PAGE 67

JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JANUARY/APRIL 2022#28 ISSUE VOL. 09 NUM. 03

DOI NUMBER: 10.19255/JMPM02805

Abstract: Sustainable project management is one of the most important

global project management trends today. And despite several studies

addressing the relationship between sustainable project management and

success, this relationship is still inadequately addressed. Following the

suggestion that project success is just as much influenced by subjective

perceptions as it is by objective performance data, this study focuses on the

subjective perception of the relationship between the dimensions of

sustainable project management and the criteria of project success.

Based on a quantitative survey-based research design, the study found a

positive perceived relationship between sustainable project management

and all criteria of project success. However, the participants of the study

differentiated this positive relationship for the different criteria of project

success. The study also found that practitioners perceive sustainable project

management as a single integrated construct and do not differentiate

between the different dimensions of sustainable project management.

THE PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP

W I T T E N B O R G U N I V E R S I T Y O F A P P L I E D S C I E N C E S , T H E N E T H E R L A N D S , A N D U N I V E R S I T Y O F J O H A N N E S B U R G , S O U T H A F R I C A

BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PROJECT SUCCESS

GILBERT SILVIUS

Keywords: Sustainability; Project management; Project success

W I T T E N B O R G U N I V E R S I T Y O F A P P L I E D S C I E N C E S , T H E N E T H E R L A N D S SARA KESHAVARZIAN

1. INTRODUCTION The awareness that sustainable development of society

requires a more conscious use of natural resources, and a

balance between economic, environmental and social

impacts, is now firmly established in businesses and

organizations. The 2019 'State of 'Sustainability' business

survey indicates that CEOs are increasingly pursuing the

integration of sustainability into the strategies and practices

of their businesses (BSR/GlobeScan, 2019). This integration

impacts a wide range of functional areas in the organization,

such as strategy, research and development, human

resources management, supply chain management and

finance (Tulder et al., 2014). The transition towards more

sustainable business practices requires organizational

change, in which projects play an instrumental role

(Marcelino-Sádaba et al., 2015).

The pivotal role of projects in the transition towards

sustainability of businesses, organizations and society

require a reconsideration of the way projects are planned,

organized, executed, managed, and governed (Silvius and

Schipper, 2014). This sustainability perspective on project

management (Silvius, 2017) is addressed in a growing

number of studies (Aarseth et al., 2017; Sabini et al., 2019;

Silvius and Schipper, 2014). An open question, however, is

how sustainability impacts project success (Silvius and

Schipper, 2016). Considering sustainability in project

management may increase the quality of the deliverable of

the project and/or the satisfaction of stakeholders, but

considering sustainability also comes at a price (Silvius et

al., 2012). Khalifeh et al. (2019), therefore, conclude that the

relationship between sustainability and project success is still

inadequately addressed in the literature and that more

research is needed. It is this gap in the literature that the

study reported in this paper addresses.

One of the issues in studies on the relationship between

sustainable project management and project success is the

operationalization of success. Studies on project success

point out that success is multidimensional (Ika, 2009),

evolving over time (Pinto and Slevin, 1988; Shenhar et al.,

2001) and perceived differently by different stakeholders

(Prabhakar, 2008). PS is therefore not easy to measure.

Pirozzi (2021) points out that, perhaps even more important

than the objective measurement of success, the subjective

perception of project success may be essential. In line with

this, Silvius and de Graaf (2019) found that the more

favorable the project manager beliefs the outcome of

considering sustainability in the project will be, the more

likely he or she is willing to consider sustainability. For the

consideration of sustainability in project management,

therefore, the perceived impact on project success plays an

important role. The study reported in this paper, therefore,

focuses on exploring the perceived relationship between

sustainable project management and success. This focus

presents a novel approach compared to the earlier studies

on this topic, and the therefore makes a contribution to the

understanding of the aspects and effects of integrating

sustainability into project management.

The research question of the study was formulated as How

does considering sustainability in project management

influence the perceived success of projects?

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the

following paragraph, the main variables of the study,

sustainable project management (SPM) and project success

(PS) will be described based on the literature on these

topics. The largest part of the review of the literature will be

devoted to the discussion of earlier studies on the

relationship between sustainable project management and

project success. The design and methodology of the study

are revealed in the third paragraph of this paper, after which

the following paragraph will discuss the findings and the data

analysis. The paper will be concluded with a reflection on the

findings and the answering of the research question.

2. BACKGROUND LITERATURE In this paragraph, the main variables of our research

question, SPM and PS will be explored. We used Google

Scholar as the search engine in our search for relevant

literature. As PS is a frequently studied topic in academic

literature, we relied on earlier published literature reviews on

the topic, specifically Ika (2009), to guide the

operationalization of this variable. On SPM, a number of

recently published structured literature reviews, specifically

Silvius and Schipper (2014), Chofreh et al. (2019), Sabini et

al. (2019) and Kiani Mavi et al. (2021), provided a solid

T H E P E R C E I V E D R E L A T I O N S H I P . . . PAGE 69

JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JAN/APR 2022

foundation for the understanding of the concept of SPM.

For the analysis of literature that specifically focuses on the

relationship between SPM and PS, we formulated a series of

search strings that were all variations of the main search

string ""PROJECT+SUCCESS+SUSTAINABILITY"". We

expanded our search based on the sources used in the

publications that were found. In total 66 publications were

identified that based on their abstracts, were reduced to 18

relevant studies. After reading the full papers, our analysis

focused on 15 articles that specifically addressed the

relationship between SPM and PS variables.

This paragraph will first discuss the characteristics of SPM

shown in the literature. Following this, the concept of

success in projects and project management will be

discussed. The literature review will be completed with a

discussion of earlier studies on the relationship between

SPM and PS.

2.1 Sustainability Project Management SPM is defined as "the planning, monitoring and controlling

of project delivery and support processes, with consideration

of the environmental, economic and social aspects of the

lifecycle of the 'project's resources, processes, deliverables

and effects, aimed at realizing benefits for stakeholders, and

performed in a transparent, fair and ethical way that includes

proactive stakeholder participation" (Silvius and Schipper,

2014). This definition integrates the consideration of familiar

sustainability concepts, such as the 'Triple Bottom 'Line'

(TBL) of economic, social and environmental perspectives

(Elkington, 1994), lifecycle orientation (Labuschagne and

Brent, 2005) and stakeholder orientation (Freeman, 1984)

into project management, which is defined as the planning,

monitoring and controlling of project delivery and support

processes.

SPM is considered one of the most important global project

management trends today (Alvarez-Dionisi et al., 2016;

Gemünden, 2016) and several authors (Silvius and

Schipper, 2014; Aarseth et al., 2017; Sabini et al., 2019)

report a growing number of studies that address the topic.

From this emerging literature base, it appears that the

relationship between sustainability and project management

can be interpreted in two ways (Sabini et al., 2019; Silvius

"Sustainability by the project": the sustainability of the

deliverable or result that the project realizes;

"Sustainability of the project": the sustainability of the

delivery and management processes of the project.

and Schipper, 2015). These two interpretations are

characterized by Huemann and Silvius (2017) as:

In Sustainability by the project, sustainability is mainly

considered with regards to the deliverable or result of the

project. Frameworks of sustainability are used to define or

assess the content related aspects of the project (Silvius and

Schipper, 2014), such as the specifications and design of the

'project's deliverable (Aarseth et al., 2017; Brones et al.,

2014) materials used (Akadiri, 2015) benefits to be achieved

(Silvius et al., 2012; Weninger and Huemann, 2013), 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 TBL concept (Elkington, 1994), by

developing sets of indicators on the different perspectives

(For example, Bell and Morse, 2003; Edum-Fotwe and Price,

2009; Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López, 2010;

Keeble et al., 2003; Labuschagne and Brent, 2008; Martens

and Carvalho, 2017).

In Sustainability of the project studies, the sustainability

perspective is applied to the processes of project delivery,

management and governance, such as the identification and

engagement of stakeholders (Eskerod and Huemann, 2013),

the process of procurement in the project (Molenaar and

Sobin, 2010), the development of the business case

(Weninger and Huemann, 2013), the monitoring of the

project (Sánchez, 2015), the identification and management

of project risks (Silvius, 2016) the communication in and by

the project (Pade et al,.2008; Barendsen et al., 2021) and

the selection and organization of the project team (Silvius

and Schipper, 2014).

In one of the first publications on sustainability and project

management, Labuschagne and Brent (2005) link the two

interpretations, Sustainability by the project and

Sustainability of the project, by elaborating on the lifecycle

orientation of sustainability. Project management logically

considers the life cycle of a project, from its initiation to its

closure. However, Labuschagne and Brent argue that from a

sustainability perspective, project management should not

only consider the life cycle of the project, but also of the

deliverable or result the project realizes, for example a

change in products, assets, systems, processes or behavior.

This deliverable, in their words: the "asset", should also be

considered over its full life cycle, for example: design–

develop–manufacture–operate–decommission–disposal. In

the context Labuschagne and Brent studied, this asset would

in its "operate" phase, produce products or services that

would have a life cycle on their own. Considering

sustainability in a project would therefore suggest that all

three lifecycles, "project life cycle", "asset life cycle" and

"product life cycle", are considered, as these lifecycles

interact and influence each other. The definition of

sustainable project management referenced above, refers to

these interacting lifecycles by stating that in sustainable

project management the sustainability perspective is applied

to the life cycles of "the project's resources, processes,

deliverables and effects" (Silvius and Schipper, 2014).

2.2 Project Success The concept of success in projects or project management is

one of the most studied concepts in project management

research (Ika, 2009). In the literature, a distinction is made

between project success criteria and project success factors.

Project success criteria are the measures used to measure

and judge the success or failure of a project (Müller and

Jugdev, 2012). They may also be referred to as the

performance indicators of the project. Project success

factors are the elements of a project which, when influenced,

increase the likelihood of success (Müller and Jugdev,

2012). These are the input factors or circumstances that

make success more likely.

The study reported in this paper focuses on the perceived

impact of considering sustainability, as an input factor, on

project success, as a resulting performance of the project.

Therefore, we will elaborate in this section on the criteria and

variables of measuring project success: the project success

criteria.

Few people would disagree with the statement that project

success is interpretable in many ways. It is, simply put, a

rather "elusive concept" (Prabhakar, 2008). Most early

research on project success seems to emphasize the three

traditional criteria of success: realizing the deliverable of the

project according to specifications within the agreed

schedule and budget (Albert et al., 2017). This threesome of

success criteria, quality, schedule/time and cost/budget,

sometimes also referred to as the 'iron triangle', remains

often used, "despite the fact that this method is currently

subject to widespread criticism" (Bakker et al., 2010).

Starting around the early 80s of last century, however, also

other criteria of success emerged from literature, such as the

benefits that the use of the project's deliverable generates

for the user organization, or the "effectiveness of the project

from the perspective of the stakeholder" (Jugdev and Müller,

2005). Ika (2009) analyzed the development of criteria used

to assess project success, as visualized in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 EVOLUTION OF PROJECT SUCCESS

CRITERIA (BASED ON IKA, 2009).

From the overview in Figure 1, it appears that the criteria of

PS evolved from the iron triangle of time, cost and quality to

a more holistic set of criteria that also included the benefits

that the project generates and the satisfaction of

stakeholders. In addition to the success criteria identified by

Ika, Almahmoud et al. (2012) conclude that criteria for

health, safety, and environmental performance should be

included in the assessment of PS. Sustainability, therefore,

may be starting to be included in the criteria for PS.

2.3 The Relationship between SPM and PS Following the distinction made above between project

success factors and success criteria, the publications that

relate SPM to PS also can be distinguished in these two

perspectives. For example, Michaelides et al. (2014) and

Daneshpour (2015) conclude that sustainability should be

T H E P E R C E I V E D R E L A T I O N S H I P . . . PAGE 71

JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JAN/APR 2022

considered a critical success factor for projects, whereas

Kometa et al. (1995); Lim and Mohamed (1999); Chan and

Chan (2004) and Almahmoud et al. (2012) assert that

sustainability-related aspects should be included in the

criteria for PS.

Despite this suggestion that considering sustainability should

be considered as a factor or criterion for success, the actual

relationship between SPM and PS has only received limited

coverage in the emerging academic literature on

sustainability in project and project management. Dubois and

Silvius (2020) provide an overview of studies that specifically

address the relationship between SPM and PS. Table 1

elaborates on their overview by presenting the 15 articles

that our literature search delivered.

Table 1 shows that most of the initial studies were

conceptual in nature. For example, Mishra et al. (2011) link

PS to ethics in business. They conclude that "The project

manager should make sure that he is completing the project

while keeping the ethical standards and social impact in

mind". Craddock (2013) also links PS to business and

therefore aligns the criteria of PS with business excellence

models, such as the European Foundation for Quality

Management (EFQM) model. And as one of the EFQM

model's fundamental concepts of excellence is "Taking

responsibility for a sustainable future", he concludes that

sustainability should be integrated in the criteria for PS and

that SPM would therefore positively impact PS.

The other conceptual studies, Martens and Carvalho (2014)

and Silvius and Schipper (2016), both build up a conceptual

model of the relationship between SPM and PS that later

was used in empirical studies (in Martens and Carvalho,

2016b, resp. Khalilzadeh et al., 2016). Based on their

conceptual model, Silvius and Schipper (2016) also provided

a conceptual mapping of the different relationships between

the dimensions of SPM and the criteria of PS. This mapping

showed that most of the relationships are expected to be

positive, however, the expected relationship between SPM

and the PS criteria time and budget are labelled "uncertain".

The rationale behind the uncertain effect of SPM on two of

the three iron triangle criteria of project success comes from

the expectation that a more sustainable project may require

additional investments, for example in better materials

(Packard Foundation, 2002), that are projected to deliver a

benefit in the medium to long term from lower operation

costs. However, these future benefits are by nature

uncertain, where the higher investment is not uncertain. In

some cases, the higher investment may therefore result in

the project not being taken beyond the initial concept and

design phases (Pearce, 2008).

Besides this assumed higher investment risk, incorporating

environmental and social considerations into projects

suggests extra requirements and specifications (Maltzman

and Shirley, 2010; Taylor, 2010), which may increase the

complexity of the project. For example, Hwang and Ng

(2013) conclude that incorporating sustainability in

construction projects makes planning harder, causes more

variations in design, causes difficulty in selecting

subcontractors, causes uncertainty in the required materials

and equipment, requires more coordination with different

parties, and leads to more unexpected circumstances at

project closure. This increases the pressure on project

managers and decision makers (Knight and Jenkins, 2009).

Moreover, it has been argued that incorporating

sustainability raises the level of expectations of stakeholders

of the project (Marcelino-Sádaba et al., 2015) and may

increase tensions between them (Brandoni and Polonara,

2012; De Brucker et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2007; Tam et al.,

2007). Therefore, the expected impact of SPM on the iron

triangle criteria of PS is considered uncertain.

Next to the conceptual studies, Table 1 also shows 10

empirical studies on the relationship between SPM and PS.

Table 2 presents how these studies define or operationalize

the variables SPM and PS, and what the studies concluded.

PS is more than the iron triangle.

The operationalization of SPM is diverse

From the studies presented in Table 2, a couple of

observations can be made.

The studies listed in Table 2, mostly operationalize PS in a

holistic set of criteria that cover both the traditional 'iron

triangle' criteria of project success, time – quality – budget,

as well as criteria related to the project's deliverable and the

benefits this deliverable enables. This is in line with the

evolution of PS criteria that Ika (2009) observed.

In most of the empirical studies, the TBL perspectives of

economic dimension, environmental dimension and social

dimension, are recognizable in the operationalization of

SPM. This is in line with the observations of Silvius and

Schipper (2014) that concluded that the TBL was the most

used concept of sustainability in studies on SPM. However,

the same authors concluded that SPM is more than

considering the TBL perspectives. SPM also includes

dimensions that are derived from the literature on (corporate)

TABLE 1. PUBLISHED STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPM AND PS.

Table 2. Overview of empirical studies on the relationship between SPM and PS. (continue)

T H E P E R C E I V E D R E L A T I O N S H I P . . . PAGE 73

JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JAN/APR 2022

The relationship between SPM and PS is mostly

considered positively.

social responsibility (Silvius, 2017). Based on this broader

understanding of SPM, Silvius and Schipper (2014)

developed nine dimensions of SPM that are also used in a

number of studies on the relationship between SPM and PS.

In line with the analysis of Khalifeh et al. (2019) the overview

provided in Table 2 shows support for the conclusion that

SPM supports PS, and that no negative impacts of SPM

were observed. However, the limitations of the available

studies, lead Khalifeh et al. (2019) to comment that the

relationship between SPM and PS is still inadequately

addressed in the literature and that more research is

needed. Since this comment, four more empirical studies

have been published that all concluded a positive correlation

between SPM and PS. However, whether this empirical

evidence is sufficient to convince project managers and

project owners about the positive effects of SPM is still

unknown. And in addition, it should be noted that the

perception of the relationship between SPM and PS is not

studied yet.

Studies mostly focus on traditional project industries.

Sustainability is about balancing or harmonizing social,

environmental and economic interests

Sustainability is about both short-term and long-term

orientation

With regards to the industries covered in the empirical

studies, the traditional project industries, such as

construction and oil & gas, show up more prominently than,

for example, information technology or financial services

3. RESEARCH STRATEGY

3.1 Research approach and model The authors choose a quantitative survey-based research

design for the investigation of the perceived relationships

between SPM and PS. The conceptual model of the study

was taken from the studies of Silvius and Schipper (2016)

and Khalilzadeh et al. (2016). In this model, SPM is

operationalized in nine dimensions of sustainability in project

management, that was developed by Silvius and Schipper

(2014) in the first structured literature review on the topic:

TABLE 2. OVERVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPM AND PS.

Table 2. Overview of empirical studies on the relationship between SPM and PS. (continue)

T H E P E R C E I V E D R E L A T I O N S H I P . . . PAGE 75

JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JAN/APR 2022

H1. Project managers perceive the relationship between

sustainable project management and more controlled

execution of the project as positive.

H2. Project managers perceive the relationship between

sustainable project management and completing the

project on time and within budget as positive.

H3. Project managers perceive the relationship between

sustainable project management and the project's

deliverable is fit for purpose as positive.

H4. Project managers perceive the relationship between

sustainable project management and the realization of

Based on earlier studies the impact of SPM on the

product/benefits related criteria of PS is more positive than

on the iron triangle related criteria. The previous studies

therefore provide an indication that scenario C might be the

best depiction of the relationship between SPM and PS. The

study therefore adopts scenario C for the formulating the

hypotheses of this study. However, in the data analysis, all

four scenarios A – D will be considered, by analyzing the

internal consistency of both the SPM and the PS

composites.

The hypotheses for the study were formulated as:.

Sustainability is about local and global orientation

Sustainability is about values and ethics

Sustainability is about transparency and accountability

Sustainability is about stakeholder participation

Sustainability is about risk reduction

Sustainability is about eliminating waste

Sustainability is about consuming income, not capital

As these dimensions were developed by synthesizing a

broad array of publications on SPM, they provide a well-

developed conceptualization of sustainability in projects and

project management.

In the study PS was operationalized in six project success

criteria, that are summarized in Table 3 (Silvius and

Schipper, 2016).

These criteria summarize the criteria suggested in earlier

studies, including the frequently referenced works of Pinto

and Slevin (1988), Baccarini (1999), Atkinson (1999),

Shenhar et al. (2001), Nelson (2005) and Müller and Turner

(2007).

The resulting conceptual model of the relationship between

SPM and PS is shown in Figure 2

TABLE 3. CRITERIA OF PROJECT SUCCESS (SILVIUS AND SCHIPPER, 2016)..

FIGURE 2. CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPM AND

PS (BASED ON SILVIUS AND SCHIPPER, 2016).

A. 54 hypotheses for all perceived relationships between

individual SPM dimensions and individual PS criteria.

B. Nine hypotheses for the relationships of the individual

dimensions of SPM with the overall concept of PS.

C. Six hypotheses for the relationships of the overall

concept of SPM with the individual criteria of PS.

D. One hypothesis for the perceived relationship

between overall concept of SPM and overall concept of

PS.

In this model, SPM is operationalized in the above

mentioned nine dimensions, and PS in six criteria, resulting

in 9 x 6 = 54 relationships between the different dimensions

of SPM and the different criteria of PS. And as our study was

aimed at exploring the perceived relationship between SPM

and PS, these 54 relationships provided the foundation for

the development of the questionnaire.

3.2 Hypothesis development Based on the research model, the hypotheses on the

relationship between SPM and PS can be developed in four

possible scenarios:

H5. Project managers perceive the relationship between

sustainable project management and the satisfaction of

project's stakeholders as positive.

H6. Project managers perceive the relationship between

sustainable project management and how the project

prepares the organization for its future as positive.

project's benefits as planned in the business case as

positive.

Figure 3. shows the hypotheses plotted on the conceptual

model of the study.

3.3 Questionn