sustainability

Article
Sustainability in Project Management Practices
Inês Soares 1 , Gabriela Fernandes 1, * and José M. R. C. A. Santos 2,3

1 Centre for Mechanical Engineering, Materials and Processes CEMMPRE, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal; [email protected]
2 Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO), Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia,
5300-253 Bragança, Portugal; [email protected]
3 Laboratório Associado para a Sustentabilidade e Tecnologia em Regiões de Montanha (SusTEC), Instituto
Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The intersection between sustainability and project management has received significant
attention as organizations recognize the criticality of incorporating sustainability practices into their
projects. However, incorporating sustainability considerations presents some challenges, requiring
the development and adoption of methods, tools and techniques tailored to address sustainability
at the project level. Against this backdrop, this study endeavors to develop an understanding of
the effective incorporation of sustainability within projects through the micro-level perspective of
practices. An online survey was developed based on a comprehensive literature review of which a
total of 107 valid responses were collected and analyzed. The results show the most useful sustainable
project management practices perceived by experienced project professionals, including ‘Sustain-
ability team management’, ‘Lessons learned towards sustainability’ and ‘Sustainability risk register’,
among others. However, a data analysis reveals a prevailing trend marked by the limited perceived
usefulness of sustainability practices in the context of project management. Furthermore, through
exploratory factor analysis, a clear classification of sustainable project management practices was
identified, according to the specific phases of the common project management lifecycle: ‘Initiation
and planning’, ‘Execution, monitoring, controlling and replanning’ and ‘Closure’. By providing a
set of sustainable project management practices and identifying the underlying factors that eluci-
date the incorporation of sustainable project management practices across the project management
lifecycle, this study extends a guiding hand to practitioners in pursuing successful sustainability
Citation: Soares, I.; Fernandes, G.;
integration in their projects. It vividly illustrates that sustainability can be readily incorporated into
Santos, J.M.R.C.A. Sustainability in
project-management processes, delivering sustainable products and/or services in a sustainable way,
Project Management Practices.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275. https://
combining both the ‘sustainability of the project’ and ‘sustainability by the project’ perspectives.
doi.org/10.3390/su16104275
Keywords: sustainable project management; sustainable project-management practices; project-
Academic Editors: Janez Kušar and
management lifecycle
Ignacio De los Ríos Carmenado

Received: 25 March 2024

Revised: 16 April 2024
Accepted: 17 May 2024 1. Introduction
Published: 19 May 2024 Nowadays, sustainability is considered one of the most critical project-management
(PM) trends [1]. Projects and PM play a crucial role in driving change towards sustainability,
as they directly interact with society and shape the future by transforming today’s objectives
into future achievements [2–5]. They not only contribute to the sustainable development
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
of organizations but also have a significant impact on the surrounding environment and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
communities [2,6].
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
Traditionally, the sustainability discourse in projects focused on the development of
conditions of the Creative Commons
sustainable deliverables. However, a compelling need has arisen for Sustainable Project
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Management (SPM), a paradigm that transcends the deliverables and entails the effective
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ management of projects in a sustainable manner [2]. Nevertheless, despite the growing
4.0/). significance of sustainability in PM, the concept of SPM remains relatively uncharted [4,7].

Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104275 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 2 of 21

Notably, the majority of the studies in this domain are qualitative, revealing a distinct
lack of representation of quantitative research [4]. The scarcity of quantitative empirical
analyses underscores a critical gap in the literature, emphasizing the pressing need for
quantitative empirical studies to advance the understanding of sustainability in PM [8].
As sustainability reshapes the PM profession, an urgent demand has emerged for practi-
cal methods, tools and techniques tailored to assess sustainability at the project level [5,9,10].
Current frameworks and widely adopted bodies of knowledge, such as the PMBoK from the
Project Management Institute, the IPMA Individual Competence Baseline and PRINCE2,
often prove inadequate in addressing social and environmental considerations, falling
short in the seamless integration of sustainable development objectives within the project
context [3,9,11].
Furthermore, Silvius [12] aptly emphasized the imperative for researchers, authors and
standards to distill sustainability aspects into practical tools to empower project managers
to effectively address sustainability in PM processes. In addition to developing instru-
ments, there exists a compelling need to educate project managers and foster sustainability
competencies among practitioners.
Therefore, this paper endeavors to address the pressing need for practical guidance in
SPM by fulfilling two research objectives: (1) identify key SPM practices and (2) categorize
the SPM practices. Specifically, this paper aims to address the following: what are the
key SPM practices that enable the integration of sustainability into PM throughout the
PM lifecycle? By having a micro-level perspective on SPM practice perception of practical
usefulness for which there is limited understanding, this study aims to support organiza-
tions in effectively incorporating sustainability concerns and implementing SPM practices,
ultimately contributing to the successful delivery of projects that include sustainability con-
cerns. These endeavors are underpinned by empirical data gathered from PM professionals,
offering actionable insights to bridge the critical gap in SPM practice.
To set the stage for the attainment of these two objectives, this paper begins with a
comprehensive literature review casting a spotlight on the domain of SPM practices. Herein,
SPM practices encompass the methods and approaches used by project practitioners to
execute PM processes, along with the behaviors embraced to promote sustainability within
projects. The theoretical background underpins the subsequent development of a question-
naire, designed to glean empirical insights from PM professionals. Subsequently, the paper
presents the questionnaire data analysis and thoroughly discusses the key findings. Finally,
the paper ends with concluding remarks, identification of limitations and recommendations
for future research endeavors.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Sustainable Project Management
The intersection of sustainability and PM, known as SPM, is considered a new per-
spective that examines projects from a societal, economic and environmental standpoint [5].
Thus, sustainability is frequently associated with the triple bottom line criteria. However,
the context of PM adds additional dimensions to the understanding of sustainability’s
impact, including values, time, geographical factors, performance, stakeholder participa-
tion, waste management, transparency, accountability, culture, risk reduction and political
aspects [13].
Silvius and Schipper [13] proposed a comprehensive definition for SPM: “the planning,
monitoring, and controlling of project delivery and support processes, with consideration of
the environment, economic, and social aspects of the life cycle of the project’s resource, pro-
cesses, deliverables, and effects, aimed at realizing benefits for stakeholders, and performed
in a transparent, fair and ethical way that includes proactive stakeholder participation”.
This definition highlights the need for a departure from traditional PM practices, as they
often fall short of meeting the fundamental principles of sustainability [4].
The concept of SPM has been subject to some ambiguity, leading to some difficulties in
distinguishing projects that deliver products and/or services sustainably from projects that
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 3 of 21

develop and deliver sustainable deliverables. To address this, Huemann and Silvius [2]
proposed differentiating ‘sustainability by the project’ from ‘sustainability of the project’.
The former denotes projects delivering sustainable goods and/or services, acting as tools
for implementing and delivering sustainability solutions through their deliverables. On
the other hand, the latter refers to projects that adopt sustainable approaches in their
processes, recognizing the value that SPM brings to organizations or society, regardless of
the deliverables [2,4].
Therefore, the prior definition emphasizes that SPM involves incorporating sustain-
ability into the processes and practices of PM. The ‘impact areas’, i.e., the PM areas where
sustainability has significant influence over the processes or practices of PM [13] are identi-
fied in several studies, including project context recognition [14], stakeholder identification
and engagement [11,15], business case [16], project team selection and organization [13],
project schedule [13], procurement [9,17], risk identification and management [18], project
communication [19], project reporting [20] and organizational learning [13,21]. In essence,
sustainability affects virtually all aspects of PM from project initiation to its closure. Sustain-
ability integration into PM processes offers opportunities for innovation and competitive
advantages. By incorporating SPM practices into daily operations and strategic objectives,
organizations contribute to societal and environmental well-being while also generating
economic value [22–24]. However, this integration presents challenges and new respon-
sibilities for project managers, requiring the development of new competencies for them
to be able to assess the sustainability of their projects [12,25]. The paradigm shift asso-
ciated with prioritizing economic, environmental and social impacts in/of PM requires
project managers to think beyond conventional boundaries, communicate openly and
embrace a flexible and complex approach to address the sustainability aspects of projects
effectively [22].
Despite the increasing focus on sustainability in PM, Økland [7] noted a disparity
between the content documented in existing literature and the actual practices imple-
mented. More recently, in a study conducted by Magano et al. [26], it was identified that
the incorporation of sustainability considerations in projects is still at a premature stage.
The authors concluded that this level of consideration is somewhat surprising given the
growing emphasis on sustainability in academic research. This discrepancy is attributed
to the ambiguity of the sustainability concept, requiring particular skills and competen-
cies from project managers and practitioners to determine the dimensions contributing to
sustainability in practical project scenarios [17]. Integrating sustainability and PM calls
for practical knowledge, tools and instruments capable of articulating sustainability in
operational contexts [3,27]. Without sufficient guidance on the integration of sustainabil-
ity criteria and PM processes, many organizations are struggling to effectively manage
projects [28], often defaulting to conventional PM practices [29].

2.2. Sustainable Project Management Practices

The following sections aim to explore and summarize the existing knowledge on SPM
practices aligned with the description above, focusing on the initiation, planning, execution,
monitor and control, and closure phases of projects.

2.2.1. Initiation Phase

Typically, project initiation begins with the establishment of a business case, which in-
cludes project justification, cost–benefit analysis and underlying assumptions, to determine
the viability of investing in a specific business need [30]. While financial business cases are
commonly used to justify projects, it is crucial to consider non-financial factors, including
social and environmental aspects, to ensure the long-term economic, environmental and
social impacts of the project [31]. Traditional financial metrics, such as cash-flow and pay-
back period, are inadequate in capturing environmental and social factors [5]. Therefore, it
is imperative for the project’s business case to encompass the Triple Bottom Line criteria,
considering economic, environmental and social benefits [13].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 4 of 21

Additionally, during the initiation phase, it is essential to gain a comprehensive

understanding of the project’s context to align with the project objectives, stakeholders
and the project environment [30]. This understanding entails integrating sustainability
dimensions that align with the Triple Bottom Line criteria [13].
The determination of project objectives is also a significant activity during project
initiation. Labuschagne and Brent [14] emphasize the challenge of aligning operational
processes with sustainable development objectives. The authors highlight the need for
PM documents, such as the project charter, explicitly addressing sustainable development
objectives, including social equity, economic efficiency and environmental performance, to
ensure project participants are aware of and committed to these objectives.
Identifying stakeholders is a crucial step in stakeholder engagement, starting before
or during the project initiation and continuing throughout the project [32]. To address
sustainability, it is important to select stakeholders who represent the environmental and
social aspects of the project, such as environmental protection groups and human rights
organizations [13,33].

2.2.2. Planning Phase

The planning phase of a project involves various processes aimed at establishing the
project’s scope, revising objectives and determining the necessary actions for the intended
outcomes [32]. Among these processes, risk management needs to evolve to include the
identification of environmental and social risks and opportunities [5,18].
Considering the project’s impact is also vital during the planning phase, particularly
in accounting for environmental and social impacts alongside financial impacts. Under-
standing how the project affects the community, including aspects such as health, safety
and education, contributes to long-term project performance and enhances the quality
of life for those directly affected [10]. Environmental and social impact assessments, as
part of sustainability policies, play a role in promoting project sustainability within the
project’s geographic and local context [17]. Therefore, projects with significant environmen-
tal and social impacts often require environmental and social impact assessments during
the preparation and design phases.
The planning phase also encompasses project schedule management and procurement
management processes. SPM encourages the development of sustainable schedules to
minimize waste, not only in terms of materials but also in idle resources and waiting
times [13]. Procurement management presents an opportunity to integrate sustainability
considerations by selecting suppliers based on their sustainability performance and adopt-
ing waste reduction strategies [13]. Therefore, organizations should reflect their values in
procurement contracts, adapting their procurement processes and criteria to align with their
sustainability goals and vision by assessing supplier evaluations for sustainability criteria,
encoding sustainability obligations in contracts and ensuring transparency throughout the
supply chain [33]. Green procurement is the concept that incorporates these sustainability
aspects and can be achieved through the development of procurement management plans
that include relevant information about resource acquisition and integration [30].
Effective communication management and stakeholder management processes are
critical in the development of SPM, with transparency and proactive communication and
engagement being key. Project managers are encouraged to engage with various stakehold-
ers, consider their needs and interests, properly communicate with them and foster their
active participation [13,33]. Concerning communication management processes, planning
communication requires project managers to understand how to communicate with the
stakeholders, what to communicate and who to communicate with [13]. Following the prin-
ciple of transparency, in the realm of SPM, communication should be open and proactive.
In the context of stakeholder management, two approaches can be distinguished:
“management of stakeholders” and “management for stakeholders” [11]. The first ap-
proach views stakeholders as resources to achieve project objectives, while the second
approach recognizes stakeholders’ interests and rights, promoting both their participation
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 5 of 21

and dialogue throughout the project [11]. According to the same authors who identify
the previous difference, traditional PM treats stakeholders’ issues following the “manage-
ment of stakeholders” approach. Enhancing stakeholder engagement and participation is
essential for effective SPM, hence, in order to transition from a traditional PM that treats
stakeholders as resources to SPM, towards involving stakeholders and entail their active
participation in various project activities, including requirement definition, cost–benefit
assessment, project planning, risk identification and project reporting in project objectives,
a paradigm shift is required [9,27,34]. Tools, such as the P5 Standard have been developed
for stakeholder engagement within the framework of SPM standards, demonstrating its
effectiveness in enhancing stakeholder benefits [34]. In addition, Silvius and Schipper [15]
have made efforts to integrate sustainability and project stakeholder management by devel-
oping practical tools and frameworks that enable project managers to identify and assess
stakeholders as well as to plan stakeholder engagement activities.
To effectively address sustainability in a project, it is recommended to develop a dedi-
cated Sustainability Management Plan, separate from standard project plans, specifically
focused on sustainability considerations [35]. The Sustainability Management Plan outlines
sustainable objectives, identifies necessary activities, assigns responsibilities and integrates
sustainability considerations into overall project planning [35]. The plan takes into account
the project’s context, including stakeholder interests and the organization’s sustainability
strategy, setting it apart from previous approaches that primarily focused on the project
itself [36].

2.2.3. Execution, Monitor and Control Phase

The execution, monitoring and control phase of PM encompasses processes necessary
for completing the work outlined in the previous phase and ensuring adherence with
project specifications [30].
The significance of green procurement, previously discussed in the planning phase,
extends to supplier selection, providing an opportunity to integrate sustainability by con-
sidering potential suppliers’ sustainability performance [9]. Aarseth et al. [17] highlight the
importance of developing sustainable supplier practices, whereby organizations support
suppliers with guidance to implement sustainability measures such as minimization of
resources, reuse, environmental protection and socio-economic uplift. However, finding
suppliers aligned with sustainability objectives remains challenging, particularly due to
the considerable expenses associated with choosing environmentally friendly equipment
and materials [9].
Effective project team management is vital in PM, given that projects are fundamen-
tally executed by project teams. Enhancing team competencies, fostering interaction among
team members and cultivating a conducive team environment all contribute to enhance
teamwork, interpersonal skills and project performance [32]. Therefore, project managers
strive to develop high-performing and goal-oriented project teams. In this context, de-
veloping sustainability competencies to increase knowledge related to sustainability and
sustainability issues, for example through training programs, can enhance a project team’s
sustainability performance [17,20]. Moreover, project managers should include social
sustainability aspects into team management practices, in addition to enhancing team
competencies and fostering a motivating environment [13,33]. This entails addressing
work-life balance, equity, quality of the work environment, education, ethics and worker
rights, while managing the team [10].
In terms of project operations and technologies, Martens and Carvalho [37] found that
organizations prioritize greener practices to reduce energy consumption, carbon emissions
and waste generation. This often involves embracing eco-friendly alternatives such as
natural lighting and ventilation. Furthermore, Carvalho and Rabechini [9] highlight in
their checklist the importance of incorporating clean technologies in product development
and project implementation. In this context, environmental technologies are defined as
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 6 of 21

leveraging knowledge to optimize natural resource usage, minimize waste, mitigate risks
and decrease pollution [38].
The same checklist emphasizes the implementation of the Design for Environment ap-
proach during project development. Design for Environment, also referred to as Eco-design,
plays a significant role in positively improving environmental impacts by considering the
entire lifecycle of a product and its environmental aspects throughout each stage of the
process [3,9]. To bridge the gap and address economic and social aspects alongside environ-
mental ones, the concept of ‘design for sustainability’ emerged, integrating all dimensions
in project design [3].
Embracing a culture of lifecycle thinking becomes essential to emphasize sustainability
in project design and tackle sustainability challenges in PM. This involves acknowledging
the various lifecycles involved in a project, including the project lifecycle, process lifecycle
and product lifecycle, to ensure sustainability considerations are incorporated [14,39].
Value management and Life Cycle management are two methods employed to underscore
sustainability in project design, with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) serving as an analytical
tool for evaluating a product’s environmental impact throughout its entire lifespan [3].
Therefore, it is imperative to consider innovative approaches for project deliverables to
contribute to a more sustainable society and be designed with sustainability considerations
spanning short-, medium- and long-term horizons [40].
To assess the sustainability performance of implemented projects, organizations fre-
quently establish indicators for economic, environmental and social impacts. Sustainability
indicators are used to ensure adherence to sustainable development principles and mea-
sure the success of projects [14]. Martens and Carvalho [37] reported that all interviewed
enterprises used sustainability indicators as methodologies, crediting project success to
their application. Most organizations in the study adopted indicators sourced from frame-
works such as the Global Reporting Initiative, which offers an extensive set of indicators.
Meanwhile, the remaining organizations used indicators specific to their projects [37].
Understanding the various lifecycles within a project is essential for identifying appro-
priate sustainability indicators [14]. Several authors have devised frameworks and method-
ologies for deriving sustainability indicators. For instance, Labuschagne and Brent [39],
identified a deficiency in social factors and indicators for assessing the social impact of
projects in comparison to environmental indicators. To bridge this gap, they introduced a
Social Impact Indicator (SII) procedure grounded in a Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
method. This approach considers the lifecycles of the project, process and product to gener-
ate economic and environmental indicators for measuring the sustainability performance
of operational activities.
As projects progress, project reports serve as a formal means of communicating rele-
vant information to stakeholders. Integrating sustainability aspects into project processes
necessitates reporting on these aspects throughout the project’s duration [13]. In this regard,
Sustainability Reporting provides organizations with a specialized project report, facili-
tating the visualization of sustainability performance and the impacts arising from their
daily operations [20]. This comprehensive approach to reporting contributes to greater
accountability and transparency in sustainability practices.

2.2.4. Closure Phase

The ultimate process group encompasses all PM processes conducted to appropriately
complete or close a project, phase or contract [30].
Evaluating project success is crucial. Traditionally, success has been evaluated based on
conventional metrics such as quality, scope, time and cost. However, it should incorporate
additional dimensions alongside traditional metrics to tailor success evaluation to specific
projects, such as environmental and social criteria to integrate sustainability aspects of the
project [9].
Projects provide valuable opportunities for continuous learning, and lessons learnt
play a critical role in improving future project processes and outcomes [10]. Silvius and
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 7 of 21

Schipper [13] emphasize the importance of organizational learning from finished projects
to achieve sustainability objectives, such as waste reduction, energy usage and resource
and material reuse. Learning from projects is essential to improve sustainability assessment
and performance in future endeavors [21].
In summary, this literature review provides an overview of SPM practices across the
PM lifecycle, highlighting the integration of sustainability considerations in each phase of
the project. The findings underscore the need to align project objectives with the Triple Bot-
tom Line criteria, engage sustainability stakeholders, incorporate environmental and social
factors into risk assessments and procurement practices, adopt sustainable scheduling and
waste reduction strategies, integrate sustainability into project team management, develop
sustainability competencies within project teams, adopt green project operations, apply
Design for Environment principles and lifecycle thinking, use sustainability indicators and
promote organizational learning through lessons learned.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that these SPM practices can be further differentiated by
approach: ‘sustainability by the project’ or ‘sustainability of the project’. This distinction
provides a nuanced perspective on how these practices contribute to either the sustainability
of the project’s deliverable or to the sustainable management of the project. For a clearer
and more organized overview, the SPM practices are summarized and signalized (X) by
their respective approaches in Table 1.

Table 1. SPM practices.

‘Sustainability ‘Sustainability
by of SPM Practice References
the Project’ the Project’
Initiation
1. Inclusion of environmental, social and financial benefits in the
X [5,13,16]
business case.
2. Recognition of sustainability dimensions of the project when
X [13]
formalizing the project initiation document.
3. Incorporation of sustainable development objectives into project
X [3,10,14,17]
objectives.
X 4. Identification of ‘sustainability stakeholders’. [11,13,15]
Planning
1. Identification of environmental and/or social risks and
X [5,18]
opportunities.
X 2. Consideration of environmental and/or social impacts of the project. [10,17,39]
3. Integration of environmental and/or social aspects in the project’s
X [5,10,13,17]
objective, outputs and outcomes into requirements documentation.
X 4. Development of sustainable scheduling. [13]
X 5. Commitment to green procurement. [3,9,13,40]
X 6. Proactive and open communication. [10,13,19]
7. Selection of sustainable approaches for the way products and
X [40]
services are delivered.
8. Management of project stakeholders considering sustainable
X [5,9,11]
development principles.
9. Establishment of a SMP to define how sustainability is addressed in
X [35,41]
the project.
Execution, Monitor and Control
X 1. Selection of suppliers considering their sustainability performance. [9,13,17]
2. Inclusion of social sustainability aspects in the organization and
X [10,13]
management of the project team.
3. Development of team members’ sustainability competencies to
X [17,20]
increase knowledge and awareness on sustainability issues.
X 4. Adoption of greener practices on project operations. [37]
5. Application of environmental technologies to the project and
X [9,40]
product development.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 8 of 21

Table 1. Cont.

‘Sustainability ‘Sustainability
by of SPM Practice References
the Project’ the Project’
6. Emphasize sustainability in project design by applying value
management and lifecycle assessment/management methods during
X [3,9,17]
project development to improve the project’s sustainable performance
(design for sustainability).
7. Design project deliverables to be sustainable in the short-, medium-
X [9,40]
and long-term.
8. Measurement of the sustainability performance of operational
X [14,37,39,42,43]
activities applying sustainability indicators.
9. Creation of a Sustainability Report to visualize sustainability
X [20]
performance and impacts resulting from everyday activities.
Closure
1. Evaluation of project success in terms of economic, environmental
X [13,44]
and social performance.
2. Registration of lessons learned including the economic,
X [13,21,45]
environmental and social aspects.

3. Research Methodology
The methodological choice for this study was a mono-method quantitative research
using an online questionnaire survey. The survey-based research was selected to investigate
the perceived usefulness of the SPM practices identified from the literature review.
The research process began with a literature review using the Web of Science and
Scopus databases. The questionnaire was developed and distributed to professionals
involved in projects. The collected data underwent statistical analysis, and finally, the
findings were compared with existing literature to draw conclusions.

3.1. Data Collection

The questionnaire was designed on LimeSurvey. The questionnaire underwent a pilot
test, where experienced PM professionals provided feedback to improve its length, clarity
and potential ambiguities. The questionnaire was revised based on feedback, resulting in a
refined final version.
This meticulous approach ensured the questionnaire was well-constructed, user-
friendly and capable of capturing the required data effectively. The iterative process
of evaluation and refinement enhanced its quality and validity. The questionnaire was
made available on a web link, for respondents to complete from November 2022 to April
2023, allowing for a sufficient data collection period.
In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to identify the level of usefulness of the
practices for the improvement of sustainability in projects according to a 5-point Likert scale.
The level of usefulness was measured from “1—Very low” to “5—Very high”. Additionally,
respondents were able to select the option “0—no opinion”. Furthermore, respondents
were asked to provide information about themselves, including various demographic
and professional data. Table 2 presents an overview of the questionnaire, including the
25 survey items related to the SPM practices.
A snowball sampling technique was employed to cover PM practitioners worldwide.
This approach involved initiating contact with a core group of individuals within the target
population, who were then asked to refer other potential participants. Due to the nature of
this method, which relies on referrals and network connections, the traditional response rate
cannot be calculated. Initially, a database of approximately 3000 email contacts representing
PM professionals all over the world was used to invite respondents via personalized emails.
To expand reach, social media such as LinkedIn was used in the second phase of contacting
professionals. Over 600 personalized messages were sent to individuals with LinkedIn
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 9 of 21

profiles aligning with the target population, aiming to increase the response rate and ensure
diversity among participants.

Table 2. Questionnaire Statements.

SPM Practice Statements Variable

Initiation
Inclusion of environmental and/or social benefits beyond financial benefits in
Sustainability Business Case A11
the business case.
Recognition and integration of sustainability dimensions when formalizing the
Sustainability project dimensions project initiation document, for example, in the project charter (e.g., information A12
on short-term and long-term orientation, and on local and global orientation).
Integration of sustainable development objectives, encompassing social equity,
Sustainable development objectives economic efficiency and environmental performance, into project objectives, A13
such as within the project charter.
Identification of ‘sustainability stakeholders’ in the stakeholder register (e.g.,
Sustainability stakeholders register A14
environmental protection groups, end-user groups).
Planning
Identification of environmental and/or social threats and opportunities, for
Sustainability risks register A21
example in the risk register.
Consideration of environmental and/or social impacts through tasks dedicated
Sustainability impacts assessment
to aspects such as environmental impact assessments, social impact assessments A22
planning
and lifecycle impact assessments.
Integration of environmental and/or social aspects of the project’s objectives,
Sustainability requirements outputs and outcomes into requirements documentation (e.g., reduce carbon A23
emissions, reduce resource usage and waste production, etc.).
Development of sustainable scheduling (e.g., reduce waste by minimizing idle
Scheduling towards sustainability A24
resources and waiting times).
Commitment to green procurement in the procurement management plan (e.g.,
Green procurement take into consideration sustainability aspects when selecting products, materials A25
and suppliers).
Proactive and open communication to ensure that stakeholders are well
Communication towards
informed on the sustainability aspects and performance of the project, for A26
sustainability
example through project reports, presentations, lessons learned, etc.
Selection of sustainable approaches for the way products and services are
Sustainable delivering approaches delivered (e.g., e-commerce), considering both their use and servicing during the A27
expected lifespan.
Management of project stakeholders considering sustainable development
Sustainability stakeholders
principles (e.g., considering and balancing the stakeholder’s economic, A28
management plan
environmental and social interests).
Establishment of a SMP to define how sustainability is addressed in the project
(i.e., a document used to define sustainability objectives, identify the activities to
Sustainability Management Plan A29
achieve those objectives, identify key stakeholders, assign responsibilities and
integrate the focus on sustainability within the overall plan).
Execution, Monitor and Control
Sustainable suppliers Selection of suppliers considering their sustainability performance. A31
Inclusion of social sustainability aspects in the organization and management of
Sustainability team management the project team (e.g., health and safety, equal opportunity, work conditions, A32
diversity and job opportunities, life-work balance, etc.).
Development of team members’ sustainability competencies to increase
Sustainability competencies knowledge and awareness on sustainability issues, for example through A33
sustainability training programs.
Adoption of greener practices (e.g., natural lighting, natural ventilation,
Green project operations A34
recycling, etc.) on project operations.
Application of environmental/green technologies to the project and product
Green technologies A35
development.
Emphasize sustainability in project design by applying value management and
Design for sustainability lifecycle assessment/management methods during project development to A36
improve project’s sustainable performance (design for sustainability).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 10 of 21

Table 2. Cont.

SPM Practice Statements Variable

Sustainable deliverables Development project deliverables to be sustainable in the short-, medium- and
A37
development long-term.
Sustainability performance Measurement of the sustainability performance of operational activities
A38
indicators applying sustainability indicators.
Creation of a Sustainability Report to visualize sustainability performance and
Sustainability reporting A39
impacts resulting from everyday activities.
Closure
Evaluation of project success in terms of economic, environmental and/or social
Sustainability project success report A41
performance.
Development of an action/transition plan for assessing and communicating the
Sustainability transition plan economic, environmental and social benefits of the project once it is closed (in A42
the medium- and long-term).
Lessons learned towards Registration of lessons learned including the economic, environmental and/or
A43
sustainability social aspects.

During the five-month time window, 107 valid responses were collected. It is note-
worthy that the number of responses falls below the minimum sample size required for
generalization for ‘infinite’ population sizes, which is 377 responses at a confidence level of
95 percent with a margin of error of ±5 percent [46]. While a higher number of completed
responses would have been preferred, it is important to acknowledge the common time
constraints faced by PM professionals.

3.2. Data Analysis

The data collected from the questionnaire was analyzed using SPSS v28.0.1.0 software
to undertake descriptive statistics of the variables surveyed and EFA to categorize the
variables in factors.
In this research study, EFA was employed to understand the underlying factors influ-
encing SPM practices. EFA helps uncover latent structures and dimensions contributing
to variation in observed variables. The step-by-step process of conducting EFA includes:
determining factorability by checking correlation coefficients, performing the Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin (KMO) test and Barlett’s test of sphericity; factor extraction using Principal Com-
ponent Analysis (PCA); selecting factors using methods such as scree plot and Kaiser’s
eigenvalue criteria; factor rotation using varimax rotation; examining factor loadings; per-
forming reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha; and interpreting the results based on
loadings, structure and conceptual understanding. This comprehensive process allows for
the identification of meaningful factors and their implications for the research objectives.

4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Results
4.1.1. Data Characterization
The PM professionals consisted of project managers (77.57%), portfolio and program
managers (37.38%) and project team members (27.10%). Demographically, the majority of
respondents were male, and the largest percentage (30.84%) fell within the 36 to 45 years
age group. Over 50% of the respondents had more than 7 years of experience as project
managers, almost 50% had similar experience as project team members and nearly 30%
had over 7 years of experience as portfolio and program managers. These findings indicate
that the respondents have a high level of expertise and are reliable respondents. Table 3
provides more details on respondents’ demographics.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 11 of 21

Table 3. Key respondents’ characteristics.

Gender Age Academic Qualifications

>55 years: 15.89% PhD: 12.15%
46–55 years: 24.30% MSc: 60.75%
80% Male
36–45 years: 30.84% Postgraduate: 16.82%
20% Female
26–35 years: 25.23% Undergraduate: 8.41%
<25 years: 3.74% Technical degree: 1.87%

The respondents were distributed across various sectors of activity with the infor-
mation and technology (IT) sector emerging as the most represented. Nearly half of the
respondents reported typical project budgets exceeding EUR 1,000,001. Interestingly, re-
spondents involved in projects with budgets greater than EUR 5,000,001 were primarily
from large enterprises, while those with budgets below EUR 50,000 were more common in
small and medium-sized enterprises.
Furthermore, the existence of Project Management Offices (PMOs) was reported by
75.70% of the respondents’ organizations with only 1% being unaware of their presence,
indicating a widespread recognition of the value of centralized entities in overseeing and
supporting PM practices.

4.1.2. SPM Practices Usefulness

All the SPM practices were initially gathered in process groups based on the PM
lifecycle: ‘Initiation’, ‘Planning’, ‘Execution, Monitor and Control’ and ‘Closure’, to identify
the most useful SMP practices. The mean, median, mode and standard deviation are
presented in Table 4 (in decreasing order of respondent scoring), for the usefulness of the
practices surveyed.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the SPM practices usefulness.

Phase SPM Practice Mean Standard Deviation Median Mode

E Sustainability team management 3.59 1.366 4.00 4
C Lessons learned towards sustainability 3.56 1.183 4.00 4
C Sustainability project success report 3.54 1.101 4.00 4
P Sustainability risks register 3.53 1.067 4.00 3
I Sustainability Business Case 3.47 1.216 4.00 4
I Sustainability project dimensions 3.47 1.144 4.00 4
P Scheduling towards sustainability 3.45 1.292 3.00 4
E Green project operations 3.40 1.466 4.00 4
P Communication towards sustainability 3.39 1.250 3.00 3
I Sustainable development objectives 3.37 1.263 4.00 4
P Sustainability requirements 3.37 1.350 4.00 4
E Sustainable deliverables development 3.36 1.416 4.00 4
E Green technologies 3.31 1.376 4.00 4
P Green procurement 3.30 1.368 4.00 4
P Sustainability impacts assessment planning 3.24 1.227 3.00 4
E Sustainable suppliers 3.23 1.271 3.00 4
E Sustainability competencies 3.23 1.278 4.00 4
I Sustainability stakeholders register 3.20 1.404 4.00 4
E Sustainability transition plan 3.15 1.366 4.00 4
E Design for sustainability 3.12 1.509 4.00 4
P Sustainable stakeholder management plan 3.09 1.350 3.00 4
P Sustainable delivering approaches 2.97 1.463 3.00 4
E Sustainability performance indicators 2.95 1.349 3.00 4
P Sustainability Management Plan 2.83 1.470 3.00 3
E Sustainability reporting 2.65 1.505 3.00 4
Note: I—Initiation; P—Planning; E—Execution, monitor and control; C—Closure.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 12 of 21

The mean values range from 2.65 to 3.59. The standard deviations range from 1.067 to
1.509, indicating limited variation in the responses. 64% of the median values are 4, with
the remaining values being 3. The most frequent response (mode) is 4 (92%).
The interpretation of the results is straightforward. ‘Sustainability team management’
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22
is considered the most useful practice. Conversely, ‘Sustainability reporting’ receives the
lowest rating, suggesting that this practice is the least useful according to the respondents’
perspective.
Figure 1 shows the top 10 most useful SPM practices. It is worth noting that the top
Figure 1 shows the top 10 most useful SPM practices. It is worth noting that the top
10 covers all phases of the typical PM lifecycle. The ‘Initiation’ phase and the ‘Planning’
10 covers all phases of the typical PM lifecycle. The ‘Initiation’ phase and the ‘Planning’
phase are the most significant ones with three practices each.
phase are the most significant ones with three practices each.

Figure Top
1. 1.
Figure 1010
Top most useful
most SPM
useful practices.
SPM practices.

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis
The application of factor analysis underwent a series of iterative developments. The
The application of factor analysis underwent a series of iterative developments. The
initial correlation matrix revealed that most correlation coefficients were above 0.3, except
initial correlation matrix revealed that most correlation coefficients were above 0.3, except
for ‘Scheduling towards sustainability’ (A24). Communality analysis also identified vari-
for ‘Scheduling towards sustainability’ (A24). Communality analysis also identified vari-
ables A24 and A26 (‘Communication towards sustainability’) with communalities lower
ables A24 and A26 (‘Communication towards sustainability’) with communalities lower
than 0.5. Subsequently, these variables were excluded from further analysis based on the
than 0.5. Subsequently, these variables were excluded from further analysis based on the
following rationale:
following rationale:
- Upon their removal, the Kayser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) score slightly decreased from
- Upon their removal, the Kayser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) score slightly decreased from
0.905 to 0.902, indicating a small impact on the intercorrelation among the variables,
0.905 to 0.902, indicating a small impact on the intercorrelation among the variables,
but still reflecting strong interrelationships and excellent suitability for conducting
but still reflecting strong interrelationships and excellent suitability for conducting
EFA. Additionally, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found to be significant, further
EFA. Additionally, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found to be significant, further
confirming the adequacy of the dataset after excluding A24 and A26.
confirming the adequacy of the dataset after excluding A24 and A26.
- Although four components emerged with eigenvalues exceeding one, only three fac-
- Although four components emerged with eigenvalues exceeding one, only three fac-
tors meaningfully contributed to more than 5% of the variance. While the eigenvalue
tors meaningfully contributed to more than 5% of the variance. While the eigenvalue
criteria suggest the retention of all factors with an eigenvalue of more than one, some
criteria suggest the retention of all factors with an eigenvalue of more than one, some
scholars recommend considering factors that contribute to at least more than 5% of
scholars recommend considering factors that contribute to at least more than 5% of
the variance (Singh, 2020).
the variance (Singh, 2020).
- A closer examination of the rotated component matrix revealed the emergence of four
- A closer examination of the rotated component matrix revealed the emergence of four
factors, but the fourth factor contained only two meaningful factor loadings, falling
factors, but the fourth factor contained only two meaningful factor loadings, falling
short of the recommended threshold of three loadings. Consequently, variables A24
short of the recommended threshold of three loadings. Consequently, variables A24
and A26 were excluded from the analysis due to doubts regarding their alignment
and A26 were excluded from the analysis due to doubts regarding their alignment
with the intended constructs.
with the intended constructs.
With the revised set of variables, the factor analysis was re-executed using the Principal
With the revised set of variables, the factor analysis was re-executed using the Prin-
Component Analysis extraction. All variables exhibited communalities above the 0.5 thresh-
cipal Component Analysis extraction. All variables exhibited communalities above the 0.5
old, except for variable A32 (‘Sustainability team management’). This variable was also
threshold, except for variable A32 (‘Sustainability team management’). This variable was
excluded from the analysis due to its low explanatory power. After its removal, the KMO
also excluded from the analysis due to its low explanatory power. After its removal, the
score achieved significance with a value of 0.899 and Bartlett’s test was likewise satisfied.
KMO score achieved significance with a value of 0.899 and Bartlett’s test was likewise
satisfied.
The Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation were applied to extract the
factors explaining the remaining variables. Three factors with eigenvalues greater than
one explained 62.847% of the variance. The rotated component matrix showed substantial
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 13 of 21

The Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation were applied to extract the
factors explaining the remaining variables. Three factors with eigenvalues greater than
one explained 62.847% of the variance. The rotated component matrix showed substantial
contributions from all variables to the identified factors, as detailed in Table 5, which
displays the factor loadings post-rotation alongside the communalities of each variable.

Table 5. EFA results.

Exploratory Factor Analysis Factors

‘Execution,
Monitoring, ‘Initiation and
‘Closure’
Phase ID SMP Practice Communalities Controlling & Planning’
(FA3)
Replanning’ (FA2)
(FA1)
A11 Sustainability Business Case 0.741 0.188 0.837 0.065
A12 Sustainability project dimensions 0.573 0.260 0.704 0.100
I
A13 Sustainable development objectives 0.582 0.146 0.605 0.442
A14 Sustainability stakeholders register 0.545 0.395 0.540 0.312
A21 Sustainability risks register 0.656 0.260 0.700 0.312
Sustainability impacts assessment
A22 0.574 0.245 0.601 0.392
planning
A23 Sustainability requirements 0.543 0.347 0.569 0.315
P A25 Green procurement 0.566 0.536 0.522 0.075
A27 Sustainable delivering approaches 0.561 0.666 0.320 0.126
Sustainability stakeholders
A28 0.560 0.487 0.361 0.439
management plan
A29 Sustainability Management Plan 0.601 0.630 0.395 0.219
A31 Sustainable suppliers 0.535 0.456 0.445 0.360
A33 Sustainability competencies 0.661 0.678 0.276 0.354
A34 Green project operations 0.741 0.843 0.148 0.091
A35 Green technologies 0.749 0.796 0.272 0.204
E
A36 Design for sustainability 0.606 0.691 0.216 0.286
A37 Sustainable deliverables development 0.569 0.493 0.364 0.440
A38 Sustainability performance indicators 0.726 0.725 0.209 0.397
A39 Sustainability reporting 0.605 0.599 0.209 0.450
A41 Sustainability project success report 0.752 0.139 0.235 0.823
C A42 Sustainability transition plan 0.679 0.315 0.224 0.728
A43 Lessons learned towards sustainability 0.699 0.219 0.113 0.799
Eigenvalues 10.898 1.500 1.428
Variance explained % 49.538 6.820 6.489
Cumulative % 49.538 56.358 62.847

The loading pattern after rotation confirmed associations between specific variables
and factors. Variables A11, A12, A13, A14, A21, A22 and A23 loaded significantly on
FA2, representing the ‘Initiation’ and ‘Planning’ phases. Variables A25, A27, A28, A29,
A31, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37, A38 and A39 displayed higher loadings on FA1, signifying
the ‘Planning’ and ‘Execution, Monitor and Control’ phases. Variables A41, A42 and A43
demonstrated stronger loadings on FA3, indicative of the ‘Closure’ phase.
The results of the factor analysis prompted adjustments in the categorization of the
SPM practices. Initially, the ‘Planning’ phase practices were expected to form a distinct
factor, but the EFA revealed their alignment with both the ‘Initiation’ and ‘Execution,
monitor and control’ phase practices. Consequently, these practices merged into two distinct
factors, which were named ‘Initiation and planning’ (FA2) and ‘Execution, monitoring,
controlling and replanning’ (FA1). The third factor retained its name as ‘Closure’ (FA3),
given its association with practices from that phase.
 Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22

Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 14 of 21

Variables A21, A22 and A23, initially categorized under the ‘Planning’ phase, showed
stronger factor loadings with the ‘Initiation’ phase, suggesting that respondents perceive
Variables A21, A22 and A23, initially categorized under the ‘Planning’ phase, showed
these practices as part of project initiation.
stronger factor loadings with the ‘Initiation’ phase, suggesting that respondents perceive
Conversely, variables A25, A27, A28 and A29 exhibited higher factor loadings with
these practices as part of project initiation.
the ‘Execution, monitor and control’ phase practices, indicating common characteristics
Conversely, variables A25, A27, A28 and A29 exhibited higher factor loadings with
shared between them. This suggests that respondents continue to prioritize and imple-
the ‘Execution, monitor and control’ phase practices, indicating common characteristics
ment these practices in later project phases.
shared between them. This suggests that respondents continue to prioritize and implement
However, doubts arose regarding the inclusion of variable A25 in the ‘Execution,
these practices in later project phases.
monitoring, controlling and replanning’ factor as it exhibited similar loadings in both FA1
However, doubts arose regarding the inclusion of variable A25 in the ‘Execution,
and FA2. Since ‘Green procurement’ was initially linked to the planning phase, reflecting
monitoring, controlling and replanning’ factor as it exhibited similar loadings in both FA1
its importance in earlier phases of the project, it was grouped into the ‘Initiation and plan-
and FA2. Since ‘Green procurement’ was initially linked to the planning phase, reflecting its
ning’ factor. To support this arrangement, Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated to as-
importance in earlier phases of the project, it was grouped into the ‘Initiation and planning’
sess the reliability of this new construct. All values for each factor exceeded the desired
factor. To support this arrangement, Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated to assess the
threshold of 0.7 [47], as depicted in Table 6. Notably, the inclusion of ‘Green Procurement’
reliability of this new construct. All values for each factor exceeded the desired threshold of
(A25) slightly increased the Cronbach’s alpha value for the ‘Initiation and planning’ factor,
0.7 [47], as depicted in Table 6. Notably, the inclusion of ‘Green Procurement’ (A25) slightly
reinforcing its integration with the other practices within that factor.
increased the Cronbach’s alpha value for the ‘Initiation and planning’ factor, reinforcing its
integration with the other practices within that factor.
Table 6. Reliability analysis—new construct.
Table 6. Reliability analysis—new construct. New
Previous葛
Factors Variables Cronbach’s
New Cronbach’s Alpha
Previous
Factors Variables Alpha
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha
‘Initiation and planning’ A11, A12, A13, A14, A21, A22, A23 and A25 0.881 0.877
‘Initiation and planning’ A11, A12, A13, A14, A21, A22, A23 and A25 0.881 0.877
‘Execution, monitoring, control- A27, A28, A29, A31, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37,
‘Execution, monitoring, A27, A28, A29, A31, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37, 0.932 0.933
ling and replanning’ A38 0.932 0.933
controlling and replanning’ A38 andand
A39A39
‘Closure’
‘Closure’ A41,
A41, A42A42
andand
A43A43 0.829
0.829 0.829
0.829

Moreover, variables A24, A26 and A32 (‘Scheduling towards sustainability’, ‘Com-
Moreover, variables A24, A26 and A32 (‘Scheduling towards sustainability’, ‘Commu-
munication towards sustainability’ and ‘Sustainability team management’) were not in-
nication towards sustainability’ and ‘Sustainability team management’) were not included
cluded in any factor, which does not necessarily mean that these practices are not im-
in any factor, which does not necessarily mean that these practices are not important or
portant or should not be included in any phase of the PM lifecycle. Instead, it is possible
should not be included in any phase of the PM lifecycle. Instead, it is possible to assume
to assume that these practices are simply not strongly linked to any specific phase of the
that these practices are simply not strongly linked to any specific phase of the PM lifecycle
PM lifecycle but are important for SPM implementation and the overall success of projects,
but are important for SPM implementation and the overall success of projects, as suggested
as suggested by the fact that all these practices are included in the top 10 most useful SPM
by the fact that all these practices are included in the top 10 most useful SPM practices
practices (Figure 2).
(Figure 2).

Figure 2. SPM
Figure 2. SPM practices categorization.
practices categorization.
‘Sustainability team management’ leads the top 10, indicating that organizations
recognize the importance of incorporating social aspects while managing the project team,
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 15 of 21

such as promoting equal opportunities, diversity, work-life balance, a safe and healthy
work environment, etc. [33]. This recognition highlights that organizations find it important
to manage responsible teams and foster an inclusive and supportive work culture that
enhances the overall well-being and satisfaction of project team members [10]. Thus, the
comprehensive implementation of this practice can be seen as a proactive approach to
engage social behavior and ensure a positive work environment, to potentially enhance
positive financial gains.
‘Communication towards sustainability’ and ‘Scheduling towards sustainability’ are
also in the top 10. Communication is essential for the success of any project. By communi-
cating with stakeholders about the project’s sustainability goals and objectives throughout
the PM lifecycle, project managers can help to ensure that everyone is on the same page
and that the project is aligned with the organization’s overall sustainability goals [29].
Communication can also help to build support for the project and its sustainability goals
and to identify and address potential sustainability risks and challenges early on. On the
other hand, integrating sustainability considerations into the project schedule can help to
ensure that the project is completed on time and within budget [13].

5. Discussion
This section explores the alignment or misalignment between the results of the de-
scriptive analysis, the EFA and the literature reviewed, attempting to narrow the disparity
between theory and practice regarding SPM.
The descriptive analysis revealed the top 10 most useful SPM practices, indicating their
comprehensive coverage across the various phases of the PM lifecycle. This finding under-
scores the recognition among organizations of the imperative to integrate SPM practices
throughout the entire PM lifecycle [13]. It supports the conclusions of earlier studies on
sustainability in PM emphasizing the importance of considering sustainability from project
conception to its closure while considering both the lifecycle of the project deliverable and
the lifecycle of the project processes [14]. By incorporating sustainability considerations at
each stage, organizations can systematically embed sustainability dimensions into their PM
processes, thus fostering long-term sustainability and maximizing project effectiveness.
Furthermore, the results of the EFA revealed the emergence of three different factors,
each related to specific phases of the common PM lifecycle (Table 5): ‘Initiation and plan-
ning’, ‘Execution, monitoring, controlling and replanning’ and ‘Closure’. The decision to
divide the ‘Planning’ phase practices and distribute them into the ‘Initiation and planning’
and ‘Execution, monitor, control and replanning’ factors was made based on the statistical
analysis and the observed patterns within the data. This reclassification allowed for a
more accurate representation of the relationships and interdependencies among the SPM
practices, providing deeper insights into their underlying dimensions and their alignment
with the different phases of the PM lifecycle. Figure 2 illustrates the three factors identified
by the EFA, each representing a distinct group of SPM practices.

5.1. Initiation and Planning

In the ‘Initiation and planning’ factor revealed by the EFA, practices essential in
the early stages of a project were grouped. These practices were initially grouped in
the initiation phase and the planning phase, highlighting their importance in addressing
sustainability issues from the beginning of a project.
All SPM practices initially considered in the ‘Initiation’ phase are included in the
top 10 most useful SPM practices, except the ‘Sustainability stakeholders register’. The
lower usefulness ranking of the ‘Sustainability stakeholders register’ suggests that organi-
zations may not fully understand or appreciate the importance of identifying and including
‘sustainability stakeholders’, due to, possibly, a limited understanding of who these stake-
holders are. Conversely, the high ranking of ‘Sustainability Business Case’, ‘Sustainability
project dimensions’ and ‘Sustainable development objectives’, indicate that the respondents
recognize the importance of including sustainability aspects in project initiation to ensure
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 16 of 21

that the project is aligned with the organization’s overall sustainability goals from the very
beginning, for example by incorporating sustainability dimensions into the project scope
and considering both short-term and long-term orientation, local and global orientation,
along other dimensions of sustainability [13].
Moreover, the inclusion of practices from the planning phase, such as ‘Sustainability
risks register’, ‘Sustainability impacts assessment planning’, ‘Strategic sustainability goals’
and ‘Green Procurement’, in the ‘Initiation and planning’ factor highlights the importance
of considering sustainability risks, goals and impacts of the project from the very beginning.
‘Sustainability risks register’ is considered one of the most useful practices among the
respondents, indicating that organizations are mindful of identifying and recognizing
environmental and social risks instead of just economic threats and opportunities [13].
Notably, ‘Green procurement’ was included in the ‘Initiation and planning factor’
because the majority of the environmental impact of a project is determined earlier in the
project. This way, project managers can make better decisions about the project’s design
and procurement, helping to make sure it is implemented sustainably, leading to significant
environmental, economic and social benefits.

5.2. Execution, Monitoring, Controlling and Replanning

The ‘Execution, monitoring, controlling and replanning’ factor encompasses practices
from both the ‘Planning’ phase and the ‘Execution, monitoring and control’ phase.
The practices from the planning phase in this factor, such as ‘Sustainable delivering
approaches’, ‘Sustainable stakeholders management plan’ and ‘Sustainability management
plan’ highlight the importance of integrating sustainability throughout the PM lifecycle
while envisioning the entire supply and value chain and engaging stakeholders concerning
sustainability. It is interesting to note that these practices are all positioned at the bottom of
the descriptive results regarding their usefulness (Table 4). This can uphold some reasons
why practices from the ‘Planning’ phase are included in this factor. It might be due to
the lack of acknowledgment of such practices. As the respondents are not aware of these
practices or simply do not recognize their relevancy and importance, they tend to leave for
later stages of the project.
For example, the ‘Sustainability stakeholder management plan’ deviates from the
expected placement within the ‘Initiation and planning’ factor. This placement may be
attributed to the tendency of project professionals to actively consider sustainability aspects
and engage with stakeholders more prominently later in the project. This finding aligns
with the emerging need for a paradigm shift from a traditional stakeholder management
approach to a ‘management for stakeholders’ approach wherein stakeholders are actively
involved in shaping project objectives, and their interests are valued [11], aiming to enhance
stakeholder engagement and participation, and ultimately contribute to SPM practice [9].
Equally, the inclusion of a ‘Sustainability Management Plan’ in this factor raised some
concerns as it is typically associated with earlier project phases, encompassing the definition
of sustainable objectives, identification of related activities and assignment of responsi-
bilities. This practice was introduced as a part of the PRiSM methodology to integrate
sustainability into PM processes by incorporating impact analysis in the project initiation
phase [41]. The fact that the respondents consider the establishment of a Sustainability
Management Plan as not as useful as other SPM practices, might justify why this practice
is associated with later phases of the PM lifecycle, probably because respondents do not
recognize the benefits of implementing this practice in the beginning of a project.
Furthermore, practices such as ‘Sustainable suppliers’, ‘Sustainability competencies’,
‘Green project operations’, ‘Green technologies’, ‘Design for Sustainability’, ‘Sustainable
deliverables design’, ‘Sustainability performance indicators’ and ‘Sustainability reporting’
are also part of this factor. These practices highlight the importance of incorporating sus-
tainability considerations into supplier selection, enhancing the project team’s sustainability
competencies, implementing sustainable project operations and technologies, integrating
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 17 of 21

sustainability into the design process and monitoring sustainability performance using
adequate indicators and reporting.
From the respondents’ perspective, ‘Sustainability reporting’ is considered the least
useful SPM practice. Such suggests that organizations and project teams may prioritize
other aspects of sustainability management over formal reporting. Interestingly, the low
ranking contradicts the findings of Fernandes et al. [31], who identified progress report
as the most useful PM practice. This discrepancy suggests a possible lack of awareness
or understanding regarding the benefits of sustainability reporting, such as promoting
transparency, accountability and engagement to provide tangible information about the
environmental, social and economic impacts of their projects as the project runs.
On the same note, ‘Sustainability performance indicators’ also emerged at the bottom
of the ranking. This position is in contrast to the observations made by Martens and
Carvalho [37] during their interviews with companies, where they noted that all of the or-
ganizations included sustainability indicators to measure the sustainability performance of
their daily operations. This discrepancy suggests that while the surveyed PM professionals
in the current study may not prioritize the use of sustainability performance indicators,
other organizations have recognized their importance in evaluating and monitoring sus-
tainability outcomes in their PM practices. It highlights the need for further investigation
to understand the reasons behind the differences in the adoption and perception of the
importance of SPM practices among different organizations and industries.

5.3. Closure
The ‘Closure’ factor comprises the SPM practices related to the closure phase of a
project. These practices allow for the evaluation of project success, the identification of
areas for improvement and the dissemination of knowledge to enhance future sustainability
practices.
The high ranking of ‘Sustainability project success report’ in the top 10, indicates
that organizations recognize the importance of assessing the project’s success based on
sustainability criteria [9]. ‘Lessons learned towards sustainability’ is also highly ranked,
highlighting the importance of capturing and documenting lessons learned from projects,
particularly those related to economic, environmental and social aspects. The ranking
confirms that organizations recognize projects as an opportunity for continuous learn-
ing [10], and value the opportunity to learn from past experiences to improve sustainability
performance in future generations processes and outcomes [45].

5.4. Final Considerations

The factors that have emerged from the EFA underscore the importance of seamlessly
integrating sustainability considerations throughout the PM lifecycle, from initiation to
closure. This not only provides valuable insights to project professionals but also paves the
way for the effective incorporation of SPM practices.
Our study’s findings resonate with a prevalent trend observed in the literature, charac-
terized by a noticeable gap between the potential of SPM and its practical application [7,26].
For instance, in 2017, Carvalho and Rabechini [9] reported that the sustainability practices
they surveyed were scarcely implemented within the organizations they studied. Fur-
thermore, the authors identified a multitude of challenges faced by the companies when
attempting to introduce those practices into their operations [9].
The research echoes these earlier findings and underscores a persistent issue within the
realm of SPM—a widespread lack of adoption and perceived usefulness and value of SPM
practices. Project professionals consistently reported relatively low perceived usefulness
of SPM practices, indicating that organizations are yet to fully embrace these practices
within their PM processes. The low maturity of SPM can uphold a significant reason for
the moderate perception of importance given to sustainability in PM practice, as it is still in
the early stages of development within many organizations.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 18 of 21

Moreover, the field of SPM is in a continuous state of evolution. Due to the scarcity
of practical guidance, knowledge and tools [41], organizations may find themselves at
different stages of understanding and implementing SPM practices in concrete operational
terms. Consequently, the challenge of integrating sustainability in projects and PM may lie
in the lack of competencies among professionals and organizations, rather than the lack
of development of methods and techniques, as observed by Marcelino-Sádaba et al. [3].
The research findings may, therefore, confirm the affirmation that project practitioners
and decision makers need to develop competencies [17] and undergo a mind shift [13] to
be able to identify and implement actions that can significantly contribute to proactively
considering sustainability in practice.
Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that the incorporation of sustainability into
projects and PM is dependent on the subjective perceptions of project managers [48]. Thus,
the relatively low perceived usefulness of SPM practices could be attributed to a lack of
awareness and understanding of these practices and the untapped potential they hold for
enhancing sustainability performance. Implementing SPM practices requires changes in
established processes and mindsets [13], which can face resistance within organizations,
as they might perceive these changes as additional burdens or unnecessary complexities,
leading to a preference for traditional PM approaches over SPM approaches.
While the alignment of SPM practices with various phases of the PM lifecycle high-
lights the paramount importance of integrating sustainability considerations from project
initiation to closure, the persisting challenges posed by the relatively low perceived use-
fulness of SPM practices and the disparities in their adoption across organizations clearly
indicate a pressing need for further research and concerted efforts to promote and facilitate
the seamless integration of sustainability into PM practices. These enduring challenges em-
phasize the pressing need for organizations and project professionals to foster sustainability
competencies, turning sustainability into an integral part of PM.

6. Conclusions
The study presented in this paper embarked on an investigation into the perceived
usefulness of Sustainable Project Management (SPM) practices and the underlying factors
driving the integration and effectiveness of these practices within the realm of project
management (PM). The research aimed (1) to identify key SPM practices and (2) to catego-
rize the SPM practices, to ultimately achieve the successful incorporation of sustainability
principles throughout the PM lifecycle.
This paper reviewed relevant literature and identified key SPM practices applicable
across various sectors and applications. Within this exploration, a clear distinction between
‘sustainability by the project’ and ‘sustainability of the project’ was observed by identifying
both practices focused on delivering sustainable products and/or services, and practices
focused on carrying out sustainable processes.
The results obtained from the descriptive analysis illuminated a prevailing trend
characterized by a limited grasp of the usefulness of these practices. This reaffirmed
the existence of a disparity between the suggestions found in the literature and the actual
practices carried out in the field. Moreover, the top 10 most useful SPM practices highlighted
a recognition among organizations and project professionals regarding the imperative need
to embed sustainability across the entire PM lifecycle.
Based on the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), three factors were identified and
labeled as ‘Initiation and planning’, ‘Execution, monitoring, controlling and replanning’
and ‘Closure’. These factors provide valuable insights and a structured framework that can
guide organizations and project professionals to adopt and implement SPM practices more
effectively throughout the phases of the PM lifecycle. By uncovering these factors, this study
serves as a compass for practitioners seeking to seamlessly integrate sustainability issues
and considerations into their projects, thus ensuring consistent sustainability outcomes.
In terms of theoretical contributions, this study serves as a compendium of the key
SPM practices documented in the existing literature. It lays the foundation for further
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 19 of 21

empirical development, providing initial insights into the integration of sustainability and
PM, and allowing future researchers to leverage and build upon these practices in their
studies. Through a comprehensive literature review and organization of key variables,
this research offers a comprehensive overview of how to incorporate sustainability into
PM processes, fostering the delivery of products and services with significant economic,
environmental and social contributions.
Furthermore, this study delves into the perspectives of project professionals via a
survey-based approach, providing valuable insights into their comprehension of SPM prac-
tices. By collecting data from these professionals, this research enriches our understanding
of how these practices are perceived in real-world project scenarios. This micro-level per-
spective on SPM practices perception across the PM lifecycle provides valuable guidelines
for managing sustainability projects in a sustainable way.
However, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this research, notably the
relatively low response rate of the survey, which may restrict the complete representa-
tion of the perceptions and experiences of all PM professionals. Finally, future research
focusing on the drivers and barriers to SPM would be important, unraveling the moti-
vations and obstacles that shape the adoption and effectiveness of sustainability in PM
practice. Additionally, investigating the reasons behind the limited understanding and
perceived usefulness of SPM practices is crucial. Moreover, this study provides insights
into incorporating sustainability into PM practice using the PM lifecycle as a conceptual
foundation, however, it would be valuable to explore SPM from the lens of the twelve
project performance principles outlined in the seventh edition of the PMBoK Guide.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.S., G.F. and J.M.R.C.A.S.; methodology, I.S., G.F. and
J.M.R.C.A.S.; validation, G.F. and J.M.R.C.A.S.; formal analysis, I.S., G.F. and J.M.R.C.A.S.; inves-
tigation, I.S.; writing—original draft preparation, I.S.; writing—review and editing, I.S., G.F. and
J.M.R.C.A.S.; supervision, G.F. and J.M.R.C.A.S.; project administration, G.F.; funding acquisition,
G.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research is sponsored by national funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tec-
nologia, under projects UIDB/00285/202, LA/P/0112/2020, UIDB/00690/2020 and LA/P/0007/2021.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not Applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the survey participants.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gemünden, H.G. Project Govemance and Sustainability—Two Major Themes in Project Management Research and Practice. Proj.
Manag. J. 2016, 47, 3–6. [CrossRef]
2. Huemann, M.; Silvius, G. Projects to Create the Future: Managing Projects Meets Sustainable Development. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
2017, 35, 1066–1070. [CrossRef]
3. Marcelino-Sádaba, S.; González-Jaen, L.F.; Pérez-Ezcurdia, A. Using Project Management as a Way to Sustainability. From a
Comprehensive Review to a Framework Definition. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 99, 1–16. [CrossRef]
4. Sabini, L.; Muzio, D.; Alderman, N. 25 Years of ‘Sustainable Projects’. What We Know and What the Literature Says. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 2019, 37, 820–838. [CrossRef]
5. Silvius, G. Sustainability as a New School of Thought in Project Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 1479–1493. [CrossRef]
6. Baba, S.; Mohammad, S.; Young, C. Managing Project Sustainability in the Extractive Industries: Towards a Reciprocity Framework
for Community Engagement: Managing Project Sustainability in the Extractive Industries. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 39, 887–901.
[CrossRef]
7. Økland, A. Gap Analysis for Incorporating Sustainability in Project Management. Procedia—Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 64,
103–109. [CrossRef]
8. Silvius, G.; Tharp, J. Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2013.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 20 of 21

9. Carvalho, M.M.; Rabechini, R. Can Project Sustainability Management Impact Project Success? An Empirical Study Applying a
Contingent Approach. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1120–1132. [CrossRef]
10. Martens, M.L.; Carvalho, M.M. Key Factors of Sustainability in Project Management Context: A Survey Exploring the Project
Managers’ Perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1084–1102. [CrossRef]
11. Eskerod, P.; Huemann, M. Sustainable Development and Project Stakeholder Management: What Standards Say. Int. J. Manag.
Proj. Bus. Artic. Inf. 2013, 6, 36–50. [CrossRef]
12. Silvius, G. Making Sense of Sustainable Project Management. Ann. Soc. Sci. Manag. Stud. 2019, 2, 106–109. [CrossRef]
13. Silvius, G.; Schipper, R.P.J. Sustainability in Project Management: A Literature Review and Impact Analysis. Soc. Bus. 2014, 4,
63–96. [CrossRef]
14. Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C. PROJECT Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management: The Need to Integrate Life Cycles in the
Manufacturing Sector. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2005, 23, 159–168. [CrossRef]
15. Silvius, G.; Schipper, R. Planning Project Stakeholder Engagement from a Sustainable Development Perspective. Adm. Sci. 2019,
9, 46. [CrossRef]
16. Weninger, C.; Huemann, M. Project Initiation: Investment Analysis for Sustainable Development. In Banking, Finance, and
Accounting: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–17.
17. Aarseth, W.; Ahola, T.; Aaltonen, K.; Økland, A.; Andersen, B. Project Sustainability Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1071–1083. [CrossRef]
18. Silvius, G. Integrating Sustainability into Project Risk Management. In Managing Project Risks for Competitive Advantage in Changing
Business Environments; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016.
19. Barendsen, W.; Muß, A.C.; Silvius, G. Exploring Team Members’ Perceptions of Internal Sustainability Communication in
Sustainable Project Management. Proj. Leadersh. Soc. 2021, 2, 100015. [CrossRef]
20. Carboni, J.; Gonzalez, M. The GPM P5 Standard for Sustainability in Project Management; GPM Global: Novi, MI, USA, 2019.
21. Armenia, S.; Dangelico, R.M.; Nonino, F.; Pompei, A. Sustainable Project Management: A Conceptualization-Oriented Review
and a Framework Proposal for Future Studies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2664. [CrossRef]
22. Toljaga-Nikolić, D.; Todorović, M.; Dobrota, M.; Obradović, T.; Obradović, V. Project Management and Sustainability: Playing
Trick or Treat with the Planet. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8619. [CrossRef]
23. Khalifeh, A.; Farrell, P.; Al-edenat, M. The Impact of Project Sustainability Management (PSM) on Project Success: A Systematic
Literature Review. J. Manag. Dev. 2020, 39, 453–474. [CrossRef]
24. Chofreh, A.G.; Goni, F.A.; Malik, M.N.; Khan, H.H.; Klemeš, J.J. The Imperative and Research Directions of Sustainable Project
Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117810. [CrossRef]
25. Zheng, X.; Le, Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Hu, Y.; Li, Y. Review of the Application of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in Construction Project
Management Research. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1214–1225. [CrossRef]
26. Magano, J.; Silvius, G.; Nogueira, T.; Hamed, F. Consideration of Sustainability in Projects: A Cross-Sectional Quantitative
Analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1269. [CrossRef]
27. Silvius, G.; Kampinga, M.; Paniagua, S.; Mooi, H. Considering Sustainability in Project Management Decision Making; An
Investigation Using Q-Methodology. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1133–1150. [CrossRef]
28. BSR/GlobeScan. The 2019 BSR/GlobeScan State of Sustainable Business Survey. Available online: https://globescan.com/2019
/11/12/2019-state-sustainable-business-survey/ (accessed on 12 April 2024).
29. Silvius, G.; Schipper, R.P.J. Sustainability Impact Assessment on the Project Level; A Review of Available Instruments. JMPM
2020, 8, 240–277.
30. Project Management Institute. Project Management Body of Knowledge, 7th ed.; Project Management Institute (PMI): Newton Square,
PA, USA, 2021.
31. Fernandes, G.; Ward, S.; Araújo, M. Identifying Useful Project Management Practices: A Mixed Methodology Approach. Int. J.
Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2013, 1, 5–21. [CrossRef]
32. Project Management Institute. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®Guide), 6th ed.; Project Management
Institute: Newton Square, PA, USA, 2017.
33. Tharp, J. Project Management and Global Sustainability; PMI Global Congress: Marsailles, France, 2012.
34. Santos, J.M.R.C.A.; Fernandes, G. Prioritizing Stakeholders to to Boost Collaborative R & I Projects Benefits: An Analytic Network
Process Approach. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2023, 219, 1660–1669. [CrossRef]
35. Carboni, J.; Gonzalez, M.; Hodgkinson, J. The GPM®Reference Guide to Sustainability in Project Management®Copyright 2013 GPM
Global; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2013.
36. Silvius, G.; Schipper, R.P.J. Developing a Maturity Model for Assessing Sustainable Project Management. J. Mod. Proj. Manag.
2015, 3, 112.
37. Martens, M.L.; Carvalho, M.M. The Challenge of Introducing Sustainability into Project Management Function: Multiple-Case
Studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 117, 29–40. [CrossRef]
38. Glavič, P.; Lukman, R. Review of Sustainability Terms and Their Definitions. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1875–1885. [CrossRef]
39. Silvius, G.; Schipper, R.P.J. A Maturity Model for Integrating Sustainability in Projects and Project Management. In Proceedings
of the 24th World Congress of the International Project Management Association IPMA, Instanbul, Turkey, 1–3 November 2010.
40. Sánchez, M.A. Integrating Sustainability Issues into Project Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 319–330. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4275 21 of 21

41. Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C. Social Sustainability Social Indicators for Sustainable Project and Technology Life Cycle Management
in the Process Industry. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 3–15.
42. Silvius, G.; Neuvonen, T.; Eerola, O. Evaluating Projects from a Sustainability Perspective: Experiences with Developing a Project
Sustainability Management Plan. In Proceedings of the 24th Nordic Academy of Management Conference, Bodø, Norway, 23–25
August 2017.
43. Kostalova, J.; McGrath, J. Sustainability in Project Management: Two Sides of the Same Coin or Poles Apart? Int. Sci. Conf. Hradec
Econ. Days 2021, 11, 401–411. [CrossRef]
44. Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C.; Erck, R.P.G.V. Assessing the Sustainability Performances of Industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13,
373–385. [CrossRef]
45. Martens, M.L.; Carvalho, M.M. Sustainability and Success Variables in the Project Management Context: An Expert Panel. Proj.
Manag. J. 2016, 47, 24–43. [CrossRef]
46. Fernandes, G.; O’Sullivan, D. Project Management Practices in Major University-Industry R&D Collaboration Programs—A Case
Study. J. Technol. Transf. 2022, 1–31.
47. Raosoft Sample Size Calculator. Available online: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html (accessed on 10 May 2023).
48. Silvius, G.; de Graaf, M. Exploring the Project Manager’s Intention to Address Sustainability in the Project Board. J. Clean. Prod.
2019, 208, 1226–1240. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.