Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Key Organisational Enablers for Sustainable Building Construction in South Africa

Abstract

Sustainable building construction (SBC) contributes immensely to attaining sustainable development initiatives. Nevertheless, SBC is not fully embraced among construction organisations in developing countries due to several challenges, suggesting the need for lasting solutions. However, uncertainty remains about the most vital characteristics/enablers that construction organisations need to adopt SBC. This study investigated the organisational enablers that contribute to SBC’s successful deployment. This study employed quantitative methodology using a structured questionnaire for data collection. With a convenient sample technique, a sample size of 281 was achieved from professionals working in the built environment in the Gauteng Province of South Africa (SA). Data were analysed with a four-step approach, including the relevant descriptive and inferential statistics. Relevant reliability and validity tests of the research instrument/measuring variables were observed, including pilot testing, Cronbach’s alpha test, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin, and Bartlett’s sphericity test. Mean rankings followed this in conjunction with standard deviations. Likewise, the Kruskal–Wallis H-test was employed to determine statistically significant differences in the responses of the study’s respondents. Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the variables’ goodness of fit in the measurement model or latent construct (organisational enablers), indicating their significance. According to their regression values, the top five variables included commitment to innovative construction, adequate project management culture, support from top management, sound intra-organisational leadership, and social responsibility to protect the environment. Generally, the study’s findings were supported by institutional theory and resource-based view theory. The study recommends carefully considering the findings among construction organisations and policymakers. This will assist in self-assessment and decision-making regarding direct improvement initiatives and curbing unsustainable practices. Similarly, this study is positioned to encourage further investigation of organisational enablers from the perspective of the enlisted theories.

1. Introduction

The construction industry (CI)’s contribution to the GDP is evident. It makes up around 6% of the global GDP, 8% GDP in developing countries, and 3% of SA’s GDP [1,2]. Nevertheless, its activities affect energy consumption, natural resources, and the environment. The activities of the CI deplete between 40% and half of the raw materials in the world, and between 40% and 45% of its energy [2]. Also, the activities generate excessive waste and account for 40% of greenhouse gas emissions [3]. Likewise, in SA, building construction accounts for 4% of total CO₂ emissions and at least 23% of GHG emissions [4]. In addition, total energy use in terms of electricity averages 28%, with more houses to be constructed due to rapid urbanisation [5].

According to [6], 38.8% of the 50.8 billion tonnes of minerals used annually are used for housing. In addition, it was predicted that by 2050, two-thirds of the global population will live in urban areas [7]. This suggests that more cities will be established with demands for new houses, especially for residential and office spaces [8]. Also, rapid urbanisation has become a significant issue in SA, suggesting the need for affordable housing [9]. People with low incomes who travel to urban areas for employment primarily reside in unsustainable informal settlements, suggesting the need for more houses to be built [10]. Thus, building these cities will significantly impact the implementation of SDGs and the planet’s long-term health [11]. Therefore, it is expedient that buildings are constructed green and sustainably. This disposition will stop unsustainable behaviours among South African and developing nations’ construction organisations.

SBC is defined as the “construction of buildings in a sustainable and green way” [2,12]. It involves building structures to have a less negative environmental impact while ensuring the fulfilment of social and economic objectives [13]. This concept aligns with the global SDGs. Adopting sustainable building practices will enable better resource management, employment of renewable energy and supplemental energy systems, the utilization of sustainable building materials, the application of creative/innovative construction methods for efficient design development and waste reduction, the use of intelligent appliances, and more [14].

Unfortunately, challenges such as reluctance to shift from conventional building methods [15,16], incapacity to adopt technological changes [15], inadequate housing delivery [9], non-adherence to sustainable development principles and green construction regulations [17], poor stakeholder involvement [18,19], and poor commitment inter alia are prevalent [18]. Consequently, a conscientious approach is required to avert the shortcomings regarding SBC deployment between construction companies and all parties involved in the built environment. Studies have highlighted the importance of organisational enablers for sustainable construction and development in different contexts [15,19].

However, the critical organisational enablers needed to deploy SBC effectively in SA are still ambiguous [4]. No studies have rigorously confirmed the significance of organisational enablers as a model for SBC in South Africa. A related study [4] highlighted “corporate dispositions for SBC implementation in SA” but only grouped the factors into principal components. Consequently, there is a need to validate the organisational characteristics or enablers for SBC adoption in SA. This study uniquely filled this gap by evaluating the key organisational enablers that would necessitate the adoption of SBC in SA. It utilises a four-step analysis approach ending with a confirmatory factor analysis. Thus, the study models the organisational enablers and determines the individual variables’ goodness of fit and level of contribution to the latent construct. The findings have practical implications, including shedding light on the critical factors that require prioritisation among construction firms to enhance the deployment of SBC. This may help reduce uncertainty and improve our understanding of the key enablers required for SBC adoption. Consequently, the findings provide an opportunity for construction organisations in SA to evaluate and enhance their organisational practices using the measuring variables, which will assist in creating plans for better SBC deployment. The results also provide a solid theoretical foundation for further investigation.

2. Literature Review

This section discusses the theoretical background of the study, the challenges of adopting SBC, and the organisational enablers for SBC deployment in SA.

2.1. Theoretical Foundation of the Study

This study is guided by institutional theory (IT) and resource-based-view theory (RBVT). IT is characterised by three forms of isomorphic drivers, namely mimetic, coercive, and normative [20,21]. Mimetic drivers occur when organisations attempt to replicate the methods of successful competitors to gain credibility and advance in their industry [22]. Coercive pressure deals with the influence of individuals in positions of authority [21]. It also involves external organisations that a company depends on (government institutions) and the cultural norms of the company’s setting [23]. Therefore, coercive pressing elements may play a key role in promoting SBC among construction firms in SA. Conversely, “normative drivers” address consumer and market conditions that motivate a company to adopt innovative methods [24]. RBVT, on the other hand, holds that a company’s resources serve as its main perspective. It also holds that having rare, precious, unique, and non-replaceable resources might give one a competitive edge [24]. Such a resource includes the adoption of sustainability-related practices [25]. Hence, RBVT provides a solid foundation for the organisational enablers considered in this study for SBC adoption in SA.

2.2. The Challenge of Adopting SBC in SA

Implementing sustainability concepts is critical to developing and mitigating resource depletion, energy crises, and climate change [10]. SBC is defined as the art of constructing buildings in a manner that meets the three pillars of sustainable development, such as environmental, social, and economic sustainability [2]. In other words, it supports the well-being of people and the planet, and profit. Despite advocating for sustainable development goals, SBC has not been fully adopted in SA’s built environment. The building stock lacks green and sustainable structures, making up a comparatively tiny fraction of the nation’s construction sector [10,26]. The predominant barriers are discussed in the following subsections:

• Regulatory barriers: Unfortunately, limited adoption in the country has been fostered by the absence of mandated implementation of sustainability laws [17]. Only voluntary building rating-system applications exist, fuelling non-compliance with the appropriate policies involving sustainable buildings [10]. Adopting sustainable construction requires legal frameworks and supportive policies. To shift to more sustainable practices, the industry needs incentives and clear guidelines [27].
• Technological barriers: Inadequate enforcement and resource mobilisation to support technological developments exist [4]. Likewise, the scarcity of most eco-friendly and energy-efficient building materials can be challenging for builders to adopt sustainable methods [28].
• Knowledge and awareness barriers: According to [29], many construction workers do not possess the requisite knowledge and skills to use principles of passive design and environmentally friendly building materials, methods, and technologies. Likewise, many are South Africans.
• Economic barriers: There is apprehension about increased investment costs or perceived high costs [28,30]. Similarly, the problem of economic inequality has stunted the widespread adoption of sustainable buildings. Because sustainable buildings are often associated with high costs, accessibility for lower-income communities is limited [31].
• Socio-cultural barriers: Traditional building techniques are so ingrained in the community that switching to sustainable alternatives is challenging [28].
• Support barriers: This includes limited governmental support and incentives, which slow down adoption [32,33]; inadequate commitment; and involvement of stakeholders [31]. Some stakeholders hesitate to embrace the SBC paradigm due to fear of return on investment and viability [33,34].

2.3. Organisational Enablers for SBC

The literature has identified specific organisational enablers that can facilitate SBC. These factors stem from image, vision, culture, policy, and social responsibility inter alia [2,35]. Table 1 presents the organisational enablers to facilitate SBC adoption in SA. The variables were gleaned from the literature review of pertinent studies relating to SBC from 2015 to 2025. The organisational enablers are briefly discussed below.

• Identifying the organisational benefits of adopting SBC: This is crucial in steering a clear vision towards adoption. The organisation’s reputation and brand worth can be enhanced by adopting sustainable practices to attract monetary rewards and investors with similar interests [33,36]. Some benefits of adopting sustainable building practices include long-term reductions in maintenance and utility expenses, and the use of less energy and water [37]. This is because resistance towards adoption is frequently caused by misconceptions about sustainable buildings among consumers and industry participants [27].
• Support from top management: According to [38], the top management must appreciate the environmental benefits of green projects to facilitate adoption. This will lead to proper allocation of resources and strategically incorporating sustainable practices into the business’s operations [39]. This support also provides an avenue for spearheading initiatives to control environmental regulation risks, such as adherence to national and international construction rules and sustainability certifications [17,35]. With their assistance, the company may prevent fines and harm to its reputation by ensuring that risks are recognised early and mitigation plans are implemented.
• The presence of qualified/competent staff: Competency is also key to navigating modern technologies; SBC requires operating and maintaining sophisticated machines and plants [40]. Aiyetan and Das [40] posit that the availability of competent personnel to handle the demands of SBC is a primary strategy towards adoption. Likewise, Ref. [19] highlighted the importance of technological capabilities in improving an organisation’s sustainability performance.
• Availability of finance for the project operation. A company’s financial capability is essential for employing competent personnel to adhere to project management protocols and implement the tactics necessary to achieve the project’s objectives [40]. Aiyetan and Das [40] also posit that organisational resources are key to self-assessment and improving organisational practices in developing strategies for sustainability performance improvement. Financial capability issues regarding SBC are prevalent globally, especially in developing countries [41,42,43,44,45]. Consequently, there is a need for governmental support and incentives for companies to adopt SBC.
• Consideration of alternate funding systems: According to [46], long-term investment and funding strategies should be adopted. Similarly, Ref. [47] asserts that innovative financial systems should be promoted to avert the barriers of SBC adoption. Instead of relying on public resources, construction organisations should consider alternate funding systems, like green bonds, bank loans, international assistance programs, and private capital [33,48].
• Corporate social responsibility to protect the environment is a vital enabler [35]. A paradigm shift to circular economic models is required to fulfil the social responsibility to safeguard the environment [49]. Driving SBC as motivator for social responsibility includes upholding ethical duty, a positive reputation, and financial gain [50].
• Pressure from competitors, regulators, and customers may facilitate SBC adoption [51]. The quest for competitive advantage may be a positive motivator. Some possible strategies include using a low-cost construction method, legitimising and adhering to sustainable building rules, focusing on entrepreneurship, and promoting their green competence to draw in clients and investors [52].
• Organisation’s good project management culture: Integration of sustainability principles into organisational practices is widely advocated by many scholars [19,47,53,54]. This can lead to better SBC project completion, with fewer risks and mistakes, thus lowering the cost of on-site labour, plants, and materials [55]. Additionally, it is imperative to utilise diverse project management methodologies to attain optimal practices adhering to environmental standards and sustainable principles [56].
• Commitment to innovative construction methods and technologies: This provides opportunities to optimise and manage a building’s energy consumption [10]. To increase productivity and lessen environmental impact, the construction sector must adopt more cutting-edge, environmentally friendly technologies [57].
• Sound intra-organisational leadership may foster the formulation of policies, process implementation, and dissemination of best practices that support sustainable construction practices [34,58]. Similarly, it is imperative to utilise diverse leadership styles to persuade construction workers to fulfil sustainable project goals [59].
• Stakeholders’ involvement/commitment is proposed to drive SBC implementation. Stakeholder management is, therefore, essential to mitigate conflicts of interest and facilitate collaboration among project parties/stakeholders [60]. Similarly, Ref. [47] acknowledged that fostering collaborative stakeholder engagement is crucial to overcoming adoption barriers.
• Promotion of cultural transformation for sustainability: Meaningful participation in sustainable efforts requires grasping the local community’s and an organisation’s culture. The cultural status quo should be changed if it is not conducive to attaining sustainable development objectives [61]. Notably, conventional building approaches are ingrained in the community among many emerging economies, making a shift to contemporary sustainable approaches difficult [28,32].
• Competitive edge over rivals: Businesses can differentiate themselves by investing in innovative, sustainable materials and energy-efficient designs [62]. According to [63], eco-friendly methods that save long-term operating expenses can be a decisive selling factor. Firms that actively promote their commitment to sustainability often attract environmentally conscious clients and investors, improving their brand reputation and marketing positioning [62].

Table 1. Organisational enablers for SBC adoption.

Organisational Enablers	References
Identifying the advantages of implementing SBC for the organisation	[33,36]
Support from top management	[35,38,41,64]
The presence of qualified/competent staff	[19,35,41,47,65,66,67]
Availability of finance for the project operation	[41,42,43,44]
Consideration of alternate funding systems	[33,42,46,68]
Corporate social responsibility to safeguard the environment	[35,68,69]
Competitors’ corporate-involvement pressure	[35,70]
Good project management culture	[19,47,53,54,67,71]
Commitment to innovative construction	[10,53,54,67,71]
Sound intra-organisational leadership	[12,35,58,72,73,74]
Stakeholders’ involvement and commitment	[35,36,54,68,70,75,76]
Promotion of cultural transformation for sustainability	[41,65]
Search for a competitive edge over rivals	[35,62,63,68,70]

Table 1. Organisational enablers for SBC adoption.

Organisational Enablers	References
Identifying the advantages of implementing SBC for the organisation	[33,36]
Support from top management	[35,38,41,64]
The presence of qualified/competent staff	[19,35,41,47,65,66,67]
Availability of finance for the project operation	[41,42,43,44]
Consideration of alternate funding systems	[33,42,46,68]
Corporate social responsibility to safeguard the environment	[35,68,69]
Competitors’ corporate-involvement pressure	[35,70]
Good project management culture	[19,47,53,54,67,71]
Commitment to innovative construction	[10,53,54,67,71]
Sound intra-organisational leadership	[12,35,58,72,73,74]
Stakeholders’ involvement and commitment	[35,36,54,68,70,75,76]
Promotion of cultural transformation for sustainability	[41,65]
Search for a competitive edge over rivals	[35,62,63,68,70]

3. Methodology

Figure 1 portrays the data analysis steps followed for the research methodology. The study used a structured questionnaire and a quantitative research technique to examine the organisational enablers for the successful implementation of SBC in SA. The variables best aligned with the study’s objectives were extracted from a review of studies. There were two sections in the questionnaire. The first section involved the background information. The other contained the 5-point Likert-scale questions (with responses of 1 = no extent, 2 = low extent, 3 = moderate extent, 4 = high extent, and 5 = very high extent) on organisational enablers for SBC implementation. The 5-Likert scale was used based on its ability to enhance reliability, validity, and response bias mitigation [77]. Similarly, it was chosen based on its ease of use [78], and neutral midpoints allowed respondents to express moderate views rather than being forced into extreme choices [79]. The participants were asked, “To what extent does each organisational enabler influence SBC implementation in SA?”. The variables, along with their literature references, are listed in Table 1.

Before the final questionnaire draft, the initial questionnaire was pilot-tested among 10 academic respondents with a construction background. The pilot test assisted in scrutinising the chosen variables and resolving and adjusting issues like ambiguous questions and unclear wording, which may be problematic in answering the questions among respondents [80]. Additionally, the pilot study and the scrutiny of the questionnaire by the supervisor(s) ensured that the variables were carefully selected to suit the SA context. This added to the validity of the questionnaire’s content. Similarly, the authors obtained an ethical clearance certificate from the University of Johannesburg upon content validation of the measuring instruments. Voluntary participation was observed, and the respondents’ consent to the questionnaire was obtained. Similarly, confidentiality was rigorously maintained to preserve the participants’ privacy, and personal information was excluded.

Convenience sampling was selected for the investigation, considering the difficulty of reaching the right participants from the large population of the SA Built Environment. Other reasons considered included participants’ knowledge and expertise, time constraints, respondent availability, and willingness to engage [81]. According to [81], a convenient sampling technique is beneficial when it is difficult to reach the population or when time and resources are scarce. Additionally, it is helpful in situations where randomisation—relying on chance—is not feasible, like when the population is very large [81]. Consequently, due to accessibility challenges, Gauteng was chosen for the case study. Gauteng was selected because it contains approximately 333,000 construction experts and is where most building operations occur [82]. Major cities like Johannesburg and Pretoria are in Gauteng. It contributes over 33.9% of the country’s GDP, making it the economic hub and powerhouse of the nation [83,84]. With more than 15 million residents, it is the most populated province [84]. Additionally, its strategic location, expanding metropolitan population, government backing, and environmental concerns are characteristics that set it apart from other parts of SA [85].

In determining the sampling size, many authors suggested that a sample size of 200 is enough for CFA and structural equation modelling (SEM) [86,87], and that a maximum sample size of 400 is appropriate for a population of 5000 or more [88,89]. As a result, 400 questionnaires were distributed, with a 70% response rate deemed sufficient for the research. The sample size was 281, adequate for descriptive and confirmatory factor analysis and able to achieve reliable results [90]. No missing data were recorded.

The participants were SA Built Environment professionals from Gauteng Province. These included project managers, construction managers, architects, quantity surveyors, engineers, and town and regional/urban planners. These participants were within the SA Built Environment. Hence, the sampling size, the choice of Gauteng, and the respondents’ acknowledgement of their understanding of the research topic and the information on the questionnaire helped to curb possible bias associated with the sampling technique in terms of generalisability. In addition, the questionnaire was dispersed at various times and domains to obtain a cross-section of the target population. This also helped in mitigating bias [91].

The “Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 29” was used for the descriptive analysis. In analysing the data gathered, the study followed a similar approach to [15], using four distinct levels of data analysis. However, the process was modified to suit the study’s objectives, as shown in Figure 1. In the first level, the normality of data was checked with a Shapiro–Wilk test, and the data were not normally distributed. The Shapiro–Wilk test is presented in

Table 2. Descriptive analysis of organisational enablers for SBC adoption.

Label	Variables	Mean Item Score	Standard Deviation	Rank	Shapiro–Wilk Test
					Statistic	Sig.
OE3	Support from top management	4.38	0.83	1	0.730	<0.001
OE4	The presence of qualified staff	4.35	0.85	2	0.743	<0.001
OE5	Availability of finance for the project operation	4.32	0.81	3	0.762	<0.001
OE8	Good project management culture	4.27	0.80	4	0.786	<0.001
OE12	Stakeholders’ involvement and commitment	4.23	0.84	5	0.791	<0.001
OE9	Commitment to innovative construction	4.22	0.86	6	0.780	<0.001
OE2	Corporate social responsibility to safeguard the environment	4.16	0.80	7	0.815	<0.001
OE11	Sound intra-organisational leadership	4.15	0.80	8	0.813	<0.001
OE1	Identifying the advantages of implementing SBC for the organisation	4.13	0.92	9	0.810	<0.001
OE13	Promotion of cultural transformation for sustainability	4.12	0.86	10	0.824	<0.001
OE10	Search for a competitive edge over rivals	4.10	0.86	11	0.809	<0.001
OE6	Consideration of alternate funding systems	4.06	0.83	12	0.826	<0.001
OE7	Competitors’ corporate-involvement pressure	4.03	0.89	13	0.829	<0.001
Cronbach’s alpha		0.956

. Similarly, the reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The higher the value between 0 and 1, the higher the reliability [92]. Consequently, an alpha value of 0.956 was achieved for the measuring variables of this study, indicating reliability. KMO and Bartlett tests were performed to determine the structural validity of the variables on the measuring scale. With a degree of freedom of 190 and a significant p-value of less than 0.001, the results showed a KMO value of 0.939 and a Bartlett’s test value of 3153.522. Given that the optimal range for a KMO value is 0.60 and above, and a p-value of less than 0.05 for the Bartlett test, this result suggests that the measuring scale is valid for the purposes for which it was created [92]. Similarly, the eigenvalue extraction indicated only one component factor. Hence, a decision was made to adopt a CFA approach and not include the result for a more focused study.

In the second level, the mean item score (MIS) was used to rank the identified organisational enablers based on their perceived significance level among the respondents. This was performed in tandem with the standard deviation determined for the organisational enablers. In the third level, a non-parametric test (Kruskal–Wallis H-test) was used to determine the statistically significant difference in responses from the professional. Similarly, in the fourth level, CFA was conducted using the “Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) version 30 software” to evaluate the individual factor’s statistical significance and goodness of fit to the measurement models or latent construct, organisational enablers, for SBC. Measures like Chi-square (Chi-square (x²/df), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), increment fit index (IFI), and normed fit index (NFI) were also used to evaluate the model’s goodness of fit. Moreover, convergent validity tests, composite reliability, and Cronbach’s alpha test were utilised as additional metrics.

4. Results

4.1. Demographical Data

Figure 2 portrays the respondents’ professional demographics. Participants from construction management were predominant, followed by those from engineering, quantity surveying, project management, architecture, and town/urban and regional planning; meanwhile, the “other” category was chosen the least. This implies that the study’s findings may best be applied to the engineering and construction sector instead of architecture and urban planning in the built environment.

Figure 3 presents the percentage representation of the participants based on educational qualification. Figure 3 shows that the top three qualifications included honours/btech degrees, master’s degrees, and bachelor’s degrees. Conversely, the lowest rank was a doctorate degree. The results indicate that the respondents were best qualified academically to respond to the questionnaire.

Likewise, regarding organisations and the workplace, Figure 4 indicates that most participants were connected to consulting firms, followed by contracting firms, government agencies, and the private sector. The results indicate that the consulting, contracting, and public sectors are always on top regarding sustainability responses compared to the client/private sector. These findings align with those of [93], who obtained similar results for the organisational category.

Additionally, regarding industrial experience, Figure 5 portrays that most respondents had worked in the industry for six to ten years. It was trailed by those that had worked for one to five years, eleven to fifteen years, sixteen to twenty years, twenty-one to twenty-five years, twenty-six to thirty years, less than twelve months, and more than thirty years. The results indicate that respondents are well-experienced and best suited to participate in the study.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 portrays the organisational enablers for the adoption of SBC in SA according to their ranking. The participants were asked, “To what extent does each organisational enabler influence SBC implementation in SA?” The top five variables, in descending order, were support from top management (M = 4.38), availability of qualified staff (M = 4.35), availability of finance for the project operation (M = 4.32), good project management culture (M = 4.27), and stakeholders’ involvement and commitment (M = 4.23). In ascending order, competitors’ corporate-involvement pressure was the least rated variable (M = 4.03), and consideration of alternative funding sources was the penultimately ranked variable (MS = 4.06). The low ranking of competitors’ corporate-involvement pressure may be due to the low demand for sustainable/green buildings in SA [31,94]. This was further confirmed by the ranking in quest for competitive advantage results. There would be low competitive pressure if rivals are not prioritising it. Additionally, companies may not be pressured to align with sustainability standards because of the lack of legislative mandates [95].

Table 3. Organisational enablers (mean comparison among professionals and Kruskal–Wallis H-test).

Label	PM		Arch		Eng		CM		QS		TP		O		K-W
	MIS	R	MIS	R	MIS	R	MIS	R	MIS	R	MIS	R	MIS	R	X2	Sig.
OE3	4.23	1	4.54	1	4.33	2	4.47	1	4.36	2	4.47	2	3.00	11	5.584	0.471
OE4	4.04	3	4.54	1	4.34	1	4.42	2	4.34	3	4.47	2	5.00	1	6.351	0.385
OE5	4.08	2	4.49	3	4.24	3	4.42	2	4.38	1	4.35	7	5.00	1	6.705	0.349
OE8	4.02	4	4.46	4	4.24	3	4.40	4	4.18	5	4.47	2	4.00	4	8.443	0.207
OE12	3.92	11	4.39	7	4.21	5	4.30	6	4.29	4	4.41	5	5.00	1	6.549	0.365
OE9	4.00	6	4.44	5	4.10	7	4.38	5	4.14	7	4.41	5	4.00	4	9.578	0.144
OE2	4.02	4	4.34	8	4.14	6	4.23	10	4.04	11	4.29	9	4.00	4	5.060	0.536
OE11	3.83	13	4.27	9	4.10	7	4.30	6	4.16	6	4.29	9	4.00	4	7.715	0.260
OE1	3.90	12	4.41	6	4.09	9	4.30	6	3.91	13	4.35	8	4.00	4	12.138	0.059
OE13	3.94	9	4.24	10	3.98	12	4.22	11	4.09	9	4.53	1	4.00	4	8.631	0.195
OE10	3.96	7	4.05	13	4.03	10	4.27	9	4.09	9	4.41	5	3.00	11	8.732	0.189
OE6	3.94	9	4.20	11	4.00	11	4.03	13	4.11	8	4.18	11	4.00	4	2.160	0.904
OE7	3.96	7	4.15	12	3.98	12	4.05	12	4.02	12	4.18	11	3.00	11	2.631	0.853
Group Mean	3.99		4.35		4.14		4.29		4.16		4.37		4.00

Note: PM = project management; Arch. = architecture; CM = construction management; Eng = engineering; QS = quantity surveying; TP = town/regional planning; O = other background; MIS = mean item score; R = rank; K-W = Kruskal–Wallis H-test; X2 = chi-square; Sig. = significant (p < 0.05).

also portrays the individual mean ranking based on professional backgrounds. In comparing the mean rankings, the top-ranked variables among project managers were support from top management, availability of finance for the project operation, the presence of qualified staff, good project management culture, and corporate social responsibility to safeguard the environment. Similarly, the top five overall rated variables among architects were support from top management, the presence of qualified staff, availability of finance for the project operation, good project management culture, and commitment to innovative construction.

Among engineers, the top five included the presence of qualified staff, support from top management, availability of finance for the project operation, good project management culture, and stakeholders’ involvement and commitment. For construction managers, the five most rated variables included support from top management, the presence of qualified staff, availability of finance for the project operation, good project management culture, and commitment to innovative construction. Regarding quantity surveyors, the most prioritised variables include availability of finance for the project operation, support from top management, the presence of qualified staff, stakeholders’ involvement and commitment, and good project management culture. Similarly, for town planners, the five most rated variables were promotion of cultural transformation for sustainability, support from top management, the presence of qualified staff, good project management culture, stakeholders’ involvement and commitment, and commitment to innovative construction.

Furthermore, Table 3 indicates that the overall group mean for all respondents is 4.19. Similarly, it revealed the individual group means for the responses based on professional background which included project management (M = 3.99), architecture (M = 4.35), engineering (M = 4.14), construction management (M = 4.29), quantity surveying (M = 4.16), town planning (M = 4.37), and others (M = 4.00). Additionally, the Kruskal–Wallis test results in Table 3 showed no statistically significant difference in respondents’ opinions regarding the variables (organisational enablers).

The next stage is the presentation of the CFA results in alignment with the conceptual framework.

4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Considering the conceptual framework in Figure 6, the fitness of the measurement model for organisational enablers for effective SBC implementation in SA was assessed using CFA. The purpose of CFA was to validate the hypothesised model and the measured variables. The robust maximum likelihood (RML) estimation and variables achieved variable loadings above the 0.55 threshold [88].

Table 4. Assessing the factor loadings, internal consistency, and validity of the model.

Variables	Standardised Regression	CR	Significant at the 5% Level	R2	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	Convergent Validity
							AVE	√AVE
OE9	0.856	16.267	Yes	0.733	0.956	0.955	0.621	0.788
OE8	0.823	13.789	Yes	0.678
OE3	0.819	17.803	Yes	0.671
OE11	0.806	14.948	Yes	0.649
OE2	0.802	14.935	Yes	0.643
OE1	0.790			0.624
OE4	0.778	14.3111	Yes	0.605
OE10	0.773	14.207	Yes	0.597
OE13	0.772	14.215	Yes	0.595
OE12	0.770	14.178	Yes	0.593
OE7	0.759	13.835	Yes	0.576
OE6	0.747	13.647	Yes	0.558
OE5	0.744	13.441	Yes	0.554

displays the standardised regression coefficients of the measuring variables, the squared multiple correlations (R²), critical ratio, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and convergent validity. The variables’ standardised regression coefficients ranged from 0.744 to 0.856, explaining more than 50% of the variation in the model [96]. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.956, exceeding 0.7, demonstrating the reliability and high internal consistency of the variables being measured [92]. Similarly, the construct was consistent, predictable, and reliable, as indicated by the composite reliability score (0.955) being higher than 0.7 [97]. Furthermore, the average variance extracted with 0.621 signifies that convergent validity is empirically supported since the underlying latent construct accounts for over half (50%) of the variation in the belonging indicators [86]. Figure 6 portrays the measurement model diagram for organisation enablers.

Table 5. Model fit indices for latent construct (organisational enablers).

Model Fit Indices	Thresholds	Achieved Fit Indices	Remarks
Probability value (p-value)	p > 0.05	0.000	Good fit
Discrepancy (χ2)	-	99.833	-
Degrees of freedom (df)	-	46	-
Chi-square (x2/df)	Acceptable fit (˂5); good fit (˂3)	2.170	Good fit
Standardised root mean square residual (SRMR)	Good fit (≤0.05)	0.020	Good fit
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)	Acceptable fit (≤0.08); good fit (≤0.05)	0.065	Good fit
Comparative fit index (CFI)	Acceptable fit (>0.90); good fit (>0.95)	0.983	Good fit
Increment fit index (IFI)	Acceptable fit (>0.90); good fit (>0.95)	0.983	Good fit
Normed fit index (NFI)	Acceptable fit (>0.90); good fit (>0.95)	0.969	Good fit
Tucker–Lewis’s index (TLI)	Acceptable fit (>0.90); good fit (>0.95)	0.971	Good fit

showcases the model fit indices. The model achieved a good fit, with x²/df (2.170), SRMR (0.020), RMSEA (0.065), CFI (0.983), IFI (0.983), NFI (0.969), and TLI (0.971) [98].

5. Discussion

The results from CFA in Table 3 and Table 4 show the influential organisational enablers for implementing SBC effectively and the goodness of fit of the organisational enablers measurement model. The top five variables based on the standardised regression of CFA results, in descending order, included a commitment to innovative construction, adequate project management culture, support from top management, sound intra-organisational leadership, and social responsibility to protect the environment. The general findings of this study support the diffusion-of-innovation theory in construction and sustainable construction theory [99].

The specific finding on commitment to innovation as a leading organisation enabler for SBC aligns with Ref. [71]’s findings in Malaysia. Bamgbede et al. [71] discovered that organisational innovativeness is a leading factor for sustainable construction adoption in Malaysia. Moghayedi et al. [10] confirmed that adopting cutting-edge technologies offers opportunities to maximise and regulate a building’s energy use. Likewise, Ref. [14] concurred that commitment to innovative construction necessitates using cutting-edge, environmentally friendly building supplies and techniques to guarantee energy savings and enhance the use of building components. Additionally, Ref. [2] suggested that using contemporary construction techniques like value engineering, lean, industrialised building systems, BIM, and others will result in efficient and sustainable designs and waste reduction. Furthermore, commitment to innovation outranked stakeholder involvement for this study. This may suggest that it is advantageous for long-term sustainability. For instance, innovation can enable the ingraining of sustainable practices in construction early in the project, rather than being influenced by short-term interest. Innovative technologies can also help streamline processes and reduce bureaucratic delays [100]. Similarly, in the study by [47] in Nigeria, the availability of technology had a greater loading than stakeholder engagements.

The findings on adequate project management culture concur with several studies [55,56]. An adequate project management culture fosters the integration of sustainable principles in project management [47,54]. It stems from a good organisational culture. This finding, therefore, is supported by the institutional theory. This finding also aligns with [71], which listed organisational culture as among the top factors facilitating the adoption of sustainable construction in Malaysia. Organisational culture also emerged as a second leading determinant in [47] towards overcoming sustainable construction barriers in Nigeria. Similarly, regarding sustainable construction, Ref. [55] confirmed that a good project management culture will result in improved project completion with reduced risks and mistakes, resulting in cheaper labour, material, and plant costs on the job site. In addition, Ref. [56] asserted that utilising diverse project management methodologies is imperative to attaining optimal practices for enhancing project performance. Furthermore, Ref. [101] asserted that the application of project management methods, a by-product of a strong project management culture, will enhance SBC deployment for project delivery success.

The discovery of support from top management as a significant organisational enabler towards SBC implementation concurs with Ref. [102]’s findings that it is one of the leading drivers for green building adoption. The institutional theory also supports it. Similarly, it corresponds with [70,103], which affirmed that mid-level manager support and top management commitment are essential when making decisions on green buying and sustainable construction.

The finding concerning sound intra-organisational leadership as one of the leading significant organisational enablers for SBC aligns with Ref. [73]’s finding on “transcendent leadership for sustainable construction project management in China”. Murkeji [73] highlighted the importance of good leadership styles, attitudinal behaviours and strategies for proper decision-making, and driving expert team members towards sustainable construction implementation. This revelation is also consistent with Ref. [59], who posited that organisational leaders must possess critical leadership traits and styles to influence their subordinates for the attainment of project objectives [12,59]. Furthermore, Ref. [12] found that the success criterion for sustainable buildings is directly impacted by project managers’ transformational leadership abilities and leadership capabilities. The institutional theory also supports this finding.

Moreover, the revelation concerning social responsibility to safeguard the environment from this study as a significant organisational enabler for SBC aligns with [35,50]. Darko et al. [35] found corporate social responsibility (CSR) among the top drivers for green building adoption. Likewise, Ref. [50] discovered CSP as a principle to green construction that can uphold an organisation’s ethical duty and enhance its positive reputation and financial gain.

Conversely, availability of finance for the project operation is the penultimately ranked in the organisational enablers model, while consideration of alternate funding systems was the least ranked. These findings contradict the findings in [47], which discovered financial implications, such as considering alternative financial mechanisms, among the leading factors for overcoming the obstacles to sustainable construction in Nigeria. Nevertheless, this study’s financially related findings were adequate for the organisational enablers model. Consequently, the findings are supported by the resource-based-view theory.

Generally, the findings support the proposition that organisation enablers impact SBC implementation.

Implications and Recommendations

This study’s practical implication rests on its capacity to supply decision-makers and personnel in construction organisations with the necessary understanding of the anticipated organisational elements that would influence SBC adoption. For instance, commitment to innovation will necessitate capacity building regarding skill acquisition, requisite experience in handling contemporary construction methods for sustainable building delivery, waste reduction, performance optimisation, and efficient design. Modern construction methods can encourage more efficient use of resources and eventually result in cost reductions. Therefore, dedication to innovation can be crucial to accomplishing SDGs, especially 8, 9, and 11 [104,105]. Innovation will promote entrepreneurship, increase productivity, and generate new employment opportunities, all contributing to long-term economic growth [100]. Similarly, technological advancement will increase infrastructure resilience, encourage sustainable production, and boost industrial efficiency [105]. Additionally, adopting smart technologies and innovative urban-planning solutions can assist in building sustainable cities, enhance resource management, and improve quality of life [106].

Support from top management will ensure that the necessary actions are implemented for SBC, including steps like adequate resource allocation and strategically incorporating sustainable practices into the business’s operations. Top management and policymakers may incentivise employees willing to improve their skills and commit to the demands of SBC. Similarly, social responsibility to protect the environment will necessitate a paradigm shift to circular economic models. Organisations that exhibit a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR) can draw in investors, particularly those who are looking to fund socially and ecologically conscious projects. The expansion of environmentally friendly construction firms and the local economy can both benefit from this investment. Additionally, construction firms can encourage the development of green jobs by embracing CSR concepts. This creates job opportunities in the local economy, which can boost economic growth and improve communities [107]. Moreover, construction firms can help lessen socioeconomic inequality by emphasising social responsibility [108]. For example, this can foster the prioritisation of initiatives that provide affordable housing, guarantee accessibility for individuals with disabilities, or concentrate on giving marginalised populations job opportunities [108].

Generally, this study’s findings encouraged the use of sustainable building materials (SBMSs), which can positively impact most SDGs directly or indirectly. For instance, it can indirectly impact SDGs (2, 5, 10, and 16), as well as have a direct impact on the achievement of SDGs (3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 15) [109]. This suggests that the actualisation of SDGs in SA and other African countries is positively impacted by embracing green construction efforts and SBC principles.

This study recommends adequate knowledge sharing of the benefits of sustainable construction, integrated project delivery, and governmental support in providing incentives and adequate legal frameworks that foster adoption. It also recommends competent human and financial resource mobilisation for project operations among construction companies. These initiatives will help fund the requisite innovative approaches and technological changes needed to achieve a built environment that meets sustainable development goals. The practical implications of mobilising competent human and financial resources can best be applied to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs have narrow profit margins and lack the institutional framework to recruit qualified workers. Hence, this study recommends tailored capacity-building initiatives like developing scalable training modules for different company sizes and staff levels, focusing on sustainable practices. This study also recommends a partnership with educational institutions, professional bodies, and the government to implement upskilling initiatives across the country. Blended financial models are also recommended to improve SME adoption. For instance, donor/grant funds should be combined with commercial loans to de-risk investment in sustainable buildings for SMEs. Furthermore, SMEs are encouraged to partner with large firms adopting sustainable practices for mentorship/knowledge transfer and pooled resources. This will foster widespread adoption of SBC across SA. Conversely, large firms are encouraged to invest in integrated project delivery systems to avert bureaucratic hurdles and facilitate their adoption and sustainability strategy.

6. Conclusions

This study examined the organisational enablers for SBC deployment in SA. From the extant literature, thirteen variables were identified. The variables were evaluated using a four-level data analysis approach, which included validation and reliability of the research instrument, mean ranking, Kruskal–Wallis H-test, and CFA. Based on the findings of this study, the following observations were noted:

• All the variables achieved the necessary reliability, construct validity, and convergent validity for the organisational enablers model. Hence, all the variables achieved a goodness of fit.
• The findings indicate that organisations in the public and private sectors are still lagging in responding to SBC adoption. Therefore, the study recommends more knowledge sharing on the benefits of adopting sustainable practices.
• Competitors’ corporate-involvement pressure received the lowest mean ranking among the professionals. This further indicates a low market demand for sustainable buildings in SA. Additionally, there is a need for legislative mandates to ensure compliance among construction organisations. Therefore, this study recommends governmental support through policies and incentives favouring adoption.
• Based on the standardised regression loadings from CFA, the top five variables were commitment to innovative construction, adequate project management culture, support from top management, sound intra-organisational leadership, and social responsibility to protect the environment. These results offer a clear understanding of the anticipated and critical enablers of SBC adoption in construction companies in SA.
• Generally, the findings of the study support and are supported by the institutional theory and resource-based-view theory. This study’s findings imply that these theories are critically needed for advancement in the construction industry and the global sustainable development agenda.
• Public–private partnerships and greater collaboration of various stakeholders and organisations, including educational institutions, professional bodies, and the government, are required to foster a greener and resilient future for SA.
• This study theoretically adds to the knowledge on the conversation of adopting SBC among construction organisations. Additionally, it contributes methodologically. To our knowledge, no study has used CFA to confirm the organisational enablers for SBC deployment in SA. It is also among the most recent research projects in SA that clarify the enablers required to implement SBC successfully. Arguably, the variables found in this study should be the minimum organisational enablers/characteristics for SBC adoption. The results also provoke discussion among academics and specialists over the most effective ways to promote the use of SBC.
• The study was constrained to Gauteng, SA. Therefore, the findings may not be generalised to other regions of the country or other developing countries. For a more comprehensive picture, more research may be carried out using data from different provinces of SA to enhance the generalisability of the findings.
• Convenience sampling was utilised due to the respondents’ availability and accessibility, which could lead to bias since the participants may not reflect the complete diversity of professionals in the field. It is important to note that architects and urban planners were underrepresented. Furthermore, this paper only confirms the individual factor’s significance/goodness of fit to the latent variable organisation enablers for SBC. Future studies may test the hypothesis of the influence of the exogenous latent variable organisational enablers on SBC implementation with structural equation modelling or path analysis. However, the authors intend to fill this gap in upcoming studies.