A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability

Abstract

Departing from the normative formulation of stakeholder theory and building upon the current body of knowledge, this study aims to advance understandings on the benefits and challenges towards a more holistic approach to stakeholder management at the local level of major public infrastructure and construction projects (MPIC). Major construction projects, project managers, and the local community stakeholder are deemed to operate within a 'negative bond'. This interaction is elucidated through the attribution theory lens, which shape the conceptual framework of the study. This paper illustrates that a broader inclusiveness of stakeholder views into managerial decisions can initiate to break this negative bond and shift it towards positive relationships. An organization's conscious approach towards transparent communication with the local community stakeholder might help to shape a long-term perspective for better project benefits realization either at the national, regional, or local level. By 'exceeding stakeholders needs and expectations', project managers and local communities can better collaborate in order to achieve sustainable development over time.process that includes the needs and expectations of a broader range of project stakeholders, and that leads towards more sustainable construction projects. Notably, project managers are faced with increasing budget constraints, and thus the design, evaluation and selection of such highly costly projects has become particularly critical in turbulent economic conditions (Matti et al. 2017). Therefore, there is urgency for project managers to shape the most beneficial project for the real needs of the society, reducing public opposition and increasing benefit realization.Projects as a vehicle for change play a crucial role in the sustainable development of organization and society, and recent debates have encouraged research in integrating broader societal objectives (sustainable developments) within projects (process and final goals) (Huemann and Silvius 2017). However, although it is widely recognized that minimizing benefit shortfalls and enhancing positive inputs is achievable through better stakeholder management procedures (e.g., Bourne and Walker 2005;Cleland and Ireland 2007;Olander 2007), academic thinking on MPIC projects seldom aligns project objectives with those of the local community (Choudhury 2014; Di Maddaloni and Davis 2018). Managers and academics alike have done little to achieve a human-centered vision for cities that enhances quality of life and produces prosperous neighborhoods that are sustainable over time. This has often created tensions and opposition at the local level of MPIC projects.By looking specifically at the local community level and at the interconnections within which the project-based organization and local community interact, the literature discuss the negative impact that the local community can exert on project results (Aaltonen and Sivonen 2009;Olander and Landin 2005) and, consequently, MPIC projects (van den Ende and Marr...

Very important, yet very neglected: Where do local communities stand when examining social sustainability in major construction projects?

“…Third, we contribute to the project external stakeholder inclusion discourse, supporting the many studies highlighting the importance of external actors on project performance, but also demonstrating that still MCPs are rarely managed with effective and consistent stakeholder engagement mechanisms that are likely to improve sustainability and thus the quality of the projects in which the communities live (Baba et al, 2021;Di Maddaloni & Derakhshan, 2019;Keeys & Huemann, 2017). We assert that project organizations decouple their behaviour from stated commitments as a result of uncoordinated attempts to respond to diverse and conflicting demands.…”

“…It is undisputed in project management theory and practice that stakeholder proactive engagement is crucial for organizations to achieve their purpose and goals (e.g., Business Roundtable, 2019; Di Maddaloni & Derakhshan, 2019;Eskerod & Huemann, 2013;Keeys & Huemann, 2017;World Economic Forum, 2020). Survey and interviews show how social sustainable practices in MCPs (to engage and include local communities in the decision-making process) are not yet mature and deserve much more attention.…”

“…On the other hand, project managers' over-reliance on the resource-based view, in which stakeholders are seen as resource providers for the organization and not vice-versa, especially when these stakeholders tend to be outside project contracts and rules and regulations (and cannot be approached with these instruments) (e.g., Mitchell et al, 2015). This underscores that, despite the growing body of knowledge pertaining to moral and ethical obligations towards communities and project social sustainability, more empirical studies are needed to examine the importance of including local communities for the implementation of sustainable practices (Baba, Mohammad, & Young, 2021;Di Maddaloni & Derakhshan, 2019;Eskerod & Huemann, 2013). Therefore, in response to the growing consideration of local communities' stakeholders in practice (e.g., Business Roundtable, 2019;NETLIPSE, 2016;World Economic Forum, 2020), and the apparent theoretical gap in prioritizing them as stakeholders (e.g., Derakhshan, 2020;Di Maddaloni & Davis, 2017;Dunham, Freeman, & Liedtka, 2006;), this explorative study investigates the inclusion of local communities in the decision-making process of MCPs, by posing the following research questions: (1) What priority do construction project managers place upon local communities' inclusion in implementing social sustainable actions?…”

Local community engagement as a practice: an investigation of local community engagement issues and their impact on transport megaprojects' social value

“…Furthermore, merely changing project teams' approach, at best, may lead to pockets of good practices but cannot make a persistent change in LCE practice. This finding contrasts the literature, which views an instrumental approach to LCE as the main issue of LCE (DiMaddaloni and Davis, 2018; DiMaddaloni and Derakhshan, 2019).…”

Projection of SDGs in Codes of Ethics—Case Study about Lost in Translation

“…It is even argued that there is a gap between the perception and engagement with SDGs on these extreme levels (Haessler 2020;Mansell et al 2020) and that the CSR might get crippled by that and fail to pursue the creating shared values (CSV) as championed by leading, not only academic, authorities (Porter and Kramer 2011). A new academic stream even proposes that sustainability is "a function of values" (Rickbaby et al 2020) and that a proper selection and communication of these values to stakeholders is absolutely pivotal (Di Maddaloni and Derakshan 2019). This leads to an even stronger call to understand these highly complex SDGs and it is highly instructive to overview them while keeping in mind their 169 targets and 244 individual indicators, as shown in Table 1.…”