Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Exploring the project manager's intention to address sustainability in

the project board
A.J. Gilbert Silvius a, b, *, Marc de Graaf c
a
LOI University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands
b
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
c
Wortell, the Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Projects are recognized to play a crucial role in the sustainable development of organizations and the
Received 27 March 2018 academic debate on the relation between project management and sustainability is emerging. Several
Received in revised form publications highlight the role of the project manager in the sustainable management of a project and it
6 September 2018
can be concluded that the central position of the project manager provides him/her with the opportunity
Accepted 10 October 2018
Available online 17 October 2018
to influence many aspects of the project.
This article reports a study into the factors that influence the project manager's intention to address
the sustainability of the project with the project board.
Keywords:
Project
With the Theory of Planned Behavior as conceptual starting point, an exploratory study was performed
Project management in order to identify the factors that project managers perceive as influencing their intention to discuss
Sustainability sustainability with the project board. Based on open interviews with 21 respondents from the target
Triple constraint group, a conceptual model of 13 salient factors was developed. This model was subsequently tested in a
Theory of planned behavior survey based study (N ¼ 134) with quantitative data analysis.
Exploratory factor analysis of the data revealed four factors: Moral compass & Personal ability, Po-
tential benefit, Potential risk and Organizational fit, that influence the project manager's intention to
address the sustainability of the project with the project board. Three of the four factors, influence the
intention to address positively, whereas Potential risk is negatively influencing the intention.
By identifying the factors that positively or negatively influence to behavior of project managers with
regards to sustainability, the study contributes to the understanding of the ‘soft side’ of sustainability.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction that the existing standards of project management do not specif-

As projects are recognized to play a crucial role in the sustain-
able development of organizations and society (Marcelino-Sa
daba
et al., 2015), the academic debate on the relation between project
management and sustainability emerged. A growing number of
publications explores how this sustainability perspective in-
fluences project management (Silvius and Schipper, 2014; Aarseth
et al., 2017; Silvius, 2017) and ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ project
management’ is identified as one of the most important trends in
project management (Alvarez-Dionisi et al., 2016). And where
Brones et al. (2014) and Martens and Carvalho (2016) concluded
* Corresponding author. LOI University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands.
E-mail addresses: mail@gilbertsilvius.nl (A.J.G. Silvius), mjdegraaf@live.nl (M. de
Graaf).
ically or systematically consider sustainability and environmental
issues, Silvius (2017) more recently observed that the most recent
standards of project management, “are explicitly referring to sus-
tainability as a perspective that should be taken into account in the
management and governance of projects”.
Several publications highlight the role of the project manager in
the sustainable management of a project. For example, Hwang and
Ng (2013) conclude that “Today's project manager fulfils not only
traditional roles of project management but also must manage the
project in the most efficient and effective manner with respect to
sustainability.” (Hwang and Ng, 2013:273). And Taylor recognizes
that “Project and Programme Managers are significantly placed to
make contributions to Sustainable Management practices”
(Association for Project Management, 2006: 7). This pivotal role of
the project manager (Maltzman and Shirley, 2013) is also
acknowledged by Goedknegt (2013) who concludes that the project

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.115
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240
manager has “a lot of” influence on the application of sustainability
principles in or to the project. It is therefore concluded that the
project manager has a central position in the project and that this
position provides the opportunity to influence many aspects of the
project (Silvius, 2016a).
As it can be argued that also the project owner or sponsor, as the
‘client’ of the project, has the most influential position in the sus-
tainability of the project, as this role typically decides upon the
requirements and conditions of the project (Goedknegt, 2013).
However, Silvius et al. (2012) argue that the project manager has
the ‘power of agenda’ and can take initiative to address the sus-
tainability of the project with the governing body of the project.
The question whether the project manager uses his/her ‘power’ to
take initiative to address the sustainability of the project is, how-
ever, may be influenced by several factors or circumstances. The
study reported in this paper aimed to explore these factors and
circumstances and investigates the question What factors influence
the project manager's intention to address the sustainability of the
project with the project board?
With ‘project board’, the governing body of the project is
implied, that logically includes the project owner or project
sponsor (Zuchi, 2018), but may also include other roles in the or-
ganization, such as the quality manager or the project management
office (International Organization for Standardization, 2017).
The article is organized as follows. In the following paragraph,
the concepts of sustainability, their impact on project management
and the role of the project manager in sustainability are explored.
The next paragraph will report the chosen research strategy and
present the conceptual model of the study. Following this, the
findings of the study will be reported in paragraph 4 and the con-
clusions and limitations in the final paragraph.
2. Literature
2.1. Sustainability
Sustainability implies that “the natural capital remains intact.
This means that the source and sink functions of the environment
should not be degraded. Therefore, the extraction of renewable re-
sources should not exceed the rate at which they are renewed, and the
absorptive capacity of the environment to assimilate waste, should not
be exceeded.” (Gilbert et al., 1996). Concerns about the sustainability
of natural resources may date back as far as the early 18th century
(for example Carlowitz, 1713). Despite these early warnings about
the effects of human actions on the balance of nature, the more
contemporary concerns about sustainability and the use of natural
resources did not attract broad attention until the second half of
last century. The 1972 book “The Limits to Growth” (Meadows et al.,
1972) predicts that the exponential growth of world population and
world economy will result in overshooting the planet's capacity of
natural resources. Today, it is estimated that mankind is using up
1.5 to 1.6 times earth's annual bio capacity every year (Toderoiu,
2010).
The Limits to Growth report, fueled a public debate, leading to
the installation of the UN World Commission on Development and
Environment. This commission, often referred to as ‘the Brundtland
Commission’ after its chair, defined sustainable development as
“development that meets the needs of the present without compro-
mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). By
stating that “In its broadest sense, sustainable development strategy
aims at promoting harmony among human beings and between hu-
manity and nature”, the Brundtland commission implied that sus-
tainability requires also a social and an environmental perspective,
next to the economic perspective, on development and
1227
performance. Elkington identifies this as the ‘Triple Bottom line’
concept: Sustainability is about the balance or harmony between
economic sustainability, social sustainability and environmental
sustainability (Elkington, 1997).
The Triple Bottom line concept helped in operationalizing the
concept of sustainability. However, this operationalization also
introduced the risk that the interrelations between the three per-
spectives are overseen and that the social, environmental and
economic perspectives are each considered in isolation.
A holistic understanding of the integration of economic, envi-
ronmental and social perspectives is crucial for sustainability
(Linnenluecke et al., 2009). However, the social and environmental
impacts of human actions may not be visible or noticeable in the
short-term. In order not to compromise “the ability of future gen-
erations to meet their needs”, as stated in the Brundtland definition,
sustainability therefore requires a balance between both short and
long term, and therefore a life-cycle orientation.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development elabo-
rated on the Brundtland definition of sustainable development in a
definition more focused on sustainable management of organiza-
tions: “Adopting business strategies and activities that meet the needs
of the enterprise and its stakeholders today while protecting, sus-
taining and enhancing the human and natural resources that will be
needed in the future.” (Deloitte and Touche, 1992). Next to the
concepts of Triple Bottom Line and life-cycle orientation discussed
earlier, this definition also mentions the interests of stakeholders.
In the so called “stakeholder theory”, Freeman (1984) developed the
notion that all stakeholders of a company or an organization, and
not just the shareholders/financiers, have the right and legitimacy
to receive adequate management attention that takes into account
their interests (Julian et al., 2008). The interests of all stakeholders
should be embraced by the organization and win-win situations
should be sought (Eskerod and Huemann, 2013).
In the context of organizations, sustainable development relates
to the concepts of (Corporate) Social Responsibility (CSR) (Ebner
and Baumgartner, 2006). (C)SR is defined by the International Or-
ganization for Standardization (ISO) 26000 as the “responsibility of
an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on so-
ciety and the environment, through transparent and ethical behavior
that: contributes to sustainable development, including health and the
welfare of society; takes into account the expectations of stakeholders;
is in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international
norms of behavior; is integrated throughout the organization and
practiced in its relationships.” (International Organization for
Standardization, 2010).
Next to the concepts mentioned before, this definition high-
lights the responsibility or accountability that an organization has
for the societal impact of its decisions and actions, and the trans-
parency and ethicality of its behavior. With the mentioning of
ethics and norms of behavior, a normative aspect is introduced.
Sustainability is a value based concept, reflecting values and ethical
considerations of society (Robinson, 2004; Martens, 2006). And its
integration into business decisions and actions should go beyond
being compliant with legal obligations. Dahlsrud (2008) therefore
points out the voluntariness dimension of CSR.
2.2. Sustainability and projects
The concepts of sustainability identified earlier have an impact
on the way projects are performed and managed. From the
emerging literature on sustainability and project management, it
appears that the relationship between sustainability and project
management can be interpreted in two ways (Silvius and Schipper,
2015): the sustainability of the project's product (the deliverable
that the project realizes) and the sustainability of the project's
1228 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240
process (the delivery and management of the project).
The Triple Bottom line perspectives provide input for integrating
sustainability requirements into the content related aspects of the
project, such as the specifications and design of the project's
deliverable (Brones et al., 2014; Aarseth et al., 2017), materials used
(Akadiri, 2015), benefits to be achieved (Weninger and Huemann,
2013; Silvius et al., 2012), quality and success criteria (Martens
and Carvalho, 2017). Studies on the integration of sustainability
into project management that take this content related perspective,
often focus on operationalizing the Triple Bottom line by devel-
oping sets of indicators on the different perspectives (For example
Bell and Morse, 2003; Ferna
ndez-Sa
nchez and Rodríguez-Lo
pez,
2010; Keeble et al., 2003; Labuschagne and Brent, 2008; Martens
and Carvalho, 2017). Considering sustainability in these aspects
will most of all result in a more sustainable project in terms of a
more sustainable deliverable, however, this approach bears the risk
of lacking the holistic approach of the integration of the economic,
environmental and social perspectives.
Other studies focus on the integration of the dimensions of
sustainability into the processes of project management and de-
livery, such as the identification and engagement of stakeholders
(Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; Sa
nchez, 2015), the process of pro-
curement in the project (Molenaar and Sobin, 2010), the develop-
ment of the business case (Weninger and Huemann, 2013), the
monitoring of the project (S
anchez, 2015), the identification and
management of project risks (Silvius, 2016b), the communication in
and by the project (Pade et al., 2008), and the selection and orga-
nization of the project team (Silvius and Schipper, 2014).
Several authors conclude that the sustainability perspective on
both the content and the process of a project implies a scope shift in
project management: from managing time, budget and quality, to
managing social, environmental and economic impact (Haugan,
2012; Silvius et al., 2012).
However, adding new perspectives to the way projects are
considered also adds complexity (Silvius et al., 2012; Eskerod and
Huemann, 2013). Project management therefore needs a more
holistic and less mechanical approach (Gareis et al., 2013), The
integration of sustainability therefore also requires a paradigm shift
(Silvius et al., 2012). From an approach to project management that
can be characterized by predictability and controllability of both
process and deliverable, to an approach that is characterized by
flexibility, complexity and opportunity.
2.3. The role of the project manager
Integrating sustainability into project management raises the
question of responsibility. What is the responsibility of the project
manager, or the project team, for the sustainability of the project? Is
it not the project owner that carries the bulk of the responsibility
for this?
This question is addressed by a number of authors (Turner, 2010;
Goedknegt, 2013; Silvius et al., 2012). The conclusion of these
studies suggest that all roles in the project can influence the sus-
tainability of the project (Goedknegt, 2013), with most influence
expected from both the project owner and the project manager
(Silvius et al., 2012). The project manager is, also without formal
responsibility for many content aspects of the project, well posi-
tioned to have a strong influence on the sustainability of the project
and its project management. And given the growing attention for
sustainability in professional standards and codes of conduct (for
example Project Management Institute, 2010; International Project
Management Association, 2015), it can be questioned whether the
project manager can ignore a certain responsibility for applying this
influence in order to make his/her project more sustainable (Silvius
et al., 2012).
Another conclusion from the earlier mentioned studies is that
other project roles allot more influence on the sustainability of the
project to the role of project manager than the project managers
themselves do (Goedknegt, 2013). Silvius and Schipper (2014)
therefore conclude that integrating sustainability into project
management also requires a mind shift of the project manager. This
mind shift relates to the way the project manager sees his/her role
(Crawford, 2013) and is the foundation for the scope and paradigm
shifts described in the previous section. Traditionally, project
managers position themselves as subordinate to the project
sponsor and manage their projects around scope, stakeholders,
deliverables, budget, risks and resources as specified by the
stakeholder's requirements. However, the conclusion that project
managers are well positioned to play a significant role in the
implementation of the concepts of sustainability in organizations
and business (Association for Project Management, 2006; Tharp,
2013) requires that project managers take up a responsibility for
sustainability and position themselves as partner or peer of all
stakeholders (Crawford, 2013; Tam, 2010). In this mind shift, the
change a project realizes is no longer a given fact nor exclusively the
responsibility of the project sponsor. The sustainable project man-
ager realizes that the project positively or negatively impacts so-
ciety and takes responsibility for minimizing negative impacts
while boosting positive contributions, with ethics and transparency
as a basic touchstone (Silvius and Schipper, 2014).
2.4. Factors influencing sustainable behavior
The implementation of sustainability considerations in organi-
zations has traditionally been discussed as a top-down process, in
which external pressure mounts up and organizations react by
addressing sustainability in their strategies (Tulder et al., 2014).
However, the transformation towards sustainability also requires
new competences and behavior in the organizations (Hassi et al.,
2009). This ‘soft side’ of sustainability (Brones et al., 2017) has
only more recently been addressed in studies.
The consideration of sustainability in the behavior of individuals
has mostly been studied in the context of consumer behavior (For
example by Mont and Plepys, 2008; Barr et al., 2011; Wang et al.,
2014; Chen and Hung, 2016). One of the most influential frame-
works that is used to explain sustainable behavior, is the Theory of
Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). TPB aims to better under-
stand, describe, predict and control behavior, by linking beliefs and
behavior. According to the TPB, (intended) human behavior is
guided by three kinds of considerations:
- Behavioral beliefs: beliefs about the likely outcomes of the
behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes. These beliefs
produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the
behavior.
- Normative beliefs: beliefs about the normative expectations of
others and motivation to comply with these expectations. These
beliefs result in perceived social pressure or a subjective norm.
- Control beliefs: beliefs about the presence of factors that may
facilitate or impede performance of the behavior and the
perceived power of these factors. These beliefs give rise to
perceived behavioral control.
In combination, attitude towards the behavior, subjective norm,
and perception of behavioral control lead to the formation of a
behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991). As a general rule, the more
favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the
perceived behavioral control, the stronger should be the person's
intention to perform the behavior in question.
TPB is a popular way to examine underlying constructs of
 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240
behavior. Some studies have examined the efficacy of the TPB in the
form of a meta-analysis. The most inclusive meta-analysis has been
conducted by Armitage and Conner (2001). Based upon an analysis
of 185 independent studies, the predictive value of the TPB showed
to be significant.
And although the relationship between sustainability consid-
erations and human behavior is mostly studied in the context of
consumer behavior, several studies also applied TPB in studies of
sustainable behavior in the professional context of the individual.
For example Cordano and Frieze (2000) in a study on the behavior
of environmental managers.
The study reported in this article selected the TPB as conceptual
foundation for its exploration of the factors that influence the
project manager's intention to address the sustainability of the
project with the project board.
3. Research strategy
This paragraph presents the research strategy and design of the
study. The study was designed as a mixed methods ‘qual þ QUAN’
(Johnson et al., 2007) study. The quantitative phase of the study was
dominant and aimed at extracting the factors that influence the
project manager's intention to address sustainability with the
project board, what was the main research question. The qualitative
phase was aimed at identifying a relevant set of salient factors that
are underlying the beliefs of the project manager. Based on the
findings of the qualitative part of the study, the conceptual model
for the quantitative phase should be developed.
3.1. Qualitative phase
In this phase, an open questions questionnaire was developed to
capture the salient factors underlying the beliefs of the project
managers. The TPB model of behavioral, normative and behavioral
control beliefs (Ajzen, 1991) acted as a structure for the organiza-
tion of the interview questions and the coding of the answers,
without explicitly being revealed to the respondents in order not to
influence them.
In the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to keep in
mind the statement “In my project, I intent to put sustainability on
the agenda of the project board” and to respond to the following
questions.
 Addressing attitude believes:
What advantages, benefits, opportunities come to mind
when thinking about displaying this behavior?
What disadvantages, detriments, threads come to mind
when thinking about displaying this behavior?
Concluding with the neutral question: Are there any other
factors you associate with this behavior and if so: In what
way?
 Addressing normative believes:
What individuals or groups would approve of you displaying
this behavior?
What individuals or groups would disapprove of you dis-
playing this behavior?
Are there any other individuals or groups influencing your
decision and in what way?
 Addressing behavioral control believes:
What factors or circumstances would facilitate the behavior?
What factors or circumstances would complicate the
behavior?
What factors or circumstances would prevent the behavior?
Are there any other circumstances influencing your decision
on this behavior?
1229
For this phase, targeted convenience sampling and snowball
sampling were used with a sample size of 21 respondents from the
Netherlands that all fitted in the target group of the study.
Data collection was done, using a questionnaire with open
questions, in order to ensure a maximum freedom to answer. The
answers were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using the open
coding logic. First the responses are separated into broad categories
(for the most part aligned with the initial question they belonged
to) and positive and negative responses were grouped. After this,
statements made in the answers were labelled for the key-words in
the answer. For example ‘Risk’, ‘Reputation’ or ‘Benefits’. As the
third step in the analysis, the labels (codes) were grouped into
categories. The responses to the neutral question (any other
thoughts) were assigned to the question they corresponded to.
Table 1 presents the results of this coding and the number of
times the categories were mentioned.
This qualitative phase was completed by developing a concep-
tual model for the quantitative part of the study. This was done by
selecting the salient factors that were mentioned at least five times
in the interviews (highlighted in grey in Table 1). In addition to the
factors appearing from the interviews, two factors were added
based on the literature. The first one (PC1) being the freedom of
choice to act on the intention to discuss sustainability with the
project board. The second one being the competence or ability of
the project manager to address sustainability (PC2).
Based on the final set of 13 salient factors, the conceptual model
presented in Fig. 1 was developed for the quantitative phase of the
study.
3.2. Quantitative phase
In this phase of the study, a survey based study was conducted
to test the conceptual model of salient factors that was presented in
Fig. 1. In the questionnaire, these factors were rewritten to
accommodate a (five-point) Likert-type scale of questioning.
Three questions were formulated to measure the dependent
variable of the respondent's intention to address the sustainability
of the project with the project board. Table 2 provides an overview
of the questionnaire.
The data from the survey were coded 1 to 5 and analyzed using
SPSS release 23, thereby following the ‘intervalists’ view of Likert-
type scales (Carifio and Perla, 2008).
Sampling was done using targeted convenience and snowball
sampling within the target group. Data collection was done over a
three month time-window to collect as many responses as possible.
The questionnaire was published in an online survey tool
(Typeform).
About 500 project managers were approached for the study,
through email and social media, of which 134 (26.8%) provided a
complete response. This was considered satisfactory, as Francis
et al. (2004) argue that for the confirmatory phase a sample size
of 80 would be acceptable and Reio and Shuck (2015) recommend a
participant-to-variable ratio of 5:1 or greater and strongly recom-
mend at least 100 participants.
Sampling was done based from the Netherlands, but through
social media and personal networks reaching out internationally in
Europe, North America and South Africa. As sustainability is inev-
itably a normative concept (Robinson, 2004; Martens, 2006), its
understanding is prone to cultural differences. And although the
sample of the study showed some level of cultural diversity, it
cannot be excluded that the findings of the study have been
influenced by the dominant (Western) culture of the sample.
When we assume a total populations of project managers of
over 1 million in the regions that were included in the sample, the
sample provides a confidence interval of 8.47% at a 95% confidence
1230 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

Table 1
Categories of salient beliefs and number of mentions in the interviews.
 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240 1231

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the quantitative study.

level. Given the 5-point Likert scales that were used in the ques- 4. Findings
tionnaire, this confidence interval is satisfactory.
Table 3 provides an overview of the demographic data of the This paragraph presents the findings of the study. First the data
respondents. will be reported in a descriptive manner, followed by the results of
Table 3 shows that the age groups of 31e60 are overrepresented the correlation analysis and the exploratory factor analysis.
in the sample. This could be explained by the fact that project
management is rarely a young professionals position but required
4.1. Descriptive results
some years of experience in other jobs. Also the project manage-
ment profession normally requires a higher level of education,
Table 4 presents the scores of the salient factors that appeared
resulting in more years in school. At the other end of the scale the
from the survey.
retirement age is around 65, explaining why this category might
The attitude factors all scored on the positive side, 3.31 to 3.97
not be as large as the others.
on a 1e5 scale, with Reputation impact (A1) scoring highest. The
Just over 20% of the population stated that they did not have a
perceived Impact on project results (A2) scored relatively low,
lot of experience with the concepts of sustainability in projects. The
indicating that the respondents are not fully convinced that the
largest part of the sample assessed themselves to be somewhat
consideration of sustainability in the project board will have a
experienced.
positive impact on the project results. This seems to be contradicted
by the more positive score on the perceived Impact on project
1232 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

Table 2
Overview of the questionnaire design.

No. Summary Question Answering format

Introduction
Name Name is asked to personalize the survey experience. Can be a fictitious name.
Informed consent Listed in appendix 8.4 n.a.
Definition The Brundtland definition of sustainable development is provided as a common reference n.a.
Explanation of scale The Likert scale is explained with an example n.a.
Research question The research question is provided: This survey aims to investigate the considerations of you (the n.a.
project manager) to start (or stay away) from the discussion with the project board (or steering
committee) to integrate concepts of sustainability in the project
Questions to the respondent's beliefs
A1 Reputation impact Discussing sustainability with the project board (steering committee) is [________] my reputation. 5-point Likert scale. (Really bad for e
Really good for)
A2 Impact on project Sustainability will [________] the project bottom line 5-point Likert-scale. (Significantly
results harm - Significantly improve)
A3 Relationship with Discussing sustainability in the board meeting [________] my relationship with the project board 5-point Likert-scale. (Significantly
project board (Steering committee). harm - Significantly benefit)
A4 Impact on project Integrating sustainability into the project will [________] the project success. 5-point Likert-scale. (Significantly
success harm - Significantly benefit)
S1 Opinion of friends My friends and family think I [________] discuss integrating sustainability in the project with the 5-point Likert scale. (Very negative -
and family project board. Very positive)
S2 Opinion of the The project board [________] about integrating sustainability 5-point Likert scale. (Very negative -
project board Very positive)
S3 Opinion of the The organization [________] sustainability initiatives in projects 5-point Likert scale. (Very negative -
organization Very positive)
S4 Opinion of the direct My manager is [________] about me addressing sustainability with the project board 5-point Likert scale. (Very negative -
manager Very positive)
S5 Right thing to do Discussing sustainability in projects is the right thing to do 5 point Likert scale. (Fully disagree -
(Ethics) Fully agree)
PC1 My decision Whether I discuss sustainability in the project board meeting or not, is entirely up to me 5-point Likert scale. (Not at all -
(freedom of choice) Totally)
PC2 My ability I feel confident that I am able to discuss sustainability with the project board. 5-point Likert scale. (Not at all -
(knowledge and skills) Totally)
PC3 Sustainability part The presence of a sustainability strategy in the organization would [________] to discuss sustainability 5-point Likert scale. (Not at all -
of strategy with the project board Totally)
PC4 Possibilities for My projects generally have good application for sustainability. 5-point Likert scale. (Not at all -
sustainability Totally)
Questions to measure intention to discuss sustainability with the project board
I1 Motivation Do you want to discuss sustainability with the project board? Yes/No answer
I2 Expectation Do you expect to discuss sustainability with the project board? Yes/No answer
I3 Confidence level How confident are you that you will discuss sustainability with the project board in the near future? Select one from list. (Not going to -
Very confident)
Descriptive questions about respondent and work context
Industry What industry do you work in Select one from list
Project focus Projects are multidisciplinary endeavors. But there usually is a main focus or component that best Choose all that apply from predefined
describes the end result. Please select it below. list with free text option.
Experience with How familiar are you with the concepts of sustainability? Select one from list
sustainability in projects
Project size (in dollars) What is your estimated average project size? Select one from list
Gender What is your gender Select one from list
Age What is your age Select one from list
Comments If you would like to leave a comment you can use the space below. Textbox

success (A4). However, it should be noted that both these factors
(A2 and A4) had a relatively high standard deviation in the answers
indicating that there was a discussion amongst the respondents as
to how to assess these two impacts, The factor Impact on the
project results (A2) is also suffering from Kurtosis and the project
success distribution is heavily skewed.
The next group of factors, S1 to S5, related to the subjective
norm or peer pressure that the respondents perceive. Of these
subjective norm factors, the Right thing to do (Ethics) (S5) factor
stood out with a score of 4.54 and a relatively low standard devi-
ation. The respondents apparently agreed that taking initiative to
discuss the sustainability of the project is something a project
manager should do. On the other four factors, the opinion was also
on the positive side, 3.54 to 3.86, although not as spectacular as the
ethics factor S5. Remarkable may be that the Opinion of the direct
manager (S4) does not score very high. Apparently the intention to
address sustainability with the project board is more internally
motivated than externally.
Severe skewness and kurtosis is observed for the S5 Ethics
question. For the other distributions some skewness and kurtosis is
observed but within boundaries.
The results for the third group of factors, PC1 to PC4, related to
perceived behavioral control, showed the most positive score for
the factor related to the integration of sustainability into the
strategy of the organization (PC3). This was not unexpected, as the
relationship between the consideration of sustainability in a project
and the organization's strategy showed also from Silvius et al.
(2013). More interesting may be that the Possibilities for sustain-
ability in the project (PC4) scored lowest in this group of factors,
indicating that the intention of addressing sustainability in the
project board is most of all an internally motivated intention and
not that much a pragmatic behavior. It appeared that the project
manager that sees the addressing of sustainability as something
good, will address sustainability in every type of project.
Again some skewness is observed for own competence and or-
ganization strategy. Kurtosis is well within limits.
 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240 1233

Table 3
Demographics of the sample of the quantitative study.

Variable Answers Freq. Percent Valid Percent Cum. Percent

Age 21e30 6 4.5 4.5 4.5

31e40 36 26.9 26.9 31.3
41e50 47 35.1 35.1 66.4
51e60 29 21.6 21.6 88.1
61e70 11 8.2 8.2 96.3
Do not want to share 5 3.7 3.7 100
Total 134 100 100
Gender Male 103 76.9 76.9 76.9
Female 31 23.1 23.1 100
Total 134 100 100
Project size [in $] <100,000 16 11.9 11.9 11.9
>100,000 < 1 million 55 41 41 53
>1 million < 10 million 43 32.1 32.1 85.1
>10 million < 100 million 15 11.2 11.2 96.3
>100 million < 1 billion 3 2.2 2.2 98.5
>1 billion 2 1.5 1.5 100
Total 134 100 100
Experience with sustainability in projects Beginner 29 21.6 21.6 21.6
Somewhat experienced 72 53.7 53.7 75.4
Very experienced 26 19.4 19.4 94.8
Senior advisor 7 5.2 5.2 100
Total 134 100 100
Industry Healthcare 9 6.7 6.7 6.7
Banking & Finance 13 9.7 9.7 16.4
Government 21 15.7 15.7 32.1
Cross Industry 59 44 44 76.1
Retail 8 6 6 82.1
Education 10 7.5 7.5 89.6
Manufacturing 14 10.4 10.4 100
Total 134 100 100

Table 4
Descriptive statistics for the salient factors.

Factor N Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis

A1 Reputation impact 134 3.97 .785 -.232 .209 -.665 .416

A2 Impact on project results 134 3.31 1.147 -.094 .209 1.053 .416
A3 Relationship with project board 134 3.74 .813 .003 .209 -.678 .416
A4 Impact on project success 134 3.70 1.195 -.555 .209 -.715 .416
S1 Opinion of friends and family 134 3.54 .923 .158 .209 -.333 .416
S2 Opinion of the project board 134 3.65 .758 -.047 .209 -.343 .416
S3 Opinion of the organization 134 3.86 .833 -.440 .209 .146 .416
S4 Opinion of the direct manager 134 3.60 .859 .307 .209 -.792 .416
S5 Right thing to do (Ethics) 134 4.54 .679 1.924 .209 5.680 .416
PC1 My decision (freedom of choice) 134 3.72 1.073 -.522 .209 -.406 .416
PC2 My ability (knowledge and skills) 134 4.04 .949 -.734 .209 -.145 .416
PC3 Sustainability part of strategy 134 4.27 .860 1.055 .209 .775 .416
PC4 Possibilities for sustainability 134 3.24 1.152 -.151 .209 -.725 .416

The intention was measured using three indicators: motivation
(I1), expectation (I2) and confidence (I3). Combined they form the
intention of discussing the integration of concepts of sustainability
in the project with the project board. Fig. 2 visually presents the
results of the motivation and expectation questions.
From this figure it can be concluded that virtually all re-
spondents are motivated to display the behavior under research.
Only 13 of the respondents (10%) are not motivated to discuss
sustainability with the project board. The expectation result shows
that motivation alone is not enough, as another 28 (21%) do not
expect to act upon their motivation.
Fig. 3 shows that almost half (47%) of the respondents in the
sample is somewhat to very confident that they will discuss sus-
tainability with the project board. 24% is neutral.
4.2. Correlation analysis
As a first step in the analysis of the data, the correlation between
the factor and impact scores was determined, as presented in
Table 5.
From this table it shows that a large number of factors (9 of the
13) show significant correlations with the intention questions.
However, these correlations are generally weak.
4.3. Exploratory factor analysis
The first step in conducting the EFA was to check for inter-item
correlations. As the correlation matrix (Table 5) did not show any
strong correlations, collinearity was not an issue.
As the second step, a Cronbach's Alpha test was performed to
check for internal consistency. Table 6 shows the results of this test.
As removal of the PC1 My decision factor would increase internal
reliability to 0.750, this factor was excluded from the EFA analysis.
The initial factor analysis discovered four factors. The test ran
again using this cut off. The Oblimin rotation was added for the final
run. Also the small coefficients (below 0.30) were suppressed.
1234 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

Fig. 2. Motivation and expectation to discuss sustainability.

Fig. 3. Confidence to discuss sustainability with frequency scores.

Table 7 shows the total variance explained in this statistical analysis
to be 58.025%, which was less than the “75% or more” textbook
recommendation by Stevens (1996), but more than the 52% average
total variance explained that Henson and Roberts (2006) report in
their analysis of 60 EFA studies. The total variance explained was
therefore considered satisfactory.
The structure matrix (Table 8) was used to find the new model
for the loadings of the EFA. It shows how the 12 remaining factors
load into four different components.
From Table 8 it can be observed that the component loadings do
not follow the TPB model of attitude, subjective norm and
perceived behavioral control but tend to mix the factors in a
different manner, creating a new model.
The four components were analyzed to find their respective
contribution to the intention using a multivariate regression
analysis. Tables 9e11 present the result of this analysis.
Based on the regression analysis the effect of the four inde-
pendent variables (factors 1, 2, 3 and 4) on the dependent variable
(Intention) was found to be:Intention (I) ¼ 14.149 þ 0.482 * Factor
1 þ 0.487 * Factor 2e1.983 * factor 3 þ 1.004 * Factor 4.
The exploratory factor analysis resulted in four factors contrib-
uting to the intention of project managers to address the sustain-
ability of the project with the project board. Fig. 4 presents the
resulting model.
In this model, the four factors that resulted from the EFA have
been labelled in order to give them meaning: Factor 1: Moral
compass & Personal ability, Factor 2: Potential benefit, Factor 3:
Potential risk and Factor 4: Organizational fit.
Not all variance could be explained by the model. Part of this
might have to do with subconscious factors that come into play
 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240 1235

Table 5
Factor correlations matrix.

Factor A1 A2 A3 A4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 I1 i2 I3

A1 Reputation impact Pearson corr. 1 .161 .447** .191* .023 .260* .143 .261** .214* -.046 .305** .235** .349** .342** .327** .483**
Sig. (2-tailed) .063 .000 .027 .795 .002 .099 .002 .013 .599 .000 .006 .000 .000 .000 .000
A2 Impact on project results Pearson corr. 1 .121 .458** .242** .015 .086 .038 .088 -.013 .229** .089 .176* .090 .111 .250**
Sig. (2-tailed) .164 .000 .005 .864 .322 .666 .311 .884 .008 .305 .041 .301 .200 .004
A3 Relationship with project board Pearson corr. 1 .159 .191* .326** .156 .376** .205* -.103 .269** .220* .228** .361** .366** .263**
Sig. (2-tailed) .066 .027 .000 .072 .000 .017 .237 .002 .011 .008 .000 .000 .000
A4 Impact on project success Pearson corr. 1 .333** .166 .146 .145 .230** .039 .224** .152 .271** .108 .174* .317**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .056 .092 .093 .008 .655 .009 .080 .002 .213 .045 .000
S1 Opinion of friends and family Pearson corr. 1 .178* .072 .137 .303** .013 .281** .165 -.003 .030 .129 .207*
Sig. (2-tailed) .039 .409 .115 .000 .882 .001 .057 .972 .734 .137 .017
S2 Opinion of the project board Pearson corr. 1 .361** .393** .155 -.114 .325** .215* .131 .148 .228** .347**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .074 .190 .000 .013 .131 .088 .008 .000
S3 Opinion of the organization Pearson corr. 1 .413** .164 -.138 .170* .253** .161 .248** .199* .236**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .058 .112 .050 .003 .063 .004 .021 .006
S4 Opinion of the direct manager Pearson corr. 1 .263** -.125 .216* .198* .174* .229** .368** .369**
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .151 .012 .022 .044 .008 .000 .000
S5 Right thing to do (Ethics) Pearson corr. 1 -.013 .254** .263** .198* .190* .248** .281**
Sig. (2-tailed) .878 .003 .002 .022 .028 .004 .001
PC1 My decision (freedom of choice) Pearson corr. 1 .352** .042 -.121 -.063 .051 -.004
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .626 .163 .467 .558 .966
PC2 My ability (knowledge and skills) Pearson corr. 1 .188* .142 .229** .340** .430**
Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .103 .008 .000 .000
PC3 Sustainability part of strategy Pearson corr. 1 .170* .221* .246** .234**
Sig. (2-tailed) .049 .010 .004 .006
PC4 Possibilities for sustainability Pearson corr. 1 .354** .364** .339**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
I1 Motivation Pearson corr. 1 .494** .359**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
I2 Expectation Pearson corr. 1 .489**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
I3 Confidence Pearson corr. 1
Sig. (2-tailed)

Table 6
Cronbach's Alpha for independent variables.

Factor Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

A1 Reputation impact 45.22 29.494 .429 .690

A2 Impact on project results 45.87 28.653 .309 .705
A3 Relationship with project board 45.45 29.377 .423 .690
A4 Impact on project success 45.49 26.748 .452 .682
S1 Opinion of friends and family 45.64 29.615 .328 .700
S2 Opinion of the project board 45.54 29.980 .386 .695
S3 Opinion of the organization 45.33 30.177 .316 .702
S4 Opinion of the direct manager 45.59 29.387 .390 .693
S5 Right thing to do (Ethics) 44.64 30.382 .390 .696
PC1 My decision (freedom of choice) 45.47 32.958 -.028 .750
PC2 My ability (knowledge and skills) 45.14 27.747 .512 .676
PC3 Sustainability part of strategy 44.92 29.685 .356 .697
PC4 Possibilities for sustainability 45.95 28.636 .308 .705

Table 7
Variance explained with 4 component extraction (Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis).

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 3.352 27.937 27.937 3.352 27.937 27.937

2 1.466 12.214 40.150 1.466 12.214 40.150
3 .1.167 9.727 49.877 1.167 9.727 49.877
4 .978 8.149 58.025 .978 8.149 58.025
5 .935 7.791 65.816
6 .785 6.545 72.361
7 .724 6.033 78.393
8 .642 5.347 83.741
9 .547 4.558 88.298
10 .498 4.147 92.445
11 .464 3.871 96.316
12 .442 3.684 100.000
1236 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240

Table 8 address sustainability with the project board appeared to be

Structure matrix for EFA with 4 components (Extraction Method: Principal influenced by a combination of ‘hard’ factors, such as the role that
Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization).
sustainability plays in the organizational environment of the
Component project, the opportunities that the project provides for considering
1 2 3 4 sustainability and the expected benefits of this, and ‘soft’ factors,
such as the project manager's personal convictions, moral compass
S1 Opinion of friends and family .792
PC2 My ability (knowledge and skills) .605 and expectations of how addressing sustainability would influence
S5 Right thing to do (Ethics) .578 his/her relationship with the project board.
A2 Impact on project results .811 The EFA revealed in total four factors that influence the inten-
A4 Impact on project success .796
tion of project managers to address the sustainability of the project
A1 Reputation impact -.841
A3 Relationship with project board -.702 with the project board, of which two factors can be characterized as
PC4 Possibilities for sustainability .461 -.620 ‘hard’ and two as more ‘soft’. The following section provides a short
S3 Opinion of the organization .829 description of these four factors.
S4 Opinion of the direct manager .741
S2 Opinion of the project board .685
PC3 Sustainability part of strategy .438
4.4.1. Factor 1: Moral compass & personal ability
The first factor that appeared from the study is related to the
moral and ethical beliefs of the project manager. The survey
with all human behavior. Instincts, needs and drives that are not question related to ethics and sustainability were formulated as
rational neither planned but just occur when certain factors come “Discussing sustainability in projects is the right thing to do” and
into play. “Doing the right thing is [less important — more important than] other
Finding agreement between conclusions of different studies, factors influencing my intentions to integrate sustainability in my
one quantitative and the other qualitative is undoubtedly the projects”. The moral compass factor is formed by the above ethical
greatest challenge and most notable accomplishment in the area of considerations and the opinion of closest social contacts, such as
mixed or multiple methods (Kidder and Fine, 1987). family. From work/family border theory it is known that the social
systems of work and family are interconnected (Clark, 2000), and
4.4. Discussion that work behavior is influenced by family's opinions. It can be
expected that family members will view situations probably mostly
Cordano and Frieze (2000) found that attitudes and other social from an ethical perspective, as they may not be involved in all
psychological variables influence managerial behavior, thereby relevant business considerations. It is therefore likely that a per-
providing a behavioral perspective on sustainability (Brones et al., son's moral and ethical considerations are influenced by those of
2017). The four factors influencing the intention of project man- family and significant others (Clark, 2000).
agers to address the sustainability with the project board, that the The EFA added also the project manager's ability to discuss
study reported in this article found, confirm this ‘soft side’ (Brones sustainability to this factor. This may not be surprising, as a rela-
et al., 2017) of sustainability. The intention of project managers to tionship between competence and morality has been established

Table 9
Model summary.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics

R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change

1 .666a .444 .427 3.18400 .444 25.775 4 129 .000

a
Predictors: (Constant), Component 1, Component 2, Component 3, Component 4.

Table 10
ANOVA.

Model Sum of Squares df Main Square F Sig.

1 Regression 1045.228 4 261.307 25.775 .000

Residual 1307.787 129 10.138
Total 2353.015 133

a. Predictors: (Constant), Component 1, Component 2, Component 3, Component 4.

b. Dependent Variable: Itot.

Table 11
Coefficients of the multivariate regression model.

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std, Error Beta

1 (Constant) 14.149 .275 51.441 .000

Factor Component 1 .482 .290 .115 1.664 .099
Factor Component 2 .487 .281 .115 1.730 .086
Factor Component 3 1.983 .297 -.472 6.674 .000
Factor Component 4 1.004 .300 .239 3.346 .001

Dependent Variable: Itot.

 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240 1237

Fig. 4. Model of factors influencing the project managers intention.

earlier (Wojciszke, 2005). A positive attitude and intrinsic moti- model's eight fundamental concepts of excellence is “Taking re-
vation to do ‘what's right’ will benefit the gaining of knowledge sponsibility for a sustainable future” (Craddock, 2013), the concep-
about the subject. tual relationship between sustainability in projects and success is
established.
Tiron-Tudor and Ioana-Maria (2013) studied the level of inte-
4.4.2. Factor 2: Potential benefit
gration of sustainability into projects and the success of projects in
The second factor relates to the potential benefits of considering
a sample of 35 companies. Based upon an analysis of the correlation
sustainability in the project, such as bottom line and project suc-
between integrating sustainability considerations and project suc-
cess. The more favorable the respondents beliefs the outcome of
cess, they found that this correlation has certain controversies.
considering sustainability will be, the more likely he/she is willing
They found cases where successful projects were not necessarily
to discuss the integration of concepts of sustainability with the
induced by sustainability, and also cases where a sustainable
project board.
practice did not lead to success. They concluded that there should
The relationship between project success and sustainability has
be other factors influencing projects outcomes. However, they also
been addressed by a number of authors. Craddock (2013) discusses
concluded that “On the whole, the two compared variables, sustain-
the evolution in thinking about project success and concludes that
ability integration within project management and projects success,
“views on project success have changed over the years from definitions
seem to fluctuate in the same trend and there are no significant dis-
that were limited to the implementation phase of the project life cycle
crepancies between them”.
to definitions that reflect an appreciation of success over the project
Silvius and Schipper (2016) developed a conceptual map of the
and product life cycle”. From the reference to the life cycle in this
expected relationships between the dimensions of sustainability
conclusion, he links project success to excellence in organizations
and different criteria for project success. This mapping showed that
and ‘business excellence models, such as the European Foundation
a positive impact of considering sustainability in the project is
for Quality Management (EFQM) model. And as one of the EFQM
1238 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240
Table 12
Comparing the EVA results with the TPB model.
Salient belief TPB factor
S1 Opinion of friends and family Subjective norm
PC2 My ability (knowledge and skills) Perceived behavioral
S5 Right thing to do (Ethics) Subjective norm
A2 Impact on project results Attitude
A4 Impact on project success Attitude
PC4 Possibilities for sustainability Perceived behavioral
A1 Reputation impact Attitude
A3 Relationship with project board Attitude
PC4 Possibilities for sustainability Perceived behavioral
PC3 Sustainability part of strategy Perceived behavioral
S3 Opinion of the organization Subjective norm
S4 Opinion of the direct manager Subjective norm
S2 Opinion of the project board Subjective norm
expected on the success criteria that are related to the satisfaction
of stakeholders of the project and the management of risks. How-
ever, the relationship between considering sustainability and
completing the project on schedule and within budget remains
uncertain. The impact of the factor Potential benefits may therefore
be depending on how success is defined or considered in the
project.
4.4.3. Factor 3: Potential risk
The third factor refers to the risk that addressing sustainability
with the project board could potentially bring to the project man-
ager, and may be considered is more or less the opposite of the
second factor. The questionnaire included the question how dis-
cussing sustainability with the project board may impact the
reputation of the project manager and his/her relationship with the
project board. And although the respondents scored this question
on average positively, the EFA showed that the expectation that
bringing up sustainability may hurt their reputation or relation-
ships, is a relevant consideration for the project managers.
A relationship between sustainability and reputational risk is
not unknown in literature, however, this relationship is mostly
studied in the context of organizations. For example Bebbington
et al. (2008) demonstrated that an organization's performance on
social and environmental responsibility performance effects its
reputation. Studies on individual reputation management are just
evolving.
4.4.4. Factor 4: Organizational fit
This fourth factor relates to the organizational context of the
project and the opinions about sustainability of actors in this
context. Next to the perceived opinion about sustainability of the
organizational in general, the specific opinions of the direct man-
ager of the project manager and the members of the project were
addressed in the questionnaire. As it can be expected that the at-
titudes of these actors towards sustainability are influenced by the
strategy of the organization with respect to sustainability, the
presence of PC3 “Sustainability part of strategy” in this factor makes
sense.
Logically, the attitudes and opinions of managers and employees
in an organization interact with its strategy. Corporate strategy
reflects the opinions and attitudes of the main stakeholders of the
organization, including managers and employees, and (potential)
employees are also attracted by organizations that demonstrate
values and ambitions that match theirs (Renwick et al., 2016). The
role of sustainability in this mutually influencing relationship is
recognized in the human resource management (HRM) domain,
and its influence on HRM addressed as ‘Green HRM’ (Jackson and
Seo, 2010). Green HRM is considered to constitute of the
EFA model
Factor 1 Moral compass & Personal ability
control
Factor 2 Potential benefit
control
Factor 3 Potential risk
control
control Factor 4 Organizational fit
implementation of sustainability principles in HRM, as well as
advancing organizational sustainability through the alignment of
HRM with environmental goals of the organization (Gholami et al.,
2016). This implies that projects should not always comply with the
general opinion of the actors in their organizational context, as they
also play a role in changing that context.
4.4.5. Fit with TPB model
The model of four factors influencing the project manager's
intention to address the sustainability of the project with the
project board, that this study found, deviates from the TPB model
(Ajzen, 1991), that is commonly used to explain underlying con-
structs of behavior. Table 12 compares the four factors of the model
that appeared from the EFA of our study to the factors of the TPB
model.
Most notable is the fact that in the model resulting from the EFA,
one factor appeared that had a negative impact on the intention to
address sustainability: Factor 3 Potential risk. In TPB, all factors
have a positive effect on the intended behavior. The option to
extend the TPB with factors that have a negative impact was also
recognized by Conner and Armitage (1998) in their study on ex-
tensions of the TPB.
5. Conclusions
The study this article reported set out to explore the factors that
influence the project manager's intention to address the sustain-
ability of the project with the project board.
With the TPB as conceptual starting point, an exploratory study
was performed in order to identify the factors that project man-
agers perceive as influencing their intention to discuss sustain-
ability with the project board. Based on open interviews with 21
respondents from the target group, a conceptual model of 13 salient
factors was developed. This model was subsequently tested in a
survey based study with quantitative data analysis.
Based upon the analysis of the data from 134 respondents, the
study could identify four factors: Moral compass & Personal ability,
Potential benefit, Potential risk and Organizational fit, that influence
the project manager's intention to address the sustainability of the
project with the project board. Three of the four factors, Moral
compass & Personal ability, Potential benefit and Organizational fit,
influence the intention to address positively, whereas Potential risk
is negatively influencing the intention.
By identifying the factors that positively or negatively influence
to behavior of project managers with regards to sustainability, the
study contributes to the understanding of the ‘soft side’ of sus-
tainability and to the much needed implementation of sustainable
project management as a new ‘school of thought’ in project
 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240
management.
Given the fact that project managers act in many different
contexts and environments, and have different cultural back-
grounds, experiences and attitudes, a suggestion for further
research would be to investigate the factors that influence the
consideration of sustainability in projects from a diversity
perspective. In this perspective, the research strategy should be
aimed at identifying differences between groups of respondents by
employing for example Q-methodology. The model of influencing
factors developed in this study provides a theoretical starting point
for such a study.
5.1. Limitations
The sampling strategy used in the study introduces a potential
bias. Firstly, because the targeted population for this study, project
managers, was hard to reach. Many professionals that manage
projects do not formally identify themselves as project managers.
This makes a random sampling impossible and introduces a po-
tential bias. Secondly, the response rate of the survey may be
influenced by the varying levels of knowledge about the topic, that
potential respondents may have had and that may have affected
their willingness or ability to contribute to the study.
Another limitation is that not all variance could be explained by
the model found in the study. Part of this might have to do with
subconscious factors that come into play with all human behavior.
Instincts, needs and drives that are not rational neither planned but
just occur when certain factors come into play.
References
Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., Andersen, B., 2017. Project sustain-
ability strategies: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6),
1071e1083.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50, 179e211.
Akadiri, P.O., 2015. Understanding barriers affecting the selection of sustainable
materials in building projects. J. Build. Eng. 4, 86e93.
Alvarez-Dionisi, L.E., Turner, R., Mittra, M., 2016. Global project management trends.
Int. J. Inf. Technol. Proj Manag. 7 (3), 54e73.
Armitage, C., Conner, M., 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-
analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 471e499.
Association for Project Management, 2006. APM Supports Sustainability Outlooks.
Retrieved from. http://www.apm.org.uk/page.asp?categoryID¼4. on January
2nd, 2011.
Barr, S., Gilg, A., Shaw, G., 2011. Helping people make better choices: exploring the
behaviour change agenda for environmental sustainability. Appl. Geogr. 31,
712e720.
Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., Moneva, J.M., 2008. Corporate social reporting and
reputation risk management. Acc. Audit. Acc. J. 21 (3), 337e361.
Bell, S., Morse, S., 2003. Measuring Sustainability Learning from Doing. Earthscan,
London.
Brones, F.A., Carvalho, M.M., Zancul, E.S., 2014. Ecodesign in project management: a
missing link for the integration of sustainability in product development?
J. Clean. Prod. 80 (1), 106e118.
Brones, F., Carvalho, M.M., Zancul, E.S., 2017. Reviews, action and learning on change
management for ecodesign transition. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 8e22.
Carlowitz, H.C. von, 1713. Sylvicultura Oeconomica: Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht
und Naturm€ aßige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum-Zucht. Braun, Leipzig.
Carifio, L., Perla, R., 2008. Resolving the 50 year debate around using and misusing
Likert scales. Med. Educ. 42, 1150e1152.
Chen, S.-C., Hung, C.-W., 2016. Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of
green products: an extension of theory of planned behavior. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 112, 155e163.
Clark, S.C., 2000. Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance.
Hum. Relat. 53, 747e770.
Conner, M., Armitage, C.J., 1998. Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review
and avenues for further research. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28, 1429e1464.
Cordano, M., Frieze, I.H., 2000. Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environ-
mental managers: applying Ajzen's theory of planned behavior. Acad. Manag. J.
43, 627e641.
Craddock, W.T., 2013. How business excellence models contribute to project sus-
tainability and project success. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability
Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing.
Crawford, L., 2013. Leading sustainability through projects. In: Silvius, A.J.G.,
1239
Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI
Global Publishing, Hershey, PA.
Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (1), 1e13.
Deloitte, Touche, 1992. Business Strategy for Sustainable Development: Leadership
and Accountability for the 90s. International Institute for Sustainable
Development.
Ebner, D., Baumgartner, R.J., 2006. The Relationship between Sustainable Devel-
opment and Corporate Social Responsibility. www.crrconference.org. (Accessed
12 April 2013).
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. Capstone Publishing Ltc, Oxford.
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., 2013. Sustainable development and project stakeholder
management: what standards say. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 36e50.
Ferna
ndez-Sa
nchez, G., Rodríguez-Lo
pez, F., 2010. A methodology to identify sus-
tainability indicators in construction project managementdapplication to
infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecol. Indicat. 10, 1193e1201.
Francis, J., Johnston, M., Walker, M., Grimshaw, A., Bonetti, D., Foy, R., Eccles, M.,
2004. Constructing Questionnaires Based on the TPB. University of Newcastle:
Centre for health services research, Newcastle.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pitman/Bal-
linger, Boston.
Gareis, R., Huemann, M., Martinuzzi, R.-A., with the assistance of, Weninger, C.,
Sedlacko, M., 2013. Project Management & Sustainable Development Principles.
Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA USA.
Gholami, H., Rezaei, G., Saman, M.Z.M., Sharif, S., Zakuan, N., 2016. State-of-the art
Green HRM system: sustainability in the sports center in Malaysia using a
multi-methods approach and opportunities for future research. J. Clean. Prod.
124, 142e163.
Gilbert, R., Stevenson, D., Girardet, H., Stern, R. (Eds.), 1996. Making Cities Work: the
Role of Local Authorities in the Urban Environment. Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Goedknegt, D., 2013. Responsibility for adhering to sustainability in project man-
agement. In: 7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organi-
zation, Trondheim, pp. 145e154.
Haugan, G., 2012. The New Triple Constraints for Sustainable Projects, Programs,
and Portfolios. CRC press, Boca Raton, FL USA.
Hassi, L., Peck, D., Dewulf, K., Wever, R., 2009. Sustainable innovation - organization
and goal finding. In: Conference Proceedings Joint Actions on Climate Change.
Henson, R.K., Roberts, J.K., 2006. Use of exploratory factor Analysis in published
research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ.
Psychol. Meas. 66 (3).
Hwang, B.-G., Ng, W.J., 2013. Project management knowledge and skills for green
construction: overcoming challenges. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (2), 272e284.
International Organization for Standardization, 2010. ISO 26000. Guidance on Social
Responsibility, Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization, 2017. ISO 21505:2017, Project, Pro-
gramme and Portfolio Management. Guidance on governance, Geneva.
International Project Management Association, 2015. Individual Competence
Baseline for Project. Programme & Portfolio Management, Nijkerk, 4th version.
Jackson, S.E., Seo, J., 2010. The greening of strategic HRM scholarship. Org. Manag. J.
7, 278e290.
Julian, S.D., Ofori-Dankwa, J.C., Justis, R.T., 2008. Understanding strategic responses
to interest group pressures. Strat. Manag. J. 29, 963e984.
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Turner, L.A., 2007. Towards a definition of mixed
method research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 1 (2), 112e133.
Keeble, J.J., Topiol, S., Berkeley, S., 2003. Using indicators to measure sustainability
performance at a corporate and project level. J. Bus. Ethics 44 (2e3), 149e158.
Kidder, L., Fine, M., 1987. Qualitative and quantitative methods: when stories
converge. In: Mark, M.M., Shotland, R.L. (Eds.), Multiple Methods in Program
Evaluation, Jossey-bass, pp. 57e75.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., 2008. An industry perspective of the completeness and
relevance of a social assessment framework for project and technology man-
agement in the manufacturing sector. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (3), 253e262.
Linnenluecke, M.K., Russell, S.V., Griffiths, A., 2009. Subcultures and sustainability
practices: the impact on understanding corporate sustainability. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 18 (7), 432e452.
Maltzman, R., Shirley, D., 2013. Project manager as a pivot point for implementing
sustainability in an enterprise. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability
Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing.
Marcelino-S
adaba, S., Pe
rez-Ezcurdia, A., Gonza
lez-Jaen, L.F., 2015. Using Project
Management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a
framework definition. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 1e16.
Martens, P., 2006. Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 2 (1),
36e41.
Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2016. The challenge of introducing sustainability into
project management function: multiple-case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 117, 29e40.
Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2017. Key factors of sustainability in project man-
agement context: a survey exploring the project managers' perspective. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 35 (6), 1084e1102.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens, W.W., 1972. The Limits to
Growth. Universe Books.
Molenaar, K.R., Sobin, N., 2010. A synthesis of best-value procurement practices for
sustainable design-build projects in the public sector. J. Green Build. 5 (4),
148e157.
Mont, O., Plepys, A., 2008. Sustainable consumption progress: should we be proud
1240 A.J.G. Silvius, M. de Graaf / Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (2019) 1226e1240
or alarmed? J. Clean. Prod. 16, 531e537.
Project Management Institute, 2010. Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Pade, C., Mallinson, B., Sewry, D., 2008. An elaboration of critical success factors for
rural ICT project sustainability in developing countries: exploring the dwesa
case. J. Inf. Technol. Cases Appl. 10 (4).
Reio Jr., T.G., Shuck, B., 2015. Exploratory Factor Analysis: implications for theory,
research and practice. Adv. Develop. Hum. Resour. 17, 12e25.
Renwick, D.W., Jabbour, C.J., Muller-Camen, M., Redman, T., Wilkinson, A., 2016.
Contemporary developments in Green (environmental) HRM scholarship. Int. J.
Hum. Resour. Manag. 27 (2), 114e128.
Robinson, J., 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable
development. Ecol. Econ. 48, 369e384.
S

anchez, M.A., 2015. Integrating sustainability issues into project management.
J. Clean. Prod. 96, 319e330.
Silvius, A.J.G., 2016a. Sustainability as a competence of project managers. PM World
J. V (IX), 1e13.
Silvius, A.J.G., 2016b. Integrating sustainability into project risk management. In:
Bodea, S., Purnus, A., Huemann, M., Hajdu, M. (Eds.), Managing Project Risks For
Competitive Advantage in Changing Business Environments. IGI Global.
Silvius, A.J.G., 2017. Sustainability as a new school of thought in project manage-
ment. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1479e1493.
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., 2014. Sustainability in Project Management: a literature
review and impact analysis. Soc. Bus. 4 (1).
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., 2015. Developing a maturity model for assessing sus-
tainable project management. J. Mod. Proj. Manag. 3 (1), 16e27.
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., 2016. Exploring the relationship between sustainability
and project success - conceptual model and expected relationships. Int. J.
Inform. Syst. Proj. Manag. 4 (3), 5e22.
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., Nedeski, S., 2013. Consideration of sustainability in
projects and project management: an empirical study. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J.
(Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global
Publishing, Hershey, PA.
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., Planko, J., van den Brink, J., Ko€hler, A., 2012. Sustain-
ability in Project Management. Gower Publishing, Farnham.
Stevens, J., 1996. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, third ed.
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Tam, G., 2010. The program management process with sustainability consider-
ations. J. Proj. Prog. Portf. Manag. 1 (1).
Tharp, J., 2013. Sustainability in project management: practical applications. In:
Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project
Management. IGI Global Publishing, Hershey, PA.
Tiron-Tudor, A., Ioana-Maria, D., 2013. Project success by integrating sustainability
in project management. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Inte-
gration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing.
Toderoiu, F., 2010. Ecological footprint and biocapacity: methodological and
regional and national dimensions. Agric. Econ. Rural Dev. VII (2), 213e238. New
Series.
Tulder, R. van, Tilburg, R. van, Francken, M., da Rosa, A., 2014. Managing the
Transition to a Sustainable Enterprise: Lessons from Frontrunner Companies.
Earthscan by Routledge.
Turner, J.R., 2010. Responsibilities for sustainable development in project and
program management. In: Knoepfel, H. (Ed.), Survival and Sustainability as
Challenges for Projects. International Project Management Association, Zurich.
Wang, P., Liu, Q., Qi, Y., 2014. Factors influencing sustainable consumption behav-
iors: a survey of the rural residents in China. J. Clean. Prod. 63, 152e165.
Weninger, C., Huemann, M., 2013. Project initiation: investment analysis for sus-
tainable development. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integra-
tion for Effective Project Management. IGI Global Publishing.
Wojciszke, B., 2005. Morality and competence in person- and selfperception. Eur.
Rev. Soc. Psychol. 16, 155e188.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Zuchi, D., 2018. The maturity of the project owner: how can it Be developed? In:
Silvius, G., Karayaz, G. (Eds.), Developing Organizational Maturity For Effective
Project Management. IGI Global.