IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2015i1p14-d61285.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Index to Measure Sustainability of a Business Project in the Construction Industry: Lithuanian Case

Author

Listed:
  • Nomeda Dobrovolskienė

    (Finance Engineering Department, Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Rima Tamošiūnienė

    (Finance Engineering Department, Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

The continuous growth of the world population, resource scarcity and the threat of climate change pose numerous environmental and social problems to the world. Therefore, much hope is put in the concept of sustainability. Companies are increasingly coming under strong global pressure to incorporate sustainability considerations into their project decision-making process. Business projects in the construction industry are among the most important, as this sector is one of the largest sectors and of major importance for the national economy and therefore has a huge impact on the environment and society. Thus, we have to explore ways to integrate sustainability into the management of those projects. This paper presents a composite sustainability index of a project (CSIP) which has been created following a review of existing literature and a pilot research study. A pilot research study was conducted in the Lithuanian construction industry between January 2015 and June 2015. Sustainability criteria were chosen and grouped on the basis of the analysis of the literature and different standards relating to sustainability applicable in the construction industry. A survey was used to select and rank the most important sustainability criteria. The index was constructed using multi-criteria decision-making methods. The results of the pilot study revealed that practitioners in the Lithuanian construction sector attach most importance to 15 sustainability criteria. A composite sustainability index of a project combining all these criteria may be useful in assessing the sustainability of a business project and making decisions regarding project portfolio selection and financial resource allocation. When addressing the issue of financial resource allocation in a project portfolio, the decision-maker could take into account not only the project’s return and risk, but also its sustainability. The understanding of this study should enable companies to execute sustainable projects, which could make a contribution to the sustainable development of organizations and thereby increase their competitive advantage.

Suggested Citation

  • Nomeda Dobrovolskienė & Rima Tamošiūnienė, 2015. "An Index to Measure Sustainability of a Business Project in the Construction Industry: Lithuanian Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2015:i:1:p:14-:d:61285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/1/14/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/1/14/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bohringer, Christoph & Jochem, Patrick E.P., 2007. "Measuring the immeasurable -- A survey of sustainability indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Benjamin Tobias Peylo & Stefan Schaltegger, 2014. "An equation with many variables: unhiding the relationship between sustainability and investment performance," Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 110-126, April.
    3. Hatefi, S.M. & Torabi, S.A., 2010. "A common weight MCDA-DEA approach to construct composite indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 114-120, November.
    4. Ness, Barry & Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin & Anderberg, Stefan & Olsson, Lennart, 2007. "Categorising tools for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 498-508, January.
    5. O׳Ryan, Raúl & Pereira, Mauricio, 2015. "Participatory indicators of sustainability for the salmon industry: The case of Chile," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 322-330.
    6. Aouni, Belaid & Colapinto, Cinzia & La Torre, Davide, 2014. "Financial portfolio management through the goal programming model: Current state-of-the-art," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 536-545.
    7. Thomas Tong & C. M. Tam & Albert Chan, 2001. "Genetic algorithm optimization in building portfolio management," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(6), pages 601-609.
    8. Laurens Cherchye & Willem Moesen & Nicky Rogge & Tom Puyenbroeck, 2007. "An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 111-145, May.
    9. Ralph E. Steuer & Yue Qi & Markus Hirschberger, 2008. "Portfolio Selection in the Presence of Multiple Criteria," Springer Optimization and Its Applications, in: Constantin Zopounidis & Michael Doumpos & Panos M. Pardalos (ed.), Handbook of Financial Engineering, pages 3-24, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Athanassoglou, Stergios, "undated". "Revisiting Worst-case DEA for Composite Indicators," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 198712, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. Nomeda Dobrovolskienė & Rima Tamošiūnienė, 2016. "Sustainability-Oriented Financial Resource Allocation in a Project Portfolio through Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Stergios Athanassoglou, 2016. "Revisiting Worst-Case DEA for Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1259-1272, September.
    4. Salvatore Greco & Alessio Ishizaka & Menelaos Tasiou & Gianpiero Torrisi, 2019. "On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 61-94, January.
    5. Carrillo, Marianela & Jorge, Jesús M., 2017. "Multidimensional Analysis of Regional Tourism Sustainability in Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 89-98.
    6. Nomeda Dobrovolskienė & Rima Tamošiūnienė & Audrius Banaitis & Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Nerija Banaitienė & Kamilė Taujanskaitė & Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, 2019. "Developing a composite sustainability index for real estate projects using multiple criteria decision making," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 617-635, September.
    7. Susanna Sironen & Jyri Seppälä & Pekka Leskinen, 2015. "Towards more non-compensatory sustainable society index," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 587-621, June.
    8. Becken, S. & Simmons, D., 2008. "Using the concept of yield to assess the sustainability of different tourist types," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 420-429, October.
    9. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    10. Pietro Lanzini & Andrea Stocchetti, 2017. "The evolution of the conceptual basis for the assessment of urban mobility sustainability impacts," Working Papers 02, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    11. Marianela Carrillo, 2022. "Measuring Progress towards Sustainability in the European Union within the 2030 Agenda Framework," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-23, June.
    12. Zhou, Haibo & Yang, Yi & Chen, Yao & Zhu, Joe, 2018. "Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: The origins, development and future directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 1-16.
    13. Tan Yigitcanlar & Md. Kamruzzaman, 2015. "Planning, Development and Management of Sustainable Cities: A Commentary from the Guest Editors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-12, November.
    14. Ernest Reig, 2012. "Building an Enlarged Human Development Indicator: Europe and the Southern Mediterranean Basin," Working Papers 1203, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    15. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2014. "Nested open systems: An important concept for applying ecological footprint analysis to sustainable development assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 105-111.
    16. Fu-Chiang Yang & Rui-Hsin Kao & Yi-Tui Chen & Yueh-Fei Ho & Cheng-Chung Cho & Shi-Wei Huang, 2018. "A Common Weight Approach to Construct Composite Indicators: The Evaluation of Fourteen Emerging Markets," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 463-479, June.
    17. James K. Lein, 2014. "Toward a Remote Sensing Solution for Regional Sustainability Assessment and Monitoring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-20, April.
    18. Verbunt, Pim & Rogge, Nicky, 2018. "Geometric composite indicators with compromise Benefit-of-the-Doubt weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 388-401.
    19. Samir Mili & Javier Martínez-Vega, 2019. "Accounting for Regional Heterogeneity of Agricultural Sustainability in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    20. Roland Zinkernagel & James Evans & Lena Neij, 2018. "Applying the SDGs to Cities: Business as Usual or a New Dawn?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2015:i:1:p:14-:d:61285. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.