Enlarging the Role of CEM Professionals in Corporate Sustainability: ESG Programs and the Built Environment
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 150, Issue 8
Abstract
Corporations develop, own, operate, and direct a majority of all assets in the built environment (BE), and the development and operation of these assets is a significant component of global sustainability. In recent years corporate sustainability action for large companies has trended toward becoming embedded within corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) programs. However, ESG strategies and their impacts are only beginning to be understood by large corporations, with little definition for how to apply, measure, and assess the effectiveness of ESG practices. Every industry sector has some connection to the BE, and construction engineering, and management (CEM) professionals contribute to all phases of the BE life cycle, including development, design, construction, and operations. As such, CEM professionals are vital in developing and implementing sustainability practices specifically for corporations with large footprints in the BE. The purpose of this research was to assess the extent to which the BE is impacted by corporate sustainability practice through ESG programs. The research utilized a grounded theory approach to explore sustainability practices directly associated with the BE from companies within all 11 Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) sectors. It presents a representative model that encapsulates current organizational ESG strategy, through the development of ESG action categories. A total of 24 different ESG action categories are presented and defined. The research further identifies those ESG actions commonly applied by large corporations and how these actions differ by GICS sector. This research indicates that over half of corporate ESG actions are related to the BE. Ultimately, this paper demonstrates the necessary role that CEM professionals should play in influencing sustainability practice through ESG strategy and action within the BE.
Practical Applications
ESG is a rising topic in corporate sustainability and is becoming increasingly tied to financial instruments such as sustainable investment indexes or green bonds. The rise of ESG presents both a challenge and an opportunity for CEM professionals. Large entities are expected to publish ESG reports sharing their sustainability progress, including entities in which CEM professionals are key figures, such as power utilities. The advent of ESG reporting presents a challenge to CEM professionals because they need to learn to navigate ESG reporting or risk losing access to valuable funding opportunities when subject to ESG measurement and evaluation. It also presents an opportunity for CEM professionals because they are uniquely qualified to lead ESG efforts as BE experts. ESG and the BE are strongly related, with most ESG work being environmental in nature. CEM professionals have been actively involved in improving the sustainability of BE assets as they relate to the environment for many years. To leverage this experience, CEM professionals need to take an active part in recommending improvements to corporate ESG strategy. Corporations themselves must also actively seek to engage CEM professionals in their ESG decision making processes and advisory boards.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to recognize the efforts and express gratitude to three additional members of the research team, Tyler Johnson, Kinzy Nabrotzky, and Kayla Sherald, for their contributions in verifying the accuracy of the data collection process and the compilation of ESG actions included within the data set.
References
Allen, N., and M. Davey. 2018. “The value of constructivist grounded theory for built environment researchers.” J. Plann. Educ. Res. 38 (2): 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17695195.
Alsayegh, M. F., R. Abdul Rahman, and S. Homayoun. 2020. “Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure.” Sustainability 12 (9): 3910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093910.
Álvarez, I., P. Etxeberria, E. Alberdi, H. Pérez-Acebo, I. Eguia, and M. J. García. 2021. “Sustainable civil engineering: Incorporating sustainable development goals in higher education curricula.” Sustainability 13 (16): 8967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168967.
Amel-Zadeh, A., and G. Serafeim. 2018. “Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey.” Financ. Anal. J. 74 (3): 87–103. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v74.n3.2.
Arvidsson, S., and J. Dumay. 2022. “Corporate ESG reporting quantity, quality and performance: Where to now for environmental policy and practice?” Bus. Strategy Environ. 31 (3): 1091–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2937.
ASCE. 2007. The vision for civil engineering in 2025, 1–103. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASCE. 2023. Policy statement 418—The role of the civil engineer in sustainable development. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Bajic, A. 2023. Climate disclosure: A machine learning-based analysis of company-level GHG emissions and ESG data disclosure. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4534697.
Baratta, A., A. Cimino, F. Longo, V. Solina, and S. Verteramo. 2023. “The impact of ESG practices in industry with a focus on carbon emissions: Insights and future perspectives.” Sustainability 15 (8): 6685. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086685.
Bose, S. 2020. “Evolution of ESG reporting frameworks.” In Values at work: Sustainable investing and ESG reporting, 13–33. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boz, M. A., and I. H. El-adaway. 2015. “Creating a holistic systems framework for sustainability assessment of civil infrastructure projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 141 (2): 04014067. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000911.
Cappucci, M. 2018. “The ESG integration paradox.” J. Appl. Corporate Finance 30 (2): 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12296.
Carroll, A. B. 1999. “Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct.” Bus. Soc. 38 (3): 268–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303.
Chao, A., and J. Farrier. 2021. “Public–private partnerships for environmental, social, and governance projects: How private funding for infrastructure can produce mutual benefits for companies and the public.” In Leveraging sustainable infrastructure for resilient communities, 102–113. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483879.
Christensen, D. M., G. Serafeim, and A. Sikochi. 2022. “Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings.” Accounting Rev. 97 (1): 147–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0506.
Collinge, W. 2020. “Stakeholder engagement in construction: Exploring corporate social responsibility, ethical behaviors, and practices.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 146 (3): 04020003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001769.
Cotgrave, A., and M. Riley. 2012. Total sustainability in the built environment. New York: Bloomsbury.
Creswell, J. W., and C. N. Poth. 2016. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. New York: SAGE.
Escrig-Olmedo, E., M. Á. Fernández-Izquierdo, I. Ferrero-Ferrero, J. M. Rivera-Lirio, and M. J. Muñoz-Torres. 2019. “Rating the raters: Evaluating how ESG rating agencies integrate sustainability principles.” Sustainability 11 (3): 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030915.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., and H. Weisz. 1999. “Society as hybrid between material and symbolic realms: Toward a theoretical framework of society-nature interaction.” In Advances in human ecology, 215–252. Leeds, UK: Emerald.
Fortune. 2021. “Fortune 500.” Accessed August 10, 2021. https://fortune.com/ranking/fortune500/.
Francis, N. 2021. “Civil engineers’ role in saving the world: Updating the moral basis of the profession.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 174 (5): 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101684.
Galletta, S., S. Mazzù, and V. Naciti. 2022. “A bibliometric analysis of ESG performance in the banking industry: From the current status to future directions.” Res. Int. Bus. Finance 62 (Dec): 101684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101684.
Garcia, A. S., W. Mendes-Da-Silva, and R. J. Orsato. 2017. “Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: Evidence from emerging markets.” J. Cleaner Prod. 150 (May): 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.180.
Gillan, S. L., A. Koch, and L. T. Starks. 2021. “Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance.” J. Corporate Finance 66 (Feb): 101889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101889.
Gipper, B., S. Ross, and S. Shi. 2023. ESG assurance in the United States. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4263085.
Hess, D., N. Rogovsky, and T. W. Dunfee. 2002. “The next wave of corporate community involvement: Corporate social initiatives.” Calif. Manage. Rev. 44 (2): 110–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166125.
Hilton, M. H. 1995. “The importance of civil engineering leadership in the government sector.” J. Manage. Eng. 11 (5): 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1995)11:5(12).
Jafari, A., V. Valentin, and S. M. Bogus. 2019. “Identification of social sustainability criteria in building energy retrofit projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (2): 04018136. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001610.
Kempeneer, S., M. Peeters, and T. Compernolle. 2021. “Bringing the user back in the building: An analysis of ESG in real estate and a behavioral framework to guide future research.” Sustainability 13 (6): 3239. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063239.
Khalid, S., K. Hung, and J. Wiley. 2021. “The ESG value opportunity: A decision point for utilities.” Climate Energy 38 (5): 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/gas.22261.
Korinth, F., and R. Lueg. 2022. “Corporate sustainability and risk management—The U-shaped relationships of disaggregated ESG rating scores and risk in the German capital market.” Sustainability 14 (9): 5735. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095735.
Levitt, R. E. 2007. “CEM research for the next 50 years: Maximizing economic, environmental, and societal value of the built environment.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 133 (9): 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:9(619).
Li, T. T., K. Wang, T. Sueyoshi, and D. D. Wang. 2021. “ESG: Research progress and future prospects.” Sustainability 13 (21): 11663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111663.
Mahmoud, S., M. Hussein, T. Zayed, and M. Fahmy. 2022. “Multiobjective optimization model for the life cycle cost-sustainability trade-off problem of building upgrading using a generic sustainability assessment tool.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 148 (7): 04022050. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002281.
Mandal, R., and A. Murthy. 2021. “CSR in the post pandemic era: The dual promise of ESG investment and investor stewardship.” Indian Law Rev. 5 (2): 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2021.1899627.
Moffatt, S., and N. Kohler. 2008. “Conceptualizing the built environment as a social–ecological system.” Build. Res. Inf. 36 (3): 248–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210801928131.
MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International). 2023. “The global industry classification standard.” Accessed August 10, 2021. https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/indexes/gics.
Ofori, G. 2022. “Professionalism in built environment research: Beyond integrity and good practice.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage. 29 (9): 3617–3646. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2020-0118.
Pladaite, M. 2023. “Environment, society and governance: Why these issues are important for civil engineering.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 176 (4): 148. https://doi.org/10.1680/jcien.2023.176.4.148.
Rivera, B. 2022. “Green bonds: Reforming ESG regulation in the united states to meet the requisite funding demand for a decarbonized economy.” Hastings Environ. Law J. 28 (2): 191.
Robinson, S., and M. G. McIntosh. 2022. “A literature review of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) in commercial real estate.” J. Real Estate Lit. 30 (1–2): 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09277544.2022.2106639.
Saldaña, J. 2021. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. New York: SAGE.
Sutrisna, M., and W. Setiawan. 2016. “The application of grounded theory methodology in built environment research.” In Research methodology in the built environment, 251–265. London: Routledge.
Tettamanzi, P., G. Venturini, and M. Murgolo. 2022. “Sustainability and financial accounting: A critical review on the ESG dynamics.” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (11): 16758–16761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18596-2.
UN Environment Programme-Finance Initiative. 2004. “Who cares wins: The global compact connecting financial markets to a changing world.” Accessed August 10, 2021. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/280911488968799581/Who-cares-wins-connecting-financial-markets-to-a-changing-world.
Wicks, D. 2017. “The coding manual for qualitative researchers.” Qual. Res. Organ. Manage. Int. J. 12 (2): 169–170. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-08-2016-1408.
Wong, C., A. Brackley, and E. Petroy. 2019. Rate the raters 2019: Expert views on ESG ratings. London: SustainAbility.
Zhang, L., S. Zhao, L. Cui, and L. Wu. 2020. “Exploring green innovation practices: Content analysis of the Fortune Global 500 companies.” SAGE Open 10 (1): 2158244020914640. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020914640.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 150 • Issue 8 • August 2024
Copyright
© 2024 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 1, 2023
Accepted: Mar 22, 2024
Published online: Jun 10, 2024
Published in print: Aug 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Nov 10, 2024
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.