Factors in the Adoption of Green Behaviors in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Review of Drivers and Barriers

Abstract

The construction industry is one of the world’s biggest sources of pollution. Industry actors have become increasingly aware of the problem in recent years and are now engaging in initiatives designed to reduce their sector’s environmental impact, including through the adoption of increasingly strict standards. While adopting standards is a powerful means of effective intervention, it is important to highlight the organizational and individual behaviors that can also affect change. While prior studies have neglected individual behaviors, this paper focuses on the involvement of all construction actors involved in adopting green behaviors. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, this paper presents a systematic review of the literature with the aim of highlighting the key factors, at both individual and organizational levels, that facilitate (drivers) and impede (barriers) the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry. An analysis of 44 articles published over a period spanning 23 years (2000–2022) highlights 673 practices implemented at the individual and organizational levels by different actors operating in the construction industry. These practices are classified into nine main categories of drivers and barriers influencing the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry. Results revealed five trends: (1) drivers are mostly implemented by firm-level actors across all practice categories; (2) the emergence of two new subcategories of sustainability-related factors; (3) barriers remain understudied despite their critical role in Lewin’s force field theory; (4) Site-level actors are very little involved in the implementation of drivers or the presence of barriers (5) and Building Information Modeling remains an underexplored driver. This review protocol has been registered on the platform of the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD420261299618).

1. Introduction

Environmental issues are an urgent priority for ensuring the long-term sustainability of our societies. In this regard, the construction industry involves a host of problems that have a significant impact on the environment. These include the production of solid and liquid waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and the use of non-renewable resources [1,2,3,4,5]. The global status report for buildings and construction, published in 2025 by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), showed that this sector consumes 32% of global energy and contributes 34% of global CO₂ emissions [6]. More specifically, Canada’s construction industry generates approximately 9 million tons of waste annually, accounting for one third of the country’s solid waste stream [7]. In Australia, the construction and demolition sector generated 27 million tons of waste in 2018–2019, or 44% of total waste [8]. In the United Kingdom, the sector produces 120 million tons of waste annually, accounting for one third of the country’s total waste [9]. Without effective measures in China, more than 1 billion tons of construction waste are expected to be generated every year [10].

Despite the range of environmental risks posed by the construction industry, there is growing awareness among industry actors, as evidenced, among other things, by the adoption of various environmental certifications in recent years. One such example is the North American Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) scheme, which recognizes design choices that improve the environmental performance of buildings [11]. In Europe, the Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE) certification illustrates the increasing attention now being paid to sustainable development of the built environment. Other certifications include Boma Best, which recognizes the energy performance of commercial buildings, BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), which provides a means of certifying the sustainability of buildings, and WELL, designed to certify levels of human health and well-being in buildings [12,13]. Finally, ISO-14001 defines requirements for the environmental management of organizations [12,14,15], while ISO 59004 promotes the circular economy [16]. Note that the connection between Building Information Modeling (BIM) and various environmental standards and certifications creates a real opportunity to support the environmental and ecological transformation of the construction industry (e.g., [17]). Despite progress through standards, policies, and new technologies, persistent behavioral and organizational barriers continue to limit sustainability performance in construction.

Beyond the implementation of practices at the institutional and industrial levels (e.g., environmental laws, regulations, standards and certifications), many authors are now drawing attention to individual behaviors that may also play a part in tackling environmental challenges [18,19]. However, our understanding of what motivates individuals to engage in green behaviors in the construction industry remains very limited. Studies on the adoption of green behaviors remain few and far between and mainly focus on organizational practices at the expense of individual practices [20]. The small number of studies devoted to the subject have shown that changing individual behaviors toward the environment requires examining psychosocial determinants such as social support [21,22]. To minimize the environmental impacts of the construction industry, research on human behavior and activities is therefore needed.

The paper focuses on the key factors–in other words, the drivers and barriers–operating at the individual and organizational levels that promote or impede the adoption of green behaviors by actors working in the construction industry. By “green behavior” in the construction industry, we adopt the definition of green behaviors in the workplace by Ones and Dilchert [23] (p. 452): “actions and behaviors that employees engage in that are linked with and contribute to or detract from environmental sustainability”. This definition is the most widely used in the management and environmental psychology literature [18]. In the construction industry, this includes initiatives such as improving waste and resource management and designing reversible buildings [24,25]. In practice, initiatives involve concrete actions such as minimizing waste generation, promoting the reuse and recycling of materials, and considering environmental sustainability throughout the building life cycle. It is also important to take a broad view of actors operating in the construction industry by including both workers and site managers, construction companies and other organizations linked to the industry such as product manufacturers and service providers. In doing so, research will then focus not just on the green behaviors of actors on the ground but also the decisions made by firms and other organizations.

In summary, prior studies on the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry can be grouped into three themes: studies on institutional and organizational practices [12,13], individual behavioral interventions [21,26], and commitment of all actors involved in the behavioral change process [27]. In fact, the literature in recent years mainly reported on the implementation of various institutional and organizational practices to minimize environmental impacts in the construction industry (e.g., environmental laws, policy initiatives, standards, certifications, and technological innovations such as BIM), rather than capturing the motivation of individuals to adopt green behaviors. Individual green behaviors have mainly been studied in the workplace, not in the context of ephemeral cities created by construction sites [28]. Moreover, active participation and commitment of all construction actors are crucial in the change process. However, the identification of drivers and barriers in previous studies does not generally consider the different levels of responsibility within organizations and between the different actors involved in green practices in construction (see, for example, [23]). The objective of this paper is to fill part of this gap by conducting a systematic review of empirical studies on drivers and barriers, at both individual and organizational levels, that can influence the adoption of green behaviors by all actors working in the construction industry through a change management perspective.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the conceptual framework on which the examination of drivers and barriers that influence the adoption of green behaviors in the construction sector is based. Section 3 presents the key phases of the methodology underpinning the systematic literature review in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis) protocol. Section 4 focuses on the trends observed in the selected articles and provides an analysis of the classification of practices developed according to the types of construction actors involved at different decision-making levels in the adoption of green behaviors. A discussion is then presented in Section 5, followed by conclusions and directions for future research in Section 6.

2. Background

2.1. The Construction Industry and the Environment

The specific features of the construction industry mean that it is difficult to make it more proactive on environmental issues. Construction sites are geographically disparate, resulting in a diversity of locations and infrastructure and a highly mobile workforce–meaning greater risks compared to more stable work environments [29]. The ephemeral cities created by construction sites require the involvement of many actors (e.g., engineers, project managers, site superintendents, construction managers, workers) over a limited period and therefore involve settings that come with a high psychological burden (e.g., long working hours that are weather-dependent). Taken together, these factors mean that it is more challenging to manage environmental practices in the construction industry than it is in more highly integrated sectors [21]. More specifically, the literature provides insight into how green behaviors differ between on-site workers (e.g., electricians) and those in managerial roles (e.g., project managers) [29]. The presence of multiple subcontractors, each with distinct organizational cultures, priorities, and constraints, further complicates the consistent implementation of new green habits and training across fragmented and temporary teams [30]. In addition, studies on the support provided to employees in adopting green behaviors are few and far between and tend to focus on organizational rather than individual practices [31].

2.2. Green Behaviors

Since the first environmental studies conducted in workplace settings dating back to the 1970s [32], two perspectives have been put forward to minimize environmental impacts: institutional/organizational practices and individual practices [33]. Institutional and organizational practices are based on laws, regulations, standards and certifications. Individual practices draw on research in work psychology and management to understand what motivates individuals to engage in green behaviors [34]. The importance of promoting these behaviors to improve environmental standards is no longer in doubt since it is now widely accepted that the implementation of organizational practices (e.g., standards) is not enough to motivate individuals to adopt green behaviors [26]. The small number of studies on the subject show that changing individual behaviors toward the environment requires an examination of psychosocial determinants [35,36].

Other recent studies have shown that in a number of work settings [37,38,39], analysis of green behaviors drives changes in attitudes: employees who may seem reluctant or defensive become engaged and, in turn, mobilize their colleagues by suggesting more sustainable ways of acting even when it is not their responsibility to do so. This contagion effect can even result in a firm’s culture changing for the better [40].

Today, research on green behaviors adopted in the workplace is expanding rapidly as a field of study. The typology developed by Ones and Dilchert [23] is now widely accepted in the literature and proposes different categories of green behaviors (e.g., preservation of resources). It has mainly been applied in office-based settings [18]. To date, empirical studies have not sufficiently prioritized research in the most environmentally damaging sectors, such as the construction industry [28,41]. A recent systematic review on green behaviors in the workplace, covering a 43-year period (1977–2020), showed that fewer than 2% of empirical studies were conducted in the construction industry [28]. Studies on green behaviors carried out by the community of social science researchers have most been conducted in office settings in which employees work on site within their organization, where there tends to be greater oversight and surveillance [42]–unlike the construction industry, a sector characterized by multi-organizational and often multi-site structures [29]. However, we contend that the theoretical framework developed in the workplace has much to offer for research on highly polluting sectors such as the construction industry. Our argument is that applying the framework will improve our understanding of the factors that influence the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry with a view to reducing resistance to behavioral change.

Essentially, despite the lack of studies on the adoption of green behaviors in construction, the literature revealed that the environmental performance of construction projects depends not only on the implementation of organizational and institutional practices, but also on individual behaviors. Studies on green behaviors at work tend to recognize this evidence (see [34]). Having a green behavior in project implementation should promote environmental sustainability in the construction industry [41].

2.3. Change Management

As noted by Robertson and Barling [43], research on human behavior is a promising avenue for environmental protection. In this sense, the change management literature is proving increasingly useful for understanding the drivers and barriers that can influence the adoption of green behaviors.

A first approach to change management was set out by Lewin [44], whose theory has been widely used over the decades in a range of different fields such as health and organizational environments [45,46,47]. Lewin’s force field theory [44] provides an effective framework for understanding how behaviors are influenced. According to his theory, change is influenced by forces present in the environment. These forces refer to any element of reality that exerts a favorable or unfavorable influence on the situation requiring change. To achieve change, there are two options: to increase the intensity or number of forces propelling change (drivers) or decrease the intensity of the forces that hinder change (barriers). To the best of our knowledge, Lewin’s approach [44] has never been applied in the construction industry from an environmental perspective. The driving and restraining forces of Lewin’s approach interact at multiple levels (micro, meso, macro), making it especially pertinent in a sector as fragmented as the construction industry. These forces highlight the challenges associated with integrating new practices or adopting circular and green models in the construction sector, not least by highlighting organizational resistance, lack of skills, economic barriers, established habits, the perceived costs of change and opportunities and transition paths. Finally, the importance of active participation and stakeholder engagement is crucial in the change process [27]. Lewin’s topological psychology posits that progressive change in norms and behaviors should not be imposed but constructed by considering the individual and collective perception of stakeholders [48]. The transition to greener practices requires coordination between different stakeholders (e.g., firms, clients, regulators) and requires a holistic vision to facilitate the change process. In the construction industry, green initiatives must involve workers, engineers, architects and project owners from the design phase onwards to avoid a return to old practices.

McKinsey’s 7S model [49], which has often been used to examine change management [50], has been applied in many different settings and industries, including the construction sector [51,52,53]. The model combines seven aspects that are known to influence the implementation of change: Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared values, Skills, Leadership Style and Staff. It provides a comprehensive framework for the identification and analysis of factors that, as described by Lewin, promote (i.e., drivers) or impede (i.e., barriers) the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry. As such, the model is well suited to the context of this study. Lewin’s model provides the dynamic mechanism, i.e., balance of drivers and barriers, while McKinsey’s 7S model offers the structural categorization of these factors within organizations.

Other models have been developed to better understand and navigate organizational transformations. One such example is the Bridge Transition model [54], which focuses on transitions rather than changes and distinguishes three stages–termination, neutrality, and new beginnings–with an emphasis on the psychological aspects of change [54]. Kotter’s [55] eight-step model provides a structured method for implementing effective change. Finally, Prosci’s ADKAR model focuses on the individual and the key stages of personal change [56]. Though relevant, these models vary depending on the approach to change, i.e., individual, processual or systemic.

3. Methodology

This systematic literature review was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA protocol [57]. PRISMA was initially designed in 2009 for systematic reviews in the health field, but in 2020, the protocol was revised and now also applies to other areas, such as environmental and social domains [58], and is fully relevant to the context of our study (see [28,59]). This review protocol has been registered on the platform of the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, Registration number: CRD420261299618, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261299618 (accessed on 16 December 2025). Our review includes three phases: (1) identification of article inclusion criteria; (2) data collection; and (3) data extraction, coding, and reliability. These three phases are described in the following sections. The PRISMA item checklist was filled in with the location in the article where each item is reported. This list is available in the Supplementary Materials (Table S1).

3.1. Identification of Article Inclusion Criteria

Table 1 presents the inclusion criteria governing the selection of articles. The choice of time horizon is based on the publication of one of the first articles on green behaviors in a construction context [60]. It should also be noted that articles related to organizational contexts that do not refer to construction sites were excluded, as were theoretical and conceptual articles and essays.

Table 1. Article inclusion criteria.

Components	Inclusion Criteria
Concepts	Drivers and barriers influencing green behaviors adopted by different actors in the construction industry
Period	2000 to 2022
Type of reviews	Indexed and peer-reviewed academic journals and conference proceedings
Language	English and French
Intervention setting	Public or private organizations active in the global construction industry, such as industrial (e.g., factories), institutional (e.g., construction of schools and hospitals) and commercial (e.g., warehouses) sectors, and civil engineering and highways (e.g., roads and bridges).
Unit of analysis	Individuals and organizations, i.e., encompassing all types of actors in the construction industry, whether public or private (e.g., senior management, managers, foremen, site workers)
Research design	Empirical studies (quantitative, qualitative or mixed)

3.2. Data Collection

A comprehensive literature search was performed by three researchers on the Web of Science database. Web of Science was selected because it is a renowned database of research publications and citations, recognized for its comprehensive coverage more then 22,000 journals. Also, it provides high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific articles and is an interdisciplinary database that includes publications in both engineering and the social sciences, which aligns with our research objective. By reading articles on the environment and construction from journals such as Journal of Cleaner Production and Building and Environment, relevant terms were identified to formulate the search query. The query used to search the database is shown in Appendix A. The search query is divided into four segments, connected by the Boolean operator “AND”. The first segment contains terms related to the domain or context (for example, construction site and building project); the second encompasses terms linked to labor (such as contractor and operator); the third segment incorporates terms associated with sustainable practices (such as recycling and disposal); and the fourth segment includes terms related to environmental aspects (such as footprint and green). As shown in Figure 1, over 3500 records were identified by searching the database using the search strategy. Furthermore, relevant articles were also reviewed manually to identify potentially relevant literature. A total of 44 articles meeting the defined eligibility criteria were included in the current review after removing systematic reviews and meta-analyses if those studies did not include primary data collection (e.g., interviews). However, for the sake of completeness, we have included three systematic reviews that collected primary data (see Kabirifar et al. [61], Ajayi et al. [62], and Durdyev et al. [63]) and one article (Elbers et al. [64]) that did not collect primary data but emphasizes sustainable practices in construction.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

3.3. Extraction, Coding and Reliability of Data

The data coding method and the measures taken to ensure data reliability follow the methodological recommendations of Tranfield et al. [65] for performing a systematic review.

First, the drivers, barriers, and actors involved in the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry were extracted from the 44 selected articles. Then, to reduce the potential for human error and bias, the extracted data was comprehensively recorded and monitored using a coding grid containing general information (title, author, publication details) and specific information (i.e., drivers, barriers, actors) required to construct summary tables and perform data analysis. The coding also relied on the identification of categories emerging from the data. Drivers and barriers were classified into nine broad categories corresponding to different aspects of construction processes (see Section 4.2). Each driver or barrier corresponds to at least one of the four groups of actors involved at different hierarchical levels (see Section 4.3): (1) workers on construction sites; (2) managers on construction sites; (3) the company as a whole; and (4) external actors (e.g., suppliers). Finally, as recommended by Tranfield et al. [65], to ensure the reliability of the results, data was extracted and coded independently by three researchers. For example, three researchers independently coded 80% of the drivers and barriers. An intercoder reliability coefficient was calculated using the κ (kappa) test to verify the degree of consensus between the three researchers. The test revealed a level of agreement of 0.721 (p < 0.0005). This result is comparable to other reviews conducted using similar methods [42] and represents a high level of agreement between researchers [66]. Two environmental experts (Environmental Manager and Environmental Advisor, both with more than four years of experience in these roles), working for one of the largest construction companies in Canada, were involved in the classification of the identified practices. They dedicated over 10 h of work to provide expert judgment and assess the accuracy of the classification of drivers and barriers across the nine categories.

4. Results and Analyses

The results include 673 practices classified into nine broad categories (see Tables S2–S10 in Supplementary Materials for additional details). The practices were classified based on the drivers and barriers influencing the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry (Section 4.2). The practices were also classified based on the actors involved (Section 4.3). The analysis of the practices identified in the construction sector is presented in Section 4.4. The following section describes the trends observed from the 44 articles selected for the purposes of this review.

4.1. Analysis of Trends

Table 2 shows that the content of the selected articles lies at the intersection of various fields such as green production, strategic management, information systems and, more broadly, the social sciences, reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of the subject. In addition, almost a third of all articles come from two academic journals focused on environmental issues rather than construction: Journal of Cleaner Production and Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

Table 2. List of publication journals and methodologies prioritized.

Journal	Approaches			Total
	Quantitative	Qualitative	Mixed
AIP Conference Proceedings	1	-	-	1
Bautechnik	-	1	-	1
Buildings	1	-	-	1
Business Strategy and the Environment	-	2	-	2
Construction Economics and Building	1	-	-	1
Construction Management and Economics	-	-	1	1
Energy Procedia	1	-	-	1
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management	1	-	-	1
Environmental Technology and Innovation	-	-	1	1
International Journal of Construction Management	1	1	-	2
International Journal of Project Management	1	-	-	1
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering	-	1	-	1
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management	-	-	1	1
Journal of Cleaner Production	6	1	2	9
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management	1	1	-	2
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management	1	-	-	1
Journal of Infrastructure Systems	1	-	-	1
MATEC Web of Conferences	2	-	-	2
Procedia Environmental Sciences	-	-	1	1
Recycling	-	1	-	1
Resources, Conservation and Recycling	3	-	2	5
Sustainability	3	-	1	4
Sustainable Cities and Society	1	-	-	1
Waste Management	1	-	1	2
Total	26	8	10	44

Table 2 also shows that most studies (59%) used a quantitative approach based on structured questionnaires (e.g., [67,68]). Only 18% of the articles apply a qualitative approach, including semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and site visits (e.g., [69]). Finally, 23% of the articles adopt mixed methods by combining quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g., [70]).

Figure 2 shows the evolution of the number of articles published from 2000 to 2022. We note that the article by Chan et al. [71], published in 2024, was available online in 2022. We used the official publication year (2024) for the analysis. However, the systematic review extended into 2022. These results point to the growth of interest in green behaviors in the construction industry in recent years. This trend is consistent with the increase in studies of green behaviors in other workplaces [19,20]. This is explained by the growing concern over environmental issues, particularly in relation to the climate crisis, which is compelling the scientific and industrial communities to explore solutions designed to reduce the environmental footprint of the construction industry.

Figure 2. Number of articles published between 2000 and 2022.

The majority of the articles originate from Asia. The most represented continents, ranked from highest to lowest, are: Asia (45.59%), Europe (22.06%), Africa (13.24%), North America (10.29%), Oceania (7.35%), and South America (1.47%). By contrast, South America accounts for only one article out of the 44, highlighting the need for increased attention on this region in future research to gain a more comprehensive view of green behaviors in the construction industry. This trend seems to follow the distribution of global investments in construction projects worldwide. For example, as of June 2023, the Asia-Pacific region had recorded the highest number of investments in road construction projects. Europe ranks second [72]. The provenance of the articles aligns somewhat with that of previous studies. For example, in their study on the management of green human resources, Amrutha and Geetha [73] observed a domination of Europe (33.33%) and Asia (31.61%). Furthermore, Francoeur and Paillé [28] analyzed the geographical distribution of articles on green behaviors in mainly office contexts. Their study shows a European predominance (40.94%), followed by North America (25.98%) and Asia (24.44%). South America and Africa are less represented, but South America is more active than Africa in research on green behaviors. European countries like the UK, Italy, France and Spain are praised for their strict environmental practices, while Asian countries like India, Malaysia and China are recognized for their efforts in reducing pollution and promoting sustainability. South America is also active in research on green human resources management, but less so than Europe and Asia, while Africa is under-represented in both studies. The details of studies’ characteristics are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Characteristics of the included studies.

Study	Country	Research Design	Data Collection Method	Intervention Setting	Actors Involved	Sample Size
Ahmad et al. (2014) [74]	Malaysia	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Low rise and high rise residential, commercial, mixed development, and institution	Professional (quantity surveyor, engineer, architect) and site supervisor (project manager and site clerk)	50
Ajayi et al. (2017) [62]	United Kingdom	Mixed	Systematic review, observation (field study) and questionnaire	School building, residential developments, office block, health and social care building, shopping mall, design firms (architecture and engineering)	Site architects, site engineers (civil/structure), project managers, and site waste managers	Construction sites: 6 Questionnaires: 128
Albino and Berardi (2012) [25]	Italy	Qualitative	Case study: semi-structured interviews	Residential buildings (private project: traditional and green buildings)	Project manager of the general contractor, head of the design team, and main suppliers of the general contractor	Construction projects: 3
Begum et al. (2009) [75]	Malaysia	Quantitative	Questionnaire	The entire construction industry	Local contractors registered with the Construction Industry Development Board	130
Bilal et al. (2020) [76]	16 developing countries (Albania, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Serbia, South Africa and Turkey)	Mixed	Indicator-based literature review with expert consultation and questionnaire	Overall industry level for the construction sector	Manager (general manager, project director, project manager, facility manager, contract manager, planning manager) and professional (project engineer/site engineer and architect/designer)	Indicator: 21 experts Questionnaires: 110
Cha et al. (2009) [77]	South Korea	Quantitative	Questionnaire	High-rise building projects	Waste management practitioners on construction sites	57
Chan et al. (2024) [71]	Hong Kong and Nigeria	Quantitative	Questionnaire	The entire construction industry	Construction professionals, both academics and practitioners	166
Durdyev et al. (2018) [63]	Cambodia	Mixed	Systematic literature, descriptive survey including interviews, pilot study, and open-ended questionnaire	The entire construction industry	Contractors, architects, engineers, project consultants, and government authorities	Interviews: 7 Questionnaires: 104
Elbers (2022) [64]	Germany	Qualitative	Life cycle analysis	The entire construction industry	Site workers, managers on construction sites, the company as a whole, and external actors	-
Gangolells et al. (2014) [24]	Spain	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Construction, demolition, refurbishment, installation, and others (i.e., earthworks, pavements, architecture, engineering, etc.)	Managers/directors/owners, environmental managers, administrators, site managers, quality, safety and environmental managers, and human resources managers	74
Giorgi et al. (2022) [78]	Belgium, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Italy	Qualitative	Semi-structured interviews	Building value chain	Investors/owners, banks, designers, researchers, manufacturers, construction companies, demolition companies, and waste managers	38
Hao et al. (2022) [10]	China	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Residential building, industrial plant, municipal project, and commercial building	Site workers (i.e., concrete workers, masonry workers, carpenters, water-electric workers, plasterers, electric welders, painters, general workers)	152
Jain et al. (2020) [79]	India	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Building construction projects	Builders and vendors	260
Kabirifar et al. (2021) [61]	Australia	Qualitative	Systematic review and interviews	Construction and demolition (C&D) waste management	Civil and environmental engineer, construction site manager, and project/site engineer supervising on-site C&D processes	Interviews: 3
Kaluarachchi et al. (2021) [80]	Sri Lanka	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Construction firms in major infrastructure projects (e.g., roads, bridges, and high-rise buildings)	Project managers, engineers, health safety and environmental managers, site mangers, quantity surveyors, technical officers, tradesmen, plant operators, and unskilled workers	179
Lim et al. (2019) [81]	Australia	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Sustainable construction	Employees from three of the largest consulting companies	40
Lu and Yuan (2010) [82]	China	Mixed	Questionnaire and interviews	State-owned construction Enterprises, local private enterprises, local University, and C&D waste disposal and landfill management	Questionnaire: project managers, engineers, researchers, and government officers Interviews: construction Bureau representative, environmental association representative, and construction contractors	Questionnaires: 51 Interviews: 14
Luangcharoenrat et al. (2019) [83]	Thailand	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Private residential, condominium & apartment, public building, industrial building, government building	Managers (managing director, project manager, project engineering, project director, assistant project manager), professional (site engineering, project architecture, site architecture), and foreman	178
Mamter et al. (2014) [84]	Malaysia	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Contractor G7 company registered under Construction Industry Development Board, which undertake large-scale, private, and government infrastructure projects	Contractors and professionals involved in construction site	52
McGrath (2001) [60]	United Kingdom	Mixed	Case studies: quantitative (waste monitoring) and qualitative (informal discussion) observation	Social housing, leisure development (with swimming pool), and restaurant	Operatives and the site manager and environmental manager	Sites: 3
Mendis et al. (2015) [69]	Canada	Mixed	Field observation, open-ended discussions, interviews and questionnaire	Residential, industrial, commercial, heavy highway, and institutional construction	On site manager (project managers, superintendent, construction manager, operations manager, development manager, project coordinator), other manager (director) and professional (architect engineer, sustainable manager)	Questionnaires: 34 Interviews: 15 Observations: 4 sites
Narcis et al. (2019) [67]	Trinidad and Tobago	Quantitative	Questionnaire	The entire construction industry	Construction industry contractors	43
Newaz et al. (2022) [85]	Australia	Qualitative	Semi-structured interviews	Construction sites	Construction and demolition experts, demolition contractors, and waste stream operators or material recyclers	19
Ofori-Boadu et al. (2020) [86]	USA	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) projects	Project engineer; project, construction, contract or operations manager; estimator; sustainability or BIM coordinator and president or vice-president	30
Oke et al. (2019) [87]	Zambia	Quantitative	Questionnaire	The entire construction industry (private and public sectors)	Architects, quantity surveyors, engineers, construction managers, and project managers	44
Onubi et al. (2019) [88]	Nigeria	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Construction sites associated with large-scale infrastructure, commercial, and industrial projects	Class A contractors in Nigeria	168
Pinkse and Dommisse (2009) [89]	Netherlands	Qualitative	Case study: archival data (e.g., financial and sustainability reports, web site) and interviews	Residential construction	Contractors	4
Radziejowska and Linczowski (2019) [90]	Poland	Qualitative	Case study: observation during the implementation processes and LEED standards to be met by a certified building during its construction	Realization of a building for office use according to the requirements of LEED	Contractor	1
Rasdorf et al. (2012) [91]	USA	Quantitative	Case study and on site observation (fuel use and emission intensities and distribution)	Project to construct a church including a commercial building, an auditorium, a parking lot, sidewalks, and green spaces	Professionals involved in construction sites	1
Rios et al. (2021) [92]	USA	Qualitative	Interviews	The entire construction industry	Architects	13
Ruparathna and Hewage (2015) [70]	Canada	Mixed	Questionnaire surveys, document review, and semi-structured interviews	The entire construction industry (civil and construction engineering related organizations and non civil engineering organizations such as education institutes, municipalities, health care institutes) Interviews: municipality, public sector institution, large scale construction company, medium scale civil engineering company, construction management company	Questionnaire: construction managers, construction clients Interviews: director and manager	Questionnaires: 30 Interviews: 9 Document reviews (e.g., Bid notices, contract documents): 165
Saez et al. (2013) [68]	Spain	Quantitative	Questionnaire	The entire construction industry	Construction agents	58
Sakr et al. (2010) [93]	Egypt	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Mostly privately owned, some public and privatized companies	Contractors	38
Sapuay (2016) [94]	Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Turkey	Mixed	Informal discussions conducted in an audit context and document analysis of project	Multi-lane roads with bridges and interchanges, railways with tunnels and viaducts	Contractors and engineers	5 projects
Swarna Swetha et al. (2022) [95]	India	Mixed	Surveys and structured interviews	The entire construction industry	Questionnaire: engineer, labour, academia and manager. Interviews: academicians, structural engineers, and 5 site managers	Questionnaires: 242 Interviews: 15
Teo and Loosemore (2001) [96]	Australia	Mixed	Questionnaire and focus group	Large commercial construction site (office, hospital, air terminal, hotel, stadium, refurbishment)	Supervisors, leading-hands, tradesmen, and labourers and others working in a technical, hands-on capacity	Questionnaires: 138 Focus groups: 6 of 5 operatives
Wang et al. (2017) [97]	China	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Megaprojects	Senior managers (i.e., project managers), middle managers (i.e., department managers and professional executives), and operational level (i.e., project engineers)	172
Wiguna et al. (2021) [98]	Indonesia	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Construction projects that had applied the green concept	Project owners, planning consultants, contractor companies, and supplier companies	20
Wu et al. (2017) [99]	China	Quantitative	Questionnaire	The entire construction industry	Professionals and managers involved in construction sites (company management, project management, construction engineering, cost control, quality control, on-site construction)	207
Yin et al. (2018) [100]	Singapore	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Companies under the registry category A1 of Building and Construction Authority	Senior/executives, managers, and directors	16
Yusof et al. (2016) [41]	Malaysia	Quantitative	Questionnaire	The entire construction industry	Architects, engineers, and contractors	375
Zaid et al. (2018) [101]	Palestine	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Manufacturing companies operating in the production sector (food, chemical, and pharmaceutical)	Human resource or supply chain directors or senior managers	121
Zhang and Zhou (2016) [102]	China	Quantitative	Questionnaire	The entire construction industry	Contractors' project managers at the middle and senior level	255
Zhou et al. (2018) [103]	China	Quantitative	Questionnaire	Residential buildings, commercial buildings, industrial architecture, and municipal engineering projects	Manager position on construction site (project managers, senior supervising engineers, team leaders, technicians, etc.)	89

4.2. Categorization of Drivers and Barriers

This section presents a classification of the 673 identified practices that promote or hinder the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry. These practices represent either general drivers, behavioral drivers, or barriers. General drivers are factors, choices, actions, or decisions that have the potential to promote green behaviors on construction sites. These act as drivers that encourage the adoption of sustainable practices and contribute to establishing a culture of sustainability in the construction sector. On the other hand, behavioral drivers refer to specific actions initiated by construction site actors, such as managers and project leaders, that aim to promote green behaviors. These actions serve as a model for encouraging other actors, such as workers, to adopt similar practices. Finally, barriers are obstacles that hinder or prevent the adoption of green behaviors on construction sites. These obstacles can compromise the implementation of sustainable practices in the construction industry.

Practices classification was inspired by the McKinsey 7S model to identify drivers and barriers. The 7S model combines seven aspects that are known to influence the implementation of change. However, based on the patterns emerging from the reviewed studies (across the 673 practices analyzed), we refined and expanded the initial categories. This process led us to identify nine categories that more accurately reflect the operational, organizational, and environmental realities of construction sites (see Tables S2–S10 in the Supplementary Materials). For example, “Strategy” from the 7S model is reframed as “Management Strategies”, and “Skills” becomes “Education and Knowledge”, both of which emerged as more accurate labels for the constructs observed in the literature. Two new categories were created “Reputation and image and “Financial viability.” This new categorization is presented in Table 4 and aims to provide a framework of drives and barriers suited to the study of sustainability in the construction industry. Following the table, each of the nine categories is briefly discussed.

Table 4. Classification of drives and barriers.

Our Classification of Drivers and Barriers	Inspired by McKinsey’s 7S Model	Definitions of the 7S Model (Inspired by [50])	Examples of Practices (See Tables S2–S10 in the Supplementary Materials for All 673 Practices)
Materials and technology management	Systems	Refers to internal processes, operating procedures, and the technologies used within the organization to carry out sustainable operations.	Use of technologies to reduce construction and demolition (C&D) waste [61].
Construction methods	Leadership style [related to construction methods]	Concerns the actions and behaviors adopted by leaders to achieve sustainable construction objectives.	Reducing environmental impact of construction activities by controlling soil erosion and dust emissions [90].
Management strategies	Strategy	Refers to the plan proposed by managers for allocating efforts and resources to establish and achieve sustainable construction objectives.	Familiarity of all staff on-site staff with the waste management plan [24].
Industrial policies and markets	Structure	Refers to the structural characteristics enabling the organization to respond to market and regulatory conditions supporting the green transition.	Development of financial incentives to promote the reuse and recycling of C&D waste and to develop a market for recycled material [61].
Resistance to change	Staff	Concerns the forms of resistance to change expressed by stakeholders to the adoption of sustainable practices.	Resistance to change from conventional to green practices by company’s employees [64].
Education and Knowledge	Skills	Refers to stakeholders’ competencies (knowledge, expertise, skills) to support sustainability objectives.	Knowledge of the waste management plan by site personnel [24]
Perception and values	Shared values	Refers to organizational culture, values, social norms, and awareness shaping stakeholders’ orientations toward sustainability.	Positive influence of personal norm on the environmental behavior of employees [80].
Reputation and image	New category	Refers to developing and maintaining a positive image based on genuine sustainability commitments.	Positive influence of normative pressure on firm’s behavioral intention towards C&D waste recycling [79].
Financial viability	New category	Concerns the capacity to manage the costs and economic benefits of sustainable practices.	Grants, tax credits, and low-interest loans to businesses engaged in circular economy practices [92].

C1—Materials and technology management. Materials and technology management is a major challenge for the construction industry. The many challenges faced in ordering, managing, and recycling materials are exacerbated by technological constraints [77]. However, improvements are gradually being made, particularly by optimizing the use of materials and reducing waste [24]. Integrating sustainable practices from the design stage of projects also provides a means of reducing the industry’s environmental footprint by promoting the purchase of labeled materials (i.e., certified for their sustainable properties), minimizing rework, and integrating low-carbon technologies.

C2—Construction methods. This category highlights the challenges associated with traditional construction methods that negatively impact the environment. Issues such as construction site congestion, lack of space, and inadequate facilities for recycling or proper waste disposal are all obstacles that must be overcome to promote sustainability [74]. Standardization of materials aligned with environmental criteria and better availability of space for recycling and clean storage from the design stage, combined with the use of prefabricated components, represent key strategies for developing a more environmentally friendly industry [24].

C3—Management strategies. Management strategies in the construction industry reveal a complex set of challenges, including gaps in project planning and execution, coordination problems between different actors and a lack of control and supervision over waste management [83]. However, significant drivers can be used to overcome these obstacles. These include the early establishment of waste management plans and the introduction of contractual clauses that encourage recycling and waste minimization [101]. Another driver involves improving communication and collaboration within project teams, which can be facilitated by clarifying roles and responsibilities and strengthening implementation mechanisms [100].

C4—Industrial policies and markets. Industrial policies and market dynamics play a key role in the construction industry’s green transition. There are major challenges to overcome, such as a lack of investor engagement, ambiguous contractual clauses, unclear environmental policies, and a lack of government support for sustainable initiatives [71]. In the face of these obstacles, several drivers are beginning to emerge. These include the establishment of ISO standards promoting environmentally friendly practices, the revision of purchasing policies to include sustainability criteria, and the integration of the circular economy into contractual requirements [78]. Additionally, government engagement through the development of environmentally friendly regulations and policies is crucial to accelerating the transition to greener construction practices. The adoption of incentives, such as rewards for sustainability performance or penalties for poor waste management, can also encourage wider adoption of sustainable practices in the industry [92].

C5—Resistance to change. Resistance to change represents a major obstacle to the adoption of sustainable practices in the construction industry. This category highlights the difficulty of changing entrenched behaviors and traditional working methods in favor of new, environmentally friendly approaches. Reluctance to abandon conventional practices is often reinforced by the perception of financial risks and operational complexities associated with sustainable innovations [71].

C6—Education and knowledge. Education and training play a vital role in the capacity of the construction industry to adopt green practices. This category highlights the lack of specialized knowledge and expertise in sustainability among both company staff and subcontractors as a barrier to the transition to greener construction [75]. The skills gap in sustainable construction, combined with insufficient training in waste reduction and resource efficiency techniques, limit the industry’s ability to implement sustainable practices. To address these gaps, Lu and Yuan [82] recommended developing comprehensive training and awareness programs, integrating sustainable construction modules into university curricula and promoting continuing education in eco-design and waste management among professionals in the sector.

C7—Perception and values. The integration of sustainable practices in the construction industry is closely linked to individual attitudes, perceptions, and values. These psychological and cultural factors play a crucial role in driving lasting change. It is essential to raise awareness of environmental issues and promote a corporate culture that places sustainability at the center. This approach involves not only demystifying the concept of sustainable development but also promoting both individual and collective initiatives to promote the environment. By integrating green principles into a company’s mission and values as well as among staff, an environment conducive to change in which everyone feels involved and motivated to act sustainably can be created [92].

C8—Reputation and image. A strong reputation for sustainability can become a genuine competitive advantage for construction firms. Clients, investors, and partners are paying increasing attention to the environmental performance of the companies they work with. Developing and maintaining a positive image based on genuine sustainability commitments can help secure new contracts and attract talent who care about these issues [63].

C9—Financial viability. Financial viability and cost perception play a key role in the adoption of sustainable practices in construction and demolition waste management. Economic challenges such as additional costs, increased time required, and lack of familiarity with technologies represent barriers to the adoption of sustainable practices [63]. Additional costs associated with increased monitoring, a lack of financial incentives, and perceived higher economic priorities can discourage commitment to environmentally responsible practices. However, savings can be achieved by reducing material waste and waste disposal costs. Although initial investments are often high and cost recovery periods long, the provision of financial incentives, grants, and tax credits can encourage a transition to sustainability [92].

4.3. Construction Actors Involved at Different Decision-Making Levels in the Adoption of Green Behaviors

In addition to a classification of drivers and barriers based on different aspects of construction processes ranging from industrial policy to the personal values of workers, Tables S2–S10 (see Supplementary Materials) indicate, for each practice, the groups of actors involved in the adoption of green behaviors at different decision-making levels. The classification proposed in this paper considers four levels of responsibility based on influence and dependence on the actors involved in construction projects: site (workers), site (management), firm and external. The site (workers) level concerns the actions and behaviors of workers on site, such as skilled workers, masons, electricians, plumbers, and carpenters, among others. The site (management) level encompasses the practices implemented by management directly or by site managers to promote green initiatives. Examples of on-site managers include site managers, superintendents, construction engineers, safety coordinators, and quality managers. The firm level relates to the policies and actions implemented by the construction firm and its management to integrate green practices. Firm-level actors include project managers, operations managers, environmental managers, and sustainability managers, among others. Finally, the external level considers the firm’s interactions with its external environment, such as government regulations, suppliers and external actors, client requirements, and societal expectations relating to sustainability. This last group of actors includes various groups involved in design and construction, such as architects, urban planners, sustainability consultants, construction inspectors, and regulatory authorities, among others.

4.4. Analysis of Results

Based on the classification of practices compiled in Tables S2–S10 (see Supplementary Materials), this section presents an analysis of the drivers, barriers and actors that influence the adoption of green behaviors in the construction sector according to their impact on different aspects of construction processes.

4.5. Number of Practices by Category of Processes, Drivers and Actors

Figure 3 shows a significant difference in the number of practices identified across the nine process categories. Category C2—Construction Methods has the largest number of practices (i.e., drivers and barriers), highlighting the range of challenges addressed in this area, while category C8—Reputation and Brand Image, which may be underrepresented, has the fewest, indicating a low recognition of issues related to public image and reputation in terms of green behaviors in the construction industry.

Figure 3. Number of practices by category.

Figure 4 shows that behavioral actions and initiatives are more important than structural drivers in determining green practices, representing 267 practices out of 673 compared to 205 in the case of general drivers. However, drivers face many barriers. In addition, the firm level is the level involving the greatest number of practices that promote or impede green behaviors in construction. These results highlight the importance of corporate decisions and policies, while also pointing to the significance of external influences (Figure 4b), for the promotion of green behaviors in the construction industry.

Figure 4. Number of practices by drivers, barriers, and actors. A practice (i.e., driver or barrier) may involve more than one actor.

4.6. Analysis of Drivers and Barriers by Category of Process

Figure 5 shows a predominance of drivers over barriers, denoting orientation toward the activation of positive behaviors in most construction processes. This result underlines the importance of awareness of environmental impacts in construction, illustrated by the practice Raise awareness of the environmental impact difference between reuse and recycling, and between recycling and downcycling [92]. In particular, behavioral drivers are found mainly in categories C1—Materials and technology management, C2—Construction methods, and C4—Industrial policies and markets. For example, of the 154 practices identified in category C2, 119 are behavioral drivers, such as Set a drain and discharge sewage and rainwater separately [103]. In categories C1 and C4, 43 out of 84 practices and 47 out of 117 practices, respectively, are associated with behavioral drivers, such as Creating technologies to mitigate impact [87] and Promote carbon taxes [92]. General drivers are predominant in categories C3—Management strategies and C7—Perception and values with 61 structural drivers out of 108 practices and 42 general drivers out of 66 practices, respectively, such as Waste management and recycling [70] and Employees’ environmental objective [101].

Figure 5. Number of drivers and barriers by category.

However, barriers represent a significant part of the practices that impede green behaviors, as illustrated in Figure 5. Among others, category C1—Management of materials and technology includes 34 barriers out of the 84 practices identified in this category, including Lack of standards for reused and recycled building products [92]. Similarly, categories C5—Resistance to change, C6—Education and knowledge and C9—Financial viability include more barriers than drivers. Examples include Lack of education and knowledge in sustainable design [92], which appears to be a significant barrier in category C6, and the challenges associated with Long pay-back periods from sustainable practices [63], which impact the financial viability of sustainability practices.

4.7. Analysis of Actors by Category of Process

Figure 6 shows that the firm level ranks top compared to other levels of decision and action in the implementation of practices influencing the adoption of green behaviors. For example, among the 84 practices identified in category C1—Materials and Technology Management, 62 are linked to the firm level, highlighting the importance of corporate decisions and policies in this category. This result contrasts with the levels of workers and site managers, which have 6 and 22 practices, respectively, suggesting that both groups of actors have fewer decision drivers in the implementation of practices related to materials and technology management. In the case of category C2—Construction Methods, the gap widens further, with 126 practices out of 154 associated with the firm level, unlike workers and site managers, where only 33 and 64 practices were identified. In fact, construction site workers and managers face many challenges that hinder the adoption of green behaviors such as Improper material handling [83] and Damages during deconstruction [92].

Figure 6. Number of actors at each decision-making level by category.

Categories C3—Management Strategies and C7—Perceptions and Values also highlight the importance of internal company policies and decisions in establishing management strategies and raising awareness of perceptions and values related to sustainability in the construction sector. These results again demonstrate the significant influence of firms on the implementation of practices impacting the adoption of green behaviors.

Furthermore, the role of the external level in the implementation of drivers and barriers is significant, especially in category C4—Industrial policies and markets, in which 94 out of 117 practices are linked to external actors, highlighting the importance of regulations, market conditions and actor expectations in the formulation of industrial policies and market decisions. Certification and labeling [25] and Lack of government incentives [63] are examples of such practices.

Finally, it should be noted that no practices were identified for workers and managers on construction sites in categories C4—Industrial policies and markets, C6—Education and knowledge and C9—Financial viability, suggesting that both groups of actors have low decision-making power in terms of sustainable practices in these categories.

4.8. Distribution of Actors Responsible for Drivers and Barriers by Category

Figure 7 shows that the actors who implement the most general and behavioral drivers are primarily at the firm level across all practice categories. This finding underlines the major influence of decisions and policies in construction firms on the adoption of green practices.

Figure 7. Number of drivers and barriers attributable to the different actors–by category. Legend: General Driver, Behavioral Driver, Barrier.

Similarly, the practices that hinder the adoption of green behaviors generally originate from the firm and the external level across all categories (Figure 7). This finding highlights the overriding importance of barriers to overcome at the firm and external levels in facilitating the adoption of green practices in the construction industry.

In the case of workers and site managers, Figure 7d,f,i associated with categories C4—Industrial policies and markets, C6—Education and knowledge and C9—Financial viability, respectively, show that both groups of actors are not involved in the implementation of drivers or the existence of barriers. This result highlights the importance of organizational decisions and policies and external influences (e.g., regulations, market conditions, actors) in the formulation of industrial policies, market decisions, education and knowledge on sustainability and financial decisions relevant to the viability of sustainable practices. In fact, at the firm level, the economic dimension represents one of the key challenges for the implementation of sustainable practices [68]. Ultimately, the additional costs of greater vigilance and control over its implementation require a person dedicated solely to the matter [68].

However, in the case of category C5—Resistance to change, it is not surprising to see that barriers prevail over drivers at all four decision-making levels. Construction site workers face resistance to change, reflected in the barrier Resistance to change from conventional to green practices by company’s employees [64]. Similarly, site managers face challenges such as Tendency to maintain current practices [93]. At the firm level, the barrier Changing traditional practices [89] represents a significant challenge. External influences also contribute to resistance to change, as illustrated by the barrier Construction industry culture [93]. Similarly, barriers still persist in category C9—Financial viability due to high initial investment costs [12,21], lack of financial incentives [1], long pay-back periods [1,12], lack of awareness among actors [35], and challenges with risk of losing intellectual property and rights [21], all compounded by lost in competitiveness due to competitors using less environmentally friendly materials at lower costs [27]. Note that systematic barriers at the firm and external levels, such as financial risk, resistance to innovation, or institutional inertia, link directly to change management by often requiring top-down policy realignment or organizational restructuring rather than individual-level behavioral change.

5. Discussion

5.1. Main Findings

The findings of the systematic review revealed five major trends. First, the analysis of 673 practices and four levels of actors highlighted the challenges and opportunities facing more sustainable construction practices, classified into nine categories according to their impact on different aspects of the construction process, from industrial policy to the personal values of workers (see Section 4). In particular, the results point to the predominance of corporate decisions in the implementation of drivers while highlighting the importance of external factors, such as regulations and societal expectations, when faced with barriers hindering the adoption of green behaviors. These results corroborate studies carried out in other organizational settings that have highlighted the importance of external factors [37].

Second, the nine categories are inspired by the McKinsey 7S model but allowed us to identify two additional categories to better capture construction-specific realities related to sustainability. Financial Viability is defined as the capacity to manage the costs and economic benefits of sustainable practices and includes 46 practices. Reputation and Image is defined as the development and maintenance of a positive corporate image based on genuine sustainability commitments and includes 7 practices (see Tables S2–S10 Supplementary Materials). This result is consistent with other systematic reviews grounded in pre-existing conceptual frameworks, such as the study by Francoeur et al. [18] on green behaviors in the workplace, which shows that new subcategories can emerge from similar analyses, thereby enriching the initial conceptual framework and, in our context, leading to the identification of categories that more accurately reflect the operational, organizational, and environmental realities of construction sites.

Third, drivers have been more widely studied in the literature than barriers. However, studying barriers is essential. According to force field theory of Lewin’s [44], drivers and barriers can be viewed as an ecosystem whose balance depends on the forces present. To effect change toward a new state of equilibrium, significant energy may be spent on studying many drivers. However, barriers are often underestimated and can prevent change even in the presence of strong drivers [50]. Hence the importance of focusing on removing barriers rather than adding drivers. The predominance of drivers over barriers certainly points to a focus on activating positive behaviors in most construction processes. But it also highlights a clear lack of research focused on barriers to the adoption of sustainable practices in the construction industry. Understanding and overcoming barriers to induce effective and lasting change is essential because a driver is only fully effective in the absence of significant barriers [50]. The predominance of drivers over barriers may also reflect a research bias, as many studies emphasize enablers while neglecting obstacles.

Fourth, as for the distribution of actors responsible for implementing practices (i.e., drivers and barriers) that promote or impede the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry, the results presented in Section 4 reveal a concentration of drivers at the firm level and the presence of barriers at the firm and external levels. This dominance of firm-level actors may reflect the hierarchical decision structures typical of the construction industry, where strategic decisions remain centralized. Such configurations also limit worker empowerment and weaken bottom-up communication channels, reducing the capacity of site-level actors to influence new practices [44,50]. Site-level actors are very little involved in the implementation of drivers or the presence of barriers. However, engaging all actors in the change process is crucially important [34,104]. Change can be seen as a social process involving the active participation of all stakeholders affected by the change [27,105]. This perspective is essential to ensure not only the effectiveness of the change process but also its sustainability. However, the ability to navigate force field theory [44] requires flexibility and openness from the leader or practitioner in charge of change.

Fifth, despite its potential, only two practices out of the 673 identified in the literature (see Tables S2–S10) integrate BIM as a driver [14,22]. This result aligns with that of Idrissi Gartoumi et al. [17] who showed that BIM linked to Green Building Certifications remains one of the least explored and utilized aspects in construction. Several barriers still remain difficult to overcome (see Tables S2–S10), such as user-unfriendliness of BIM analysis software programs, lack of understanding of the processes and workflows required for BIM and sustainability, difficulty in allocating and sharing BIM-related risks, shortage of cross-field specialists in BIM and sustainability, insufficient level of support from the BIM software developers, low level of involvement of BIM users in green projects, and high cost of BIM software, license, and associated applications [21].

5.2. Theoretical and Practical Contributions

This review is the first, to our knowledge, to focus on the practices that construction industry actors at different levels can adopt to promote green behaviors, while also documenting the evolution of publications worldwide over a 23-year period (2000–2022). By targeting specific environmental actions in the construction industry at both the individual and organizational levels (e.g., employee engagement, leadership, management, planning, and industrial policies), it aims to shed new light on a specific and little studied setting in the literature.

In terms of theoretical contributions, previous research has mainly focused on the implementation of green practices at the institutional and industrial levels through the establishment of environmental laws, regulations, standards, certifications, and new technologies [12,13,28]. Moreover, individual behaviors have mainly been studied in traditional workplace contexts, such as office settings [23,34]. The construction literature focuses on green behaviors of workers and managers on sites, rather than construction firms and external actors who can, nevertheless, exert a significant influence regarding the adoption of green behaviors [41]. Our study also differs from previous systematic reviews. For example, Kabirifar et al. [61] conducted a systematic review focusing specifically on construction and demolition waste management practices and challenges in Australia. In contrast, our review adopts a broader perspective on green behaviors across countries through a change management lens, thereby complementing nationally focused studies in public and private organizations with a more internationally oriented synthesis. Also, we integrate Lewin’s force field theory [27,44], traditionally applied in health and organizational research [27,45,46], into the construction context to explain how drivers and barriers interact across levels to influence the transition toward green behaviors. We further adapt the McKinsey 7S [49,50], framework by refining the original categories, thereby offering a conceptual structure that is better aligned with the environmental realities of construction. Together, these contributions provide a clearer theoretical lens through which to interpret why the observed patterns occur and how they shape construction industry change.

In terms of practical contributions, the proposed classification (see Supplementary Materials) considers several types of employees and actors in the construction industry, whether government employees, senior executives in construction firms, managers, foremen or workers on construction sites (e.g., electricians, plumbers, masons). The classification also introduces a new distinction between two types of drivers: general drivers and behavioral drivers. General drivers aim to encourage the adoption of sustainable practices on construction sites, such as establishing regulations governing waste and pollutants (e.g., [63]). Behavioral drivers aim to promote green behaviors on construction sites, such as influencing colleagues to sort materials (e.g., [24]). With this new classification, managers will be able to develop strategies better adapted to the operational realities and specific challenges of their professional contexts. In the case of workers, a better understanding of the factors influencing sustainable practices will inform their role in implementing these practices. For decision-makers, the classification will give them an overview of possible actions and reforms to be implemented (e.g., policy formulation, strategic planning, implementation of green practices) to minimize the environmental impact of construction projects, thus facilitating decision-making and strategic alignment that is more in line with contemporary ecological standards and requirements. In summary, the classification presented in this paper represents a guide to good practices that target courses of action designed to encourage construction industry actors to make changes, such as ensuring greater accountability of supervisors, better integrating green behaviors into daily tasks and mobilizing staff to reduce the carbon footprint.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

The results and analyses should be interpreted with due consideration of the study’s inherent limitations. First, the linguistic constraint resulting from the selection of articles only in English and French introduced a limitation in the scope of the analyses carried out. This approach excluded potential significant research carried out in other languages, which may lead to an incomplete representation of the available knowledge on the subject, thus limiting the universality and generalization of the conclusions drawn. Second, having selected papers from only one database (Web of Science), despite it being heavily profuse, we may have omitted a fraction of the literature. Third, the study highlighted a geographical concentration of the examined research with most studies originating from Asia. This preponderance raises questions about the representativeness of data and conclusions at the global level, indicating a potential geographical bias that could omit varied perspectives from other regions of the world.

A first interesting direction would be to extend the analysis to publications in other languages than English and French. A multilingual approach would allow for a wider range of perspectives and experiences on eco-responsibility, offering a more global view of practices and associated challenges across different cultures and regulatory systems. Secondly, the results presented in Section 4 highlight the importance of further exploring the underlying mechanisms and psychological processes that influence the adoption of green behaviors in construction organizations. Psychological and behavioral theories that study the motivations, attitudes, and barriers perceived by actors could provide valuable insights for developing more targeted and effective intervention strategies to encourage a transition to greener construction practices–an imperative in the quest for a sustainable future [19,106]. More specifically, the following theories, value-belief-norm [107], planned behavior [108], and social exchange [109,110], often applied in more traditional workplace contexts [21,42], should be more widely mobilized in the construction industry to encourage more nuanced behavioral research in this setting. Thirdly, it would be relevant to adopt a comparative approach between regions and countries to examine how specific cultural, economic and regulatory contexts influence the adoption of green practices in the construction sector. Such comparative analysis would allow a more extensive exploration of research carried out in other national and cultural contexts, offering a more balanced and global vision of green practices in the construction sector and facilitating the identification of context-specific best practices. In addition, the constant evolution of green standards and environmental regulations highlights the need for a re-evaluation of green practices and policies in light of innovations and regulatory changes in the construction industry. More targeted practices to engage external actors in sustainability initiatives would also help to better identify the different, and sometimes critical, roles that external actors can play and their influence in the construction industry. Fourthly, the rapid evolution of technologies and innovations in the field of sustainable construction suggests a need for longitudinal studies to monitor the impact of these advances on green practices. Future research could focus on assessing the effectiveness of new technologies and construction methods. Another area for future research would be to supplement the systematic review with a rigorous statistical method, e.g., a meta-analysis, which would combine the results of similar independent studies to quantitatively analyze the impact of drivers and barriers on the green behaviors of actors in the construction industry. Such a meta-analysis would provide solid evidence for policymakers and guide interventions by offering compelling results to accelerate the adoption of green behaviors. Finally, given the crucial importance of public policies and regulations in promoting sustainability in the construction sector [111], a thorough analysis of environmental policies and their effectiveness could provide valuable guidance for policymakers. Studying the impact of financial incentives, ecological certifications, and mandatory standards on economic viability and the adoption of green behaviors represents a rich field of investigation for researchers.

6. Conclusions

This paper identified and analyzed the drivers and barriers influencing the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry, based on studies conducted in public and private organizations across multiple countries. This research relates to Objective 9 of the Sustainable Development Goals identified by the United Nations (https://sdgs.un.org/goals, accessed on 8 December 2025): “Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation”. An examination of 673 practices identified in 44 empirical articles and classified according to the actors involved and the construction processes concerned, ranging from materials and technology management to industrial policy and perceptions and values, provided a basis not only for specifying the drivers and barriers influencing the adoption of sustainable practices but also for better understanding their interactions across the different spheres of influence and decisions involved in their implementation. We hope that the present systematic review will help promote the adoption of green behaviors in the construction industry.