International Green Awards

International Green Awards (International Green Awards 2012) considered the most prestigious of international awards model.

This award scheme sees it as vital that all nominated organisations are able to present real processes and results which can be replicated in other firms, thus encouraging further sustainable business practices in the wider environment (International Green Awards 2012).

In addition to International Green Awards, global awards systems which concentrate on sustainable business include the Guardian Sustainable Business Awards, World Business and Development Awards and World Environment Centre Gold Medal Award (International Chamber of Commerce 2012; The Guardian 2013; World Environment Centre 2013). Other examples include the Goldman Environmental Awards founded in 1990 and more recently the Blue Angel award, a German Sustainability Prize awarded to companies who promote ideas for a sustainable society. Like many awards, this initiative involves a cross section of private and public sector organisations and is ranked amongst the most significant German prizes in the area of sustainability. However, the largest and longest running of those models is the NZI National Sustainable Business Network Awards which is organised annually by the Sustainable Business Network (Sustainable Business Network, 2013).

. However, it is notable that all the awards have an unlimited category meaning that company size or industry have no impact on which award a firm should aim for. In fact, small firms will be rivalling against large companies with better resources and much higher levels of scale and impact, while firms in traditionally dirty industries face organisations that are able to utilise cleaner resources. The network had specific categories for small businesses in the past in order to acknowledge their contributions to the sustainability agenda, but size focused categories have recently been abolished in favour of more general ones (Sustainable Business Network 2013). No reason for this change has been given and it seems as though the network is taking steps back, not forward, by not recognising the unique circumstances surrounding small firms attempting to implement sustainable practices.

Conclusion: Our preliminary investigation suggests that these awards are inspiring industry wide change and in fact, due to the broad base of stakeholders, the awards generate a ripple effect that moves well beyond the boundaries of individuals, businesses and industries alike. By engaging social network and mimetic isomorphism theory, we have just begun to generate insights into how the awards are transforming thinking and practice that ultimately aligns with and honours the aspirations of sustainability leadership.

Maturity models

In PMI, sustainability is regarded as external consideration to the basic project and maybe assessed based on organizational policies to sustainability. While the international standardization organization (ISO) views sustainability as a social responsibility, the key principle derives from the core meaning of sustainability “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Økland, 2015).

(Gambatese & Hallowell, 2011)

The body of knowledge of contextual innovation is relatively small and limited in its practical application

Addressing the deficiency in construction innovation literature requires an investigation of the indicators of innovation and the magnitude of their impact within the context of specific projects.

(Stanitsas, Kirytopoulos & Leopoulos, 2021)

two of the most well-known guides aretheProject Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®Guide)(Project Management, 2013), and theProjects In Controlled Envi-ronments (PRINCE2)adopted by the UK government (Murray et al.,2009); structured into categorized areas of knowledge. Yet, theyseem not to pay special attention and in-depth analysis to sus-tainability attributes. Nevertheless, the presence of sustainability inPM events and conferences is intense (Silvius, 2017). According toMartens and Carvalho (2017), who conducted a systematic searchto identify some of the biggest events, sustainability and SD con-cerns were noticeable. This finding indicates that the concept of sustainability, “seeks “its way through the PM context.

Tailored Indicators

(Fernández-Sánchez & Rodríguez-López, 2010)

The main objective is, therefore, to propose a methodology for selecting indicators, which will be developed by all stakeholders, thus reducing the subjectivity and uncertainties of the process. The identification of every project opportunity is sought, to advance towards sustainability.

Primarily, the scope of this work is the identification, selection and prioritisation process where the greatest problems happen, since there is a great development of individual indicators with a high scientific reliability.

Chapter Summary

. (Love, Li, Irani & Holt, 2000)

Construction organizations must realize that results will not happen overnight; it will take time for the organization to adapt, change and learn.

(Lines, Sullivan, Smithwick & Mischung, 2015)

Organizations cannot expect change to be easy; rather, overcoming resistance requires an understanding that change implementation is a long-term and strategic process.

———————————————————————————————————————

(Cypra, Knepper, Kytzia & Petersson, 2020)

By providing a respective methodology, sustainability assessment schemes enable a transparent choice of the most sustainable option [15] and reduce trial and error

In building construction, sustainability assessments and even certification schemes have been established, beginning in the early 1990s, and are continuously adapted to emerging requirements [17]. Formally, the development stage of sustainability assessment for infrastructure is lagging behind [18]. One possible reason might be the great diversity of infrastructure types, requiring consideration in respective schemes. On the other hand, infrastructure has a head start looking at developments, such as environmental impact assessment, participatory planning, integrated planning or other assessment methodologies [19]. As opposed to building construction, for infrastructure, there is no free market and certification after completion does not generate added value for the owner, as explained in [17] quoting [20], e.g., through higher rental or retail price. As explained in [18,20–22], instead, infrastructure often is characterized by: • public ownership and framed by public development strategies and licensing procedures under public law; • high external effects in case of failure, that society instead of the owner has to bear; • large influence of site characteristics on sustainability see also [12].