeholder
influence. Manag. Decis. 43, 649–660.
Chapman,C.B., Ward, S., 2003.ProjectRisk Management:Processes,
Techniques and Insights. John Wiley & Sons.
Chapman,C., Ward,S., 2004.Why risk efficiency is a key aspectof best
practice projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22 (8), 619–632.
Chau, K.W., 1997. The ranking of construction management journals. Constr.
Manag. Econ. 15 (4), 387–398.
Choudhry, R.M., Iqbal, K., 2013. Identification of risk management system in
construction industry in Pakistan. J. Manag. Eng. 29 (1), 42–49.
Clarkson, M.B.E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating
corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1), 92–117.
Cleland, D.I., 1985. A strategy for ongoing project evaluation. Proj. Manag. J.
16 (3), 11–16.
Cleland, D., 1988. Project stakeholder management. In: Cleland, D., King, W.
(Eds.), Project Management Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA.
COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission),
2004. Enterprise Risk Management–Integrated Framework. COSO, New York.
Cuppen,E., Bosch-Rekveldt,M.G.C., Pikaar, E., Mehos, D.C., 2016.
Stakeholderengagementin large-scaleenergyinfrastructureprojects:
revealing perspectives using Q methodology.Int. J. Proj.Manag.34 (7),
1347–1359.
Davis, K., 2016. A method to measure success dimensions relating to individual
stakeholder groups. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (3), 480–493.
De Bakker, K., Boonstra, A., Wortmann, H., 2011. Risk management affecting IS/IT
project success through communicative action. Proj. Manag. J. 42, 75–90.
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., 2009. Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan,
D.A., Bryman, A. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research
Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 671–689.
Denyer,D., Tranfield,D., Van Aken, J.E., 2008. Developingdesign
propositions through research synthesis. Organ. Stud. 29 (3), 393–413.
Du, L., Tang, W., Liu, C., Wang, S., Wang, T., Shen, W., Huang, M., Zhou, Y.,
2016. Enhancingengineer–procure–constructprojectperformanceby
partnering in international markets: perspective from Chinese construction
companies. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (1), 30–43.
El-Gohary, N.M., Osman, H., El-Diraby, T.E., 2006. Stakeholder management
for public private partnerships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (7), 595–604.
Elo, S., Kyngäs,H., 2008.The qualitative contentanalysis process.J. Adv.
Nurs. 62, 107–115.
Firouzi, A., Yang, W., Li, C., 2016. Prediction of total cost of construction project
with dependent cost items. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142 (12), 04016072.
Flyvbjerg,B., Holm,M.S., Buhl,S., 2002.Underestimating costs in public
works projects: error or lie? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 68 (3), 279–295.
Francom,T., ASMar, M.El, Ariaratnam,S., 2016.Performance analysis of
construction managerat risk on pipeline engineering and construction
projects. J. Manag. Eng. 32 (6), 04016016.
Freeman,R.E., 1984. StrategicManagement:A StakeholderApproach.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Friedman,A.L., Miles, S., 2002.Developing stakeholdertheory.J. Manag.
Stud. 39, 1–21.
Gullino, S., 2009. Urban regeneration and democratization of information access:
CitiStat experience in Baltimore. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (6), 2012–2019.
Guo, F., Chang-Richards, Y., Wilkinson, S., Li, T.C., 2014. Effects of project
governance structures on the managementof risks in major infrastructure
projects: a comparative analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (5), 815–826.
Han,S.H.,Diekmann,J.E., Ock,J.H., 2005.Contractor's risk attitudes in the
selection of international construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 131
(3), 283–292.
Hwang,B.G., Ng, H.B., 2016.Projectnetwork management:risks and
contributorsfrom the viewpointof contractorsand sub-contractors.
Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 22 (4), 631–648.
Hwang,B.G., Zhao, X., Toh, L.P., 2014. Risk managementin small
construction projects in Singapore: status, barriers and impact. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 32 (1), 116–124.
Jeerangsuwan, T., Said, H., Kandil, A., Ukkusuri, S., 2014. Financial evaluat
for toll road projectsconsideringtraffic volumeand serviceability
interactions. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 20 (3), 04014012.
Jergeas,G.F., Williamson,E., Skulmoski,G.J., Thomas,J.L., 2000.
Stakeholder managementon construction projects.AACE Int. Trans.12,
12.11–12.16 (PM).
Karlsen,J.T., 2002.Projectstakeholder management.Eng.Manag.J. 14 (4),
19–24.
Kerzner,H., 2001.ProjectManagement:A Systems Approach to Planning
Scheduling and Controlling. 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Krippendorff, K., 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodolog
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Latham, M., 1994. Constructing the Team. HMSO, London.
Lehtiranta,L., 2011.Relationalrisk managementin construction projects:
modeling the complexity. Leadersh. Manag. Eng. 11 (2), 141–154.
Lehtiranta, L., 2014. Risk perceptions and approaches in multi-organizatio
research review 2000–2012. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (4), 640–653.
Li, H., Arditi, D., Wang, Z.,2014. Transaction costs incurred by construction
owners. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 21 (4), 444–458.
Littau, P., Jujagiri, N.J., Adlbrecht, G., 2010. 25 years of stakeholder theory
project management literature (1984–2009). Proj. Manag. J. 41 (4), 17–.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., Bracken, C.C., 2002. Content analysis in ma
communication:Assessmentand reporting of intercoder reliability.Hum.
Commun. Res. 28 (4), 587–604.
Loosemore,M., 2011. Managingstakeholderperceptionsof risk and
opportunity in socialinfrastructure projects using a multimedia approach.
Int. J. Proj. Organ. Manag. 3 (3–4), 307–315.
Loosemore, M., Lim, B.T.H., 2017. Linking corporate social responsibility an
organizationalperformance in the construction industry.Constr.Manag.
Econ. 35 (3), 90–105.
Loosemore, M., Raftery, J., Reilly, C., Higgon, D., 2006. Risk management i
projects. 2nd ed. Taylor and Francis, New York.
Loushine,T.W., Hoonakker,P.L.T., Carayon,P., Smith,M.J., 2006.Quality
and safety management in construction. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell
(9), 1171–1212.
Love, P.E.D., Davis,P.R., Chevis,R., Edwards,D.J., 2011.Risk/reward
compensation modelfor civilengineering infrastructure alliance projects.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137 (2), 127–136.
Love,P.E.D.,Teo,P., Morrison,J., Grove,M., 2016.Quality and safety in
construction: creating a no-harm environment.J. Constr.Eng.Manag.142 (8),
05016006.
Lowe, D., Leiringer, R., 2006. Commercial Management of Projects: Definin
the Discipline. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Luu, V.T., Kim, S., Tuan, Y.N.V., Ogunlana, S.O., 2009. Quantifying schedul
risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief networks.Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 27 (1), 39–50.
Lyons,T., Skitmore,M., 2004.Projectrisk managementin the Queensland
engineering construction industry:a survey.Int. J. Proj. Manag.22 (1),
51–61 (Property and Construction 20 (3), 286–319).
McCaskey, M., 1982. The Executive Challenge. Pitman Publishing Inc., Mar
McCord,J., McCord,M., Davis,P.T., Haran,M., Rodgers,W.J., 2015.
Understanding delaysin housing construction:evidence from Northern
Ireland. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 20 (3), 286–319.
McElroy,B., Mills,C., 2000.Managing stakeholders.Gower handbook of project
management. Gower Publishing Limited, Burlington, VT,pp. 757–775.
Meng, X., 2012. The effect of relationship management on project perform
in construction. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (2), 188–198.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience:defining the principle of who and whatreally
counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 853–886.
Mok, K.Y., Shen,G.Q.,Yang,J., 2015.Stakeholder managementstudies in
mega construction projects:a review and future directions.Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (2), 446–457.
Mostafa,S., Chileshe,N., Abdelhamid,T., 2016.Lean and agile integration
within offsite construction using discrete eventsimulation:a systematic
literature review. Constr. Innov. 16 (4), 483–525.
714 N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715

Mu, S., Cheng,H., Chohr,M., Peng,W., 2014.Assessing risk management
capability of contractors in subway projects in mainland China. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 32 (3), 452–460.
Nguyen,T.P., Chileshe,N., 2015.Revisiting the construction projectfailure
factors in Vietnam. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 5 (4), 398–416.
Olander,S., 2007. Stakeholderimpactanalysisin constructionproject
management. Constr. Manag. Econ. 25 (3), 277–287.
Olander,S., Landin,A., 2005.Evaluation ofstakeholderinfluence in the
implementation ofconstruction projects.Int. J. Proj. Manag.23 (4),
321–328.
Olsson, R., 2007. In search of opportunity management: is the risk management
process enough? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25 (8), 745–752.
Oppong,G.D., Chan,A.P., Dansoh,A., 2017.A review of stakeholder
managementperformance attributes in construction projects.Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 35 (6), 1037–1051.
Pawan,P., Lorterapong,P., 2016.A fuzzy-based integrated framework for
assessing time contingency in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
142 (3), 04015083.
PMI (Project Management Institute), 2013. A Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (Newton Square, PA).
Rebelo, M.F., Santos, G., Silva, R., 2016. Integration of management systems:
towards a sustained success and developmentof organizations.J. Clean.
Prod. 127, 96–111.
Rose, T., Manley, K., 2010. Client recommendations for financial incentives on
construction projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 17 (3), 252–267.
Shahata,K., Zayed,T., 2016.Integrated risk-assessmentframework for
municipal infrastructure. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142 (1), 04015052.
Shealy,T., Klotz, L., Weber,E.U., Johnson,E.J., Bell, R.G., 2016.Using
framing effects to inform more sustainable infrastructure design decisions.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142 (9), 04016037.
Shi, Q., Liu, Y., Zuo, J., Pan, N., Ma, G., 2015. On the management of social
risks of hydraulic infrastructure projects in China: a case study. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (3), 483–496.
Shokri,S., Haas,C.T., Haas,R.C.G.,Lee,S.H.,2016.Interface-management
process formanaging risks in complex capitalprojects.J. Constr.Eng.
Manag. 142 (2), 04015069.
Tang,W., Qiang,M., Duffield,C.F., Young, D.M., Lu, Y., 2007.Risk
management in the Chinese construction industry.J. Constr.Eng.Manag.
133 (12), 944–956.
Tang, L., Shen, Q., Skitmore, M., Cheng, E.W.L., 2013. Ranked critical factors
in PPP briefings. J. Manag. Eng. 29 (2), 164–171.
Taroun, A.,2014. Towards a better modelling and assessment of construction
risk: insights from a literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (1), 101–115.
Tranfield,D., Denyer,D., Smart,P., 2003.Towardsa methodology for
developingevidence-informedmanagementknowledgeby meansof
systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.
Tsai, C.C., Wen, M.C.L., 2005. Research and trends in science education from
1998 to 2002:a contentanalysis of publications in selected journals.Int.
J. Sci. Educ. 27 (1), 3–14.
Tymvios, N., Gambatese, J.A., 2016. Perceptions about design for construction
workersafety:viewpointsfrom contractors,designers,and university
facility owners. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142 (2), 04015078.
Van Os,A., Van Berkel,F., De Gilder,D., Van Dyck,C., Groenewegen,P.,
2015.Projectrisk as identity threat:explaining thedevelopmentand
consequences ofrisk discourse in an infrastructure project.Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (4), 877–888.
Walker,D.H.T., Bourne,L.M., Shelley,A., 2008.Influence,stakeholder
mapping and visualization. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (6), 645–658.
Wallace, M., Wray, A., 2016. Critical Reading and Writing for Postgradua
Sage Publications, London.
Wang,J., Yuan, H., 2011.Factorsaffecting contractors'risk attitudesin
construction projects:case study from China.Int.J. Proj.Manag.29 (2),
209–219.
Wang,J., Zou,P.X., Li, P.P., 2016a.Criticalfactors and paths influencing
constructionworkers'safetyrisk tolerances.Accid. Anal. Prev. 93,
267–279.
Wang, C.M., Xu, B.B., Zhang,S.J., Chen, Y.Q., 2016b.Influenceof
personality and risk propensity on risk perception of Chinese constru
project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (7), 1294–1304.
Wang,T., Tang,W., Du, L., Duffield,C.F., Wei, Y., 2016c.Relationships
among risk management,partnering,and contractor capability in interna-
tional EPC project delivery. J. Manag. Eng. 32 (6), 04016017.
Wang, X., Xia, N., Zhang, Z., Wu, C., Liu, B., 2017. Human safety risks a
their interactions in China's subways: stakeholder perspectives.J. Manag.
Eng. 33 (5), 05017004.
Ward,S., Chapman,C., 2008.Stakeholders and uncertainty managementin
projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (6), 563–577.
Xia, N., Zhong,R., Wu, C., Wang,X., Wang,S., 2017.Assessmentof
stakeholder-related risks in construction projects: integrated analyse
attributesand stakeholderinfluences.J. Constr.Eng. Manag.143 (8),
04017030.
Xu, J.W., Moon, S., 2014. Stochastic revenue and cost model for determ
BOT concession period under multiple project constraints. J. Manag. E
30 (3), 04014011.
Yang, R.J., Zou, P.X.W., 2014. Stakeholder-associatedrisks and their
interactions in complex green building projects:a socialnetwork model.
Build. Environ. 73, 208–222.
Yang, R.J., Wang, Y., Jin, X.-H., 2014. Stakeholders' attributes, behaviors
decision–makingstrategiesin constructionprojects:importanceand
correlations in practice. Proj. Manag. J. 45 (3), 74–90.
Yang, R.J., Zou, P.X.W., Wang, J., 2016. Modelling stakeholder-associated
networks in green building projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (1), 66–81.
Zavadskas,E.K., Turskis,Z., Tamošaitiene,J., 2010.Risk assessmentof
construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 16 (1), 33–46.
Zhang,X., 2011.Socialrisksfor internationalplayersin the construction
market: a China study. Habitat Int. 35 (3), 514–519.
Zhang, S., Zhang, S., Gao, Y., Ding, X., 2016. Contractual governance: e
of risk allocation on contractors'cooperative behaviorin construction
projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142 (6), 04016005.
Zhao,Z.Y., Zhao,X.J., Davidson,K., Zuo, J., 2012.A corporate social
responsibility indicator system for construction enterprises. J. Clean.
29, 277–289.
Zohar, D., 2010. Thirty years of safety climate research: reflections and
directions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42 (5), 1517–1522.
Zou, P.X., Zhang,G., Wang,J., 2007.Understanding thekey risks in
construction projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25 (6), 601–614.
Zou, P.X.W., Chen, Y., Chan, T., 2010. Understanding and improving you
managementcapability:assessmentmodelfor construction organizations.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (8), 854–863.
715N. Xia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 36 (2018) 701–715