Next Article in Journal
Empowering Rural Food Security in the Eastern Cape Province: Exploring the Role and Determinants of Family Food Gardens
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Influence of Pulsed Electric Field and Temperature on Key Physical Attributes in Sustainable Hot-Air-Dried Apple Tissue
Previous Article in Journal
Toward Sustainable Futures by Design Education
Previous Article in Special Issue
A System Dynamic Model for Polyethylene Terephthalate Supply Chain in the United Arab Emirates—Status, Projections, and Environmental Impacts
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 16
10.3390/su16166779
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Barriers to Implementing Environmental Sustainability in UAE Construction Project Management: Identification and Comparison of ISO 14001-Certified and Non-Certified Firms

by
Hamdi Bashir
1,*,
Ammar Al-Hawarneh
1,
Salah Haridy
1,2,
Mohammed Shamsuzzaman
1 and
Ridvan Aydin
1
1
Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, College of Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah P.O. Box 27272, United Arab Emirates
2
Benha Faculty of Engineering, Benha University, Benha 13511, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 6779; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166779
Submission received: 12 July 2024 / Revised: 2 August 2024 / Accepted: 5 August 2024 / Published: 7 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability in Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Firms in the construction industry are under increasing pressure from regulatory bodies, clients, and the public to integrate sustainability into their business strategies. However, they encounter numerous barriers that hinder the implementation of environmental sustainability practices in construction project management. This study aimed to examine these barriers within the context of the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE’s) construction industry. To achieve this, the research employed a mixed-method approach. Initially, interviews were conducted to identify the prevalent barriers, resulting in the identification of twelve key barriers. Subsequently, a structured questionnaire was distributed to project managers from 90 firms, both ISO 14001-certified and non-certified, to rank these barriers and assess their significance. The findings revealed that “economic benefits placed above meeting environmental sustainability requirements” was the most critical barrier. Through factor analysis, three latent factors were extracted: (1) organizational and policy barriers, (2) compliance and resource efficiency barriers, and (3) sustainable design implementation barriers. Notably, significant differences were observed between ISO 14001-certified and non-certified firms, particularly regarding the importance of “economic benefits placed above meeting environmental sustainability requirements” and “insufficient consultation with stakeholders”. This study highlights the critical barriers to implementing environmental sustainability practices in the UAE’s construction industry and provides actionable suggestions for policymakers and decision-makers to overcome these challenges, with implications for similar environments worldwide.

1. Introduction

The construction industry significantly contributes to economic growth and the development of essential infrastructure in many countries. However, its environmental impact is substantial. Construction activities are responsible for 25% to 50% of CO2 emissions and consume 20% to 50% of the world’s resources [1,2,3], while also generating nearly 50% of solid waste [4,5,6]. This environmental toll has prompted policymakers and authorities to implement programs and policies promoting environmentally friendly practices in construction projects. These regulations require firms to adopt sustainable practices, such as utilizing reusable materials like steel and wood, recyclable materials such as concrete and glass, reducing energy consumption during construction through energy-efficient building techniques, and employing renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines [7,8,9].
In response to self-imposed sustainability goals and government regulations, thousands of firms globally have adopted environmental management standards to mitigate their environmental impact. Notable standards include the “Carbon Trust Standard”, the “Eco-Management and Audit Scheme”, and the ISO 14001 standard [10] by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Established in 1996, ISO 14001 provides guidelines, practices, and principles for developing and implementing environmental management systems, making it one of the most widely recognized environmental certifications [11]. As of 31 December 2022, there were an estimated 529,853 valid ISO 14001 certificates in 179 countries. The construction sector leads with 67,058 certified firms [12].
According to several studies, implementing the ISO 14001 standard in construction firms that are predominantly project-oriented is quite challenging. These challenges arise because environmentally sustainable practices are not typically embedded in the project culture. Project-oriented firms often prioritize short-term project goals over long-term sustainability objectives, leading to a lack of consistent environmental management practices. Additionally, the temporary nature of projects and the frequent change in teams can result in insufficient training in and awareness of ISO 14001 requirements. Moreover, there is often resistance to change from stakeholders who may perceive sustainable practices as time-consuming or costly. These factors collectively hinder the effective integration of ISO 14001 standards in project-oriented construction firms [13,14]. Consequently, if a firm adopts this standard, the benefits may be limited [15], contradicting the findings reported by Turk [16]. These contradictory findings highlight the need for further research to examine the barriers and determine the extent to which they can be mitigated by adopting the ISO 14001 standard. Due to these contradictory findings, further research is needed to examine these barriers and determine the extent to which they can be mitigated by adopting the ISO 14001 standard. Therefore, this empirical study addressed this gap by investigating the barriers to implementing environmental sustainability in construction project management in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and examining the impact of ISO 14001 certification on these barriers.
Before the 2008 financial crisis, the UAE’s construction industry experienced significant growth beginning in 1996 and peaking in 2007. The UAE emerged as a major waste producer throughout this time, with construction activities accounting for 75% of the total waste generated [17]. This concerning statistic and the UAE government’s commitment to sustainability led to several initiatives and regulations to protect the environment. One significant initiative is “Estidama”, which the Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council introduced [18]. This initiative implemented the “Pearl Rating System” to assess construction projects based on sustainability principles established by the Council, setting a minimum score that all projects must achieve to promote sustainable construction in Abu Dhabi [19]. Similarly, Dubai introduced the “Green Building Regulations and Specifications” in 2011, which have been enforced for all construction projects since 2014. Despite these regulations and initiatives, the UAE’s construction industry has not fully adopted environmental sustainability practices. Bashir et al. [15] found that of 77 identified environmental sustainability practices, only 28 were adopted by UAE construction firms. These practices varied in their usage levels, primarily focusing on activities aimed at reducing air pollution.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Integrating Sustainability into Construction Project Management

Sustainability has drawn significant interest from practitioners and researchers primarily due to the necessity of mitigating the environmental impact of the construction industry [13,20,21,22,23,24]. This interest has subsequently expanded to include integrating environmental considerations and sustainability’s economic and social pillars into project management practices [25,26,27]. This integration has given rise to the sustainable project management concept, which Silvius and Schipper [28] defined as “[T]he planning, monitoring and controlling of project delivery and support processes, with consideration of the environmental, economic and social aspects of the lifecycle of the project’s resources, processes, deliverables and effects, aimed at realizing benefits for stakeholders, and performed in a transparent, fair and ethical way that includes proactive stakeholder participation”.
Numerous studies on sustainable project management have concentrated on developing frameworks or models (e.g., Refs. [9,28,29,30,31,32,33]), providing checklists or indicator-based guidelines for practices (e.g., Refs. [9,34,35]), defining the roles and responsibilities of project stakeholders (e.g., Refs. [36,37]), examining factors that influence the implementation of sustainability practices (e.g., Refs. [3,27,38,39]), or examining the extent of the implementation sustainable construction practices (e.g., Refs. [9,40]). Additionally, some research has examined perceptions and awarenesses of sustainability among construction industry stakeholders (e.g., Refs. [14,35,41,42]), evaluated the impact of sustainability on project outcomes (e.g., Refs. [13,28,43,44]), identified sustainable practices and their levels of implementation (e.g., Refs. [15,34,39]), and investigated barriers to implementing sustainable project management.
Building on these foundations, this study specifically addresses the barriers to implementing environmental sustainability practices in construction project management, focusing on the construction phase and immediate project delivery aspects. This focus is narrower than studies that take a holistic approach to sustainable construction, encompassing the entire lifecycle of a structure [45,46,47,48,49,50], as highlighted in a comprehensive literature review by de Oliveira and de Melo [51]. Relevant to our focus, Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52] examined challenges rather than barriers, while Fathalizadeh et al. [53] and Khural et al. [54] investigated barriers in different contexts. Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52] explored the challenges of delivering sustainable construction projects in the UAE. Their study involved surveying 82 construction professionals to identify and analyze these challenges. They identified 33 challenges, categorized into seven key clusters using factor analysis: financial, sustainable materials and technology, contractual, design, a lack of experience, regulations, and limited organizational awareness. The findings highlighted that financial challenges, such as the high costs of green materials and difficulties in project budgeting, were the most significant. The study also emphasized the importance of addressing issues related to sustainable materials, the early involvement of construction professionals, and regulatory frameworks. Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52] underscored the need for improved management practices, increased governmental support, and better stakeholder collaboration to effectively address these challenges and enhance the delivery of sustainable construction projects in the UAE. Their research provides valuable insights and recommendations for promoting sustainability in the construction industry.
Fathalizadeh et al. [53] examined the barriers to integrating sustainable practices in the construction industry within developing countries, specifically focusing on Iran. Through a comprehensive literature review and a survey of 176 practitioners, the authors identified 30 barriers. Key findings indicated that economic and regulatory barriers, such as the lack of understanding of sustainability benefits, insufficient stakeholder cooperation, and the absence of a systematic approach to sustainability, were more significant than market- and workforce-related barriers. The study highlighted the importance of prioritizing these critical barriers to maximize the return on investment in sustainability initiatives. It also emphasized the need for increased government support, improved stakeholder collaboration, and comprehensive planning to effectively address sustainability challenges in Iran’s construction sector.
Khural et al. [54] examined the barriers that affect implementing sustainable practices while delivering hill road construction projects and assessed how these practices impact various performance metrics (environmental, economic, and social). Using structural equation modeling and data from 313 hill road construction practitioners within the Indian context, the research found that while resource and managerial barriers negatively impact sustainable practices, regulatory barriers primarily hinder the adoption of modern construction methods. The study highlights that sustainable practices generally enhance environmental and economic performance, though their impact on social performance varies.

2.2. The Implementation of ISO 14001 in the Construction Industry

Initially established by the International Organization for Standardization in 1996, ISO 14001 has undergone four significant revisions (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2019). It is recognized as one of the most widely adopted Environmental Management System (EMS) frameworks [55]. It stands out within the ISO 14000 series, including ISO 14004, ISO 14006, ISO 14015, and ISO 14064 [56,57,58,59], largely due to its sector-neutral applicability. This versatility allows it to be implemented by any organization, whether they are public, private, or non-governmental [60]. ISO 14001 can be partially or fully applied as an EMS standard and assurance tool. However, it does not guarantee optimal sustainable performance; it provides standard procedures to help organizations achieve their goals. The standard does not prescribe specific sustainable objectives but emphasizes reducing environmental impact through five key areas: (i) policy—committing to sustainable objectives and targets; (ii) planning—outlining tasks to achieve these targets; (iii) implementation—executing the necessary transformations; (iv) monitoring/corrective action—assessing progress against targets; and (v) review—identifying corrective actions in response to evolving needs and priorities [61].
ISO 14001 has gained international acclaim as an effective standard for environmental management across various industries, including construction [60,62,63,64]. Key components of ISO 14001 include developing and implementing environmental policies, monitoring operations, and taking corrective actions as necessary [63,65].
The standard aims to help organizations meet environmental goals without mandating specific performance levels, accommodating stakeholder expectations and legal obligations [66,67,68]. Furthermore, it addresses project managers’ responsibilities towards employees, the public, and the environment, facilitating the adoption of practices to minimize CO2 emissions and soil contamination and improve resource efficiency [69,70,71].
Despite these benefits, which include reduced operational costs and an enhanced corporate reputation [69,72,73,74], implementation can be challenging in project-oriented construction firms, where environmental practices are often not integral to the project culture [13,40]. Conversely, some studies have shown that adopting ISO 14001 has fostered environmentally sustainable practices in the construction sector. For instance, a study in Turkey found that all certified firms and 77.5% of non-certified firms had adopted sustainability practices, which also helped reduce environmental impacts and construction costs [16,75].
This backdrop of mixed findings regarding the impact of adopting SO 14001 on environmentally sustainable practices has led to the belief that there might be differences in the perceived barriers to implementing such practices between ISO 14001-certified and non-certified firms.

3. Research Gap and Study Justification

Despite the growing body of research on sustainable construction practices, there remains a need for further investigation into the specific barriers hindering the implementation of environmental sustainability practices in construction project management. The existing literature has made significant contributions to our understanding of these issues; however, notable gaps still require attention. Our study emphasizes this need, as it was conducted within the same context as the research of Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52], but differs significantly in its focus. While Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52] concentrated on identifying and categorizing challenges in delivering sustainable construction projects in the UAE, our study explored the barriers rather than the challenges. The distinction between challenges and barriers is important; challenges are typically perceived as manageable and addressable through targeted efforts and strategies, whereas barriers suggest more substantial impediments that may require significant changes to overcome. Understanding this difference is crucial for developing effective strategies to promote the implementation of environmental sustainability practices.
Moreover, our study highlighted a significant gap in the existing literature: the impact of adopting ISO 14001 on barriers in construction project management. Despite the recognition of ISO 14001 as a critical framework for environmental management, none of the relevant studies, including that of Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52], have examined this issue. This gap is critical because the adoption of ISO 14001 has the potential to influence the effectiveness of overcoming barriers to implementing environmental sustainability practices in construction project management.
To address the identified gaps, this study formulated the following research questions:
  • What are the barriers to implementing environmental sustainability practices in UAE construction project management?
  • Which barriers have the greatest impact on implementing environmental sustainability practices in UAE construction project management?
  • Does the level of importance of barriers differ significantly between ISO 14001-certified and non-certified firms?
For the third question, the following hypotheses were formulated:
H0. 
The level of importance of barrier i does not differ significantly between ISO 14001-certified and non-certified firms (i = 1, 2, … m), where m represents the number of identified barriers.
H1. 
The level of importance of barrier i in non-certified firms differs significantly from that in ISO 14001-certified firms (i = 1, 2, … m), where m represents the number of identified barriers.

4. Methodology

As illustrated in Figure 1, this study utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining interviews and a structured questionnaire to explore the barriers to implementing environmental sustainability practices in construction projects within the UAE. Initially, personal interviews were conducted with three project managers who were briefed about the study’s objectives. Each manager then engaged in a review and validation process of a comprehensive list of 30 barriers. This list was produced by combining the most comprehensive lists from the literature, namely those of Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52] and Fathalizadeh et al. [53], avoiding redundancies and overlaps. During the review and validation process, each manager had the chance to make necessary modifications, additions, or deletions to align with their firm’s context. This exercise resulted in three distinct, revised lists, one per manager. These lists were then merged into a single, consolidated list, eliminating redundancies, as some barriers were common across the initial lists. The refined list includes 12 unique barriers, as detailed in Table 1.

4.1. Questionnaire Design

A questionnaire was developed and divided into three sections to gather empirical data. The first section optionally asked respondents about their job roles and firm names. The second section collected demographic information about the firm, such as the number of employees and the adoption of the ISO 14001 standard. The final section aimed to gather specific insights on the barriers to environmental sustainability in construction. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements about each barrier using a Likert scale from 1 (not important), 2 (slightly important), 3 (moderately important), 4 (important), to 5 (very important). A pilot study was conducted with five participants to validate the questionnaire design, allowing for the addition of any overlooked barriers and feedback on the clarity of the questions. Based on this feedback, some barrier descriptions were adjusted, though no new barriers were added.

4.2. Data Collection

The data collection process involved contacting the 723 active construction-contracting firms in the UAE to obtain project managers’ contact information. We successfully obtained contact information for 180 project managers representing distinct firms. The questionnaire was then distributed to them, some through email and others physically. From this distribution, 90 responded to the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 50%.
Table 2 presents the profile of surveyed firms, categorized into non-certified and certified firms based on their ISO 14001 certification status. Among non-certified firms, 7.1% have fewer than 10 employees, while 39.2% have between 11 and 100 employees. Additionally, 10.7% of non-certified firms employ between 101 and 250 people, and 43% have more than 251 employees. In contrast, certified firms show a slightly different distribution, with 3.2% employing fewer than 10 people and 22.6% having between 11 and 100 employees. Moreover, 9.7% of certified firms have between 101 and 250 employees, and a significant majority, 64.5%, employ more than 251 people. This comparison highlights that a higher percentage of certified firms tends to have a larger workforce.

4.3. Data Analysis Methods

The analysis of the questionnaire data regarding the importance of specific barriers was based on the percentage of responses categorized as not important, slightly important, moderately important, important, and very important. The analysis methods used included Cronbach’s alpha, factor analysis, mean ranks, and the Mann–Whitney U test.
Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaire, ensuring that the items within each section of the survey were measuring the same underlying concept. A high Cronbach’s alpha value (typically above 0.7) indicates that the questionnaire items have a strong correlation with each other and are likely to yield consistent results across different samples [76].
Factor analysis (FA) is a dimensionality reduction technique introduced by Spearman in 1904 to extract latent factors from a correlation matrix of numerous interrelated variables. Various extraction methods can be used in FA, including canonical factor analysis, common factor analysis, image factor analysis, and principal component analysis (PCA). This study chose PCA as the extraction method due to its straightforward nature, quantitative rigor, and widespread popularity [77].
PCA produces uncorrelated linear combinations of the original variables, which simplifies the dataset by reducing the number of variables while retaining most of the original information. The first few factors typically account for a significant percentage of the total variance of the original variables, enabling the assignment of these variables to a small number of independent factors. However, since the factors derived from PCA often correlate with many original variables, rotation methods are applied to achieve a more interpretable structure.
Varimax rotation was chosen for this study due to its widespread use in different research areas (e.g., Refs. [78,79,80,81]) and its reputation for effectiveness and ease of interpretation. Varimax rotation maximizes the variance of the squared loadings of a factor matrix, which helps in producing factors that are easier to interpret as they tend to have high loadings for a few variables and low loadings for others.
The choice of PCA with Varimax rotation offers several advantages, such as reducing data complexity and improving interpretability. However, it also has limitations, such as assuming linear relationships among variables and potentially oversimplifying the data structure. Despite these limitations, PCA with Varimax rotation were deemed suitable for this study due to their balance of rigor, simplicity, and widespread acceptance in the research community.
Mean ranks were employed to differentiate between ISO 14001-certified and non-ISO 14001-certified firms in terms of the level of importance of the barrier faced. The mean rank for a given barrier indicates the average position of that barrier across all responses from each group. A higher mean rank for a barrier among a group of firms suggests that these firms generally perceive a barrier as more important than their counterparts. These mean ranks facilitated the application of the Mann–Whitney U test, a non-parametric statistical test used to test hypotheses related to the second research question. The choice of mean ranks and the Mann–Whitney U test stems from their appropriateness for evaluating responses on a Likert scale and in situations where the assumption of normal distribution does not hold [82].

5. Results

The internal consistency of the scale of the 12 barriers was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which was found to be 0.0.878. This high value suggests that the barriers identified in our study form a reliable and consistent scale.
For ranking, the responses categorized as ‘important’ (4) and ‘very important’ (5) for each barrier were aggregated for the overall analysis. Accordingly, the barriers were ranked from highest to lowest, as shown in Figure 2. In this figure, “economic benefits placed above meeting environmental sustainability requirements (B3)” emerged as the top barrier, with 61% of respondents rating it as either ‘important’ or ‘very important’. Following closely, “insufficient support from policymakers (B6)” and “low workforce commitment (B11)” each received 51.11% in the same categories. Additionally, “challenges to reducing the rate of energy consumption during construction processes (B2)” and the “inability to implement environmentally sustainable design (B4)” were each identified as either ‘important’ or ‘very important’ by 50% of respondents.
The factor structure of the 12 barriers was examined through exploratory factor analysis using PCA and the Varimax rotation method. The results revealed a factor structure with three latent factors that explained 70.245% of the variance (Table 3). Latent factors are underlying barriers that are not directly observed but are inferred from the relationships between observed barriers. Latent Factor 1 had an eigenvalue of 6.050, explaining 50.418% of the variance; Latent Factor 2 had an eigenvalue of 1.310, explaining 10.917% of the variance; and Latent Factor 3 had an eigenvalue of 1.069, explaining 8.910% of the variance. After rotation, the rotation sums of squared loadings indicated that Latent Factor 1 explains 25.777% of the variance. Following this, Latent Factor 2 explained 22.783% of the variance, and Latent Factor 3 explained 21.686% of the variance.
As shown in the rotated matrix (Table 4), the barriers with the highest loadings on the first latent factor, relating to organizational and policy barriers, included economic benefits prioritized over sustainability requirements (B3), insufficient consultation with stakeholders (B5), insufficient support from policymakers (B6), a low awareness of new technologies among the workforce (B10), low workforce commitment (B11), and weak management decision-making (B12). The loadings of these barriers on the first latent factor were 0.648, 0.786, 0.810, 0.679, 0.638, and 0.658, respectively. The second latent factor comprised standard compliance and resource efficiency-related barriers, with high loadings for challenges related to recycling construction and demolition waste (B1), reducing energy consumption during construction processes (B2), a lack of adherence to construction material standards (B7), and a lack of clear definitions of material quality standards (B8). The loadings of these barriers on the second latent factor were 0.699, 0.514, 0.769, and 0.848, respectively. The third latent factor dealt with barriers to sustainable design implementation, with high loadings for the inability to implement environmentally sustainable design (B4) and a lack of high-quality workmanship (B9). The loadings of these barriers on the third latent factor are 0.777 and 0.820, respectively.
To compare the level of importance of barriers across ISO 14001-certified and non-certified firms, the mean ranks were calculated as shown in Table 5. Among ISO 14001-certified firms, the highest mean rank was for the barrier “insufficient consultation with stakeholders (B5)” with a mean rank of 49.18, while the lowest mean rank was for “economic benefits placed above meeting environmental sustainability requirements (B3)” with a mean rank of 41.73. Conversely, for non-certified firms, the barrier with the highest mean rank was “economic benefits placed above meeting environmental sustainability requirements (B3)” at 53.86, whereas the barrier with the lowest mean rank was “insufficient consultation with stakeholders (B5)” with a mean rank of 37.36.
To compare the barriers across the two populations of firms, the Mann–Whitney U test was performed to test the hypotheses formulated in Section 3, addressing the second research question: Does the level of importance of barriers differ significantly between ISO 14001-certified and non-certified firms?
The results presented in Table 5, at a 0.05 level of significance, indicated no significant difference in the importance of 10 of the 12 barriers between ISO 14001-certified and non-certified firms. However, a significant difference existed in two barriers, namely, “economic benefits placed above meeting sustainability requirements (B3)” and “insufficient consultation with stakeholders (B5)”.

6. Discussion

6.1. Overall Analysis of Barriers

B3 was also identified as the third most significant barrier among eight barriers to sustainable construction in Chile [83], fifth among the top 10 barriers in the Ghanaian construction industry [84], and ranked twelfth among the 30 barriers to sustainable construction project management in Iran [53]. B6 was recognized as the fourth most significant barrier out of 30 in Iran [53].
Notably, among the identified barriers, only B4 and B11 were identified as challenges in the research of Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52], which was conducted in the same context as this study. They were referred to as an “inability to relinquish traditional construction methods and project management practices” and “limited management commitment and organizational leadership”, respectively. Both were grouped in a cluster called ‘limited organizational awareness’, which was found to be the least significant cluster of challenges.
As previously mentioned, prioritizing economic benefits over meeting environmental sustainability requirements (B3) was identified as the primary barrier. This prioritization is likely because of the perception that environmental sustainability negatively impacts financial performance. In contrast, enhanced environmental performance frequently offers significant advantages, providing strategic and tactical benefits that can ultimately lead to improved economic outcomes. For instance, Martin and Schouten [85] argued that environmental performance enhances economic performance by increasing competitive advantage. This enhancement is achieved through various strategies, including cost reduction, sustainability-based differentiation, innovation, human capital development, and staying ahead of environmental regulations. Similarly, Willard [86] argued that adopting a responsible approach can greatly improve competitive advantage by reducing costs and increasing revenues, achieved through lower expenses on energy, waste, and water, as well as decreased material costs. Moreover, Khural et al. [54] asserted that integrating sustainability practices can establish a sustainable competitive advantage that is valuable, rare, difficult to replicate, and exploitable by organizations.

6.2. Factor Analysis of Barriers

The factor analysis revealed three latent factors underlying the barriers to implementing environmental sustainability practices in construction project management.
Organizational and policy barriers encompass issues such as prioritizing economic benefits over sustainability requirements, insufficient consultation with stakeholders, inadequate support from policymakers, a low awareness of new technologies among the workforce, low workforce commitment, and weak management decision-making. This factor highlights the critical role of organizational culture and policy support in promoting sustainable practices.
Standard compliance and resource efficiency-related barriers include challenges related to recycling construction and demolition waste, reducing energy consumption during construction processes, a lack of adherence to construction material standards, and unclear definitions of material quality standards. This factor underscores the importance of establishing and enforcing standards and promoting resource-efficient practices.
Barriers to sustainable design implementation involve the inability to implement environmentally sustainable designs and the lack of high-quality workmanship. This factor emphasizes the need for improved design practices and higher workmanship standards to achieve sustainability goals.
It is worth noting that Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52], through their factor analysis, identified seven factors: financial, sustainable materials and technology, contractual, design, lack of experience, regulations, and limited organizational awareness. The difference in findings might be attributed to the focus of each study; our study focused on barriers, whereas Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52] focused on challenges. Additionally, our study examined 12 barriers, whereas Ahmed and El-Sayegh [52] examined 33 challenges.
Both studies underscore the multifaceted nature of obstacles to implementing environmental sustainability practices in construction project management, highlighting economic, organizational, policy, technical, and design-related issues. This comparison underscores the need for comprehensive strategies that address these diverse aspects to effectively promote sustainability in construction projects.

6.3. Comparative Analysis: ISO 14001-Certified vs. Non-ISO Certified Firms

The barrier “economic benefits placed above meeting sustainability requirements (B3)” was perceived as significantly more important for non-ISO 14001-certified firms than for ISO 14001-certified firms. Several factors can explain this result. First, non-certified firms may prioritize immediate financial gains over long-term sustainability goals. Without the mandate to comply with ISO 14001 standards, these firms will likely focus more on cost reduction and operational efficiency to maintain their competitive edge. This short-term focus leads them to place greater importance on economic benefits, often at the expense of sustainability requirements. Additionally, non-certified firms might lack awareness or understanding of the long-term economic benefits associated with sustainable practices. Second, resource constraints also play a significant role. Non-certified firms are generally smaller than certified firms (see Table 2) and often operate with limited budgets and smaller teams, making it difficult to invest in environmental sustainability practices in construction project management that may require upfront costs. Third, non-certified firms’ organizational culture and leadership might not emphasize sustainability. Without the strategic focus on environmental management that ISO 14001 certification brings (see [16,75]), the management in these firms might continue prioritizing economic performance metrics over sustainability goals. This results in a business strategy consistently placing economic benefits above meeting sustainability requirements.
In contrast, the barrier “insufficient consultation with stakeholders (B5)” was perceived as significantly more important for ISO 14001-certified firms than non-ISO 14001-certified firms. Despite the requirements of the ISO 14001 standard, which emphasizes the importance of considering the needs and expectations of interested parties, there appears to be a gap in the practical implementation of the standard. Certified firms may recognize the importance of stakeholder engagement but struggle with its execution, indicating a need for improved processes and resources to facilitate effective consultation. On the other hand, without the requirement to comply with ISO 14001 standards, non-certified firms may not feel compelled to prioritize stakeholder consultation in their operations. Their primary focus might be on immediate business concerns such as cost reduction, meeting basic regulatory requirements, and operational efficiency rather than on comprehensive environmental management practices. Moreover, non-certified firms might lack awareness or understanding of the benefits of engaging stakeholders. Effective stakeholder consultation can lead to improved project outcomes, enhanced reputation, and better compliance with environmental standards. However, if these firms have not been exposed to or educated about these benefits, they might undervalue the importance of engaging with stakeholders. Consequently, they might not perceive insufficient engagement as an issue, believing their current practices are adequate without recognizing the potential advantages of deeper stakeholder involvement.

6.4. Addressing the Barriers

Addressing the barriers requires a strategic approach that targets the root causes or pivotal barriers, the resolution of which could yield the broadest positive impact and potentially streamline the mitigation of other barriers. Among these challenges, tackling insufficient support from policymakers and weak management decision-making as initial steps could trigger a domino effect of positive changes. These two barriers have the highest loadings on the most significant latent factor, “organizational and policy”.

6.4.1. Insufficient Support from Policymakers

Despite the initiatives and regulations implemented by the UAE government at various levels, the construction industry in the country has yet to fully adopt environmentally sustainable practices [15]. This suggests that while these initiatives are ambitious, they lack the robust backing and continuous development necessary to address the evolving sustainability challenges in the construction sector. The effectiveness of these initiatives and regulations is often undermined by inadequate enforcement, a lack of regulatory oversight, or insufficient funding and resources dedicated to sustainability efforts. This gap highlights the need for a more integrated approach to policy-making that not only enacts regulations but also ensures their effective implementation through a combination of mandatory, supporting, and encouraging policies. Mandatory policies involve establishing and enforcing laws and regulations that safeguard the environment [87,88]. Supportive policies encompass awareness and training programs, whereas encouraging policies offer fee or tax waivers, short-term subsidies, and other incentives [87]. Implementing these comprehensive policies to address insufficient support from policymakers (B6) can directly impact several barriers in the construction industry. For example, adequate support from policymakers can help prioritize sustainability over economic benefits by introducing regulations and incentives that align economic and sustainability goals [45,89], thereby addressing B3. They can also help establish and standardize definitions of material quality, reducing ambiguity and improving material quality across the industry, thus addressing B8. Moreover, with sufficient policy support, regulations can be implemented to promote waste reduction practices and technologies, enhance recycling efforts, and improve infrastructure for construction and demolition waste [90], thereby addressing B1. Additionally, they can encourage the adoption of environmentally sustainable design through regulations, incentives, and the provision of necessary resources and guidelines, thereby addressing B7 and facilitating the resolution of B4. Finally, by setting energy efficiency standards and promoting the use of energy-saving technologies and practices during construction, policymakers can help reduce energy consumption during construction processes [91], thereby addressing B2.
Continuous improvement of standards is essential, and the government should establish regular review and update mechanisms to reflect new research, technological advancements, and industry best practices. A dedicated committee or working group can oversee this process. Providing education and training to industry professionals about the new standards is also vital. Governments can develop and sponsor training programs, certification courses, and informational materials to ensure that professionals are well-informed and capable of adhering to the standards, thereby addressing B7.

6.4.2. Weak Management Decision-Making

Improving management decision-making in construction requires a comprehensive strategy focusing on seven key aspects: leadership development, clear processes, effective communication, continuous improvement, stakeholder feedback, decision support tools, and accountability. By implementing these strategies, construction firms can create a more capable and responsive management team that prioritizes sustainability and quality, leading to better project outcomes and a more sustainable construction industry.
First, investing in leadership training programs is crucial. These programs should focus on developing strategic thinking, decision-making skills, and understanding sustainable practices. Training should cover areas such as project management, conflict resolution, stakeholder engagement, and environmental management. Additionally, decision-makers need to utilize various techniques for both programmed and non-programmed decisions to improve their decision-making quality and speed. A description of these techniques can be found in Bright et al. [92]. In addition to investing in leadership programs and providing decision-makers with enhanced decision-making techniques, construction companies are now urged to develop innovative business and leadership models focused on sustainability [93]. These new models are designed to help firms overcome challenges in implementing environmental, economic and social sustainability practices. They should enable firms to navigate various boundaries and balance local responsiveness with global integration, thereby improving corporate performance while meeting the growing demands for sustainable solutions from influential stakeholders with social and environmental concerns [94].
Second, establishing clear and transparent decision-making processes improves the quality of management decisions. This involves setting up standardized procedures for evaluating options, considering stakeholder inputs, and assessing the potential impacts of decisions on sustainability and project outcomes. Approaches such as the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle provide a structured approach to making and evaluating decisions. Notably, firms certified under ISO 14001 must use the PDCA approach as part of their compliance with the standards [95].
Third, improving communication and collaboration within management teams and across an organization is essential. Regular meetings, collaborative platforms, and clear communication channels at all levels ensure that relevant information is shared promptly and that all team members are aligned with the project goals, which is vital for sustaining environmental practices [96].
Fourth, creating a culture that values continuous improvement through knowledge sharing, regular reviews, and reflections on decisions can lead to learning from past experiences. This culture can be supported by recognizing and rewarding innovative and sustainable solutions.
Fifth, incorporating stakeholder feedback through regular consultations, surveys, and feedback sessions into the decision-making process ensures that the perspectives and concerns of all relevant parties are considered, leading to more balanced and effective decisions [97,98].
Sixth, leveraging decision support tools and technologies aids managers in making data-driven decisions. Tools such as Building Information Modeling, project management software, and sustainability assessment tools provide comprehensive data and simulations that help managers evaluate the potential impacts of their decisions [99].
Last, setting up accountability mechanisms ensures that managers are responsible for their decisions and outcomes, encouraging them to consider the long-term implications of their decisions more carefully. This involves establishing clear roles and responsibilities, setting performance metrics, and conducting regular performance reviews [100].
Adopting the strategy above will strengthen management, enabling a construction firm to prioritize workforce development and tackle several other barriers with sufficient support from policymakers. For instance, effective management can lead to better waste management practices and the implementation of recycling programs, thus addressing challenges related to recycling construction and the demolition of waste streams (B1). By prioritizing energy-efficient practices and technologies, strong management can also reduce the rate of energy consumption during construction processes, addressing B2.
Additionally, good decision-making can balance economic benefits with sustainability goals, ensuring that long-term gains are not achieved at the expense of sustainability, addressing B3. This approach can also facilitate the adoption of environmentally sustainable design practices, overcoming the inability to implement such designs and addressing B4. Effective management ensures proper stakeholder engagement and consultation, leading to more inclusive and sustainable project outcomes, thus addressing B5. By ensuring that all materials meet specified standards, including sustainability criteria, good decision-making also addresses the lack of adherence to standards for construction materials specifications (B7). Clear and effective management can establish and enforce precise material quality standards, which are crucial for maintaining consistency and quality in construction projects, addressing B8. Finally, strong management can enforce quality control measures, ensuring high standards of workmanship. It can also prioritize training and education to raise awareness of new technologies and sustainable practices among the construction industry’s workforce, addressing B9 and B10. Addressing these two barriers and fostering motivation, engagement, and a clear vision for sustainability can enhance workforce commitment, addressing B11.

7. Conclusions

This study explored the barriers to implementing environmental sustainability practices in construction project management within the United Arab Emirates. Twelve key barriers were identified using a mixed-methods approach that combined interviews and structured questionnaires. These barriers were analyzed using factor analysis, mean ranks, and the Mann–Whitney U test, revealing three latent factors: the organizational and policy factor, standards compliance and resource efficiency, and sustainable design implementation. Among these, the “organizational and policy” factor emerged as the most significant, emphasizing the critical need for strategic support and effective management practices.
The results indicated that non-ISO 14001-certified firms are more likely to prioritize immediate economic benefits over sustainability requirements, primarily due to resource constraints, a lack of awareness, and a focus on short-term financial gains. In contrast, ISO 14001-certified firms recognize the importance of stakeholder engagement but struggle with its practical implementation.
The findings of this study highlighted the multifaceted nature of the barriers and the necessity for a comprehensive approach to address them. This approach should target the root causes or pivotal barriers, the resolution of which could yield the broadest positive impact and potentially streamline the mitigation of other barriers. Among these challenges, addressing insufficient support from policymakers and weak management decision-making as initial steps could trigger a domino effect of positive changes. These two barriers have the highest loadings on the most significant latent factor, “organizational and policy”. Suggestions on how to address these barriers were provided.
This study contributes to practice by providing a roadmap for construction firms in the UAE and similar environments worldwide to prioritize and address the most critical barriers to implementing environmental sustainability practices in construction project management. For theoretical advancements, identifying latent factors and analyzing their impacts enrich the existing body of knowledge on sustainability in construction project management.
While this study provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. The sample size was limited to 90 firms, which may not fully represent the entire UAE construction industry. Future research should aim to include a larger and more diverse sample to validate the findings further. Another limitation was focusing only on the environmental pillar of sustainability. Future studies could consider the other two pillars of sustainability: economic and social. The finding that ISO 14001-certified firms recognize the importance of stakeholder engagement but struggle with its practical implementation raises an issue worth investigating: to what extent are ISO 14001 requirements actually implemented?
Further studies could also investigate the effectiveness of specific interventions designed to overcome the identified barriers, offering practical solutions to the industry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.B. and A.A.-H.; data collection, A.A.-H.; data analysis and validation, H.B., S.H., M.S. and R.A.; writing—original draft preparation, H.B.; writing—review and editing, H.B. and S.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

References

  1. Arocho, I.; Rasdorf, W.; Hummer, J.; Lewis, P. Time and cost characterisation of emissions from non-road diesel equipment for infrastructure projects. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2016, 10, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gharzeldeen, M.; Beheiry, S. Investigating the use of green design parameters in UAE construction. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2015, 8, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, G.; Yang, H.; Fu, Y.; Mao, C.; Xu, P.; Hong, J.; Li, R. Cyber-physical system-based real-time monitoring and visualization of greenhouse gas emissions of prefabricated construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 119059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Benachio, G.; Freitas, M.; Tavares, S. Circular economy in the construction industry: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. BIMhow. Impact of the Construction Industry on the Environment. Available online: http://www.bimhow.com/impact-of-the-construction-industry-on-the-environment (accessed on 22 May 2023).
  6. Sáez, P.; Osmani, M. A diagnosis of construction and demolition waste generation and recovery practice in the European Union. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bamgbade, J.; Kamaruddeen, A.; Nawi, M.; Adeleke, A.; Salimon, M.; Ajibike, W. Analysis of some factors driving ecological sustainability in construction firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 1537–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, W.; Jin, R.; Xu, Y.; Wanatowski, D.; Li, B.; Yan, L.; Pan, Z.; Yang, Y. Adopting recycled aggregates as sustainable construction materials: A review of the scientific literature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 218, 483–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yates, J. Design and construction for sustainable industrial construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. ISO 14001; Environmental Management Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
  11. Kabirifar, K.; Mojtahedi, M.; Wang, C.; Tam, V. Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. ISO. The ISO Survey of Management System Standard Certifications—2022—Explanatory Note; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; Available online: https://www.iso.org/committee/54998.html?t=KomURwikWDLiuB1P1c7SjLMLEAgXOA7emZHKGWyn8f3KQUTU3m287NxnpA3DIuxm&view=documents#section-isodocuments-top (accessed on 6 April 2024).
  13. Banihashemi, S.; Hosseini, M.R.; Golizadeh, H.; Sankaran, S. Critical success factors (CSFs) for integration of sustainability into construction project management practices in developing countries. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1103–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Carvalho, 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bashir, H.; Ojiako, U.; Haridy, S.; Shamsuzzaman, M.; Musa, R. Implementation of environmentally sustainable practices and their association with ISO 14001 certification in the construction industry of the United Arab Emirates. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2022, 18, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Turk, A. ISO 14000 environmental management system in construction: An examination of its application in Turkey. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2009, 20, 713–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Al-Hajj, A.; Hamani, K. Material waste in the UAE construction industry: Main causes and minimization practices. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2011, 7, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. El-Sayegh, S.M.; AbdRaboh, T.; Elian, D.; ElJarad, N.; Ahmad, Y. Developing a bi-parameter bidding model integrating price and sustainable construction practices. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 22, 2191–2198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Estidama. Building Rating System, Design & Construction. The Pearl Rating System for Estidama. Version 1.0. 2010. Available online: https://bit.ly/3sH9SQs (accessed on 22 May 2022).
  20. Alencar, L.; Alencar, M.; Lima, L.; Trindade, E.; Silva, L. Sustainability in the construction industry: A systematic review of the literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Araujo, A.; Carneiro, A.; Palha, R. Sustainable construction management: A systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Goh, C.; Chong, H.; Jack, L.; Faris, A. Revisiting triple bottom line within the context of sustainable construction: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Murtagh, N.; Scott, L.; Fan, J. VSI editorial—Sustainable and resilient construction: Current status and future challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Udomsap, A.; Hallinger, P. A bibliometric review of research on sustainable construction, 1994–2018. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Stanitsas, M.; Kirytopoulos, K.; Leopoulos, V. Integrating sustainability indicators into project management: The case of construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Silvius, A.; Schipper, R. A conceptual model for exploring the relationship between sustainability and project success. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 64, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Haavaldsen, T.; Laedre, O.; Volden, G.; Lohne, J. On the concept of sustainability—Assessing the sustainability of large public infrastructure investment projects. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2014, 7, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Armenia, S.; Dangelico, R.; Nonino, F.; Pompei, A. Sustainable project management: A conceptualization-oriented review and a framework proposal for future studies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dasović, B.M.; Galić, M.; Klanšek, U. A survey on integration of optimization and project management tools for sustainable construction scheduling. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gijzel, D.; Bosch-Rekveldt, M.; Schraven, D.; Hertogh, M. Integrating sustainability into major infrastructure projects: Four perspectives on sustainable tunnel development. Sustainability 2019, 12, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hasheminasab, H.; Gholipour, Y.; Kharrazi, M.; Streimikiene, D. A quantitative sustainability assessment framework for petroleum refinery projects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021, 28, 15305–15319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. O’Connor, J.; Torres, N.; Woo, J. Sustainability actions during the construction phase. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yu, W.; Cheng, S.; Ho, W.; Chang, Y. Measuring the sustainability of construction projects throughout their lifecycle: A Taiwan lesson. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kibert, C. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  37. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gunduz, M.; Almuajebh, M. Critical success factors for sustainable construction project management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yusof, N.; Iranmanesh, M.; Awang, H. Pro-environmental practices among Malaysian construction practitioners. Adv. Environ. Biol. 2015, 9, 117–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Willar, D.; Waney, E.V.Y.; Pangemanan, D.D.G.; Mait, R.E.G. Sustainable construction practices in the execution of infrastructure projects: The extent of implementation. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2021, 10, 106–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pham, H.; Kim, S.; Luu, T. Managerial perceptions on barriers to sustainable construction in developing countries: Vietnam case. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 2979–3003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zuofa, T.; Ochieng, E. Sustainability in construction project delivery: A study of experienced project managers in Nigeria. Proj. Manag. J. 2016, 47, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mansell, P.; Philbin, S.; Konstantinou, E. Redefining the use of sustainable development goals at the organization and project levels—A survey of engineers. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Onubi, H.O.; Yusof, N.; Hassan, A.S. Understanding the mechanism through which adoption of green construction site practices impacts economic performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Durdyev, S.; Ismail, S.; Ihtiyar, A.; Abu Bakar, N.F.S.; Darko, A. A partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) of barriers to sustainable construction in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Elkhalifa, A. The magnitude of barriers facing the development of the construction and building materials industries in developing countries, with special reference to Sudan in Africa. Habitat Int. 2016, 54, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kamranfar, S.; Damirchi, F.; Pourvaziri, M.; Xalikovich, P.A.; Mahmoudkelayeh, S.; Moezzi, R.; Vadiee, A. A partial least squares structural equation modelling analysis of the primary barriers to sustainable construction in Iran. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kineber, A.F.; Kissi, E.; Hamed, M.M. Identifying and assessing sustainability implementation barriers for residential building projects: A case of Ghana. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Opoku, A.; Cruickshank, H.; Ahmed, V. Organizational leadership role in the delivery of sustainable construction projects in the UK. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2015, 5, 154–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Opoku, D.-G.J.; Ayarkwa, J.; Agyekum, K. Barriers to environmental sustainability of construction projects. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2019, 8, 292–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. De Oliveira, J.C.F.; de Melo, F.J.C. Barriers and drivers of sustainable construction: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2024, 47, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ahmed, S.; El-Sayegh, S. The challenges of sustainable construction projects delivery—Evidence from the UAE. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2022, 18, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fathalizadeh, A.; Hosseini, M.R.; Vaezzadeh, S.S.; Edwards, D.J.; Martek, I.; Shooshtarian, S. Barriers to sustainable construction project management: The case of Iran. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2022, 11, 717–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Khural, R.A.; Shashi; Ertz, M.; Cerchione, R. Moving toward sustainability and circularity in hill road construction: A study of barriers, practices, and performance. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2024, 31, 1608–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mosgaard, M.; Bundgaard, A.; Kristensen, H. ISO 14001 practices—A study of environmental objectives in Danish organizations. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 331, 129799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. ISO 14004; Environmental Management Systems—General Guidelines on Implementation. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  57. ISO 14006; Environmental Management Systems—Guidelines for Incorporating Ecodesign. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
  58. ISO 14015; Environmental Management—Guidelines for Environmental due Diligence Assessment. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
  59. ISO 14064; Greenhouse Gases. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  60. Mosgaard, M.; Kristensen, H. Companies that discontinue their ISO 14001 certification–reasons, consequences and impact on practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sambasivan, M.; Fei, N. Evaluation of critical success factors of implementation of ISO 14001 using analytic hierarchy process (AHP): A case study from Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1424–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chiarini, A. Factors for succeeding in ISO 14001 implementation in the Italian construction industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 794–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Johnstone, L. The construction of environmental performance in ISO 14001-certified SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. To, W.; Lam, K. Green project management from employees’ perspective in Hong Kong’s engineering and construction sectors. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 29, 1890–1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Treacy, R.; Humphreys, P.; McIvor, R.; Lo, C. ISO 14001 certification and operating performance: A practice-based view. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 208, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bravi, L.; Santos, G.; Pagano, A.; Murmura, F. Environmental management system according to ISO 14001: 2015 as a driver to sustainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2599–2614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Phan, T.; Baird, K. The comprehensiveness of environmental management systems: The influence of institutional pressures and the impact on environmental performance. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 160, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Waxin, M.; Knuteson, S.; Bartholomew, A. Drivers and challenges for implementing ISO 14001 environmental management systems in an emerging Gulf Arab country. Environ. Manag. 2017, 63, 495–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Boiral, O.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Brotherton, M. Corporate biodiversity management through certifiable standards. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 389–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Garrido, E.; González, C.; Orcos, R. ISO 14001 and CO2 emissions: An analysis of the contingent role of country features. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 698–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ikram, M.; Zhang, Q.; Sroufe, R.; Shah, S. Towards a sustainable environment: The nexus between ISO 14001, renewable energy consumption, access to electricity, agriculture and CO2 emissions in SAARC countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 22, 218–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Brahmana, R.; Kontesa, M. Does clean technology weaken the environmental impact on the financial performance? Insight from global oil and gas companies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 3411–3423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Arana, L.; Boiral, O. Outcomes of environmental management systems: The role of motivations and firms’ characteristics. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2016, 25, 545–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wu, W.; An, S.; Wu, C.H.; Tsai, S.; Yang, K. An empirical study on green environmental system certification affects financing cost of high energy consumption enterprises—Taking metallurgical enterprises as an example. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 244, 118848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Turk, A. The benefits associated with ISO 14001 certification for construction firms: Turkish case. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 559–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rummel, R.J. Applied Factor Analysis; Northwestern University Press: Evanston, IL, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  78. Awang, A.; Khalid, S.A.; Yusof, A.A.; Kassim, K.M.; Ismail, M.; Zain, R.S.; Madar, A.R.S. Entrepreneurial orientation and performance relations of Malaysian Bumiputera SMEs: The impact of some perceived environmental factors. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2009, 4, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bashir, H.A.; Alzebdeh, K.; Al Riyami, A.M. Factor analysis of obstacles restraining productivity improvement programs in manufacturing enterprises in Oman. J. Ind. Eng. 2014, 2014, 195018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hamdan, B.; Bashir, H.; Cheaitou, A. A novel clustering method for breaking down the symmetric multiple traveling salesman problem. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2021, 14, 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ortiz, J.D.; Avouris, D.M.; Schiller, S.J.; Luvall, J.C.; Lekki, J.D.; Tokars, R.P.; Anderson, R.C.; Shuchman, R.; Sayers, M.; Becker, R. Evaluating visible derivative spectroscopy by varimax-rotated, principal component analysis of aerial hyperspectral images from the western basin of Lake Erie. J. Great Lakes Res. 2019, 45, 522–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kvam, P.; Vidakovic, B.; Kim, S.-J. Non-Parametric Statistics with Applications to Science and Engineering with R; Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  83. Serpell, A.; Kort, J.; Vera, S. Awareness, actions, drivers and barriers of sustainable construction in Chile. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2013, 19, 272–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Djokoto, S.D.; Dadzie, J.; Ohemeng-Ababio, E. Barriers to sustainable construction in the Ghanaian construction industry: Consultants perspectives. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 7, 134–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Martin, D.M.; Schouten, J. Sustainable Marketing; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2011; p. 264. [Google Scholar]
  86. Willard, B. The New Sustainability Advantage: Seven Business Case Benefits of a Triple Bottom Line; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  87. Albastaki, F.M.; Bashir, H.; Ojiako, U.; Shamsuzzaman, M.; Haridy, S. Modeling and analyzing critical success factors for implementing environmentally sustainable practices in a public utilities organization: A case study. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2021, 32, 768–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hafezi, M.; Zolfagharinia, H. Green product development and environmental performance: Investigating the role of government regulations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 204, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sun, J. Analyses of green products in duopoly market on the base of environment quality model. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Eng. 2012, 1, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kolaventi, S.S.; Momand, H.; Tezeswi, T.P.; Kumar, M.V.N.S. Implementing site waste-management plans, recycling in India: Barriers, benefits, measures. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Iqbal, M.; Ma, J.; Ahmad, N. Promoting sustainable construction through energy-efficient technologies: An analysis of promotional strategies using interpretive structural modeling. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 18, 3479–3502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bright, D.S.; Cortes, A.H.; Hartmann, E.; Parboteeah, K.P.; Pierce, J.L.; Reece, M.; Shah, A.; Terjesen, S.; Weiss, J.; White, M.A.; et al. Principles of Management; OpenStax: Houston, TX, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-0-9986257-7-5. [Google Scholar]
  93. Di Fabio, A.; Peiró, J.M. Human capital sustainability leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Fry, L.W.; Egel, E. Global leadership for sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Sadiq, N.; Khan, A.H. ISO 14001 Step by Step: A Practical Guide; IT Governance Ltd.: Ely, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  96. Weina, A.; Yanling, Y. Role of knowledge management on the sustainable environment: Assessing the moderating effect of innovative culture. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 861813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Bal, M.; Bryde, D.; Fearon, D.; Ochieng, E. Stakeholder engagement: Achieving sustainability in the construction sector. Sustainability 2013, 5, 695–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kaur, A.; Lodhia, S. Stakeholder engagement in sustainability accounting and reporting: A study of Australian local councils. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2018, 31, 338–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Alhammad, M.; Eames, M.; Vinai, R. Enhancing building energy efficiency through building information modeling (BIM) and building energy modeling (BEM) integration: A systematic review. Buildings 2024, 14, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Epstein, M.J.; Buhovac, A.R. Solving the sustainability implementation challenge. Organ. Dyn. 2010, 39, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 06779 g001
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the adopted methodological approach.
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the adopted methodological approach.
Sustainability 16 06779 g001
Sustainability 16 06779 g002
Figure 2. Ranking of barriers.
Figure 2. Ranking of barriers.
Sustainability 16 06779 g002
Table 1. Identified barriers.
Table 1. Identified barriers.
No.BarrierDescription
B1Challenges related to the recycling construction and demolition waste streamDifficulty in managing and processing construction and demolition waste due to inadequate recycling infrastructure and technology.
B2Challenges to reducing the rate of energy being consumed during construction processesHigh energy consumption in construction activities poses a barrier to sustainability, often due to inefficient machinery and processes.
B3Economic benefits placed above meeting sustainability requirementsFinancial incentives and profit motives are prioritized over environmental sustainability.
B4Inability to implement environmentally sustainable designsInability to implement sustainable design principles aimed at minimizing the environmental impact of construction projects while promoting the efficient use of resources.
B5Insufficient consultation with stakeholdersA lack of effective communication and stakeholder collaboration can lead to misunderstandings and resistance.
B6Insufficient support from policymakersThe absence of strong policies and governmental support for sustainability initiatives creates significant barriers.
B7Lack of adherence to standards for construction material specificationsFailure to comply with established guidelines and requirements for the quality, composition, and performance of materials used in construction projects.
B8Lack of clear definitions of material quality standardsAmbiguities in the quality standards for construction materials create confusion and inconsistency.
B9Lack of high-quality workmanshipThe absence of skilled labor and high-quality workmanship results in substandard construction practices.
B10Low education level awareness of new technologies among the construction industry’s workforceInsufficient knowledge and training on new sustainable technologies among workers impede their adoption.
B11Low workforce commitmentThe workforce’s lack of commitment and motivation to adopt sustainable practices can undermine sustainability efforts.
B12 Weak management decision-makingIneffective decision-making processes at the management level can lead to the poor implementation of sustainability initiatives.
Table 2. Profiles of surveyed firms.
Table 2. Profiles of surveyed firms.
Number of EmployeesNon-Certified FirmsCertified Firms
NumberPercentageNumberPercentage
Less than 1027.123.2
11–1001139.21422.6
101–250310.769.7
251+12434064.5
Table 3. Total variance explained.
Table 3. Total variance explained.
FactorInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %
16.05050.41850.4186.05050.41850.4183.09325.77725.777
21.31010.91761.3351.31010.91761.3352.73422.78348.560
31.0698.91070.2451.0698.91070.2452.60221.68670.245
40.8807.33777.582
50.6975.80883.390
60.5744.78488.175
70.4503.75391.927
80.3422.85394.781
90.2061.71396.493
100.1671.39097.884
110.1511.25999.143
120.1030.857100.000
Table 4. Factor loadings based on PCA with varimax rotation.
Table 4. Factor loadings based on PCA with varimax rotation.
BarrierFactor
123
B10.2070.6990.459
B2−0.2760.5140.209
B30.6480.1160.291
B40.2580.2650.777
B50.7860.1280.400
B60.810−0.0150.267
B70.4840.7690.033
B80.2930.8480.213
B90.2260.2540.820
B100.6790.1960.413
B110.6380.5150.185
B120.6580.4500.211
Table 5. Comparative analysis of barriers.
Table 5. Comparative analysis of barriers.
BarriersMean Ranks* p-Values for the Mann–Whitney U Test Results
Non-Certified FirmsCertified Firms
B148.8244.000.403
B243.0546.600.535
B353.8641.730.034
B442.8946.680.510
B537.3649.180.041
B649.9843.480.261
B750.6843.160.196
B850.0043.470.258
B938.1148.840.063
B1046.0445.260.893
B1147.7344.490.574
B1243.5246.400.619
* p-values in bold indicate statistically significant differences.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bashir, H.; Al-Hawarneh, A.; Haridy, S.; Shamsuzzaman, M.; Aydin, R. Barriers to Implementing Environmental Sustainability in UAE Construction Project Management: Identification and Comparison of ISO 14001-Certified and Non-Certified Firms. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166779

AMA Style

Bashir H, Al-Hawarneh A, Haridy S, Shamsuzzaman M, Aydin R. Barriers to Implementing Environmental Sustainability in UAE Construction Project Management: Identification and Comparison of ISO 14001-Certified and Non-Certified Firms. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16):6779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166779

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bashir, Hamdi, Ammar Al-Hawarneh, Salah Haridy, Mohammed Shamsuzzaman, and Ridvan Aydin. 2024. "Barriers to Implementing Environmental Sustainability in UAE Construction Project Management: Identification and Comparison of ISO 14001-Certified and Non-Certified Firms" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 6779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166779

APA Style

Bashir, H., Al-Hawarneh, A., Haridy, S., Shamsuzzaman, M., & Aydin, R. (2024). Barriers to Implementing Environmental Sustainability in UAE Construction Project Management: Identification and Comparison of ISO 14001-Certified and Non-Certified Firms. Sustainability, 16(16), 6779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166779

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop