MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020)

https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

Sustainability in Project Management Practice

Aghaegbuna Ozumba1*, Tasmiyah Chothia 1, Zanoxolo Booi1 and Nikiwe Madonsela 1
1University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts Ave, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa

Abstract. The study focused on the application of sustainability in project

management, with reference to attendant difficulties experienced, which
affect the goal of achieving sustainability outcomes in project management.
As such the study explored the nature and occurrence of challenges
to the integration of sustainability principles with PM practice. A review
of purposively sampled literature was complemented with fieldwork, which
involved an online questionnaire with eighty-nine participants, to collect
qualitative data, using South Africa as context. The major limitation was
the purposive use of professional project managers as a sample population.
The findings reveal that project managers experience significant challenges
when implementing sustainability in their practice. While confirming
deductions from the literature review, findings suggest that the most
significant challenge may be the lack of information among participants and
other stakeholders. One major implication is that other identified difficulties
may be traceable to the same lack of knowledge in the subject area.
Identified consequences include delayed projects and complete
abandonment of the sustainability principles in projects. The integration
of sustainability principles with project management practice is a growing
niche area of project management knowledge. The study contributes
a unique exploration of nature and occurrence, and dynamics of attendant
challenges, through a comparison of experience and perception.
The comparison has highlighted the differences between the experience and
perception of project managers, with reference to the application
of sustainability principles.

Keywords: challenges, knowledge, practice, project management,

sustainability

1 Introduction
The research interest here is the apparent challenge faced by project managers in practising
sustainable construction. Essentially the challenges faced when incorporating the relevant
sustainability principles in project management (PM) practice. Sustainability is the general
principle of a balanced approach to development which considers the three-fold perspective
of the environment, people, and the economy [1]. The increasing global sensitivity towards
sustainability has resulted in the effort by industries to research and establish effective

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

methods to incorporate the relevant principles in their processes [2]. The built environment
is a major contributor to economy and employment, which also has a profound negative
impact on the people, and the biophysical environment. In view of the implications, the
construction industry has made efforts to incorporate sustainability into design, procurement,
and construction processes [3]. The growing interest in applying sustainability
in construction projects has been reported in the literature such as Kivilä et al. [4]. There
is also evidence in the literature, of the growing discourse and efforts in the application
of sustainability to construction project management such as Yu et al. [5], Doskočil and
Lacko [6] and Zavadskas et al. [7]. Since construction runs by projects, it follows that relevant
sustainability principles would have to be integrated with project management practice,
to achieve the aim. According to Bocchini et al. [8], this is a means to positively introduce
sustainability in construction projects. Marcelino-Sádabaa et al. [2] had proposed PM
as a largely unexploited vehicle for the achievement of sustainability.

2 Sustainability and Project Management

By nature, sustainability is focused on the long-term view of any situation, seeking
to integrate the social, environmental and economic aspects of a project. Conversely, PM
is focused on the project duration, seeking to achieve the desired time, cost and quality
specifications of the project. However, according to Silvius et al. [9] the application
of sustainability in PM considers the whole life-cycle of the project. It is also suspected that
the integration of economic, environmental and social aspects in the management of projects
may occasion changes in the project management profession. Project managers (PMs) are
said to be concerned that such integration will affect project management practices and
project managers’ competencies [10]. In addition, Silvius, et al. [9] notes that the failure
of PM standards to address sustainability in terms of competency makes it difficult to apply
sustainability in projects. Misopoulos et al. [11] with a focus on the manufacturing industry
highlights the lack of holistic approaches which do not factor in the systemic and institutional
issues. Kivilä et al. [4] further support the need for a holistic approach to achieve sustainable
project goals. It has also been reported that while there is more focus on sustainability
in projects by PMs, there is a gap between what they perceive as important and the practical
application [12].
From the multi-dimensional systemic view of sustainability, the need should be to achieve
environmental, economic and social sustainability from project outcomes. As such, there
is a need to integrate sustainability in all its ramifications, into the functions, roles, and
responsibilities of project managers. However, attempts at achieving such integration
in many countries have been known to face challenges [3]. It has been said that sustainability
dimensions/principles are difficult to incorporate into construction programmes and projects.
However, there is insufficient information in the area of challenges, especially empirical
studies. Marcelino-Sádaba et al. [2] highlight the scarcity of relevant information.
Silvius et al. [28] acknowledge the growing momentum in research around sustainability
in project management. The authors also highlight the need for more empirical research.
Yu et al. [5] also highlight the lack of project-level focus in the design of evaluation systems
for sustainability in projects. Marcelino-Sádaba et al. [2] further assert that more progress has
been made in the environmental focus of relevant research, than the social aspect, which
would be the domain for PM. Generally, extant literature, for the most part, is focused
on issues such as analysing key aspects of sustainability projects [6]; introduction
of management systems [13]; PM commitment to sustainability [14]; sustainability
assessment [7]; Project sustainability performance [15]; technology, Materials, risk, and cost
[7]; Design [7, 16, 17]; Critical success factors [18]; stakeholders, organisational goals [19];
and innovation diffusion [18, 20]. Most existing studies do not present a concise picture

2
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

of the nature and occurrence of challenges, for better classifications and articulation of the
dynamics, with regards to PM practice, and from the experiences and perceptions of PMs.
Thus the pertinent research question is:
What is the nature and occurrence of challenges to the integration of sustainability
principles with PM practice? Based on the foregoing, it would be necessary to understand the
factors which threaten the integration of sustainability principles with PM practice, especially
from the views of PMs. The research aim can then be stated as: To determine the nature and
occurrence of challenges to the integration of sustainability principles with PM practice, the
dynamics if any, in relation to PM practice, from the views of PMs. The current study
attempts to explore this gap area, starting with a review of extant literature, which
is complemented with the analysis of field data.

2.1 Challenges to Project Managers’ application of Sustainability Principles

A review of relevant literature on the topic was conducted. The following categories were
derived from literature review findings: Planning-related challenges, project-related
challenges, client-related challenges, project team-related challenges, labour-related
challenges, and external challenges. For the purpose of this paper, this section summarises
findings on challenges faced by project managers when applying sustainability principles
in project management, citing key references. They are described in more detail, hereunder,
using key literature sources for the above-mentioned challenges.

Planning-related challenges

Individual Challenges identified under this heading from extant literature are: Adoption
of different contract forms of project delivery; the design, orientation and structure of the
building; planning of different construction sequence; planning of different construction
technique; lengthy approval process for new green technologies within the organization;
longer time required during the pre-construction process; and difficulty in comprehending
the green specifications in the contract details. It is noteworthy that challenges identified
under this heading relate more to the organisational environment.

Project-related challenges

Challenges identified under this heading from extant literature are: Difficulty in approving
payment disbursement to suppliers and subcontractors; difficulty in assessing the progress
of completion in green construction; difficulty in the selection of subcontractors in providing
green construction service; more time is required to implement green construction practices
onsite; and more alteration and variation with the design during the construction process.

Client-related challenges

Challenges identified under this heading from extant literature are: Specific budget
specification of the green project; the objective of the building project; required date
of completion; the level of risk the client is willing to take on green technologies; the client
uses a lot of time in making a decision; and a special request from client pertaining to
specified green technologies to be used.

3
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

Project team-related challenges

Challenges identified under this heading from extant literature are: Conflict with the architect
over the type of material to be used; lack of communication and interest among project team
members; frequent meetings with green specialists; green consultant delay in providing
information; conflict of interest between consultant and project manager; specific
performance required for green building projects; material and equipment -related
challenges; high cost in green material and equipment; uncertainty with green material and
equipment; availability of green material and equipment; decision on different green material
and equipment; imported green material or equipment.

Labour -related challenges

Challenges identified under this heading from extant literature are: Resistance to change from
their traditional practices; lack of the technical skill regarding green technologies and
techniques; workers’ unaware of the correct methods and procedures.

External challenges

Challenges identified under this heading from extant literature are: Government policy;
the lengthy body of standards’ approval process for new technologies; and unforeseen
circumstances in a green project [9, 10, 21, 22-26].
Considering the categories and individual challenges, it is noteworthy that while some
challenges are grouped under external and labour-related, the PM and client role players,
seem to have the most influence. Essentially, most of the threats to the application
of sustainability in PM are related to planning, the project, the project team, and the client.
There is an appreciable effort in the existing literature to explore project managers and client
on the topic of integrating sustainability with PM. Most authors have focused generally on the
diffusion of sustainability principles in PM practice. Other authors have looked
at the compatibility of principles from sustainability and PM, and standards and competency
issues. Thus, while some explorations of the specific perspective on project managers’
experiences have begun, there is still an appreciable gap in this area. In addition, there seems
to be a dearth of information regarding such issues, in writings that are specifically focused
on emerging economies/developing countries of the world. Few authors have looked at the
specific perspective of project managers experiences, within developing country contexts.
This perspective is pertinent as developing countries are known to be facing strains from the
demands for development and construction, and constrained economies, with the emergent
need for higher sustainability in projects.
Martens and Carvello [12], note that PM is already inherent in construction projects.
As such the incorporation of sustainability will generate difficulties due to conflicts
of objectives, and knowledge gaps. It is therefore arguable that the achievement
of sustainability in projects constitutes additional responsibility for PMs generally.
It is further argued that the situation would be even more so for PMs in developing countries
such as South Africa.
In the context of South Africa, there are some landmark events which highlight efforts
to improve sustainability in construction. There are legislations such as the SANS 204 [27],
which provides guidelines for energy efficiency in buildings. There is the green building
council of South Africa which currently advocates sustainable construction through their
green building rating system. There is also an increase in research, however, there is still
a knowledge gap in the specific aspect of project managers’ application of sustainability
in their practice.

4
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

Hence the current study attempts to establish an additional understanding

of the dynamics, by specifically comparing experiences with perceptions, and exploring other
constructs such as the consequences. The comparison of experiences and perceptions of PMs
provide insight into the influence of identified challenges in terms of their impact, and the
response of PMs to their occurrence and perceived existence. The research design presented
hereunder was purposed to collect primary data for the current study.

3 Research Design for the study

This research starts from a positivist view, based on available information on the topic.
However, the specific focus required an exploratory/inductive reasoning approach to finally
collect and analyse qualitative data. Filed work questions were formulated based on literature
review findings. A cross-sectional survey strategy was used through an online questionnaire,
sent to a sample of construction and project managers. The participants were registered with
the South African Council for Project and Construction Management Professions
(SACPCMP). Participants were invited through the council’s official mailing system, while
completed responses were only accessible to the authors. A semi-structured questionnaire
with a combination of closed and open-ended questions was designed through the Qualtrics
online survey system. Responses were retrieved in September 2016. Issues of validity and
reliability were addressed by analysing and testing the instruments and assessing the response
magnitude (130), and completeness of responses. Ethical issues adhered to include
anonymity, confidentiality, informed consent, and voluntary participation.

3.1 Findings
A total of (130) responses were received. About (32%), 41 responses were incomplete and
therefore discarded, leaving (89) usable responses. Project managers with experience
in sustainable construction projects numbered 55 (62%) out of the 89 responses, while those
without experience in sustainable construction made up the remaining (38%) 34 responses.
This diversity provided rich data as participants were asked to provide answers according to
what they have experienced (for those who had experience with sustainable construction) and
what they perceive to be experienced (for those who have only experienced conventional
projects). Other constructs were explored in the study. However, for the purpose of this paper,
‘challenges’ are presented, from the results of preliminary qualitative analysis, aimed
at achieving a description.

General Ranking of Challenges Experienced and Perceived

Respondents indicated and ranked challenges according to their experience and perception
respectively. Table 1 summarizes and ranks the results according to the challenges (perceived
and experienced) by project and construction managers.
Table 1. Challenges Experience and Perceived

Ranks Experienced Challenges Perceived Challenges

Meeting the objectives within the defined
1 Increased costs of materials and equipment.
budget.
Increased costs of materials and Meeting the objectives within the defined
2
equipment. budget.
Meeting the objectives within the defined
3 Increased level of risk involved.
time.

5
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

More alterations and variations with the

4 Incorporation of new technologies.
design.
Meeting the objectives within the defined
5 Communication between stakeholders.
time.
Selection of subcontractors in providing
6 Communication between stakeholders.
green construction service.
Planning of different construction
7 Increased level of risk involved.
technique.
Specific performance required for green Comprehending specifications with the
8
building projects. contract.
Planning of different construction Selection of subcontractors in providing
9
technique. green construction service.
More alterations and variations with the Specific performance required for green
10
design. building projects
Availability and uncertainty of the
11 Incorporation of new technologies.
materials and the equipment.
Meeting the objectives within the defined
12 Conflicts with project team members.
quality.
Increased involvement of project team Availability and uncertainty of the materials
13
members. and the equipment.
Incorporation of standards, regulations
14 Conflicts with project team members.
and legislation.
Meeting the objectives within the defined Increased involvement of project team
15
quality. members.
Comprehending specifications with the Incorporation of standards, regulations and
16
contract. legislation.
Green consultant delay in providing Adoption of different contract forms for
17
information. project delivery.
Adoption of different contract forms for Green consultant delay in providing
18
project delivery. information.

All challenges identified from the literature were indicated by the two respondent groups.
The inexperienced respondent group saw ‘increased costs of materials and equipment’, as the
top-ranking challenge, followed by ‘meeting the objectives within the defined budget’, and
the ‘increased level of risk involved’. Experienced respondents viewed the ‘achievement
of objectives within defined budget’, as top ranking, followed by increased costs of materials
and equipment, meeting the objectives within the defined time, and the incorporation of new
technologies.

Challenges according to Project Stages

Considering project lifecycle phases, respondents’ indications (perceived/experienced) sit

generally between the design development (stage 3) and construction and contract
administration (stage 5). Stage 5 also seems to have the most number of challenges.
Experienced participants indicated a ranking order of stages 5, 3, 4, etc. In contrast,
inexperienced participants perceive the order of stages 5, 4, 3, etc. This ranking is according
to the prevalence of challenges at respective project stages. See Table 2.

6
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

Table 2. Challenges Experience and Perceived

Ra Challenges Perceived as occurring in

Stages Challenges Experienced in projects
nks projects
Stage 1
- Project 1 Communication between stakeholders. Communication between stakeholders.
initiatio
n Increased involvement of project team Increased involvement of project team
2
and members. members.
briefing Meeting the objectives within the Green consultant delay in providing
3
defined quality. information.

Stage 2 1 Communication between stakeholders. Communication between stakeholders.

-
Concept Green consultant delay in providing
2 Conflicts with project team members.
and information.
viability Increased involvement of project team Incorporation of standards, regulations
3
members. and legislation.
Green consultant delay in providing Incorporation of standards, regulations
Stage 3 1
information. and legislation.
- Design
develop Green consultant delay in providing
2 Communication between stakeholders.
ment information.
Incorporation of standards, regulations Increased involvement of project team
3
and legislation. members.
Selection of subcontractors in Comprehending specifications with
Stage 4 1
providing green construction service. the contract.
- Tender
docume Comprehending specifications with Adoption of different contract forms
2
ntation the contract. for project delivery.
and
Adoption of different contract forms Selection of subcontractors in
procure 3
for project delivery. providing green construction service.
ment
Meeting the objectives within the Meeting the objectives within the
Stage 5 1
defined time. defined time.
-
Constru More alterations and variations with Meeting the objectives within the
2
ction the design. defined quality.
and
contract Increased costs of materials and Increased costs of materials and
3
adminis equipment. equipment.
tration
Increased involvement of project team
Stage 6 1 Communication between stakeholders.
members.
- Project
closeout Incorporation of standards, regulations Meeting the objectives within the
2
and legislation. defined quality.
Meeting the objectives within the
3 Communication between stakeholders.
defined time.

7
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

Prevalence of Identified Challenges

With regards to prevalence according to the rate of occurrence, the following key was used
(seldom, moderate and often). Experienced respondents indicated most of the challenges as
often occurring, while inexperienced respondents perceived a moderate rate of occurrence
for most challenges. Both groups indicated differently in terms of ranking of prevalence,
though they agree on the top-ranked “Meeting the objectives within the defined budget”. See
Table 3.
Table 3. Frequency of Challenges Experience and Perceived

Rank
Experienced Challenges Perceived Challenges
ing
Meeting the objectives within the defined Meeting the objectives within the defined
1
budget. time.
More alterations and variations with the Green consultant delay in providing
2
design. information.
Incorporation of standards, regulations and
3 Communication between stakeholders.
legislation.
4 Increased costs of materials and equipment. Increased costs of materials and equipment.
Comprehending specifications with the
5 Increased level of risk involved.
contract.
Meeting the objectives within the defined Meeting the objectives within the defined
6
time. budget.
Comprehending specifications with the More alterations and variations with the
7
contract. design.
Selection of subcontractors in providing
8 Communication between stakeholders.
green construction service.
Increased involvement of project team Specific performance required for green
9
members. building projects.
Incorporation of standards, regulations and Selection of subcontractors in providing
10
legislation. green construction service.
Increased involvement of project team
11 Conflicts with project team members.
members.
Meeting the objectives within the defined Availability and uncertainty of the
12
quality. materials and the equipment.
Meeting the objectives within the defined
13 Incorporation of new technologies.
quality.
Specific performance required for green
14 Increased level of risk involved.
building projects.
Planning of different construction Planning of different construction
15
technique. technique.
Adoption of different contract forms for
16 Incorporation of new technologies.
project delivery.
Availability and uncertainty of the
17 Conflicts with project team members.
materials and the equipment.
Green consultant delay in providing Adoption of different contract forms for
18
information. project delivery.

8
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

Significance of Identified Challenges

Following the five categories derived from analysis of literature review findings, participants
were asked to rate their relative significance. The questionnaires were given in a five-point
Likert type scale (from [5] - extremely challenging, to [1] - not challenging at all). According
to experienced participants, the challenges range from moderately challenging to extremely
challenging. See Figure 1.

džƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚ WĞƌĐĞŝǀĞĚ
ŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐ

Figure 1. Comparison of the significance of identified Challenges

Labour-related challenges were ranked as the most significant factors. Client related
challenges were very challenging. The rest were moderately challenging. Inexperienced
respondents perceived a shorter spectrum, which ranged between moderately challenging and
very challenging. They also highlighted client and labour related challenges as being very
challenging. Project team challenges, material and equipment related challenges, and external
challenges were perceived as being moderately challenging.

3.2 Discussion
Firstly, from the results presented thus far, there is a suggestion of strong correspondence
with literature review findings. Secondly results of analysis highlight labour issues as top-
ranking amongst the extremely challenging factors. However, among researchers,
the economic factors remain the most critical and the main challenge when integrating
sustainability into construction project management. The survey result, however, suggests
that major costs result mostly from a lack of knowledge about sustainability principles and
their application. Thirdly there seems to be a lack of knowledge and experience among
stakeholders within sustainable projects. This knowledge gap seems to manifest
as incompetence by project managers which contributes to difficulties encountered. Another
major source of difficulties is poor implementation of processes and financial feasibility
of sustainable projects, which could be indirectly linked to knowledge-related issues.
Consequently, there are project delays, cost increases, quality compromises and poor

9
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

working relationships. Poor implementation of the process is arguably traceable to a lack

of knowledge among project managers and other stakeholders.
In addition, one of the major challenges to South African construction industry growth
is the high cost of construction materials. However, regarding sustainable construction,
Akadiri [26] asserts the existence of misperceptions about the costs of sustainable materials.
The same notions were noted in the current study. From other evidence gathered during the
study, it was deduced that poor perceptions of sustainable project management, and
inadequate understanding of the full spectrum of associated costs, constitute a major part
of the knowledge-related issues. Gaps in the demonstrated understanding of important issues
around the application of sustainability by project managers were also suggested in Martens
and Carvalho [12]. Without clear evaluation systems for sustainability at the project level,
as noted by Yu et al. [5], there is very little check and balances that highlight the knowledge-
related gaps. Also, Marly et al. [17] emphasised the knowledge gap between
ecological/sustainable design and project management, in the area of product development.
The need for Project management guidelines was also highlighted. These assertions point
more at knowledge-related factors.
About (83%) of respondents agreed that project and construction managers need specified
skills and knowledge beyond the PMBoK to effectively deliver sustainability goals
in projects. Most respondents also see the integration of sustainability and PM
as ‘the comparison of the incomparable’, which speaks to the conflicts of principles
highlighted in Silvius and Schipper’s [10]. Such conflicts would also emanate from
organisational factors, which manifest as institutional and systemic challenges, as suggested
by Misopoulos et al. [11]. Some respondents specifically highlight these conflicts and
demonstrate discomfort in relation to the question. They also hint at the natural reaction
of generating a coping mechanism when there is a perceived lack of capacity or difficulty:

Conflicting specifications and goals. At best difficult to achieve financial and project
goals with sustainability. You have to mix the negatives with the positives and be content with
what you get.

There is a moderate level of alignment between experienced and perceived difficulties,

from the survey result. However, there are some less subtle misalignments, of which the
seven most significant relate to quality, risks involved in projects, contracts, materials and
equipment, and incorporation of new technologies and design variations. There are also clear
misalignments with then two groups of responses, in timing the occurrence of some
challenges. Such clear misalignments suggest knowledge gaps ultimately. This will occasion
inadequacy in current approaches because the full spectrum of relevant issues may not
be factored into PM planning and execution. The need for a holistic approach to sustainability
in project management was highlighted in Silvius et al. [28]; Kivilä et al. [4].
In the context of South Africa, the existing preferential procurement environment acts
as a challenge to industry growth because it forces stakeholder selection based on factors
other than quality and competence. In the context of sustainable construction, this situation
would increase the risk of failure and therefore act as a major deterrent towards the
integration of sustainability principles. Some respondents in the current study identified
certain factors as external and beyond the immediate environment of PMs and stakeholders.
In response to the question of the consequences of applying sustainability to PM, some
respondents answered:

Taxpayer will be held responsible in case of failure! As well BEE policies occur into the
failure of the project (qualifications are not existent).

10
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

We end up with projects with long term environmental impacts.

The said BEE policies refer to preferential procurement policies aimed at empowering
local companies that are owned by people of African descent. From the responses,
it is evident that in the case of failure; people who had no contribution and sometimes even
knowledge of such projects happen to be the ones held responsible. The use of an exclamation
indicates an emotion that is related to the question. It could also hint at a point of frustration.
The second response highlights the inevitable negative consequences, which become long
term negative influence on the environment. Preferential procurement has been strongly
linked to the failure of such projects, which again suggests issues of knowledge and
competence.

4 Conclusions
The current study explored the difficulties experienced by project managers when
sustainability principles are applied in PM. The effect of this integration on the dual goals
of achieving sustainability and project success within the South African construction industry
was explored. Purposively selected literature was used for secondary data while an online
survey strategy was used for primary data. While various constructs were explored in the
survey, the focus of the current paper is challenging. Although the analysis was conducted at
various levels, only results of the descriptive analysis were presented in the current paper.
Limitations in the study relate to purposive sampling, nature of survey response, and
completeness of responses. Though over (30%) of the (130) retrieved responses were
discarded, the remaining (89) complete responses amounted to an appreciable numerical
strength, which allowed for rich comparison between two groups of data. In addition, the
agreement of the results with extant literature sampled globally lends a measure of strength
to the results in terms of generalisability beyond South Africa, at least to similar developing
country contexts. Following the findings from data analysis and the subsequent discussion
of the findings with extant literature, the guiding research question stated earlier can
be addressed hereunder.
With regards to the nature and occurrence of challenges, there is a strong similarity with
extant literature. The overarching deduction at this stage is a strong suggestion that the
challenges may be largely traceable to gaps in knowledge among project managers and other
project stakeholders. It is however in the indicated patterns of occurrence that various
dynamics are highlighted. Such differences relate more to the unique nature of the analysis
in the current paper. The uniqueness refers to the comparison of experience with perception,
of the respondents. While the respondents generally agree on the existence of all challenges
explored, there are clear areas of disagreement for seven of the identified challenges. Further
on the dynamics, the occurrence of challenges differed by views of respondent groups,
project stages, and prevalence. Similarly, the extent of consequences from the challenges
ranged from delayed projects to complete abandonment of the sustainability principles.
Furthermore, there is an appreciable level of discomfort/concern with the notion
of integrating sustainability with PM, among respondents generally. Moreover, the
differences between the views of experienced and inexperienced PMs with regard to
sustainable construction ranged between subtle and strong. The function of knowledge in the
outcomes derived from the current paper is highly suggested.
Arguably the current study brings a unique perspective to the growing area of research,
which is sustainability in project management. While there is limited information on the
challenges of integrating sustainability in PM practice, there is even more scarcity
of literature exploring dynamics related to experiences and perceptions of PMs. The
uniqueness refers to the comparison of experience-based assessment with views based

11
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

on people’s perception of the probable nature and occurrence of the relevant challenges.
Thus, a stronger basis has been achieved, for future extrapolations, analysis and articulation
of findings from future studies. Essentially the current study contributes new material, with
a focus on threats to the integration of sustainability in project management practice,
as opposed to most studies which focus more on diffusion generally. The current study also
brings new insights to the study area by highlighting the emerging dynamics in actual
experiences/observations vs. perceptions of nature and occurrence thereof.
Appreciable conjectures have been drawn at this stage of the study. There is however
a need to further explore the highlights and the seeming patterns. Such future studies will
provide further insight into the dynamics of the factors that influenced the experiences and
perceptions of participants. It would also be beneficial to attempt at drawing a stronger
demarcation between the assessment of observed/actual occurrence of challenges, and the
perceptions, even for respondents with experience in sustainable construction projects. While
some of the challenges are most probably linked to contextual factors in South Africa, the
appreciable agreement with extant literature sampled globally expands the generalisability
beyond South Africa. It also demands the continuance of the study to higher levels
of generalisability.
In furtherance of the current study, the following are suggested: A widening of the sample
to a regional level, more detailed qualitative analysis with the use of relevant software
packages, and the derivation of propositions, or hypotheses in future studies.

References
1. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future. Great
Britain: Oxford University Press (1987), Available at: www.un-documents.net/our-
common-future.pdf. [Accessed: 17 April 2016]
2. S. Marcelino-Sádabaa, L.F. González-Jaenb, A. Pérez-Ezcurdiaa, Using project
management as a way to sustainability: From a comprehensive review, Journal of
Cleaner Production 99:1-16 (2015)
3. F. Tessema, K. Taipale, J. Bethge, Sustainable Buildings and Construction in Africa,
(2009), Available from: http://www.scp-
centre.org/fileadmin/content/files/6_Resources/1_Publications_pdfs/28_Tessema_Taip
ale_Bethge__2009__Sustainable_Building_and_Construction_in_Africa_en.pdf.
[Accessed: 17 April 2016]
4. J. Kivilä, M. Martinsuo, L. Vuorinen, Sustainable project management through project
control in infrastructure projects, International Journal of Project Management
35(6):1167-1183 (2017)
5. W. Yu, S. Cheng, W. Ho, Y. Chang, Measuring the Sustainability of Construction
Projects throughout Their Lifecycle: A Taiwan Lesson, Sustainability 10(6):2027
(2018)
6. R. Doskočil, B. Lacko, Risk Management and Knowledge Management as Critical
Success Factors of Sustainability Projects, Sustainability 10(5):1438 (2018)
7. E.K. Zavadskas, J. Šaparauskas, J. Antucheviciene, Sustainability in Construction
Engineering, Sustainability 10(7):2236 (2018)
8. P. Bocchini, D.M. Frangopol, T. Ummenhofer, T. Zinke, Resilience and sustainability
of civil infrastructure: toward a unified approach, Journal of Infrastructure Systems,
20(2) (2014)

12
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

9. A.J. Silvius, J. Van der Brink, A. Kohler, The Impact of sustainability on project
management, in H. Linger, J. Owen (Eds), The Project as a Social System. Asia-Pacific
Perspectives on Project Management (Monash University Publishing, 2012)
10. A.J. Silvius, P.J Schipper, Sustainability in Project Management Competencies:
Analysing the competence gap of project managers (2014), Available at:
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JHRSS_2014060310032620.pdf . [Accessed 19 May 2016].
11. F. Misopoulos, R. Michaelides, M.A. Salehuddin, V. Manthou, Z. Michaelides,
Addressing Organisational Pressures as Drivers towards Sustainability in
Manufacturing Projects and Project Management Methodologies, Sustainability
10(6):2098 (2018)
12. L.M. Martens, M.M. Carvalho, The challenge of introducing sustainability into project
management function: multiple-case studies, Journal of Cleaner Production
117(20):29-40 (2016)
13. S. Martínez-Perales, I. Ortiz-Marcos, J.J. Ruiz, F.J. Lázaro, Using Certification as a
Tool to Develop Sustainability in Project Management, Sustainability 10(5):1408
(2018)
14. G. Clinning, C. Marnewick, Incorporating sustainability into IT project management,
South African Computer Journal 29(1) (2017)
15. L. Shen, V.W.Y. Tam, L. Gan, K. Ye, Z. Zhao, Improving Sustainability Performance
for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) Projects, Sustainability 8(3):289 (2016)
16. F. Ali, C. Boks, N. Bey, Design for Sustainability and Project Management Literature
– A Review, Procedia CIRP 48:28-33 (2016)
17. F.B. Marly, M. de Carvalho, E. de Senzi Zancul, Ecodesign in project management: a
missing link for the integration of sustainability in product development? Journal of
Cleaner Production 80(1):106-118 (2014)
18. S. Banihashemi, M.R. Hosseini, H. Golizadeh, S. Sankaran, 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 (2017)
19. M.A. Sánchez, Integrating sustainability issues into project management, Journal of
Cleaner Production 96(1):319-330 (2015)
20. L. Larsson, J. Larsson, Sustainable Development in Project-Based Industries–
Supporting the Realization of Explorative Innovation, Sustainability 10(3):683 (2018)
21. E. Kaatz, D. Root, P. Bowen, Broadening project participation through a modified
building sustainability assessment, Building Research & Information 33(5):441-454
(2005)
22. B.G. Hwang, W.J. Ng, Project management knowledge and skills for green
construction: Overcoming challenges, International Journal of Project Management
(2013)
23. B.G. Hwang, W.J. Ng, Are Project Managers Ready for Green Construction?
Challenges, Knowledge Areas, and Skills, in CIB World Building Congress,
Queensland, Australia, 1-12 (2013)
24. B.G. Hwang, J.S. Tan, Green building project management: Obstacles and solutions
for sustainable development, Sustainable development 335-349 (2012)
25. B.G. Hwang, W.J. Ng, Project management knowledge and skills for green
construction; Overcoming challenges. International Journal of Project Management
(2012)

13
MATEC Web of Conferences 312, 02015 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202031202015
EPPM2018

26. P.E. Akadiri, Understanding barriers affecting the selection of sustainable materials in
building projects. Journal of Building Engineering 4:86-93 (2015)
27. The South African Bureau of Standards (n.d.) Giving you the quality edge, Available
at: https://www.sabs.co.za/About-SABS/index.asp [Accessed: 7 June 2018]
28. A.J.G. Silvius, M. Kampinga, S. Paniagua, H. Mooi, Considering sustainability in
project management decision making: An investigation using Q-methodology,
International Journal of Project Management 35(6):1133-1150 (2017)

14