Sustainability in the triple bottom line (TBL), also referred as 3P framework (People,
Planet, Profit) is becoming a key driver for business strategy in the 21st century
(Elkington, 1999). The question “How can we develop prosperity without compromising
the life of future generations?” is today generally recognized worldwide as a basic
need for setting strategic goals of organizations (Tharp, 2012). In scientific literature,
sustainability is a fair new topic (Aarseth et al, 2016). What is missing today is the deployment
of these strategic goals related to sustainability into the operational activities
of organization (Brook, 2014). The discipline that can help organizations achieve their
strategic goals is project management: in fact, in order to survive and prosper in a global
environment that is continuously evolving, organizations must endlessly develop
changes in their way of doing business, and project management is a key skill capable
to execute these changes in a structured manner (Silvius et al., 2012).
Currently, no Project Management frameworks (PMI and IPMA above all) include
sustainability knowledge areas or specific processes (VV.AA., 2017; Macelino-
Sabada, 2015). Moreover, no specific input nor output in project management
frameworks considers sustainability in the 3P approach, but only some (rare) specific
points referring to one of the three pillars can be found (Silvius et al., 2012).
A project manager, alone, can’t succeed in including sustainability goals in
his/her project, if these goals are competing with goals set by the project sponsor
and/or PMO in the project charter (Martens, 2017). In order to influence the way project management is carried out, and to include sustainability into project goals,
decisions must be made during the business analysis phase (i.e. the phase during
which decision on what project solution is the best to solve the problem addressed
is taken), analysed and included into the business case, approved through a formal
Go/NoGo decision, so that project managers are fully empowered to develop projects
in a controlled manner (Gimenez, 2012; Carvalho, 2017). In fact, no organization
would leave the discretionary power to make decisions related to sustainability
to individual project managers (Martens, 2016). Indeed, sustainability decisions
cause expenses that cannot be justified simply from the project’s point of view, because
sustainability has long-term goals, whereas project goals are generally shortterm
oriented (Silvius et al., 2012).
Decisions on sustainability must be made at a strategic level and, then, cascaded
to professionals managing the tactic level, otherwise not even the best project managers
have the power to implement sustainability principles (Sanchez, 2015). For
example, in civil (mega)projects, sustainability rating systems, such as LEED for
buildings or Envision for infrastructures, can be applied. These frameworks cause
direct cost of resources to carry them on all along the project duration, and indirect
cost for extra-design required and for non-standard solutions to address sustainability
goals (Chandratilake 2013; Oluwalaiye, 2019): these direct and indirect extracosts
cannot be decided in the project phase, but must be decided before the decision
of developing the project is taken.
This approach is potentially in conflict with the definition of project management:
“The application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities
to meet the project requirement” (VV.AA., 2017). In fact, if project requirements
only include project goals and requirements needed for the project’s specific
purpose, probably sustainability has no chance to be present in project management.
Instead, project requirements must include points that consider the organization’s
long term strategy: in this way, sustainability can be seen as sustainable for
business purposes (Oakland, 2015). For this reason, this paper identifies principles for developing a business case
for a (mega)project including sustainability, in order to evaluate the implications of
incorporating a 3P framework in the way projects are selected. It is the Author’s
opinion that, as long as the cost for sustainability implementation has not been
clearly included into project budget, sustainability will still resemble one of the
“good intentions”, without a concrete possibility to be implemented through projects.
In the following section of this paper, the Author will list strategies to implement
sustainability in projects within a 3P framework, classified within distinct
business sectors, and provide hints for evaluating direct and indirect costs and benefits,
to work as an input for a business case and an economic evaluation of the
project (Banihashemi, 2017; Beske, 2014; Chong, 2017; Clinning, 2017; Shah,
2018; Terrapon-Pfaff, 2014; Xue, 2018).
Sustainability goals are economically sustainable if considered in the organizational
framework (long-term). If the short-term focus is maintained, sustainability
goals cannot be supported because violating the economic sustainability.
The preliminary topics to be considered by this research are:
Direct cost savings due (mainly) to environmental sustainability, such as reducing
the use of material and energy during project development;
Increase in the market share of the performing organization due to the increasing
demand of sustainable products worldwide
Reduction of risks occurrency and impact by implementing sustainable practices
Increase in the organization’s share value and received investments due to implementation
of sustainable practices
Personnel turn over reduction, and attractiveness for qualified professional, in
implementing sustainability principles
Better decision-making process due to the resolution of ethical dilemmas
Increasing the performing organization’s brand value
In the following steps, the research will develop in detail the balancing of costs
for sustainability and benefits both in the short term and in the long term of implementing
it