The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2398-4708.htm

Decisive factors for decision- Procurement in

construction
making to achieving sustainable projects

procurement in
construction projects
Innocent Chigozie Osuizugbo Received 25 April 2022
Revised 7 June 2022
Department of Building Technology, Bells University of Technology, Ota, Nigeria, and 21 July 2022
Olumide Afolarin Adenuga 10 August 2022
16 August 2022
Department of Building, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria Accepted 22 August 2022

Abstract
Purpose – This study aimed at determining the decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects.
Design/methodology/approach – Questionnaire survey of principal stakeholders involved in construction
project delivery within client, consulting and contracting organisations in Nigeria were conducted to assess
stakeholders’ perspectives on the decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction
projects using importance weights. A total of 243 questionnaires were distributed and a response rate of 51%
(123 questionnaires were adequately filled and returned) was achieved. Descriptive and inferential statistics
were utilised in analysing elicited data.
Findings – The results from data analysis showed that “satisfaction – including workforce satisfaction and
user satisfaction”, “value for money” and “creating a healthy, nontoxic environment – including high indoor air
quality” were the top most three decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction
projects in Nigeria.
Originality/value – An understanding of these decisive factors can help principal stakeholders in the
construction industry of developing countries to facilitate the development of methods required in supporting
the adoption of sustainable procurement practice.
Keywords Construction projects, Decision-making, Decisive factors, Sustainability, Sustainable procurement
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The construction industry is one of the leading contributors to economic developments in
most countries. The industry is a vital source of job creation and employment (Osuizugbo,
2020a), and it contributes between 6 and 9% of the total economic output across the globe
(Osuizugbo and Ojelabi, 2020). The construction sector is the means of livelihood for owners
of construction organisations, construction professionals, skilled and unskilled workers in
the sector. Also, the sector is an avenue through which countries realise its potential goals for
rural and urban development (Kanyago et al., 2017).
Despite its positive contributions, the activities associated with the construction have a
negative impact on the environment. For instance, De Luca et al. (2020) reported that activities
of the industry consume a large amount of natural materials and resources and at the same
time produce undesirable amount of solid waste. Bidin et al. (2020) reiterated that, ecological
impacts, such as air quality reduction, pollution of waterways, biodiversity loss and global
warming, have been attributed to construction supply chain activities.
These threats that are associated with construction practices have led to clamouring for
an improved construction practice. A typical example of this clamour is the implementation International Journal of Building
Pathology and Adaptation
of ecological principles in the construction project’s lifecycle. This has been linked to the © Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-4708
development of a reasonably new and growing concept named “sustainable procurement”. DOI 10.1108/IJBPA-04-2022-0065
IJBPA The sustainable procurement management of a construction business is an important
concept for tackling environmental risks, improving compliance with environmental laws,
boosting operational productivity, reducing construction waste, aligning business activities
with sustainability objective and decreasing cost amongst others (Ershadi et al., 2021a; Bidin
et al., 2020; Ogunsanya et al., 2019).
A glean from literature showed a growing interest of scholars in the area of sustainable
procurement (Ershadi et al., 2021a; Bidin et al., 2020; Ogunsanya et al., 2019; Agbesi et al.,
2018). Greater number of these studies are domiciled in developed countries when compare to
developing countries. Despite the increase in number of studies into sustainable procurement
in construction in the past years, little is known about the appropriate set of criteria for
applicability evaluation of construction projects. Moreover, developing country such as
Nigeria still depends largely on non-sustainable practices (Ogunsanya et al., 2019). Okafor
et al. (2022) opined that, there is a need to strengthen awareness creation and the construction
professionals on adopting sustainable procurement strategies in Nigeria. Thus, this study
aimed at determining the decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects using Nigeria as a case study. Sustainable procurement practices have
been adopted in several countries such as United Kingdom, Brazil, Portugal and Canada due
to its benefits. In Portugal for example, sustainable procurement practices have put forward
many benefits for organisations and companies such as risk reduction, image strengthening,
stronger economy, healthier environment and increase in social welfare (De Mello et al., 2017).
Due to the benefits associated with sustainable procurement, there is a clear need for
implementation of the sustainable procurement practice in construction business; hence, an
in-depth study is needed to understand the criteria for achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects. An understanding of these criteria can help key stakeholders in the
construction industry of developing countries like Nigeria to ease development of methods
required in supporting the adoption and implementation of sustainable procurement practice.

Literature review
An overview of sustainable procurement in construction
The term procurement means the acquisition of goods or services from an external source. In
construction, procurement means the procedure for obtaining goods or services to realise a
construction project based on the predefined requirements (Montalban et al., 2017).
Procurement plays vital roles in project development due to its effect on the entire project
performance (Khan et al., 2018). It involves the process involves sourcing, contracting,
inspecting and assessment. Procurement method has been well defined in the literature. Love
et al. (1998) defined procurement system as an organisational system that allocates particular
authorities and responsibilities to organisations and people, as well as defines relationships of
the different elements in construction projects. According to Naoum (2011), procurement
method is a mechanism for connecting and coordinating construction team members
throughout construction process in a systematic unique structure (that is in both contractual
and functional) so as to attain client’s set objectives. Procurement management is considered
to be one of the key roles in achieving performance improvement, ascertain success or failure
of a project in the construction industry (Khan et al., 2018). Several methods of procurements
have been identified in the construction industry to include traditional system, measured
term contracting, collaborative procurement, package deals, construction management,
design and build, private finance initiative, build own and operate and public-private
partnership amongst others (Adenuga and Dosumu, 2012). Due to the negative impacts of the
construction activities, the paradigm of construction procurement now moves in the direction
of sustainability.
 Sustainability is a multidimensional topic involving three dimensions such as social, Procurement in
economic and environmental (Osuizugbo et al., 2020). Sustainability is tantamount with construction
sustainable development. Most sustainable development goals are achieved through
combined efforts of corporations, governments, non-profit organisations, academia and
projects
individuals (Osuizugbo, 2020b), and construction organisations need to incorporate
sustainability across all their functions in the direction to achieving sustainable growth
(Ershadi et al., 2021b). Sustainability is fast becoming a significant area for construction
research. A typical example in this subject matter is the sustainable procurement concept
which is one way the construction sector used in attaining sustainable development goals.
This emanate because, the traditional processes are no longer suitable for efficient
construction procurement in dealing with sustainability risks (Ershadi et al., 2021b).
The term sustainable procurement is being used interchangeably with green procurement
in literature. Sustainable procurement builds on the traditional procurement practice and
expands by adopting sustainability principles (Montalban et al., 2017). That is, sustainable
procurement is the procedure for espousing procurement approaches and making decisions
that support environmental, social and economic issues. Wilkinson and Kirkup (2009)
categorised sustainable procurement into supplier-based and product-based. It is supplier-
based when organisations review the corporate social responsibility management structures
of a supplier so as to determine the environmental and social risks that may be caused by
supplier; whereas sustainable procurement is product-based when organisations tend to
know the impact of a product or product range for marketing and tactical purposes (Hughes
and Laryea, 2013). The studies by Ruparathna and Hewage (2015) outlined some sustainable
procurement methods to include procurement, engineering, procurement and construction
(PEpC), competitive dialogue procedure (CDP) and energy performance contracts (EPC).
The practice of sustainable procurement in the construction industry includes deciding
the raw materials, packaging of the product, transportation, handling of the product’s use and
its disposition or recycling, storage, removal of harmful materials and waste in the supply
chain, thorough screening of suppliers for fair labour practices and conformity with
environmental regulations (Ershadi et al., 2021b; Bidin et al., 2020; De Mello et al., 2017; Belfitt
et al., 2011). Bidin et al. (2020) pointed out that environmental consideration must be
incorporated all through the construction stages before execution of the project. Construction
organisations can achieve sustainability by commitment and teamwork with business
partners functioning in a supply chain (Ershadi et al., 2021b). According to Ershadi et al.
(2021a), supply chain agents range from suppliers to subcontractors and any decision made
by parties involved in a construction supply chain has effects on the process of attaining
sustainability objectives. Belfitt et al. (2011) outlined three drivers that can influence the rate
of interest in sustainable procurement practice to include government policy, company’s
reputation and customer requirements. Hence, sustainable procurement can be attained
through the effective collaboration of stakeholders and understanding of the sustainability
principles. Several studies have identified a number of benefits linked with sustainable
procurement management. The noticeable benefits include aligning core business activities
with sustainability objectives, optimal use of natural resources, boosting operational
productivity, minimising construction waste, saves costs, controlling operational costs,
brand recognition, reducing overhead, increasing transport efficiencies, reduce the negative
environmental impact of construction, complying with sustainability-related regulations,
promoting re-use and recycling, awareness of sustainability practices and the associated
rules, and saves energy amongst others (Ershadi et al., 2021a, b; Bidin et al., 2020; Ogunsanya
et al., 2019; Da Costa and Da Motta, 2019). According to Da Costa and Da Motta (2019),
sustainable procurement practice has been recognised as an influential agent of change,
facilitating governments to minimise the negative impacts of construction activities and a
vital means to drive public rules. Moreover, delivery of sustainable projects would
IJBPA significantly aid in the actualisation of sustainable development goals such as; good health
and well-being; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; industry, innovation
and infrastructure; and sustainable cities and communities amongst others (Opoku, 2019).

Theoretical background of the study

The study adopted the institutional theory as the theory underpinning the concept of
sustainable procurement within a business environment to improve performance and
facilitate team cohesion. Construction organisations are functioning in a multifaceted
environment at different levels of development. According to Melville (2010), for
organisations to stay competitive whilst maintaining different expectations, need to make
right decisions.
The institutional theory focusses on the role of economic, social and political systems in
which organisations function and achieve legitimacy. The theory seeks to explain the
procedures and reasons for organisational behaviour and also the impact of organisational
behaviour models within a broader, inter-organisational context (Guth, 2016). The
institutional theory stresses that, not all that occurs in organisations is necessarily
planned and that not every outcomes are the product of well thought out choice procedures.
Traditionally, it is used to explain similarity and stability in a given area of organisations
(Palthe, 2014). Institutional theory is composed of three elements; namely, cognitive pillar,
normative pillar and regulative pillar. The similarities caused by these three elements of
institutional theory allow organisations to cooperate more easily and to build legitimacy
amongst organisations (Bhasin, 2017). According to Palthe (2014), these three elements are
involved in the management of organisational change. Table 1 demonstrates various
assumptions made between the three pillars. Palthe (2014) outlined the institutional theory
implications for practice to include (1) institutional theory proposes that social legitimacy, be
it cognitive, normative or regulative is to be taken as an input to organisational change
together with raw materials and other resources upon which the process of change depends;
(2) organisations develop with changes taking place within the organisation domain as a
result of change management; and (3) survival of organisations depend on the types of

Theory
element Cognitive Normative Regulative

Basis of Taken for granted Social obligation Expedience

compliance
Mechanisms Mimetic processes Normative pressures Coercive isomorphism
Logic Orthodoxy Appropriateness Instrumentality
Indicators Prevalence, isomorphism Certification, accreditation Rules, laws, sanctions
Basis of Culturally supported, Morally governed Legally sanctioned
legitimacy conceptually correct
Inter-firm “Constitutive” Scripts Communities of practice Employment contract
protocols, procedures
Corporate Frames and recipes Corporate identity career Property relations,
government structure
Sector or field Strategic set Corporate reputation Association Network
occupation
Nation state National institutions Families, occupations, Licensor, Monopoly of
nationalism violence
Table 1. Global regional Centre/periphery Emulative nationalism, International agencies,
Assumptions of pillars developmentalism corporate citizenship transactional corporation
in institutional theory Source(s): Bhasin (2017)
relations establish with the bigger systems (be it local or global); hence, no organisation is self- Procurement in
sufficient. construction
projects
Regulative pillar
This pillar proposes that regulatory procedures are linked with the ability of organisations to
set up rules, inspect the adherence of the laws and then use sanctions in terms of punishments
and rewards. In this system, organisational change is fundamentally viewed as a product of
market forces (Palthe, 2014). The basis of compliance in the regulative pillar is expedience and
the regulative element emphases compliance to legal systems as the bases of legitimacy as
shown in Table 1. The mechanism of regulative pillar is coercive isomorphism laid upon
individuals and organisations by other organisations. Coercive isomorphism denotes the
condition or pressures from other institutions in the same industry to force organisation to
start up a process of change (Bhasin, 2017). According to Palthe (2014), legal obligation is an
important driver of change, with coercion and fear acting as the main factors perpetuating the
change. Thus, in this pillar, organisational members change not because they want to, but
because they have to. In the field of construction procurement, this pillar gives the impression
that the coercive pressure applied by other institutions force the construction organisations
towards conformity with relevant laws and regulations. Hence, compliance with relevant
standards, regulations and laws is an important basis for implementing sustainable
procurement in construction projects.

Normative pillar
The normative pillar means relating to an evaluative standard within the environment of
organisations. It emphasises the role of social responsibility and focusses on informal
structures in organisational change (Palthe, 2014). As shown in Table 1, the normative pillar
is social obligation driven by normative pressures. Also, the normative element emphasises
the moral bases for measuring legitimacy. Generally, normative systems comprise of norms
and values. Norms state how things should be made, as well as define legitimate approaches
to achieve desired value or goal. In addition, normative systems characteristically inflict
danger on social behaviour. On the other hand, the systems also enhance social actions. The
normative approach of organisations plays a significant role in decision-making assessed by
socially arbitrated values. As a result, the organisations morally focus on social obligations to
attain accreditation and certification (Bhasin, 2017). In the field of construction procurement,
social obligation can be taken to be the responsibility of construction organisations to
practice sustainable procurement whereby the construction organisation and client met
design and construction requirements in such a way that, value for money is achieve on a
whole life basis in order to generate real long-term benefits for project stakeholders, the
society and the economy, whilst minimising damage to the environment (Agbesi et al., 2018).

Cognitive pillar
The Cognitive pillar refers to those that decide the extent to which cultural frames and wider
belief systems are adopted by organisations. This pillar focusses on changes in
interpretations of shared meanings, mental models, and conceptual beliefs when
organisations undergo significant change (Palthe, 2014). As shown in Table 1, the basis of
compliance for organisations in this aspect is mainly taken for granted. Also, the cognitive
pillar suggests that individual behaviours have tendency to be determined by the mimetic
mechanism by which organisations adopt strategies seemed as culturally supported and
conceptually correct (Bhasin, 2017). According to Bhasin (2017), mimetic processes have
impacts within the industry when there is an expectation of uncertainty and that this
IJBPA uncertainty promotes imitation of behaviour, strategies and policies. For legitimate
organisational change to be achieved and maintained, the premises of change need to be
internalised and valued by organisational members (Palthe, 2014). The indicator in cognitive
pillar is the prevalence of isomorphism. This can be established when the organisations seek
for “best practices” in its operating environments.

Sustainable procurement criteria in construction projects

A criterion is referred to as a standard by which something is decided or judged (Osuizugbo
and Ojelabi, 2020), and must be essential for achieving a particular strategic goal (El Touny
et al., 2021). The inclusion of sustainable criteria in construction procurement could achieve
social and environmental benefits. Hence, construction organisations should consider factors
for achieving sustainable procurement in order to minimise the negative impacts on
environment caused by construction activities. According to Montalban et al. (2017), the main
focus of sustainable construction procurement is to achieve a balance between the
environmental, economic and social aspects of construction so that the costs and the benefits,
assessed within these three dimensions are optimised. Thus, sustainable construction
procurement should be theoretically framed and understood within these three aspects.
These aspects or dimensions are also referred to as the three sustainability pillars –
environmental (planet), economic (profit), and social (people) (Da Costa and Da Motta, 2019).
Environmental sustainability is the ability to maintain the qualities of the physical
environment on a long-term basis (Tunji-Olayeni et al., 2020). In other words, environmental
dimension of sustainability focusses on issues like reducing water and energy consumption,
minimising pollution and using renewable resources (Tunji-Olayeni et al., 2020; Montalban
et al., 2017). The economic sustainability is referred to cost performance of the construction
including direct and indirect costs, maintenance costs over the life span, and focussing on
issues like support of local economies, financial affordability for intended beneficiaries and
whole life costing (Montalban et al., 2017). According to Montalban et al. (2017), economic
development is the understanding of the potential of economic growth which includes waste
management, poverty reduction, corporate responsibility and responsible consumption
amongst others. Economic sustainability is the achievement of economic benefits for all
stakeholders; for the community dwellers – it means greater employment/livelihood
opportunities; for end-users – it is enjoying long-term benefits; for client – it means value for
money; and to the developers, it is cost-efficiency, which is doing more with fewer resources
(Tunji-Olayeni et al., 2020). Lastly, social sustainability is referred to the social well-being of
the industry, building users, workers and neighbourhood communities; and focussing on
issues like health and safety, creating employment opportunities, involvement of
stakeholders and equality and diversity in the workplace (Tunji-Olayeni et al., 2020;
Montalban et al., 2017).
Past studies have identified criteria for the implementation of sustainability procurement
in construction. Such criteria include reduce packaging material, waste recycling and reuse
on the construction site, awareness of sustainability objectives amongst people, give
preference to local suppliers, protecting and promoting human health through a healthy and
safe working environment, seeking intergenerational equity and reducing cost for future
generations, value for money, transport-including provision of public transport, conserve
materials-reuse and recycling, green technology and techniques, environmental concern and
social responsibility amongst others (Tunji-Olayeni et al., 2020). These findings suggest that,
stakeholder in construction projects have a vital role to play in implementing sustainable
procurement practice.
Generally, it is apparent that few studies have described the decisive factors for achieving
sustainable procurement in construction projects. The extent of application of sustainable
procurement varies in different countries and is being practiced more in developed countries Procurement in
(Ershadi et al., 2021b). For instance, Ogunsanya et al. (2019) reported that the uptake of construction
sustainable procurement is slow in Nigeria. This could be as a result of poor knowledge on
decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction project. Hence, there is
projects
an obvious need to understand the decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in
the construction industry of developing countries, such as Nigeria.

Research methods
Previous studies have adopted different research approaches to solve several problems in the
construction management context. The nature of the problem is amongst the key factors that
influence the suitability of a particular method (Daniel et al., 2020). The present study adopted
the quantitative research methodology to determine the decisive factors for decision-making
to achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects. The selection of quantitative
research method was determined by the ontological basis of examination reported by
Creswell (2003).

Data collection
The list of 46 decisive factors for decision-making to achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects which were identified in the literature and grouped into social
sustainability, environmental sustainability and economic sustainability factors, were used
to design a questionnaire and evaluated to achieve the aim of the study. To demonstrate the
accurateness and completeness of the questionnaire instrument, a pilot study was carried out
prior to administering it to the respondents. Content validity questionnaires were sent to the
experts in the same context of the study (i.e. construction management), including 12
professionals in the academia and 18 in the industry. As a result of the pilot test, the
questionnaire instrument was updated with the input of construction professionals in the
academia and industry. The questionnaire consists of two (2) sections. First section asked
questions about the respondent’s information whilst the second section is concerned with the
decisive factors for decision-making to achieving sustainable procurement in construction
projects. The questionnaire utilised a 5-point Likert scale which has been considered suitable
reported by Okafor et al. (2022). The respondents were asked to rate the level of importance
attached to each of the decisive factors for sustainable procurement in construction projects
using a 5-point Likert scale where 1 5 not important, 2 5 less important, 3 5 important,
4 5 very important and 5 5 most important. The questionnaire was used to collect the
responses of principal stakeholders in construction projects regarding the decisive factors for
decision-making to achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects. The study
uses principal stakeholders in construction projects and the target respondents were
architects, engineers, builders, quantity surveyors, procurement officers and project
managers involved in construction project delivery within contracting, client and
consulting organisations that are registered with respective professional bodies in Nigeria.
The choice for these targeted respondents was due to their experience in construction projects
and involvement in the procurement of construction projects and decisions making. A
purposive sampling method was adopted to identify the representative sample for the
administration of the questionnaire. Purposive sampling method is a non-probability method,
which is based on the characteristics of the research population. The Sampling method was
adopted because of the inability to get an updated list of registered respondents from their
respective professional bodies in the study area during the time of conducting this research.
This sampling technique has been used in previous construction management studies
(Osuizugbo and Ojelabi, 2020). The questionnaire survey was conducted in Lagos state,
IJBPA Nigeria from August 18 to October 27, 2021. A total of two hundred and forty-three (243) of
the questionnaires were administered out of which one hundred and twenty-three (123)
representing 51% were adequately filled and returned. Cronbach’s alpha test is a test that is
used to ascertain the reliability of instrument, and it has been used in past construction
management studies (Osuizugbo et al., 2020). In this paper, the same test was adopted to
determine the reliability of the questionnaire used and the data collected. The result of
Cronbach’s alpha is considered to be excellent reliable if the value of test is 0.9 and above
(Taherdoost, 2016). The outcome of the test was found to be 0.933, which indicated excellent
level of consistency for the scale and was considered reliable and acceptable.

Data analysis
This study used frequency distribution, percentage, mean score, Kruskal–Wallis test and the
Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance for data analyses. The Statistical Package of Social
Sciences version 23 was used for data analysis. The frequency analytical tool was used to
show the proportion of the survey participant’s characteristics whereas the percentage tool
aids to simplify the ratio of the participants in the study for better explanation. The mean
score technique is a simple and effective technique of ranking the relative importance, it has
been used in past construction management studies (Osuizugbo and Ojelabi, 2020). In this
study, the same technique was used to analyse the data collected from the questionnaires.
The 5-point Likert scale (1 5 not important, 2 5 less important, 3 5 important, 4 5 very
important and 5 5 most important) was used to compute the mean score of each variable,
which indicated the relative importance level of each variable. Kruskal–Wallis is an
inferential tool which is used to analyse the variance. Kruskal–Wallis test can be employed to
determine if there is any difference in the median values of three and above independent
samples (Ali and Bhaskar, 2016). It has been used in past studies such as Osuizugbo and
Ojelabi (2020). In this study, Kruskal–Wallis was used to ascertain if there was a significant
difference amongst the clients, consulting and contracting construction organisations on
their ranking of the variables that independently measure the level of important of decisive
factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects. Also, Kendall’s
coefficient of concordance according to Kendall and Babington-Smith (1939) is a statistical
tool that uses ranks to assess agreement between observers. It has been used in past studies
such as Osuizugbo and Ojelabi (2020). In this study, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was
used to test an agreement on the rankings given by three groups of the construction
organisations to decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction
projects.

Results and data presentation

This section presents the profile of survey participants, the results and data analysis of
decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects.

Profile of survey participants

Table 2 presented the profile of 123 survey participants, including their gender, age bracket,
respondents’ post, years of experience in construction, type of organisation they belong and
years of existence of organisation.
The respondents that participated in the study were males and females. The percentage
distribution of the respondents based on gender shows that, most of the participants are
males (114) with 92.7%, whilst the remaining (9) 7.3% of the survey population are females as
indicated in Table 2. This finding supports the statement made by Osuizugbo (2020a), that
there are fewer females than males in construction industry. It is worth noting that most of the
Respondents profile Frequency Percentage
Procurement in
construction
Gender projects
Male 114 92.7
Female 9 7.3
Total 123 100.0
Age bracket (years)
20–30 11 9.0
31–40 56 45.5
41–50 39 31.7
51 and above 17 13.8
Total 123 100.0
Respondents’ post
Architect 15 12.2
Engineer 26 21.1
Builder 35 28.4
Quantity surveyor 13 10.6
Procurement officer 7 5.7
Project manager 27 22.0
Total 123 100.0
Years of experience in construction
5–10 13 10.6
11–15 25 20.3
16–20 43 35.0
21–25 22 17.9
26–30 11 8.9
31 and above 9 7.3
Total 123 100.0
Type of organisation belong
Client 28 22.8
Consulting 38 30.9
Contracting 57 46.3
Total 123 100.0
Years of existence of organisation
5–10 6 4.9
11–15 18 14.6
16–20 37 30.1
21–25 31 25.2
26–30 16 13.0
31 and above 15 12.2 Table 2.
Total 123 100.0 Profile of survey
Note(s): Engineer 5 structural, mechanical and electrical engineers participants

respondents (91%) are above 30 years old. This indicates that the respondents are mature to
participate in the study. Table 2 also showed that builders had the highest participation in the
study (35) with 28.4%. The least in participation was procurement officers (7) with 5.7% of
the survey population. For work experience, 89.4% of the respondents have more than ten
years of experience in construction and this confirmed their capability to participate in the
study. In addition, as displayed in Table 2, the majority of participants (46.3%) that
participated in the research were from contracting organisation followed by consulting
organisation with 30.9% of the participants’ population. Furthermore, Table 2 shows that
IJBPA more than 95% of the responding organisations have been practising for more than 10 years
in the construction sector.

Decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects

This section showed the results of the data analysis of decisive factors for decision-making to
achieving sustainable procurement in Nigerian construction projects. As shown in Table 3,
“satisfaction–including workforce satisfaction and user satisfaction” has the highest mean
score of 4.30 and was ranked first under the group of social sustainability factors. From the
rear, “work in occupied premises” was ranked lowest with mean score of 3.96 in the social
sustainability factors. Secondly, under the group of economic sustainability factors, “value
for money” has the highest mean score of 4.37 and was ranked first. From the rear, “viability”
and “profitability” were ranked lowest with same mean score of 4.11 each. Lastly, “creating a
healthy, nontoxic environment–including high indoor air quality” has the highest mean score
of 4.32 and was ranked first under the group of environmental sustainability factors. From
the rear, “reuse existing built assets” was ranked lowest with mean score of 3.88 in the
environmental sustainability factors. The results of the mean scores in Table 3 suggest that
the decisive factors for decision-making to achieving sustainable procurement in Nigerian
construction projects are very common in the construction industry.
Secondly, the study employed Kruskal–Wallis test to ascertain if the decisive factors
for achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects are significantly
different between “client” and “consulting” and “contracting” construction
organisations. Table 3 shows the Chi-square values and significance levels for each
decisive factor for achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects, produce
from mean analyses by using Kruskal–Wallis test. The test checks whether the
distribution of means within the construction organisation has significance difference or
not. The results given in Table 3 show a statistically significant difference in almost of
the decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects (at
p-value less than 0.05 level of significance). This implies that the respondents have
different views concerning some of the decisive factors for achieving sustainable
procurement in construction projects in Nigeria. These differences in some of the
decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects could be
as a result of poor knowledge of sustainable procurement criteria which has slowed
down the uptake of sustainable procurement practice in Nigeria (Ogunsanya et al., 2019;
Okafor et al., 2022). There are 5 out of 46 decisive factors for achieving sustainable
procurement in construction projects that have significance value less than 0.05. These
decisive factors are “making provision for social self determination/enhancement”,
“participation of stakeholders-including community involvement”, “use of Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs)”, “using life cycle costing” and “productivity” with
significant values 0.019, 0.048, 0.048, 0.040 and 0.009 respectively. This result suggests
that, there is no significance difference of ratings on the decisive factors for achieving
sustainable procurement in construction projects between clients and consulting and
contracting construction organisations in Nigeria.
In addition, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was used to test an agreement on the
rankings given by three groups of the construction organisations to decisive factors for
achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects. The result obtained reveals high
significance (Given that, Number (N) 5 123; Kendall’s (Wa) 5 0.024; Chi-Square 5 130.836;
Degrees of Freedom (df) 5 45; Significance Level (Asymp. Sig.) 5 0.000). Hence, there is a
statistically significant degree of agreement on the rankings given by three groups of the
construction organisations concerning the decisive factors for achieving sustainable
procurement in construction projects.
 Mean Type of Mean Chi- Asymp.
Procurement in
Decisive factors score Rank organisation rank square DF Sig construction
projects
Social sustainability factors
Protecting and promoting human 4.27 3 Client 55.48 2.647 2 0.266
health through a healthy and safe Consulting 68.18
working environment Contracting 61.08
Participation of stakeholders- 4.15 8 Client 61.79 6.069 2 0.048
including community Consulting 52.14
involvement Contracting 68.68
Improving the quality of human 4.29 2 Client 64.43 0.260 2 0.878
life including poverty alleviation Consulting 60.41
Contracting 61.87
Making provision for social self 4.20 7 Client 74.95 7.878 2 0.019
determination/enhancement Consulting 52.76
Contracting 61.80
Training and development- 4.09 15 Client 52.98 3.741 2 0.154
including implementing skills Consulting 68.92
training and capacity Contracting 61.82
enhancement of disadvantaged
people
Seeking fair or equitable 4.12 12 Client 64.30 0.437 2 0.804
distribution of the social costs Consulting 63.37
and benefits of construction- Contracting 59.96
including equal opportunities
amongst different ethnic and
social groups
Seeking intergenerational equity 4.13 11 Client 59.34 2.881 2 0.237
and reducing cost for future Consulting 69.53
generations Contracting 58.29
Diversity including making 4.12 12 Client 55.43 1.629 2 0.443
provision for cultural diversity in Consulting 62.29
development planning Contracting 65.04
Social inclusion 4.07 17 Client 64.09 0.722 2 0.697
Consulting 58.30
Contracting 63.44
Improving image/reputation 4.25 4 Client 69.91 2.351 2 0.309
Consulting 57.68
Contracting 60.99
Employment-including equal 4.24 5 Client 73.75 4.884 2 0.087
employment opportunities Consulting 57.00
Contracting 59.56
Recruitment and retention 4.14 10 Client 66.91 1.158 2 0.560
Consulting 63.00
Contracting 58.92
Equality 4.11 14 Client 62.14 0.257 2 0.879
Consulting 64.07
Contracting 60.55
Accessibility 4.15 8 Client 59.77 2.191 2 0.334
Consulting 68.47 Table 3.
Contracting 58.78 Kruskal–Wallis test for
Work in occupied premises 3.96 18 Client 61.00 0.663 2 0.718 decisive factors for
Consulting 59.00 achieving sustainable
procurement in
Contracting 64.49
construction projects
amongst construction
(continued ) organisations
IJBPA Mean Type of Mean Chi- Asymp.
Decisive factors score Rank organisation rank square DF Sig

Working environment 4.09 15 Client 57.16 0.883 2 0.643

Consulting 62.66
Contracting 63.94
Security-including minimising 4.24 5 Client 50.63 4.573 2 0.102
crime Consulting 67.42
Contracting 63.97
Satisfaction–including workforce 4.30 1 Client 62.30 1.431 2 0.489
satisfaction and user satisfaction Consulting 57.20
Contracting 65.05
Economic sustainability factors
Financial affordability for 4.24 4 Client 60.25 0.958 2 0.619
intended beneficiaries Consulting 66.28
Contracting 60.01
Maintaining high and stable 4.28 2 Client 61.54 0.464 2 0.793
levels of economic growth Consulting 64.87
Contracting 60.32
Using life cycle costing 4.14 11 Client 53.79 6.457 2 0.040
Consulting 72.49
Contracting 59.04
Creating and maintaining high 4.23 5 Client 56.98 3.712 2 0.156
and stable levels of employment Consulting 70.16
Contracting 59.03
Support of local economies 4.23 5 Client 67.29 1.604 2 0.448
Consulting 63.80
Contracting 58.20
Investment in green products and 4.23 5 Client 56.61 0.997 2 0.608
in the use of renewable resources Consulting 63.29
Contracting 63.79
Use of Key Performance 4.15 10 Client 55.18 6.068 2 0.048
Indicators (KPIs) Consulting 72.54
Contracting 58.32
Functionality and flexibility 4.16 9 Client 66.43 3.549 2 0.170
Consulting 53.84
Contracting 65.26
Viability 4.11 12 Client 63.77 2.664 2 0.264
Consulting 55.30
Contracting 65.60
Profitability 4.11 12 Client 69.36 2.131 2 0.345
Consulting 60.75
Contracting 59.22
Competitiveness 4.28 2 Client 59.25 0.740 2 0.691
Consulting 60.32
Contracting 64.47
Productivity 4.19 8 Client 74.04 9.378 2 0.009
Consulting 50.13
Contracting 64.00
Value for money 4.37 1 Client 60.64 0.843 2 0.656
Consulting 58.84
Contracting 64.77

Table 3. (continued )
 Mean Type of Mean Chi- Asymp.
Procurement in
Decisive factors score Rank organisation rank square DF Sig construction
projects
Environmental sustainability factors
Conserve energy 4.20 6 Client 61.77 4.043 2 0.132
Consulting 70.36
Contracting 56.54
Conserve water 4.14 9 Client 56.41 1.634 2 0.442
Consulting 66.41
Contracting 61.81
Conserve land 4.13 10 Client 58.55 0.418 2 0.811
Consulting 63.01
Contracting 63.02
Conserve materials-reuse and 4.24 4 Client 61.13 0.032 2 0.984
recycling Consulting 62.58
Contracting 62.04
Resource utilisation 4.26 3 Client 64.82 2.048 2 0.359
Consulting 66.50
Contracting 57.61
Consider renewable energy 4.19 7 Client 63.27 0.076 2 0.963
Consulting 62.22
Contracting 61.23
Minimise pollution-water, land 4.29 2 Client 61.66 0.079 2 0.961
and air pollution (including Consulting 60.97
noise)-at global and local levels Contracting 62.85
Preserve and enhance 4.05 11 Client 61.38 0.138 2 0.933
biodiversity Consulting 60.75
Contracting 63.14
Creating a healthy, non-toxic 4.32 1 Client 56.59 1.368 2 0.504
environment–including high Consulting 65.95
indoor air quality Contracting 62.03
Protect and enhance sensitive 4.17 8 Client 57.21 1.756 2 0.416
landscapes including scenic, Consulting 59.47
cultural, historical and Contracting 66.04
architectural
Reuse existing built assets 3.88 15 Client 60.16 0.314 2 0.855
Consulting 60.75
Contracting 63.74
Waste minimisation and 4.02 12 Client 64.93 0.982 2 0.612
management Consulting 57.82
Contracting 63.35
Environmental Impact (process 4.21 5 Client 63.09 0.041 2 0.980
and product) Consulting 61.78
Contracting 61.61
Transport-including provision of 3.98 13 Client 68.18 1.933 2 0.380
public transport Consulting 57.12
Contracting 62.22
Visual impact 3.89 14 Client 67.80 3.055 2 0.217
Consulting 54.47
Contracting 64.17
Note(s): DF 5 degrees of freedom and ASYMP. SIG 5 significance level
Italic values represents the top most three decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects in Nigeria Table 3.

Discussion of findings
Sustainable procurement in construction projects is not implemented as widely in Nigeria
compare to developed countries, which is an important process of espousing procurement
IJBPA approaches and making decisions that supports environmental, social and economic issues.
This study investigated the decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects within the context of a developing country such as Nigeria. The study
identified several decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction
projects. Results showed that “satisfaction – including workforce satisfaction and user
satisfaction”, “value for money” and “creating a healthy, nontoxic environment – including
high indoor air quality” were the top most three decisive factors for achieving sustainable
procurement in construction projects under the group of social, economic and environmental
sustainability factors respectively in Nigeria.
Ranking of the decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction
projects under the group of social sustainability factors demonstrates that satisfaction –
including workforce satisfaction and user satisfaction was considered the most important
decisive factor for achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects in the Nigerian
construction industry. This supported the assertion by Amoopour et al. (2014) that job
satisfaction enhances productivity of workers and the quality of services rendered. In other
words satisfaction plays a vital role in construction projects. Past studies have reported that,
satisfaction is one of the main challenges confronting the construction industry (Nzekwe-
Excel, 2012). This study suggests that project success depends on stakeholders’ satisfaction.
According to Amoopour et al. (2014), to be successful in today’s complex and competitive
market, client satisfaction is a key factor. Thus, the workforce and user satisfaction are very
important in achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects. Nzekwe-Excel
(2012) defined construction stakeholders/team satisfaction as a measure of the degree to
which the requirements, expectations and needs of project participants and clients for a
service or product are met. This result can guide construction organisations in achieving
sustainable procurement in construction projects. Hence, in future projects, construction
organisations will be operating with adequate satisfaction for both construction workforce
and building users.
Secondly, ranking of the decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects under the group of economic sustainability factors demonstrates that
value for money was considered the most important decisive factor for achieving sustainable
procurement in construction projects in the construction sector of Nigeria. This could be
because; procurement is an ideal means of integrating factors such as sustainability and
value for money into construction projects (Marinelli and Antoniou, 2020). Value for money is
the project owner’s evaluation of the services rendered and/or project delivered by the
different stakeholders as it met the project objectives (Olatunji et al., 2017). In other words,
value for money is achieved when a project delivered is worth the price paid for. Kissi et al.
(2020) pointed out that, it is essential that value for money is achieved at every phase of
construction project, and the failure or success in attaining value for money depends on the
capability of construction stakeholders to ascertain whether they are offering their clients the
best services. Hence, it is pertinent that qualified construction stakeholders are engaged in
executing construction projects, without which value for money cannot be achieved. This
result can also guide construction organisations in achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects. Thus, in future projects, construction organisations will be giving their
clients best value for money.
Also, ranking of the decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects under the group of environmental sustainability factors indicates
that creating a healthy, non-toxic environment – including high indoor air quality was
considered the most important decisive factor for achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects in the construction sector of Nigeria. This result emphasised that indoor
air health problems and chemical intolerance lead to significant disability and poor quality of
life as averred by Nordin (2020). According to Spengler and Chen (2000), poor indoor air
quality is responsible for low worker productivity, increase in cancer risk and building Procurement in
demolition. Therefore, is pertinent that building designers incorporate indoor air quality into construction
their designs so as to have healthy work environment and improved healthy living. This
finding can also guide construction organisations in achieving sustainable procurement in
projects
construction projects. Hence, in future projects, clients and construction organisations will be
considering indoor air quality as a necessity.
This study has provided in-depth understanding of the decisive factors for decision-
making to achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects that can help principal
stakeholders in the construction industry of developing countries like Nigeria to facilitate
development of strategies required in supporting the adoption and implementation of
sustainable procurement practice.

Conclusion
There are several decisive factors for decision-making to achieving sustainable
procurement in construction projects. Despite the increase in number of studies into
sustainable procurement in construction in the past years, there is little information about
the appropriate set of criteria for applicability assessment of construction projects. The
aim of this study is to determine the decisive factors for achieving sustainable
procurement in construction projects. A questionnaire survey of 123 participants
comprising of architects, engineers, builders, quantity surveyors, procurement officers
and project managers involved in construction project delivery within contracting, client
and consulting organisations in Lagos state, Nigeria was conducted to determine decisive
factors for achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects. The study has
shown that satisfaction – including workforce satisfaction and user satisfaction, value for
money and creating a healthy, non-toxic environment – including high indoor air quality
are the top most three decisive factors for achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects under the group of social, economic and environmental
sustainability factors respectively in Lagos state, Nigeria. In addition, the results from
the study suggest that, there is no significance difference of ratings on the decisive factors
for achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects between client and
consulting and contracting construction organisations in Nigeria. The findings of the
study has provided in-depth understanding of the decisive factors for decision-making to
achieving sustainable procurement in construction projects that can help principal
stakeholders in the construction industry to facilitate development of strategies required
in supporting the adoption and implementation of sustainable procurement practice.
Another implication of this study is that it can help to minimise adverse impacts on the
environment and as well strengthen the awareness of sustainable procurement practice in
construction industry. In addition, it will enhance economic development as value for
money spent will be actualised.

References
Adenuga, O.A. and Dosumu, O.S. (2012), “Assessment of procurement methods used for executing
maintenance works in Lagos state”, Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and
Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 477-483, doi: 10.4314/ejesm.v5i4.S6.
Agbesi, K., Fugar, F.D. and Adjei-Kumi, T. (2018), “Modelling the adoption of sustainable procurement
in construction organisations”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 461-476, doi: 10.1108/BEPAM-10-2017-0108.
Ali, Z. and Bhaskar, S.B. (2016), “Basic statistical tools in research and data analysis”, Indian Journal
of Anaesthesia, Vol. 60, pp. 662-669, doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.190623.
IJBPA Amoopour, M., Hemmatpour, M. and Mirtaslimi, S.S. (2014), “Job satisfaction of employee and
customer satisfaction”, Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter),
Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 1-6.
Belfitt, R.J., Sexton, M., Schweber, L. and Handcock, B. (2011), “Sustainable procurement – challenges
for construction practice”, TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading,
Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011, available at: https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/tsbe/
belfitt_tsbe_conf_2011.pdf (accessed 12 October 2021).
Bhasin, S. (2017), “Institutional theory – the logic of institutions”, available at: file:///C:/Users/Doctor%
20innocent/Downloads/INSTITUTIONALTHEORY-1.pdf (accessed 12 October 2021).
Bidin, Z.A., Bohari, A.A.M., Rais, S.L.A., Saferi, M.M. and Olanipekun, A. (2020), “Challenges and
drivers of green procurement among construction practitioners in Malaysia”, International
Journal of Service Management and Sustainability, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 149-176.
Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, Sage
Publications, London.
Da Costa, B.B.F. and Da Motta, A.L.T.S. (2019), “Key factors hindering sustainable procurement in the
Brazilian public sector: a Delphi study”, International Journal of Sustainable Development,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 152-171.
Daniel, E.I., Oshodi, O.S., Gyoh, L. and Chinyio, E. (2020), “Apprenticeship for craftspeople in the
construction industry: a state-of-the-art review”, Education þ Training, Vol. 62 No. 2,
pp. 159-183, doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2019-0041.
De Luca, A., Chen, L. and Gharehbaghi, K. (2020), “Sustainable utilization of recycled aggregates:
robust construction and demolition waste reduction strategies”, International Journal of
Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 666-682, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-04-2020-0029.
De Mello, T.M., Eckhardt, D. and Leiras, A. (2017), “Sustainable procurement portfolio management: a
case study in a mining company”, Production, Vol. 27, doi: 10.1590/0103-6513.213616.
El Touny, A.S., Ibrahim, A.H. and Mohamed, H.H. (2021), “An integrated sustainable
construction project’s critical success factors (ISCSFs)”, Sustainability, Vol. 13, doi: 10.
3390/su13158629.
Ershadi, M., Jefferies, M., Davis, P. and Mojtahedi, M. (2021a), “Barriers to achieving sustainable
construction project procurement in the private sector”, Cleaner Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 3, doi: 10.1016/j.clet.2021.100125.
Ershadi, M., Jefferies, M., Davis, P. and Mojtahedi, M. (2021b), “Achieving sustainable procurement in
construction projects: the pivotal role of a project management office”, Construction Economics
and Building, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 45-64.
Guth, K. (2016), “Institutional theory”,in. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Corporate Reputation, SAGE
Publications, Thousand Oaks, doi: 10.4135/9781483376493.n145.
Hughes, W. and Laryea, S. (2013), “Organizing for sustainable procurement: theories, institutions, and
practice”, in Yao, R. (Ed.), Design and Management of Sustainable Built Environments, Springer-
Verlag, London, pp. 385-395, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-4781-7_19.
Kanyago, G.M., Shukla, J. and Kibachia, J. (2017), “Role of project management skills on performance
of construction projects: a case of selected construction firms in kigali Rwanda. European”,
Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. 12-23.
Kendall, M.G. and Babington-Smith, B. (1939), “The problem of m rankings”, The Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 10, pp. 275-287.
Khan, M.W.A., Ting, N.H., Kuang, L.C., Darun, M.R., Mehfooz, U. and Khamidi, M.F. (2018), “Green
procurement in construction industry: a theoretical perspective of enablers and barriers”,
MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 203, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201820302012.
Kissi, E., Adjei-Kumi, T., Twum-Ampofo, S. and Debrah, C. (2020), “Identifying the latent
shortcomings in achieving value for money within the Ghanaian construction industry”,
Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 313-330, doi: 10.1108/JOPP-11-2019-0075.
Love, P., Skitmore, M. and Earl, G. (1998), “Selecting a suitable procurement method for a building Procurement in
project”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 221-233.
construction
Marinelli, M. and Antoniou, F. (2020), “Improving public works’ value for money: a new
procurement strategy”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 13 No. 1,
projects
pp. 85-102, doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-04-2018-0084.
Melville, N.P. (2010), “Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Montalban, L., Ballesteros-Perez, P., Sanz, A. and Pellicer, E. (2017), “Sustainable public procurement:
barriers and drawbacks”, 21th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering
Cadiz, 12th - 14th July 2017, pp. 571-582, available at: http://dspace.aeipro.com/xmlui/bitstream/
handle/123456789/355/AT02-011.pdf?sequence51&isAllowed5y (accessed 20 October 2021).
Naoum, S. (2011), “Procurement and management of construction”, MSc Lecture Notes (Unpublished
Material), School of Built Environment and Architecture, London South Bank University,
London, pp. 1-15.
Nordin, S. (2020), “Mechanisms underlying nontoxic indoor air health problems: a review”,
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, Vol. 226, doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.
113489.
Nzekwe-Excel, C. (2012), “Satisfaction assessment in construction projects: a conceptual framework”,
Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 86-102, doi: 10.1108/
20441241211235071.
Ogunsanya, O.A., Aigbavboa, C.O., Thwala, D.W. and Edwards, D.J. (2019), “Barriers to sustainable
procurement in the Nigerian construction industry: an exploratory factor analysis”,
International Journal of Construction Management. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1658697.
Okafor, C.C., Ani, U.S. and Ugwu, O. (2022), “Critical solutions to the lapses of supply chain
management in Nigeria’s construction industry”, International Journal of Building Pathology
and Adaptation. doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-12-2021-0170.
Olatunji, S.O., Olawumi, T.O. and Awodele, O.A. (2017), “Achieving value for money (VFM) in
construction projects”, Civil and Environmental Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 54-64.
Opoku, A. (2019), “Sustainable development, adaptation and maintenance of infrastructure”,
International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 2-5, doi: 10.
1108/IJBPA-02-2019-074.
Osuizugbo, I.C. (2020a), “Improving the performance of building construction firms through
addressing the gap of building production management: a new production model approach”,
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 50-63.
Osuizugbo, I.C. (2020b), “Transitioning to sustainable building system: green engineering and material
thinking”, Book Chapter 26, Planning and Management of Sustainable Infrastructure
Development in Nigeria, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology Press, Ogbomoso,
pp. 516-546.
Osuizugbo, I.C. and Ojelabi, R.A. (2020), “Building production management practices in the
construction industry in Nigeria”, Engineering Management in Production and Services, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 56-73.
Osuizugbo, I.C., Oyeyipo, O., Lahanmi, A., Morakinyo, A. and Olaniyi, O. (2020), “Barriers to the
adoption of sustainable construction”, European Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 150-162, doi: 10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n2p150.
Palthe, J. (2014), “Regulative, normative, and cognitive elements of organizations: implications for
managing change”, Management and Organizational Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 5495-5509,
doi: 10.5430/mos.v1n2p59.
Ruparathna, R. and Hewage, K. (2015), “Sustainable procurement in the Canadian construction
industry: challenges and benefits”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 42, pp. 417-426,
doi: 10.1139/cjce-2014-0376.
IJBPA Spengler, J.D. and Chen, Q. (2000), “Indoor air quality factors in designing a healthy building”, Annual
Review Energy Environment, Vol. 25, pp. 567-601.
Taherdoost, H. (2016), “Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of
a questionnaire/survey in a research”, International Journal of Academic Research in
Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 28-36.
Tunji-Olayeni, P., Kajimo-Shakantu, K. and Osunrayi, E. (2020), “Practitioners’ experiences with the
drivers and practices for implementing sustainable construction in Nigeria: a qualitative
assessment”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 443-465, doi: 10.1108/
SASBE-11-2019-0146.
Wilkinson, A. and Kirkup, B. (2009), Measurement of Sustainable Procurement, East Midlands
Development Agency, Nottingham.

Corresponding author
Innocent Chigozie Osuizugbo can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]