Boyd, P and Schweber, L (2012) Variations in the mainstreaming of sustainability: A case study approach. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
The construction sector has a major role to play in delivering the transition to a low carbon economy and in contributing to sustainable development; however, integrating sustainability into everyday business remains a major challenge for the sector. This research explores the experience of three large construction and engineering consultancy firms in mainstreaming sustainability. The aim of the paper is to identify and explain variations in firm level strategies for mainstreaming sustainability. The three cases vary in the way in which sustainability is framed
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | corporate sustainability; corporate strategy; neo-institutional theory; organisational culture |
| Index terms: | consultancy, organizational culture, construction sector, variation, low carbon, sustainable development, mainstreaming, strategy, case study, corporate strategy, institutional theory |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, organization, business, sociology, industry analysis, sustainability assessment, management, contractual condition, health safety and environment |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Sustainability, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here