Next Article in Journal
A 55 V, 6.6 nV/√Hz Chopper Operational Amplifier with Dual Auto-Zero and Common-Mode Voltage Tracking
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanical Behavior of Sustainable Concrete with Alkali-Activated Pumice as Cement Replacement for Walkway Slabs in Humid Tropical Climates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Eng
Volume 6
Issue 8
10.3390/eng6080190
eng-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Knowledge Sharing: Key to Sustainable Building Construction Implementation

by
Chijioke Emmanuel Emere
1,*,
Clinton Ohis Aigbavboa
2 and
Olusegun Aanuoluwapo Oguntona
1,*
1
Department of Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology, Walter Sisulu University, Butterworth 4960, South Africa
2
Department of Construction Management and Quantity Surveying, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2092, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Eng 2025, 6(8), 190; https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6080190
Submission received: 25 June 2025 / Revised: 26 July 2025 / Accepted: 4 August 2025 / Published: 6 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Chemical, Civil and Environmental Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The successful deployment of sustainable building construction (SBC) is connected to sound knowledge sharing. Concerning SBC, knowledge sharing has been identified to directly and indirectly increase innovation, environmental performance, cost saving, regulatory compliance awareness and so on. The necessity of enhancing SBC practice globally has been emphasised by earlier research. Consequently, this study aims to investigate knowledge-sharing elements to enhance SBC in South Africa (SA). Utilising a questionnaire survey, this study elicited data from 281 professionals in the built environment. Data analysis was performed with “descriptive statistics”, the “Kruskal–Wallis H-test”, and “principal component analysis” to determine the principal knowledge-sharing features (KSFs). This study found that “creating public awareness of sustainable practices”, the “content of SBC training, raising awareness of green building products”, “SBC integration in professional certifications”, an “information hub or repository for sustainable construction”, and “mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices” are the most critical KSFs for SBC deployment. These formed a central cluster, the Green Education Initiative and Eco-Awareness Alliance. The results achieved a reliability test value of 0.956. It was concluded that to embrace the full adoption of SBC, corporate involvement is critical, and all stakeholders must embrace the sustainability paradigm. It is recommended that the principal knowledge-sharing features revealed in this study should be carefully considered to help construction stakeholders in fostering knowledge sharing for a sustainable built environment.

1. Introduction

The productivity growth of the construction industry (CI) is lagging when compared to other sectors, requiring a sound knowledge sharing on contemporary and innovative approaches if the performance gap is to be closed [1,2,3]. CI is fraught with conventional approaches which has negatively affected economies, human health, the environment, and the climate [4,5]. It contributes over 34% of CO2 emissions and more than 32% of the world’s energy depletion [6]. Predominantly utilised materials like steel and cement are a major source of construction waste and account for 18% of world emissions [6]. Besides, approximately half of the world’s raw materials are consumed by CI [5].
However, there has been a paradigm change in the CI due to the introduction of sustainability concepts [7]. In the 21st century, it is well acknowledged that CI may improve its operations in the areas of the economy, society, and environment by implementing sustainable building construction (SBC) [5]. SBC is defined as the “construction of buildings in a sustainable and green way” [8,9]. It is constructing structures to lessen their adverse effects on the environment while ensuring that social and economic goals are met [10,11].
Nevertheless, the construction of sustainable buildings requires a greater level of complexity compared to standard or conventional buildings [7]. This is because a larger number of project participants and stakeholders are typically involved. This complexity necessitates expertise in handling design and construction. It also necessitates effective communication and knowledge to improve collaboration and integration among the different stakeholders [12]. Similarly, handling the intricate ecological optimisation problems calls for a high degree of skill [7].
Several hindrances to the adoption of SBC exist, especially in emerging economies. These include a decline in the use of technology, issues with safety and quality, and often intense political and socioeconomic constraints that impact the sustainability and execution of projects [13]. One of the main forces behind Africa’s socioeconomic sustainability is the South African construction industry (SACI) [13]. SA has higher standards for green building uptake than other African countries [5,9]. Nevertheless, compared to developed countries, SBC deployment is still lagging [9,14]. Among the major challenges are the inability to abandon conventional building methods [15] and the dearth of consumer demand for sustainable products or structures [16]. Likewise, the problems include financial obstacles, a lack of professional knowledge, public ignorance of sustainable principles, and non-compliance with SBC-related policies [5,17,18]. Additionally, recording and transferring information from one construction lifecycle stage to the next has been challenging in SACI and developing nations CI [7,13]. Due to this, a performance gap exists in designing and constructing sustainable buildings [7]. Also, substantial knowledge has been lost in the process [7,19].
Knowledge sharing and retention are challenges for the industry [13]. An understanding of the effects of SBC should transcend organisational borders rather than being exclusive to CI [20]. Knowledge sharing has been identified to have a significant impact on organisational performance, innovative culture and long-term sustainable competitive advantage and so on [21]. Based on this notion, this study examines ways to improve SBC adoption through knowledge sharing.
While some studies relating to SBC knowledge sharing exist globally [7,21,22,23,24], this research focuses on key knowledge-sharing features for spreading and facilitating the adoption of SBC in SA. A related study in construction is that of [13]. However, ref. [13] investigated the “barriers to knowledge management beyond organisational boundaries in SACI”. Thus, this study’s area of focus is novel and has not been investigated in SA. Therefore, using a quantitative approach with a principal component analysis technique, this study depicted the principal KSF for SBC deployment in SA. The revelation of the principal KSF will assist in bridging the performance gap and promote an awareness of sustainable building practices to create a sustainable built environment. The information offered will also assist decision-makers and construction practitioners in honing their tactics and knowledge exchange, which will boost overall performance among construction companies.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Challenges to SBC Knowledge Sharing in SA

There is a grave need to fully adopt sustainable building methods given the challenges presented by problems such as the energy problem, climate change, and ongoing water scarcity, among other things, in SA and Sub-Saharan African countries [5,14]. In contrast to industrialised nations, ref. [25] revealed that the acceptability of clients and property developers is still in its infancy. A major contributor to this is due to knowledge-sharing barriers. These include:
•
Industry stakeholders’ limited comprehension of sustainable construction principles [16]. Adoption is sluggish since many developers and professionals are not aware of recommended practices and new technologies. Moreover, stakeholders find it challenging to obtain thorough information because sustainable building methods, materials, and standards are frequently dispersed and decentralised. Because of this fragmentation, SBC practices are not consistently implemented or understood across the industry [16,26].
•
Capacity and Skills gaps. Many construction workers, particularly those employed in informal sectors, lack official training in sustainable practices. Similarly, there is a reluctance to share knowledge. Effective information exchange is hampered by several issues that construction project managers frequently deal with, including time limits, lack of affiliation, and reluctance to share expertise [26]. Additionally, many professionals work in silos with limited interdisciplinary collaborations [26].
•
Academic–Industry Gap. Practitioners like contractors, builders, and smaller architectural companies usually do not receive research findings from universities and technical institutions [27]. This gap prevents research findings from being applied practically, which impedes SBC’s progress.
•
Inadequate Government Regulation and Support. Industry participants may be hesitant to embrace sustainable practices in the absence of proper government incentives and encouraging laws [5]. The widespread adoption of SBC is further hampered by the lack of detailed construction codes and regulations [27].
•
Cost Perception and Economic Constraints. Despite long-term benefits, a lot of stakeholders still think sustainable building is far more expensive [28]. Similarly, the cost pressures from low-budget projects like those in RDP housing or informal settlements often override sustainable choices, reducing the incentive to share green knowledge [12,29].
•
Lack of Standardisation and Regulation. Policies are still fragmented. For instance, the SANS 10400-XA standard [30] for energy efficiency is in place in SA. However, awareness and enforcement of it vary [5]. Likewise, since green building certifications like Green Star SA are optional, expertise in sustainable techniques remains in specialised or elite fields [5,31].

2.2. Knowledge Sharing Features for SBC Adoption

Knowledge sharing is the art of sharing information, skills, expertise, and insights among individuals, teams, or organisations to foster learning and collaboration [32,33]. Therefore, awareness-raising, training, and teaching can be used to spread knowledge about SBC methods. Effective knowledge sharing enables businesses to spur innovation, promote productivity, and enhance decision-making by ensuring that crucial information is readily available to those who need it [21]. Studies in both developed and developing countries have emphasised the essence of knowledge sharing for sustainable construction and development. For instance, in China, ref. [34] highlighted the need for green knowledge sharing for green innovation and transformational leadership in infrastructure development. In India, ref. [35] emphasised knowledge capabilities in advancing towards sustainable and net-zero supply chains. In Pakistan, ref. [36] buttressed the role of knowledge sharing in fostering green creativity and innovation. Similarly, ref. [4] highlighted that knowledge-sharing deficiencies, inter alia, have led to unsustainable practices in Nigeria. Moreover, ref. [37] discovered that knowledge-related barriers were pre-eminent in their literature review regarding limitations towards sustainable construction in developing countries. The literature has identified specific knowledge-sharing features (KSF) that can facilitate SBC, as highlighted in Table 1. Table 1 presents KSFs gleaned from the literature review of pertinent studies relating to SBC from 2015 to 2025. Keywords like “knowledge sharing”, “knowledge sharing features”, and “knowledge management” about the construction industry and sustainable construction were used in the search. Databases considered included Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct, etc. Only peer-reviewed “journals” and “conference” publications were considered. Although many papers were found, very few highlighted the KSFs. The studies were scrutinised and filtered based on the key literature on the subject, recency and context to suit the SACI. As a result, 24 of the most relevant papers that highlighted the features considered in this study were selected. Notably, the KSFs were the most highlighted in the literature in context. It was proposed that these features would be beneficial in advancing SBC adoption in SA. The following subsections discuss the key KSFs necessary to facilitate SBC adoption in South Africa.

2.2.1. Staff Training on Sustainable Practices

Achieving organisational sustainability goals and encouraging environmental responsibility require educating employees about sustainable practices. Effective teaching and training can lead to a shift in behaviour, increased knowledge, and active involvement in sustainability projects. According to [38], it is crucial to teach and train workers and subcontractors on construction projects so they fully comprehend and incorporate sustainability considerations into their everyday work, as this will alter their approach to sustainability. It was also advised that project managers and superintendents take the lead to encourage their subordinates and subcontractors to embrace using sustainable methods in both their everyday routines and construction operations [38]. In addition to helping businesses lessen their environmental effect, educating staff members on sustainability principles can result in financial savings, enhanced public perception, regulatory compliance and an increase in sustainable employability [3,39]. Employees are more likely to practice sustainable practices like waste reduction, energy saving, and sustainable procurement when they have the necessary information and abilities [40].

2.2.2. Mentoring Younger Professionals in Sustainable Practices

One of the most important ways to instil long-term environmental responsibility across construction organisations is to mentor younger professionals in sustainability [41,42]. Experienced professionals have a special opportunity—and duty—to mentor up-and-coming leaders in incorporating sustainable thinking into routine business and decision-making procedures as sustainability emerges as a fundamental corporate objective. In addition to technical knowledge, sustainability issues like resource depletion, climate change, and environmental justice call for ethical reasoning, teamwork, and leadership [43]. Through mentoring, seasoned professionals can impart these sophisticated abilities and perspectives to the upcoming generation of professionals [44]. It has a particularly significant effect on sustainability, where value-driven decision-making and context-specific knowledge are essential. Besides, ref. [45] established that mentoring is a crucial approach to helping construction artisans achieve sustainable development goals. Effective mentoship strategies include modelling sustainable behaviour, goal setting and reflection, interdisciplinary exposure, co-learning and feedback and so on [46,47,48]. According to research, mentoring promotes a sustainable organisational culture and improves professional development and engagement for both mentors and mentees [46].

2.2.3. Educational and Training Programs Upgrade

To satisfy the rising demand for infrastructure that is both energy-efficient and ecologically conscious, educational and training programs for sustainable building construction techniques must be upgraded. According to [49], the main means of encouraging and implementing sustainable construction practices are probably education and training in sustainable construction concepts and techniques. There is a need for continual curriculum development that aligns with the current trends in sustainability principles. For instance, comprehensive training on the use of sustainable materials, such as recycled steel, low-carbon concrete, and locally produced building supplies, must be a part of educational programs [3]. Professionals, contractors, engineers, architects, and workers must possess the abilities and know-how to implement sustainable methods as sustainability becomes a key factor in CI.

2.2.4. Integration of SBC into Professional Certification Programs

Integrating sustainability ideas into professional qualifications has become crucial for the workforce as concerns about resource conservation, energy efficiency, and environmental effects have grown. This integration guarantees that professionals have the information and abilities necessary to make a meaningful contribution to sustainable construction projects, reflecting a larger industry shift toward greener methods. It takes a thorough grasp of environmental implications, regulations, and standards in addition to technical expertise to integrate sustainability into construction methods. According to [50], incorporating technical competence within professional development criteria can improve the implementation of sustainable practices
Organisations and professional associations might demand technical proficiency in using sustainable design as a career paradigm progression through internal training and professional development [50]. Hence, integrating SBC concepts in professional certification aids in closing the gap by providing organised training in sustainable building techniques and assisting professionals in navigating the constantly changing landscape of green building norms and standards [3,51]. Professionals with certificates in sustainability are also better equipped to spearhead green building projects, guaranteeing adherence to ever-tougher environmental standards.

2.2.5. Information Hub or Repository for Sustainable Construction

An information hub for sustainable construction is an essential resource for fostering knowledge sharing, enhancing collaboration, and promoting the broad acceptance of green building practices [3]. To ensure that knowledge, best practices, and technology breakthroughs are effectively disseminated, a centralised information hub or repository can be extremely important [27]. For the public, researchers, policymakers, and even construction professionals, such a repository would be a go-to source for important information on sustainable building technologies, materials, rules, and case studies. By offering educational materials, case studies, market updates, and tools, such a hub can significantly contribute to hastening the transition to a built environment that is more ecologically friendly [52,53].

2.2.6. Content of SBC Training

It is imperative to evaluate the contents or core components of SBC training if implementation is to be successful. The curriculum of training should consider best practices and current developments [2]. Likewise, to be focus-driven in actualising SBC, training programs designed should accommodate principles of sustainability, green building certifications and standards, materials and resources, energy-efficient building design and technology, and waste management and recycling [9,54].

2.2.7. Collaboration with Foreign Companies for Knowledge Transfer

Working together with international businesses is a good way to share expertise and promote the use of SBC methods. These partnerships give local businesses access to cutting-edge equipment, education, and experience, all of which can greatly improve the calibre and sustainability of building projects [55]. Despite the difficulties, international collaborations are an essential aspect of the worldwide shift to sustainable building because of the advantages, which include environmental impact reduction and capacity creation. Fostering these partnerships will be essential to guaranteeing a more sustainable and equitable built environment globally and in SA, as the demand for sustainable buildings keeps rising. Similarly, international firms provide insights into global sustainability standards, aiding local compliance [56].

2.2.8. Promoting Local Green Products Through Research

Among the most crucial methods to advance sustainable building practices in SA is to use research to promote local green products. The CI may greatly lessen its effects on the environment, promote economic growth, and produce a more sustainable built environment by implementing locally sourced, sustainable materials and technologies [57]. Additionally, ref. [58] recommends using research and development to promote locally produced green products. Nonetheless, issues including exorbitant upfront expenses, low awareness, and inadequate research capabilities must be resolved [9]. Also, ref. [59] discovered that obstacles to sustainable construction include a dearth of research and development as well as inadequate instructional initiatives at the high school and college levels to encourage green practices. SA can lead the way in sustainable construction techniques throughout the African continent and unleash the potential of local green products with more investment in research and development and improved cooperation between researchers, policymakers, and industry players.

2.2.9. Sustainable Building Materials Awareness Creation

As concerns about sustainability around the world grow, more sustainable building materials (SBMs) are needed more urgently. These materials provide a route toward greener construction methods that can lessen the sector’s environmental impact since they are sourced and used in ways that limit their negative effects on the environment [9,60]. Notwithstanding the benefits of SBMs, their uptake in SA is still sluggish because of several obstacles, such as a lack of knowledge and comprehension among stakeholders, especially in the CI [9,16]. Consequently, increasing the use of SBMs requires raising awareness of their advantages, accessibility, and uses.

2.2.10. Creating Public Awareness for Sustainable Practices

The shift to a more sustainable built environment in SA requires raising public understanding of sustainable construction methods [3]. Increasing public knowledge of sustainable building methods is essential in SA to hasten adoption at all societal levels, from developers and homeowners to legislators [20]. Raising awareness through industry cooperation, government incentives, media campaigns, and education can promote the broad use of eco-friendly building techniques.

2.2.11. Raising Awareness of Green Building Products (GBPs)

The public must know about green construction since clients can only request GBPs if they are aware of their advantages [61]. Additionally, as recommended by [62], companies and the government could help by educating the public concerning the benefits of green buildings and helping them avoid high-carbon lifestyles. “The public ought to know the specifics about these GBPs. Awareness of these practices may significantly facilitate the desire to go green. It may also influence the development of a general appreciation for green facilities amongst the public” ([63], p. 76). To improve sustainability, construction firms in developing nations like SA need to use this tactic. A lack of knowledge about green construction principles and advantages may hinder investment in green products since the public may not recognise their worth [63].

2.2.12. Public Awareness of Environmental Issues

In pursuing a broader adoption of green building methods for sustainability, public awareness of the environmental problems can be extremely important [64]. According to Wang et al. [65], adopting sustainable practices requires public awareness of environmental challenges and an understanding of green construction criteria. Furthermore, as anyone from a wide range of professional backgrounds can begin construction work, the knowledge of technocrats from built environment fields like design, engineering, and land management should not be the only ones interested in green building [63].
Table 1. Knowledge sharing features (KSF) for SBC implementation.
Table 1. Knowledge sharing features (KSF) for SBC implementation.
Measuring VariablesCitations
Staff training on sustainable practices[37,66,67]
Mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices[43,51,66,67,68]
Upgrade of educational and training programs to best practices[68,69,70]
Sustainable building construction integration in professional certifications[50,70]
Content of SBC training[50,70,71]
Information hub or repository for sustainable construction[70,72]
Cooperation for knowledge transfer with foreign organisations[73,74,75]
Using research to promote local green products[71,76]
Creating awareness of Sustainable building materials[65,71,77,78]
Creating public awareness for sustainable practices[63,65,79]
Awareness creation of green building products/innovations[36,65,70,80]
Public awareness of environmental issues[20,65]

3. Methods

Figure 1 shows the methodological steps followed in this study. This study examined the Knowledge Sharing Features (KSF) for effectively adopting SBC in SA. The variables that most closely matched the study’s goals were taken from a review of previous research. The study employed a quantitative method utilising a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was categorised into two parts. Part A included background information about the participants. Part B, on the other hand, included the KSF with questions using a “5-point Likert scale” with 1 for “no extent”, 2 for “low extent”, 3 for “moderate extent”, 4 for “high extent”, and 5 for “very high extent”. A 5-point Likert scale was used because of its capacity to improve validity and dependability and reduce response bias [81]. Likewise, neutral midpoints allowed participants to express moderate opinions rather than being pressured into making extreme decisions [82]. The responders were asked, “To what extent does each KSF influence SBC implementation?”. Table 1 lists the variables used in the questionnaire and the literature references.
Before the final formulation of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted among ten academic respondents with experience in construction. Uncertain questions and confusing language that could make it difficult for respondents to answer the questions were resolved and adjusted with the help of the pilot test, which also helped to examine the selected factors [83]. Likewise, following content validation of the measuring instrument, the authors received an ethical clearance certificate from the University of Johannesburg. The participants’ agreement to participate in the research was obtained, and voluntary participation was emphasised.
The study started with a random sampling technique but eventually switched to convenience sampling due to difficulty and impracticality in obtaining responses from participants across SA within the study’s time frame. Firstly, the questionnaire was circulated to the built environment professional bodies across SA, like the “South African Council for the Project and Construction Management Profession (SACPCMP)”, the “South African Council for the Quantity Surveying Profession (SACQSP)” and so on. However, due to the limited responses, the study was predominantly conducted in Gauteng province using a Convenience sampling technique. With the convenience sampling technique, the field study achieved a 70% response rate out of 400 circulated questionnaires. According to [84], this strategy is advantageous when researching populations that are difficult to access or when resources and time are scarce. Additionally, it is helpful when randomising is difficult [85]. Likewise, according to [61], convenience sampling can be used to create objectives and hypotheses for use in more comprehensive research. Thus, this sampling strategy was selected because the information was acquired using respondents’ perceptions, and the researchers sought to develop hypotheses that might be further investigated in subsequent studies [84,86].
Although convenience sampling has been criticised for bias, this study took a few steps to tackle the issues of generalisability and prejudice. Firstly, the researchers made sure that participants who were competent or experienced answered the surveys. Additionally, the respondents admitted that they understood the topic and the information on the questionnaire. Professionals with backgrounds in “project management”, “construction management”, “civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering”, “quantity surveying”, “architecture”, and “town and regional/urban planning” were among those who responded. Also, the selection of Gauteng province helped generalisability. Gauteng was chosen because it is home to many building operations and has about 333,000 construction experts [5,87]. Major cities like Johannesburg and Pretoria are in Gauteng. With more than 33.9% of the GDP coming from it, it is the economic hub and engine of the country [11,88].
On another note, this study’s sample size of 281 was ideal, more than sufficient for the analysis, and less likely to produce unfavourable results [88]. Moreover, the researchers dispersed the questionnaire over several domains and locations at various times to obtain a representative sample of the target population [86]. Google Forms and emails were used for the electronic distribution of the survey. A Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was employed on the questionnaire measuring variables, and was found suitable.
The analysis used the “Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 29”. Four-stage data analysis was adopted, like [15]. However, the procedure, as shown in Figure 1, was altered to meet the study’s goals. The Shapiro–Wilk test, presented in Table 2, was used to determine if the data at the first stage were regularly distributed. Cronbach’s alpha was also used to evaluate the questionnaire’s reliability. Reliability improves as the value increases between 0 and 1 [88]. As a result, the study’s measuring variables obtained an alpha value of 0.956, demonstrating dependability/reliability. The discovered KSFs were ranked in the second stage according to the respondents’ perceived relevance level using the mean item score (MIS). This was carried out concurrently with the KSF standard deviation calculation. According to [89,90,91], the mean is a robust technique that can be used to make assumptions even in non-parametric tests, mainly where Likert-type data is used and the sample size is more than sufficient for the analysis. Similarly, ref. [90] affirmed that parametric and non-parametric methods often yield similar results with large sample sizes and similar distributions.
In the third stage, the statistically significant difference in the participants’ responses according to their organisational sectors was ascertained using a non-parametric test (Kruskal–Wallis H-test). Likewise, the fourth stage captures PCA, which aided in emphasising the structure of the relationships between each variable and the respondents and reduced the datasets of KSF into components [92]. The PCA captures the highest possible variance in the data and reveals underlying patterns and relationships [88].

4. Results

4.1. Demographics

Figure 2 shows the study participants’ educational background. Figure 2 portrays that many responses came from participants with “Honours/B.Tech degrees”, “Master’s degrees”, and “Bachelor’s degrees”. However, those with “National diploma” and “Doctorate” were ranked lowest. The findings show that the respondents are academically qualified to answer the survey.
Likewise, Figure 3 reveals the participants’ professions. Figure 3 shows that the ranking of the professions from top to lowest includes “construction management”, “engineering”, “quantity surveying”, “project management”, “architecture”, “town and urban/regional planning” and “Other”. These results indicate that the study’s conclusions might most apply to the engineering and construction sector rather than architecture and urban planning in the built environment.
Also, Figure 4 demonstrates that many of the replies were from sectors like consulting, contracting, and government agencies. Hence, respondents from the “private sector” were minimal. These findings confirm that consulting, contracting, and the public sector consistently outperform the client/private sector regarding sustainability responses. These results correspond with [93], who found comparable outcomes for the organisational category.
Figure 5 further portrays the demographics concerning the respondents’ industrial experience. Those with “6 to 10 years”, “1 to 5 years”, “11 to 15 years”, and “16 to 20 years” were the top four ranked. On the other hand, “less than 12 months” and “more than 30 years” were the penultimate and lowest ranked. The findings confirm that the respondents have the requisite experience and are qualified to participate in the study.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics of KSF

Table 2 indicates the descriptive analysis results of KSF for SBC deployment. Table 2 demonstrates that all the variables had mean (M) values between 4.09 and 4.38. According to [94], this shows the statistical significance of every variable at the 3.0 mean level in a five-point Likert Scale.
However, among the top five variables rated were the “mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices” (M = 4.38), “public awareness of environmental issues” (M = 4.38), “raising awareness of green building goods/products” (M = 4.30), “staff training on sustainable practices” (M = 4.28), and “educational and training programs upgrade” (M = 4.27).
Likewise, the mean responses from organisational sectors were compared. The top five ranked variables from consulting firms included “mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices”, “staff training on sustainable practices”, “public awareness of environmental issues”, “SBC integration in professional certifications”, and “raising awareness of green building products”. Similarly, from contracting firms, the five rated variables were “mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices”, “public awareness of environmental issues”, “Information hub or repository for sustainable construction”, “awareness creation of green building products”, and “SBC integration in professional certifications”. For government agencies, the top-rated include “mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices”, “educational and training programs upgrade”, “public awareness of environmental issues”, “education on sustainable practices among staff”, and “sustainable building materials awareness creation”. For, private sector, the top-rated included “public awareness of environmental issues”, “raising awareness of green building products”, “educational and training programs upgrade”, “staff training on sustainable practices”, and “creating public awareness for sustainable practices”.
Additionally, Table 3 shows that the average mean value for all responders is 4.22. Similarly, regarding “consulting firm”, “contracting firm”, “government agencies”, and “private sector”, the average means are 4.24, 4.27, 4.18, and 4.15, respectively. Similarly, based on the respondents’ organisational sectors, the K-W H-test showcased a significant difference in respondents’ perceptions of the variable “mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices” (p-value 0.047 @0.05 threshold). Additionally, the internal consistency of the measurement variables and the high reliability of the study instrument are depicted by the Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.956.

4.3. PCA for KSF

PCA captured the highest possible variance in the data and revealed the underlying patterns and relationships within KSF that influence SBC. The factorability test revealed that the twelve variables were sufficient. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sample adequacy test result (0.930) was more than the 0.6 minimum required to proceed with factor analysis [88], as shown in Table 4. The 0.001 outcome of Bartlett’s test of sphericity further supported factorability. Additionally, the variables were rotated using the varimax rotation technique, and PCA was employed for the extraction procedure.
Table 5 indicates the total variance explained (TVE) and communalities results. Table 5 reveals that one principal component factor achieved an eigenvalue above one (8.157), having a variance of 67.976 overall, above the 50% required criterion [95]. The communalities result in Table 5 indicate that all the extraction values above the 0.5 cutoff demonstrate the appropriateness of the data and the items’ goodness of fit within each component factor [88]. Nevertheless, the scree plot in Figure 6 substantiates the extraction of one component factor. It shows a considerable gap after the first component factor, after which the remaining components with eigenvalues less than one gradually wander off.
Likewise, Table 6 presents the component matrix results, which also categorise the factor loadings of the KSF variables in the extracted component in their order of importance. The extracted component was named Green Education Initiative and Eco-Awareness Alliance. This name was supported by [96,97], who affirmed that raising environmental consciousness among all people boosts overall production, lowers costs, and increases employee productivity and efficiency, as well as sustainability.
As shown in Table 6, this comprised “creating public raise environmental awareness for sustainable practices” (0.882), “content of SBC training” (0.872), “raising awareness of GBPs” (0.851), “SBC integration in professional certifications” (0.844), “Information hub or repository for sustainable construction” (0.836), “mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices” (0.830), “sustainable building materials awareness creation” (0.827), “educational and training programs upgrade” (0.813), “cooperation with international companies for transference of knowledge” (0.801), “using research to promote local GBPs” (0.796), “awareness of environmental issues among the public” (0.770), and “staff training on sustainable practices” (0.764).

5. Discussion

The results of Table 2’s descriptive statistics showed that critical knowledge sharing features (KSF) to deploy SBC effectively included “mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices”, “public awareness of environmental issues”, “raising awareness of GBPs”, “staff training on sustainable practices”, and “educational and training programs upgrade”. Out of the twelve variables, these were the top five, respectively. Nevertheless, the mean results of the twelve variables which exceed the 3.0 threshold indicate that all the variables are significant [94]. This implies that they all correspond with the hypothesis that they are critical for advancing SBC in SA.
The findings about “mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices” and “public awareness of environmental issues”, which were both ranked first, strongly support the study’s hypothesis. Mentoring younger professionals is crucial to instilling long-term environmental responsibility across construction firms [42]. Similarly, the findings align with [41], who suggested youth mentorship as a crucial strategic step in fostering social integrity and sustainability. The findings also corroborate those of [43] in Finland, which highlights that mentoring is an essential part of sustainability, allowing past, present, and future phenomena related to work life to be addressed. The study [43] also emphasised the need for sound leadership through mentoring for tackling sustainability issues. Experienced professionals can teach the upcoming generation the required advanced skills and viewpoints through mentorship [44]. Also, the results concerning “public awareness of environmental issues” are consistent with [64,65]. In China, ref. [65] emphasised the criticality of making the public aware of environmental issues and the need to invest in sustainable/green buildings. Likewise, ref. [64] discovered that the shift to green building in the USA was greatly aided by the public’s increased knowledge of environmental issues.
The findings on “awareness creation of green building products” are consistent with those of [61,63], who confirmed that this is a key strategy for enhancing green building in developing nations. On the other hand, the finding regarding “education on sustainable practices among staff” as a key component is consistent with [63]. The details of these GBPs should be made public, and the desire to go green may be greatly aided by awareness of these products [63].
Besides, the findings on “educational and training programs upgrade” support the assertion made by [49,59]. According to [59], one of the primary obstacles to sustainable construction is the scarcity of adequate educational programs at the high school and college levels that promote green building practices. Similarly, ref. [59] suggests that the primary means of encouraging and implementing sustainable construction practices is likely education and training in sustainable construction concepts and techniques.
Furthermore, the PCA results confirmed “Green Education Initiative and Eco-Awareness Alliance” as the principal component for advancing SBC in SA. The findings also corroborate [94], who posit that to solve problems like resource scarcity, climate change, and environmental degradation, education for sustainable development (ESD) gives people the attitudes, information, and abilities they need to encourage sustainable behaviours. Consequently, this principal component revealed that creating public awareness for sustainable practices is a top factor. This indicates that raising awareness is vital to accelerating SBC adoption at all societal levels, from legislators to developers and homeowners in SA [3,20]. Similarly, the component revealed the content of sustainable building construction training as key to ensuring that SBC is advanced and implemented in SA. This suggests that the contents of training should accommodate current trends and best practices [2]. The finding regarding the awareness creation of green building products in this component further solidifies the necessity of advertising these products and their benefits as opposed to conventional approaches [63]. Furthermore, SBC integration in professional certifications was crucial for this component. This confirms that incorporating technical competence on sustainable building principles within professional development criteria can improve the adoption of sustainable practices [50].

General Practical Implications and Recommendations of the Study

This study’s useful implications stem from its ability to provide policymakers and stakeholders with the knowledge of the critical KSF they need to effectively steer reform initiatives. The study recommends special emphasis on sustainability education and awareness among construction practitioners and the public. This may be achieved through workshops, online training courses, frequent sustainability communications (emails and newsletters, etc.), and interactive initiatives like sustainability champions or green teams and so on. Public awareness of sustainability practices and green products can also be enhanced through partnerships with local companies, educational institutions and non-governmental organisations to spread the message and reach various audiences. In other words, a public-private partnership is highly recommended. To co-develop and deliver training, the Green Building Council South Africa (GBCSA), academic institutions, and construction companies must work together.
The study suggests mandating SBC competencies in built environment certificates. For instance, requiring sustainable construction content in SACPCMP, the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) and the CIDB registration framework. SBC integration into professional certifications will accelerate the green transition as it will guarantee a trained workforce that can meet green/sustainable building regulations and national climate targets. For example, the Department of Public Works Green Building Policy Framework and the National Climate Change Response Strategy necessitate skilled professionals in SBC to support implementation [98,99]. Therefore, if the adoption of SBC will accelerate in SA, the government should demand SBC-Certified professionals for public infrastructure and housing projects. This will enable Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) housing upgrades in SA, aligning with sustainable development agendas. Besides, hiring experts with SBC certification among construction organisations will improve construction quality, increase client trust, and improve the company’s reputation.
Likewise, the study emphasised the vitality of the quality of content for SBC training. The foundation of SBC training rests on high-quality information. Training that includes real-world case studies, simulations, and local project data will help learners translate theory into practice. Key features like sustainable resource use, waste minimisation, and eco-friendly materials and so on must be embedded in training content to foster practical competence [9]. Quality content will assist learners to not only comprehend the concepts but also prepare them to apply them sensibly and practically. Additionally, reliable and consistent information encourages industry standards, guaranteeing that procedures are accepted and understood universally. Additionally, quality training content necessitates that solutions are tailored for various climates, cultural norms, and economic situations.
The study also emphasised mentoring of younger professionals. SACI faces a shortage of skilled professionals, especially in sustainable practices. Construction firms should establish a structured mentorship program with environmental goals. Structured mentorship programs will assist in the transfer of critical knowledge from experienced professionals to emerging talent, ensuring continuity and innovation in green or sustainable building methods. A structured mentorship program will support industry transformation in SACI, which is fraught with youth unemployment at 45.5% [100]. Therefore, mentoring younger professionals will foster career development, enhance practical competence, knowledge transfer and so on.
Additionally, “Cooperation with international companies for knowledge transfer” can lead to informed policy reform and innovation incentives to align with what works in global contexts. International firms may be required by policy to create local supply networks, form joint ventures and transfer technology. Collaboration for knowledge transfer will foster sustainable building and digital construction. It provides opportunities for creating centres of excellence with local universities, the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB). Likewise, knowledge transfer provisions requiring foreign companies to agree to training, localisation, and local subcontractors should be incorporated into public procurement contracts. For the CI, this knowledge-sharing feature fosters access to advanced construction technologies and workforce upskilling, enhances quality and safety standards, and can increase project efficiency and competitiveness.
Moreover, the findings regarding the principal component/cluster “Green Education Initiative and Eco-Awareness Alliance” will contribute to improving skill development and workforce readiness. Implementing sustainable practices is easier for a workforce that has received training from the Green Education Initiative [96]. This emphasises how crucial it is for corporations, civil society organisations, legislators, and educators to work together to overcome obstacles, including inflexible curricula, opposition to change, and unequal financing and resources. Similarly, eco-awareness alliance campaigns will promote more rigorous compliance with environmental regulations and guidelines such as the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) regulations, environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and so on [5]. Furthermore, adherence to the principal component will enhance the construction companies’ public image and sustainability credentials. For instance, green certifications can become a selling point, attracting eco-conscious investors and clients. It will also align with national and international green goals like SA’s Just Transition Framework and SDGs [101]. Finally, it can lead to cultural and behavioural change, causing a shift from a temporary gain mindset to long-term sustainability.

6. Conclusions

This study assessed the KSF for deploying SBC. Twelve variables most relevant to SA were identified from the extant literature. These variables were evaluated with a four-stage data analysis methodology, which comprised “validation and reliability of the research instrument”, “mean ranking”, “Kruskal–Wallis H-test”, and PCA. Based on the findings of the study, the following observations were noted.
•
Every variable met the required reliability standards and underwent validation. Given that the mean item scores in a 5-point rating were high (above 4.00), the results demonstrated the importance of every feature.
•
The results show that the consulting sector has advanced in awareness compared to other sectors, especially the public and private sectors. Thus, the study suggests prioritising awareness creation in these sectors to facilitate adoption in SA.
•
The key KSF for deploying SBC in South Africa have not been examined in any research. It is also one of the more recent studies carried out in SA that clarifies the components required for the successful deployment of SBC.
•
PCA was used to extract a key component/cluster, the Green Education Initiative and Eco-Awareness Alliance. This cluster disclosed crucial features like “creating public awareness for sustainable practices”, “content of SBC training, raising awareness of GBPs”, “SBC integration in professional certifications”, “mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices” and so on. Consequently, this research contributes to the body of knowledge. This research, therefore, confirms the Green Education Initiative and the Eco-Awareness Alliance as a key cluster that will propel SA’s adoption of SBC.
•
This study fosters and recommends the collaboration of CI practitioners, government, educational institutions and NGOs in advocating for knowledge sharing of SBC initiatives in SA. To assist construction stakeholders in promoting knowledge sharing for a sustainable built environment, it is advised to carefully consider the key knowledge sharing characteristics identified in this study.
The study has some Limitations. The research was constrained to Gauteng, South Africa. As a result, the results might not apply to other parts of the nation or to developing nations. Additional research involving data from several SA provinces might be conducted for a more complete picture, improving the findings’ generalisability. Nevertheless, because the knowledge sharing challenges are the same for most African developing countries, there is a good indication that the findings may benefit other developing nations. Besides, the study’s results can best be applied to the engineering and construction sector, which had the greatest respondents in the survey. Similarly, the use of convenience sampling, considering the difficulty in the availability and accessibility of the required professionals, may suggest some bias in representation. Hence, future studies with other sampling techniques, like stratified and random sampling, are recommended. Furthermore, future studies using “confirmatory factor analysis”, “structural equation modelling or path analysis” are recommended. Nevertheless, the authors want to close this gap in future research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.E.E. and C.O.A.; methodology, C.E.E., C.O.A. and O.A.O.; writing—original draft preparation, C.E.E.; writing—review and editing, C.E.E., C.O.A. and O.A.O.; supervision, C.O.A. and O.A.O.; funding acquisition, C.E.E., C.O.A. and O.A.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the South African National Research Foundation Scholarship, grant number PMDS2205036000, and the APC was funded by Walter Sisulu University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment Ethics Committee, University of Johannesburg, SA. Ethical clearance number: UJ_FEBE_FEPC_00714.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CIConstruction Industry
GBPsGreen Building Products
KSFKnowledge Sharing Features
KMOKaiser Meyer Olkin
PCAPrincipal Component Analysis
SASouth Africa
SACISouth African Construction Industry
SBCSustainable Building Construction
SDGsSustainable Development Goals

References

  1. Adebowale, O.J.; Agumba, J.N. Applications of augmented reality for construction productivity improvement: A systematic review. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2024, 13, 479–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aliu, J.; Emere, C.; Oguntona, O. Mapping smart city and industry 4.0 research in construction-related studies. Balt. J. Real Estate Econ. Constr. Manag. 2024, 12, 258–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Emere, C.E. An Integrated Sustainable Building Construction Model for Project Delivery in South Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  4. Omopariola, E.D.; Olanrewaju, O.I.; Albert, I.; Oke, A.E.; Ibiyemi, S.B. Sustainable construction in the Nigerian construction industry: Unsustainable practices, barriers and strategies. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2022, 22, 1158–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Emere, C.E.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Oguntona, O.A. Critical Regulatory Characteristics for Sustainable Building Construction in South Africa. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (2025). Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2024/2025. 2025. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/yc6rnvp8 (accessed on 11 April 2025).
  7. Schröpfer, V.L.M.; Tah, J.; Kurul, E. Mapping the knowledge flow in sustainable construction project teams using social network analysis. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 229–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tabassi, A.A.; Roufechaei, K.M.; Ramli, M.; Bakar, A.H.A.; Ismail, R.; Pakir, A.H.K. Leadership competencies of sustainable construction project managers. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 124, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Emere, C.E.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Thwala, W.D.; Akinradewo, O.I. A principal component analysis of sustainable building construction features for project delivery in South Africa. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Krizmane, M.; Slihte, S.; Borodinecs, A. Key criteria across existing sustainable building rating tools. Energy Procedia 2016, 96, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Emere, C.E.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Oguntona, O.A. Critical project delivery strategies for sustainable building construction in South Africa. Front. Built Environ. 2025, 11, 1566468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Emere, C.E.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Oguntona, O.A.; Ogunbayo, B.F. A principal component analysis of corporate dispositions for sustainable building construction in South Africa. Front. Built Environ. 2024, 10, 1447621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Windapo, A.; Osborne, J.; Umeokafor, N. Barriers to knowledge management beyond organisational boundaries in the South African construction sector. In International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 1033–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Simpeh, E.K.; Smallwood, J.J. An integrated model for predicting the probability of adoption of green building in South Africa. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2020, 18, 1927–1950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aghimien, D.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Thwala, W.D. Microscoping the challenges of sustainable construction in developing countries. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2019, 17, 1110–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Marsh, R.J.; Brent, A.C.; De Kock, I.H. Understanding the barriers and drivers of sustainable construction adoption and implementation in South Africa: A quantitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model. J. South Afr. Inst. Civ. Eng. = J. Van Die Suid-Afr. Inst. Van Siviele Ingenieurswese 2021, 63, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Agyepong, A.O.; Nhamo, G. Green procurement in South Africa: Perspectives on legislative provisions in metropolitan municipalities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 19, 2457–2474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Saad, M. Impediments to the implementation of green buildings in South Africa. In Proceedings of the 9th CIDB Postgraduate Conference, Emerging Trends in Construction Organisational Practices and Project Management Knowledge Area, Cape Town, South Africa, 2–4 February 2016. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bordass, W.; Leaman, A. A new professionalism: Remedy or fantasy? Guest editorial for new professionalism. Build. Res. Inf. J. 2013, 41, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tang, W.; Azman, M. Enhancing environmental awareness through public awareness programs. J. Energy Environ. Policy Options 2024, 7, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
  21. Arsawan, I.W.E.; Koval, V.; Rajiani, I.; Rustiarini, N.W.; Supartha, W.G.; Suryantini, N.P.S. Leveraging knowledge sharing and innovation culture into SMEs’ sustainable competitive advantage. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2022, 71, 405–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gluch, P.; Johansson, K.; Räisänen, C. Knowledge sharing and learning across community boundaries in an arena for energy efficient buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Li, R.Y.M.; Tang, B.; Chau, K.W. Sustainable construction safety knowledge sharing: A partial least squares-structural equation modelling and a feedforward neural network approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, S.; Abbas, J.; Sial, M.S.; Álvarez-Otero, S.; Cioca, L.I. Achieving green innovation and sustainable development goals through green knowledge management: Moderating role of organizational green culture. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Masia, T.; Kajimo-Shakantu, K.; Opawole, A. A case study on the implementation of green building construction in Gauteng province, South Africa. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2020, 31, 602–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zungu, Z. Constraints and Enablers of Effective Knowledge Sharing Practices of South African Construction Project Managers. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  27. Marsh, R.J.; Brent, A.C.; De Kock, I.H. An integrative review of the potential barriers to and drivers of adopting and implementing sustainable construction in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2020, 31, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Aigbavboa, C.; Ohiomah, I.; Zwane, T. Sustainable construction practices: “A lazy view” of construction professionals in the South African construction industry. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 3003–3010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Moghayedi, A.; Phiri, C.; Ellmann, A.M. Improving sustainability of affordable housing using innovative technologies: Case study of SIAH-Livable. Sci. Afr. 2023, 21, e01819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. SANS 10400-XA; South African National Standards. SAB Standards Division: Pretoria, South Africa, 2011. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/mr2d6mca (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  31. Emere, C.; Aigbavboa, C.; Thwala, D. A principal component analysis of regulatory environment features for sustainable building construction in South Africa. J. Constr. Proj. Manag. Innov. 2023, 13, 17–32. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ipe, M. Knowledge sharing in organisations: A conceptual framework. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2003, 2, 337–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Abdeldayem, W.M.M. Exploring Students’ Perception on Feasibility of Applying an Interactive Classroom Mind Mapping Technique to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Management. J. Glob. Sci. Res. 2020, 5, 1006–1023. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chen, X.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, X.; He, Q. Green transformational leadership and green innovation in megaprojects: Is green knowledge sharing a missing link? Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2025, 32, 194–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Singh, R.K.; Mathiyazhagan, K.; Gunasekaran, A. Advancing towards sustainable and net-zero supply chains: A comprehensive analysis of knowledge capabilities and industry dynamism. J. Knowl. Manag. 2025, 29, 148–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ma, L.; Ali, A.; Shahzad, M.; Khan, A. Factors of green innovation: The role of dynamic capabilities and knowledge sharing through green creativity. Kybernetes 2025, 54, 54–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ogunmakinde, O.E.; Egbelakin, T.; Sher, W.; Omotayo, T.; Ogunnusi, M. Establishing the limitations of sustainable construction in developing countries: A systematic literature review using PRISMA. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2024, 13, 609–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ahn, Y.H.; Pearce, A.R.; Wang, Y.; Wang, G. Drivers and barriers of sustainable design and construction: The perception of green building experience. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2013, 4, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tonnon, S.C.; Van Der Veen, R.; De Kruif, A.T.C.; Robroek, S.J.; Van Der Ploeg, H.P.; Proper, K.I.; Van Der Beek, A.J. Strategies of employees in the construction industry to increase their sustainable employability. Work 2018, 59, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Alkhaddar, R.; Wooder, T.; Sertyesilisik, B.; Tunstall, A. Deep learning approach’s effectiveness on sustainability improvement in the UK construction industry. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2022, 23, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Saeed, B.B.; Mgbemena, H.; Wu, S.Y.; Wang, Y. Youth Mentoring: A Strategic Move Towards Sustainability. (Dissertation). 2009. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/59m2kz3c (accessed on 10 April 2024).
  42. Lester, E. Mentorship as a Key to a Sustainable Future for the Built Environment. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Construction Futures, Wolverhampton, UK, 19–20 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
  43. Maunula, M.; Maunumäki, M.; Lähdesmäki, S. The Connection between Mentoring, Continuous Learning and Sustainability. Athens J. Educ. 2025, 12, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lofthouse, R.M. Best practices in mentoring for teacher and leader development. Int. J. Mentor. Coach. Educ. 2016, 5, 158–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ebekozien, A.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Samsurijan, M.S.; Aliu, J.; Nwaole, A.N.C. Mentorship as a tool for improving construction artisans’ skills to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 8 via a qualitative approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2024, 31, 303–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ehrich, L.C.; Hansford, B.; Tennent, L. Formal mentoring programs in education and other professions: A review of the literature. Educ. Adm. Q. 2004, 40, 518–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lunsford, L.G.; Crisp, G.; Dolan, E.L.; Wuetherick, B. Mentoring in higher education. SAGE Handb. Mentor. 2017, 20, 316–334. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tilbury, D. Education for Sustainable Development: An Expert Review of Processes and Learning. 2011. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000191442 (accessed on 12 April 2024).
  49. Manoliadis, O.; Tsolas, I.; Nakou, A. Sustainable construction and drivers of change in Greece: A Delphi study. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006, 24, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Murtagh, N.; Roberts, A.; Hind, R. The relationship between motivations of architectural designers and environmentally sustainable construction design. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2016, 34, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Feijão, D.; Reis, C.; Marques, M.C. Comparative analysis of sustainable building certification processes. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 96, 110401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Peters, D.; Lossau, N. DRIVER: Building a sustainable infrastructure for global repositories. Electron. Libr. 2011, 29, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Moyo, S.; Fonou-Dombeu, J.V. Architecture of a Semantic Repository of Green Economy Data in South Africa. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Advances in Big Data, Computing and Data Communication Systems (icABCD), Winterton, South Africa, 5–6 August 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Khader, A. Identifying the Knowledge Gap: Implementing Sustainable Green Building Materials in Qatar. Master’s Thesis, Dublin Business School, Dublin, Ireland, 2024. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10788/4622 (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  55. Seriki, O. Knowledge Transfer in the African Construction Sector: The CSR and Sustainable Development Nexus. In The Future of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance; Idowu, S., Schmidpeter, R., Zu, L., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dosumu, O.; Aigbavboa, C. Drivers and effects of sustainable construction in the South African construction industry. Acta Structilia 2021, 28, 78–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Venter, M.; Baur, P.; Khosa, T.V.; Chitambala, C.; Swanepoel, E.; Maimele, S.O.; Rashied, N.; Eastcott-Layton, M.T.; Wheeler, L.; Kanye, M.; et al. Promoting Sustainable Local Economic Development Initiatives: Case Studies; AOSIS: Cape Town, South Africa, 2022; p. 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Abidin, N.Z.; Powmya, A. Perceptions on motivating factors and future prospects of green construction in Oman. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 7, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Arif, M.; Egbu, C.; Haleem, A.; Kulonda, D.; Khalfan, M. State of green construction in India: Drivers and challenges. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2009, 7, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Adebowale, O.J.; Agumba, J.N. Sustainable building materials utilisation in the construction sector and the implications on labour productivity. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Qian, Q.K.; Chan, E.H. Government measures needed to promote building energy efficiency (BEE) in China. Facilities 2010, 28, 564–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, J.Y.; Low, S.P.; He, X. Green practices in the Chinese building industry: Drivers and impediments. J. Technol. Manag. China 2012, 7, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kalua, A. Economic sustainability of green building practices in the least developed countries. J. Civ. Eng. Constr. Technol. 2015, 6, 71–79. [Google Scholar]
  64. Korkmaz, S.; Riley, D.; Horman, M. Piloting evaluation metrics for sustainable high-performance building project delivery. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 877–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, W.; Zhang, S.; Pasquire, C. Factors for the adoption of green building specifications in China. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2018, 36, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ershadi, M.; Jefferies, M.; Davis, P.; Mojtahedi, M. Barriers to achieving sustainable construction project procurement in the private sector. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2021, 3, 100125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Toriola-Coker, L.O.; Alaka, H.; Bello, W.A.; Ajayi, S.; Adeniyi, A.; Olopade, S.O. Sustainability barriers in Nigeria construction practice. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 1036, p. 012023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tengan, C. Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Model. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  69. Aktas, B.; Ozorhon, B. Green building certification process of existing buildings in developing countries: Cases from Turkey. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 05015002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oguntona, O.A.; Akinradewo, O.I.; Ramorwalo, D.L.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Thwala, W.D. Benefits and drivers of implementing green building projects in South Africa. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1378, 032038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Isang, I.W.; Ebiloma, D.O.; Ukpong, E. Stakeholders’ engagement for advancing a sustainable Nigerian construction industry: A sustainable development goal-driven approach. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Masa’deh, R.E.; Obeidat, B.Y.; Tarhini, A. A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance: A structural equation modelling approach. J. Manag. Dev. 2016, 35, 681–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hope, A. Creating sustainable cities through knowledge exchange: A case study of knowledge transfer partnerships. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2016, 17, 796–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Barbieri, N.; Dal Negro, L.; Ghisetti, C.; Mancinelli, S.; Marzucchi, A.; Mazzanti, M.; Tagliapietra, S.; Zoboli, R. Green-oriented Knowledge Transfers in global markets: Technologies, capabilities, institutions (No. 1117). SEEDS Sustain. Environ. Econ. Dyn. Stud. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  75. Powmya, A.; Abidin, N.Z.; Azizi, N.S.M. Strategising contractor firms to deliver green construction projects: A conceptual framework. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 601, p. 012027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Saleh, M.S.; Alalouch, C. Towards sustainable construction in Oman: Challenges & opportunities. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hussain, A.; Kamal, M.A. Energy efficient sustainable building materials: An overview. In Key Engineering Materials; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Bäch, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 650, pp. 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kumar, A.; Chani, P.S.; Deoliya, R. Low embodied energy, sustainable building materials and technologies. In Key Engineering Materials; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Bäch, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 650, pp. 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jaradat, H.; Alshboul, O.A.M.; Obeidat, I.M.; Zoubi, M.K. Green building, carbon emission, and environmental sustainability of construction industry in Jordan: Awareness, actions and barriers. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2024, 15, 102441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Arfi, W.B.; Hikkerova, L.; Sahut, J.M. External knowledge sources, green innovation and performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2018, 129, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kusmaryono, I.; Wijayanti, D.; Maharani, H.R. Number of Response Options, Reliability, Validity, and Potential Bias in the Use of the Likert Scale Education and Social Science Research: A Literature Review. Int. J. Educ. Methodol. 2022, 8, 625–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yamashita, T.; Millar, R.J. Likert Scale. In Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging; Gu, D., Dupre, M.E., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach; 4th edition international student edition; SAGE: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  84. Stratton, S.J. Population research: Convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital Disaster Med. 2021, 36, 373–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Etikan, I.; Musa, S.A.; Alkassim, R.S. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 2016, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Golzar, J.; Noor, S.; Tajik, O. Convenience Sampling. Int. J. Educ. Lang. Stud. 2022, 1, 72–77. [Google Scholar]
  87. South African Government. Provinces. Available online: https://www.gov.za/provinces (accessed on 14 March 2025).
  88. Pallant, J. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step-by-Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS; McGraw-Hill Education: Maidenhead, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  89. Mircioiu, C.; Atkinson, J. A comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods applied to a Likert scale. Pharmacy 2010, 5, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Norman, G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2010, 15, 625–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Altman, D.G.; Bland, J.M. Parametric v non-parametric methods for data analysis. Bmj 2009, 338, a3167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Tafazzoli, M. Accelerating the green movement: Major barriers to sustainable construction. In Proceedings of the 54th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 18–21 April 2018; pp. 314–321. [Google Scholar]
  93. Tunji-Olayeni, P.; Kajimo-Shakantu, K.; Ayodele, T.O.; Babalola, O. Promoting construction for sustainability transformation: The perspective of institutional theory. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kothari, C.; Garg, G. Research Methodology; New Age International Publishers: New Delhi, India, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  95. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  96. Yadav, S. Education for Sustainable Awareness with Integrating Eco Awareness into Educational Curricula: Strategies and Challenges. In Exploring Pillars of Sustainability for Modern Age Improvements; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PN, USA, 2025; pp. 103–122. [Google Scholar]
  97. Joshi, K.; Bhrambhatt, V. Investigating Eco-Awareness and Green Human Resource Management: A Correlational Study on Sustainability and Workplace Performance. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol. 2024, 9, 1296–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. DPW Green Building Policy. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/49hzp9ma (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  99. National Climate Change Response. Available online: https://www.dffe.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/national_climatechange_response_whitepaper.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  100. Mongane, N. The Importance of Structured Mentorship Programs in the South African Construction Industry. 2024. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/2z2fjv4c (accessed on 19 June 2025).
  101. A Presidential Climate Commission Report. A FRAMEWORK for a Just Transition in South Africa. Available online: https://ti-823nyurl.com/4jufp7t2 (accessed on 17 April 2025).
Eng 06 00190 g001
Figure 1. Methodological process.
Figure 1. Methodological process.
Eng 06 00190 g001
Eng 06 00190 g002
Figure 2. Educational background.
Figure 2. Educational background.
Eng 06 00190 g002
Eng 06 00190 g003
Figure 3. Professions.
Figure 3. Professions.
Eng 06 00190 g003
Eng 06 00190 g004
Figure 4. Organisational sector.
Figure 4. Organisational sector.
Eng 06 00190 g004
Eng 06 00190 g005
Figure 5. Industrial experience.
Figure 5. Industrial experience.
Eng 06 00190 g005
Eng 06 00190 g006
Figure 6. KSF scree plot.
Figure 6. KSF scree plot.
Eng 06 00190 g006
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of KSF for SBC adoption.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of KSF for SBC adoption.
CodeMeasuresMean Item ScoreStandard DeviationRankShapiro–Wilk Test
StatisticSig.
KSF12Mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices 4.380.7711st0.741<0.001
KSF2Public awareness of environmental issues4.380.7651st0.743<0.001
KSF11Awareness creation of green building products4.300.8133rd0.762<0.001
KSF1Staff training on sustainable practices4.280.8564th0.773<0.001
KSF3Upgrade of educational and training programs to best practices4.270.8365th0.780<0.001
KSF4Sustainable building construction integration in professional certifications4.240.7956th0.796<0.001
KSF10Creating public awareness for sustainable practices4.190.8277th0.803<0.001
KSF6Information hub or repository for sustainable construction4.180.8768th0.804<0.001
KSF9Creating awareness of sustainable building materials4.150.8619th0.813<0.001
KSF5Content of SBC Training4.110.82510th0.819<0.001
KSF7Cooperation for knowledge transfer with foreign organisations4.100.93711th0.801<0.001
KSF8Promoting local green products through research4.090.86212th0.823<0.001
Cronbach’s alpha0.956
Table 3. KSF for SBC implementation.
Table 3. KSF for SBC implementation.
CodeConsulting FirmsContracting FirmsGovernment AgencyPrivate SectorK-W
MRMRMRMRχ2p ≤ 0.05
KSF124.431st4.491st4.341st4.156th7.9700.047
KSF24.353rd4.412nd4.303rd4.531st25790.461
KSF114.345th4.304th4.176th4.422nd27710.428
KSF14.412nd4.229th4.234th4.204th3.6540.301
KSF34.266th4.276th4.341st4.273rd1.9430.584
KSF44.353rd4.304th4.176th3.9811th6.9270.074
KSF104.168th4.247th4.176th4.204th0.0071.000
KSF64.159th4.383rd4.1011th4.008th5.1800.159
KSF94.197th4.1212th4.205th4.027th2.1060.551
KSF54.0811th4.1910th4.149th4.008th2.0780.556
KSF74.1410th4.238th3.9712th4.008th2.0240.567
KSF84.0612th4.1411th4.1310th3.9712th1.9180.590
Group Mean4.244.274.184.15 
Note: R = rank; M = mean; SD = Standard deviation; K-W = Kruskal–Wallis; χ2 = chi square; p = significant.
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test for KSF.
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test for KSF.
KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy0.930
Bartlett’s Test of SphericityApprox. Chi-Square3137.047
 df66
 Sig.<0.001
Table 5. TVE and Communalities for KSF.
Table 5. TVE and Communalities for KSF.
ComponentInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared LoadingsCommunalities
Total% of Var.Cumulative %Total% of Var.Cumulative %VariablesExtraction
 1 8.15767.97667.9768.15767.97667.976KSF10.583
20.7806.49674.473   KSF20.689
30.6345.28079.753   KSF30.661
40.5254.37484.127   KSF40.712
50.4323.59787.724   KSF50.760
60.3472.89490.618   KSF60.698
70.2712.25892.875   KSF70.641
80.2221.84994.725   KSF80.633
90.1891.57596.300   KSF90.684
100.1741.45097.749   KSF100.778
110.1551.28899.037   KSF110.724
120.1160.963100.000   KSF120.593
Note: Var. = Variance.
Table 6. KSF component matrix.
Table 6. KSF component matrix.
Component Matrix
Component
 1
“Creating public awareness for sustainable practices”0.882
“Content of SBC Training”0.872
“Raising awareness of GBPs”0.851
“SBC integration in professional certifications”0.844
“Information hub or repository for sustainable construction”0.836
“Mentoring younger professionals in sustainable practices”0.830
“Sustainable building materials awareness creation”0.827
“Educational and training programs upgrade”0.813
“Cooperation with international companies for knowledge transfer”0.801
“Using research to promote local green products”0.796
“Awareness of environmental issues among the public”0.770
“Staff training on sustainable practices”0.764
 Name of Component Green Education Initiative and Eco-Awareness Alliance
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Emere, C.E.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Oguntona, O.A. Knowledge Sharing: Key to Sustainable Building Construction Implementation. Eng 2025, 6, 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6080190

AMA Style

Emere CE, Aigbavboa CO, Oguntona OA. Knowledge Sharing: Key to Sustainable Building Construction Implementation. Eng. 2025; 6(8):190. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6080190

Chicago/Turabian Style

Emere, Chijioke Emmanuel, Clinton Ohis Aigbavboa, and Olusegun Aanuoluwapo Oguntona. 2025. "Knowledge Sharing: Key to Sustainable Building Construction Implementation" Eng 6, no. 8: 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6080190

APA Style

Emere, C. E., Aigbavboa, C. O., & Oguntona, O. A. (2025). Knowledge Sharing: Key to Sustainable Building Construction Implementation. Eng, 6(8), 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6080190

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop