International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 535–543

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Implementation of environmental management in the Hong Kong

construction industry
L. Y. Shen*, Vivian W. Y. Tam
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Received 12 January 2001; received in revised form 6 March 2001; accepted 13 July 2001

Abstract
The control of environmental impacts from construction has become a major issue to the public. Whilst the implementation of
environmental management in construction has a direct contribution to environmental protection, it involves allocating a variety of
resources for practicing various environmental management methods such as noise control, treatment of polluted water, waste
recycling and reusing, and so on. The application of these methods leads to an increase in labour use, materials handling costs,
which can limit their implementation. This paper provides a profile of environmental management in Hong Kong construction by
identifying what contractors in Hong Kong consider to be the benefits of and barriers to the practice. The appropriateness of
measures for mitigating the barrier effects is investigated. The paper provides empirical evidence of the benefits of and barriers to
the process of increasing the implementation of environmental management among contractors in Hong Kong. It should help
contractors to adjust their environmental management policy by efficient resources allocation within their companies. # 2002
Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Construction; Project management; Environmental management; Hong Kong

1. Introduction that 72% of the major Chinese cities, including the

The promotion of environmental management and
the mission of sustainable development have resulted in
pressure demanding the adoption of proper methods to
improve environmental performance across all indus-
tries including construction. Construction is not by
nature an environmentally friendly activity. Existing
research suggests that construction activity is a major
contributor to environmental pollution. For example,
McDonald’s research [1] reports that 14 million t of
wastes are put into landfill in Australia each year, and
44% of this waste is attributed to the construction
industry. According to Zhang et al. [2], construction-
contributed environmental pollution has been increas-
ing in China in line with its fast urban development
since the early 1980s. The standards of major environ-
mental indicators such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
and total air-suspended particulates (TSP) are far worse
than international standards. It has been reported [3]
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2766-5805; fax: +852-2764-
5131.
E-mail address: bsshen@polyu.edu (L.Y. Shen).
0263-7863/02/$22.00 # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
PII: S0263-7863(01)00054-0
municipalities and the provincial capitals, have TSP of
over 200 mg/m3, whilst the international standard
defined by the World Health Organization is 90 mg/m3
[4]. Construction activity is one of the major con-
tributors to the environmental impacts, which are typi-
cally classified as air pollution, waste pollution, noise
pollution and water pollution [5]. Poon [6] reported that
the waste generated by the building and demolition of
construction projects assumes a large proportion of
environmental waste in Hong Kong. Uher [7] suggested
that construction activities have a significant impact on
the environment across a broad spectrum of off-site, on-
site and operational activities. Off-site activities concern
the mining and manufacturing of materials and compo-
nents, the transportation of materials and components,
land acquisition, and project design. On-site construc-
tion activities relate to the construction of a physical
facility, resulting in air pollution, water pollution, traffic
problems, and the generation of construction wastage.
March [8] observed the construction industry’s environ-
mental impacts under the categories of ecology, land-
scape, traffic, water, energy, timber consumption, noise,
dust, sewage, and health and safety hazards. Shen et al.
536 L.Y. Shen, V.W.Y. Tam / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 535–543
[9] classified construction environmental impacts as the
extraction of environmental resources such as fossil
fuels and minerals; extending consumption of generic
resources, namely, land, water, air, and energy; the
production of waste that require the consumption of
land for disposal; and pollution of the living environ-
ment with noise, odors, dust, vibrations, chemical and
particulate emissions, and solid and sanitary waste.
Hendrickson and Horvath [10] considered the five lar-
gest toxic air emissions from construction, including
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitric dioxide (NO2), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), toxic releases to air, and
hazardous waste generated. They estimated these envir-
onmental emissions for the four largest construction
sectors in the United States, namely, highway, bridge,
and other horizontal construction; industrial facilities
and commercial and office buildings; residential one-
unit buildings and other construction such as towers,
sewer and irrigation systems, and railroads. Never-
theless, their findings suggest that construction in the
USA makes a smaller contribution to hazardous waste
generation than its share of GDP might suggest. This
probably demonstrates that the US Environmental
Protection Agency moves to regulate these environ-
mental emissions more closely.
In pursuing the mission of sustainable development,
efforts towards practicing environmental management
in the construction business have been growing rapidly.
The environmental management system (EMS) defined
in the standard ISO 14000 is promoted as a vehicle for
organizations to develop environmentally friendly prac-
tices. The system provides a standard framework that
includes environmental policy, planning, implementa-
tion and operation, checking and corrective action, and
measurement review and improvement [11]. It was devel-
oped to assist organizations to improve their environ-
mental performance on a voluntary basis through
coherent allocation of resources, assignment of responsi-
bilities, and continuing evaluation of practice. The find-
ings from a recent survey show that the number of firms
who have obtained ISO 14000 certification is increasing,
mainly in the fields of electrical and optical equipment,
basic metal and fabricated metal products, machinery
and equipment, construction, and wholesale and retail
trade [12]. Improvements in environmental performance
in construction are on the increase, particularly in
reducing the production of wastes and improving the
techniques that could have harmful effects on the envir-
onment. This development, however, involves investing
resources and thus presents challenges, particularly to
contractors’ profits-making. It appears that concern
related to investment in environmental management has
largely overtaken the understanding of the benefits
gained by engaging in environmentally friendly con-
struction practice. A recent survey of the Hong Kong
construction industry shows that the conception that
environmental management results in many more costs
than benefits is prevalent among contractors.
The major objective of this study is to identify what
construction practitioners in Hong Kong consider to be
the benefits of and barriers to implementing environ-
mental management, and to investigate effective ways of
mitigating the barriers. The data used for this study are
from a recent survey of the Hong Kong construction
industry. The survey was undertaken by sending 382
questionnaires to construction professionals, including
359 contractors and 23 project management con-
sultants. Seventy-seven completed questionnaires were
returned but five were not properly completed, thus
only 72 were used for analysis. The contractors were
chosen from the Hong Kong Construction Association
List of Contractors approved by the Hong Kong Gov-
ernment [13]. In total, there are 400 contractors on the
list, which is divided into 13 categories, namely, building
maintenance, construction materials, consultant ser-
vices, demolition, earth and geotechnical works, ground
investigation, piling and foundation, interior decora-
tions, port and marine works, public housing, roads and
bridges, utilities and drainage, and others. There were
41 contractors whose correspondence addresses were
not clear, thus questionnaires were only sent to 359
contractors. The respondents were in various positions,
including director, senior engineer, site engineer, quality
manager, site manager, safety manager, environmental
management manager, and contracts manager. To test
the readability of the questionnaire, a preliminary
questionnaire was sent to three contractors, whose
comments were incorporated in the final questionnaire.
Following the survey analysis, individual interviews
were arranged with five building contractors from
among the questionnaire respondents. The five con-
tractors were selected according to their activities at
various construction stages: one was in the piling stage,
three were engaged in superstructure works, and one
was undertaking internal works. The interview discus-
sions were to gather further comments on the ques-
tionnaire results.
2. Benefits to contractors from environmental manage-
ment
There are obvious benefits to the community from
implementing environmental management in construc-
tion activities, such as reducing the production of
wastes, and reducing the use of materials and techniques
that could have harmful effects on the environment. The
benefits to contractors can be in a number of ways, for
example, cost savings due to the reduction of fines
associated with convictions as a result of complying
with environmental legislation. Existing publications
have identified a number of beneficial factors (BF) in
 L.Y. Shen, V.W.Y. Tam / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 535–543 537

implementing environmental management in construc- P

5
tion [9,11,14,15,16,18], and the following nine typical j nij
j¼1
factors were selected and presented to respondents: ASSi ¼ ð1Þ
72

BF-a Cost saving due to the reduction of fines

associated with convictions
BF-b Improving corporate image in environmental
performance
BF-c Contribution to the improvement of public
environmental standards
BF-d Contribution to environmental protection
BF-e Increasing overall business competitiveness
BF-f Reduction of environmental complaints
BF-g Improving staff work environment, thus
increasing their morale
BF-h Reduction of environment-related sickness
and injuries
BF-i Reduction of environmental risks—polluted
air, land and water
The BF identified above are considered as having dif-
ferent levels of beneficial significance to construction
businesses, and the main focus of the survey was to
identify the level of recognition of these beneficial
aspects. For each beneficial factor, the respondents were
requested to judge the significance level by selecting one
of five grades, namely, grade I, II, III, IV and V. Grade
I indicates the least beneficial, and grade V indicates the
most beneficial. The middle grades II, III and IV indi-
cate the difference from less beneficial to more bene-
ficial. The survey results are summarized in Table 1. The
figures in the table represent the number of respondents
who gave specific grade to each beneficial factor. For
example, the figure 10 in the top-left corner indicates
that 10 respondents considered that beneficial factor
BF-a is of most benefit to construction businesses, thus
the significance of grade V is given.
To examine the relative levels of beneficial significance
among these factors, an alternative approach is to cal-
culate the average significance score (ASS) between 72
responses to each beneficial factor through the follow-
ing weighted model:
where: ASSi denotes the average significance score to
the beneficial factor i; j denotes the beneficial grade,
assumed to be I, II, III, IV and V; nij denotes the num-
ber of respondents who give the factor i for the grade j.
In order to calculate ASSi, the five-grade scales for 
need to be converted into numerical scales. For the
purpose of simplicity, Grade V carries a value of 5,
Grade VI of 4, and so on. By adopting these numerical
to model (1), the average significance scores for all the
beneficial factors are calculated in Table 2.
The ASS used in model (1) is a weighted average
measure and could be used to rank all the beneficial
factors. However, the commonly recognized weakness
of using the weighted average is that it does not consider
the degree of variation between individual responses. In
fact, a smaller variation between individual responses
will give better quality to the weighted average value.
Therefore, when two factors carry the same or very
close average values, the factor carrying the smaller
variation should be given a higher rank. The typical
technique used to mitigate the weakness of ranking
attributes by weighted average value is to apply a
measure called the coefficient of variation, which is
obtained through dividing the weighted average by the
standard deviation. Thus the effective assessment on
ranking attributes should consider both the weighted
average and the coefficient of variation. So the com-
bined value of the weighted average and coefficient of
variation can be used to rank the significance among all
the beneficial factors, and can be called the beneficial
index value (BIV), thus the model for calculating the
BIV can be written as:
ASSi
BIVi ¼ ASSi þ ð2Þ
i

Table 1 where: ASSi denotes the average significance score of the

Survey responses: significance of benefits from environmental man-
agement
beneficial factor i; BIVi denotes the coefficient of variation

BF Response to the level of significance Total Table 2

response Calculations of parameter values to beneficial factors
Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade
V IV III II I BF ASS d BIV BIVR

BF-a 10 17 27 13 5 72 BF-a 3.19 1.11 6.06 9

BF-b 18 26 24 3 1 72 BF-b 3.79 0.92 7.91 3
BF-c 19 25 21 5 2 72 BF-c 3.76 1.02 7.45 4
BF-d 18 37 13 3 1 72 BF-d 3.94 0.85 8.58 1
BF-e 6 30 20 11 5 72 BF-e 3.30 1.06 6.41 7
BF-f 7 32 19 10 4 72 BF-f 3.39 1.03 6.68 5
BF-g 6 22 28 11 5 72 BF-g 3.18 1.03 6.27 8
BF-h 8 27 22 12 3 72 BF-h 3.35 1.02 6.63 6
BF-i 19 30 19 3 1 72 BF-i 3.88 0.90 8.19 2
538 L.Y. Shen, V.W.Y. Tam / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 535–543
of the beneficial factor i; i denotes the standard devia-
tion of the significance score for factor i.
Calculations of the BIV have been undertaken
according to the model (2), and the results are shown in
Table 2. The ranks according to BIV, denoted as BIVR,
are identified in Table 2 as well. In fact, it can be noted
in Table 2 that the ranks of beneficial significance
between factors do not change much by the two criteria
ASS and BIV. It is reasonable to consider that the ranks
established by either ASS or BIV are effective to indi-
cate the relative significance between these attributes in
the process of implementing environmental manage-
ment in construction businesses. The ranking profile
according to BIVR is shown in Fig. 1.
The ranking profile in Fig. 1 provides empirical evi-
dence of the benefits obtainable from implementing
environmental management. Beneficial factor BF-d,
namely, contribution to environmental protection, was
perceived to be the most significant benefit, followed by
BF-i (reduction of environmental risk) and BF-b
(improving environmental image). BF-a (cost saving
due to the reduction of fines associated with environ-
mental convictions), BF-g (improving staff work envir-
onment) and BF-e (increasing overall business
competitiveness) were considered less important bene-
fits. Other beneficial factors, include BF-c (contribution
to the improvement of public environmental standards),
BF-f (reduction of environmental complaints) and BF-h
(reduction of environment-related sickness and injuries),
were considered neutral.
Local contractors subscribe to the collective view that
the major benefit of implementing environmental man-
agement within construction firms is the contribution to
environmental protection. The reduction of environ-
mental pollution is also considered as a general benefit
Fig. 1. Ranking profile among beneficial factors.
to contractors, as it helps to build up an organizational
environmental image. Although the concept of ‘increas-
ing overall business competitiveness via better environ-
mental management’ is not commonly shared, one
contractor who had obtained ISO 14000 accreditation
claimed that the company’s market share had increased,
particularly for building works, since it obtained the
accreditation, and this is said to be largely due to the
firm’s better environmental image.
In general, contractors do not seem to consider that
the implementation of environmental management will
bring cost savings. A large contractor interviewed sug-
gested that there is a net cost increase in implementing
environmental management because of the investment
in equipment, staff training, human resources and tech-
nology such as water treatment and the application of
noise-barrier materials. Contractors’ practice shows that
the cost of implementing environmental management is
far more than the value of the cost savings speculated.
However, the responses agree that proper environ-
mental management can reduce convictions for envir-
onment-related offences, and consequently, that costs
can be saved. Another contractor suggested that the
application of environmental management could result
in a reduction of the number of penalties attached to
failing to comply with environmental regulations. He
revealed that the number of prosecutions against his
firm had dropped from 50 in 1999, which involved fines
of HK$160,000, to 14 in 2000, involving fines of
HK$38,400. This demonstrates a significant improve-
ment made by the firm in reducing its expenditure on
environment-related convictions. This benefit is echoed
by two other interviewed contractors, although they
admitted that the decrease in legal convictions requires
a certain sacrifice in terms of increasing implementation
costs.
3. Barriers to implementing environmental management
It seems that there is a certain level of resentment to
the full implementation of environmental management
in local construction, and barriers exist both internally
and externally. Shen et al. [9] suggested that the demand
for a significant amount of time and cost investment in
order to apply advanced measures for improving envir-
onmental performance decreases contractors’ interests
in doing so. Tan et al. [16] pointed out that construction
activities involve intricate environmental aspects, and
the improvement of these aspects will incur significant
expenses, thus contractors are reluctant to adopt
proactive measures. Other studies have also identified
barriers to environmental management practice in con-
struction ([17,19]). Based on previous work, a list of 13
environmental management barriers (EB) was con-
structed as follows:
 L.Y. Shen, V.W.Y. Tam / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 535–543 539

By adopting the same analytical methodology as used

EB-a Lack of government legal enforcement in the previous section of this paper, calculations can be
EB-b Increase in management and operation costs
EB-c Lack of trained staff and expertise conducted to obtain the values of the parameters: total
EB-d Lack of client support barrier-effect scores (TBS), average barrier-effect score
EB-e Lack of sub-contractor co-operation (ABS), the coefficient of variation of the barrier-effect
EB-f Lack of supplier co-operation score (called the environmental barrier-effect index
EB-g Difficult co-ordination of environmental value; EBIV). According to the EBIV, the ranks among
performance among multi-tier subcontractors
EB-h Lack of working staff support all the identified barriers can be established, and are
EB-i Time-consuming for improving environmental denoted as EBIVR. The results of these calculations are
performance shown in Table 4, and the ranking profile according to
EB-j Change of existing practice of company the EBIVR is shown in Fig. 2.
structure and policy
The results in Fig. 2 demonstrate that major barriers
EB-k Increase in documentation workload
EB-l Lack of tailor-made training on environmental
to implementing environmental management in con-
management struction include EB-b (increase in management costs),
EB-m Lack of technological support within organization EB-c (lack of trained staff and expertise), EB-e (lack of
sub-contractor cooperation), EB-d (lack of client sup-
port), and EB-i (time-consuming for improving envir-
These barrier factors were presented to respondents onmental performance). This indication is generally
for assessing their relative significance, thus major bar- supported by the five interview discussions. These dis-
riers could be unveiled. Similar to the approach used cussions show that the cost increase is mainly due to the
previously for surveying the relative significance of application of the measures for implementing environ-
beneficial factors, respondents were requested to indi- mental management, which will unavoidably require the
cate the significance of the effect of each barrier factor investment of both time and resources. Considering the
by selecting one of five grades, namely, grade I carrying local business culture, contractors in Hong Kong are
numerical value 1, grade II carrying 2, and so on. Grade often concerned with short-term results in terms of costs
I indicates the least effect on performing environmental and benefits, and they do not much value the potential
management, and grade V indicates the largest effect. benefits or profits that may occur in the distant future
The middle grades II, III and IV indicate the difference [14,18]. The typical practices of the multi-tier contract-
from a smaller effect to a larger effect. The survey ing system in Hong Kong construction present the dif-
results are summarized in Table 3. The figs. in the table ficulties of proper communications between different
represent the number of respondents who gave a specific layers of contractors. All five interview-discussions
significance grade to each environmental barrier. For revealed that main contractors find it very difficult to
example, the figure 18 in the top left corner indicates control subcontractors’ environmental performance.
that 18 respondents considered that the barrier EB-a Support from project clients for implementing environ-
has the largest effect on the implementation of environ- mental management is perceived to be weak. There is
mental management in construction practice, thus grade little incentive for the contractor to invest in environ-
V is given. mental management if the client has no account of whe-
ther or not a contractor performs better environmental
Table 3
Survey responses: significance of environmental management barriers
Table 4
EB Response to the level of significance Total Calculations of parameter values to environmental management bar-
response riers
Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade
V IV III II I EB ABS d EBIV EBIVR

EB-a 18 22 16 10 6 72 EB-a 3.50 1.24 6.32 11

EB-b 30 25 16 1 0 72 EB-b 4.17 0.82 9.26 1
EB-c 10 33 22 7 0 72 EB-c 3.64 0.84 7.97 2
EB-d 21 31 11 6 3 72 EB-d 3.85 1.07 7.45 4
EB-e 20 29 15 7 1 72 EB-e 3.83 0.99 7.7 3
EB-f 12 27 22 9 2 72 EB-f 3.53 1.01 7.03 6
EB-g 21 18 25 5 3 72 EB-g 3.68 1.10 7.03 6
EB-h 18 19 21 11 3 72 EB-h 3.53 1.15 6.53 7
EB-i 14 28 20 9 1 72 EB-i 3.63 0.98 7.33 5
EB-j 6 21 23 15 7 72 EB-j 3.06 1.11 5.82 12
EB-k 15 23 16 15 3 72 EB-k 3.44 1.16 6.41 8
EB-l 9 20 25 15 3 72 EB-l 3.24 1.05 6.33 10
EB-m 8 20 27 17 0 72 EB-m 3.26 1.05 6.36 9
540 L.Y. Shen, V.W.Y. Tam / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 535–543

management. Normally, contractors in Hong Kong are applying environmentally friendly technology on site is
under the pressure of strict requirements to finish pro- one of the most effective measures for environmental
jects on time, which is the client’s highest priority. Local protection. McDonald [20] emphasized the significance
practice imposes heavy penalties on contractors for of establishing a waste management plan during the
overrunning the construction time, and this largely construction phase. Chen et al. [17] classified four
diverts the contractors’ interests from contributing time groups of countermeasures against construction pollu-
to implementing environmental management. tion, namely, technological methods, managerial meth-
It is worth noting that the barrier EB-a (lack of gov- ods, planning methods, and building materials methods.
ernment legal enforcement) was perceived as an insig- Based on the literature findings, the following 10 envir-
nificant factor in the survey. This finding appeared onmental management measures (EM) were constructed
controversial in the interview discussions. The discus- and presented to respondents:
sions with two contractors suggest that legislation such
as the noise control ordinance is the driving force
EM a Legal requirements on environmental protection
behind implementing environmental management, but
EM b Reduction, reuse and recycling of construction
the lack of governmental enforcement and support lim- and demolition wastes
its the effectiveness of the ordinance. Another inter- EM c Imposing responsibilities of protecting environment
viewee however strongly suggested that the government on managerial staff
in Hong Kong overemphasized legal enforcement in EM d Applying environmentally friendly technology on site
EM e Providing in-house training on environmental
many areas where professional institutions instead of
management
the government should play more active roles. This EM f Establishing waste management plan
probably reflects the varying practice of environmental EM g Continuous efforts in improving environmental
management among different construction firms. In management
fact, many firms are just starting to realize the impor- EM h Inclusion of environmental management in tendering
requirements
tance of environmental management, largely because of
EM i Effective communication on environmental issue
increasing pressure from environmental protection voi- between all layers of subcontractors
ces and increasing governmental regulations. To them, EM j Close supervision at site level
the government is over-actively imposing environmental
regulations.
The respondents were requested to indicate the effec-
tiveness of each environmental management measure by
4. Measures of implementing environmental management selecting one of five grades, namely, grade I, carrying
numerical value 1, grade II with 2, and so on. Grade I
A number of measures are suggested in previous indicates that the concerned measure is considered least
studies for improving environmental performance in effective in application, and grade V indicates that it is
construction activities. In a typical classification, these considered most effective. The middle grades II, III and
measures include reduction, reuse and recycling of con- IV indicate the difference from less effective to more
struction and demolition wastes, applying environmen- effective. The survey results are summarized in Table 5.
tally friendly technology on site and establishing waste The figures in the table represent the number of
management plans [6]. Tan et al. [16] pointed out that respondents who gave a specific grade to each measure.
For example, the figure 26 in the top-left corner indi-
Table 5 cates that 26 respondents considered that the measure
Survey responses to the measures of implementing environmental EM-a is most effective in the practical application, thus
management
grade V is given.
EM Response to level of significance Total By adopting the same analytical methodology as used
response in previous sections, calculations can be conducted for
Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade
obtaining the values of the parameters: total effective-
V IV III II I
ness scores (TES), average effectiveness score (AES), the
EM-a 26 18 23 2 3 72 coefficient of variation of effectiveness score (called the
EM-b 7 26 34 5 0 72 effectiveness index value; EIV). According to EIV, the
EM-c 5 18 39 8 2 72
EM-d 9 24 30 4 5 72
ranks among all the identified environmental manage-
EM-e 7 20 39 5 1 72 ment measures can be established, denoted as EIVR.
EM-f 9 26 34 2 1 72 The results of these calculations are shown in Table 6,
EM-g 9 21 36 5 1 72 and the ranking profile is shown in Fig. 3.
EM-h 14 24 28 2 4 72 The survey results demonstrate that EM-f (Establish
EM-i 3 20 40 4 5 72
EM-j 6 21 34 8 3 72
waste management plan) is the most effective environ-
mental management measures in the local construction
 L.Y. Shen, V.W.Y. Tam / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 535–543 541

industry. This empirical evidence is echoed by other
practice. McDonald et al. [20] investigated Australia
construction industry and demonstrated that the proper
use of a waste management plan during the construction
stage is very effective in reducing the waste generated,
namely, 15% less waste was generated on site prior to
recycling and 43% less waste went to landfill, and 50%
waste handling charges is saved. The second most effec-
tive measure from the survey is EM-b (Reduction, reuse
and recycling of construction and demolition wastes).
This evidence is in line with Poon’s [6] findings that
suggest reduction, reuse and recycling of construction

Fig. 2. Ranking profile among environmental barriers.

Fig. 3. Ranking profile among effective environmental management measures.

542 L.Y. Shen, V.W.Y. Tam / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 535–543

Table 6 It is worth noting that EM-d (applying environmen-

Calculations of parameter values to environmental management tally friendly technology on site) is not considered as an
measures
attractive measure to the local contractors. One of the
EM AES d EIV EIVR typical environmentally friendly technologies for con-
struction activity is the application of pre-cast compo-
EM-a 3.86 1.08 7.44 5
EM-b 3.44 0.77 7.97 2
nents. However, the local construction practice is
EM-c 3.22 0.84 7.06 7 typically characterized with a variety of building design
EM-d 3.39 1.01 6.75 9 modes and congested site space, which limits the use of
EM-e 3.38 0.81 7.55 3 the pre-cast technology. The general view in the local
EM-f 3.56 0.80 8.00 1 construction is that any application of environmentally
EM-g 3.49 0.85 7.54 4
EM-h 3.58 1.02 7.09 6
friendly methods will involve the increase of extra costs
EM-i 3.17 0.87 6.81 8 and efforts. This is likely true to individual firms for
EM-j 3.26 0.92 6.81 8 short term, but underestimates the long-term benefits
for both business and the public. This also reflects the
local business culture dominated by pursuing short-term
and demolition wastes as most recommendable for profits among the contractors.
Hong Kong construction practice. One interviewee dis-
cussion also supports this findings and suggests the
waste reduction can be achieved through reducing con- 5. Conclusions
crete by using pre-fabricated building components and
road works; reusing site office to reduce their operation This paper examines the significance of various bene-
cost; and recycling steel and timber for generating fits, barriers and measures from and for implementing
income. EM-e (Providing in-house training program on environmental management in construction activities
environmental management) was also considered as an within the Hong Kong construction industry. It pro-
effective measure. In fact, one interviewee strongly vides empirical evidence of the growing progress among
emphasized the importance of in-house education. It is contractors in the local industry in implementing envir-
considered that in-house training is a tailor-made pro- onmental management. The results of the analysis indi-
gram that can incorporate the general principles with cate that contribution to environmental protection,
the characteristics of both individual firms and the spe- reduction of environmental risk, improving environ-
cific projects concerned. mental image and cost saving due to the reduction of
Although the survey results indicate that measure environment-related convictions were considered the
EM-a (Legal requirements on environmental protec- most important benefits of implementing environmental
tion) is not considered as the most effective measure for management in construction. On the other hand, the
implementing environmental management, the further existence of barriers for implementing environmental
interview discussions suggest the importance of the legal management has been demonstrated, and major barriers
measure. As it is a common conception that cost include increasing management cost, lack of trained
increase and resources consumption will be unavoidable staff and expertise, lack of sub-contractor cooperation,
from implementing environmental management, no lack of client support and time-consuming for improv-
measures will be effectively received without the enfor- ing environmental performance.
cement and supports from government. The imple- It seems that the working practice developed by con-
mentation may exist in a few proactive firms, but it will tractors in Hong Kong places much value on short-
not be echoed by the whole industry. Professionals urge term benefit with less counting on the long-term bene-
the government to extend the current legal requirement fits that could be gained from investments such as in
on environmental performance to a broader content environmental management. The local industry has
that includes the requirement of proposing envir- been promoting measures such as establishing waste
onmentally friendly construction methods at tendering management plans, reduction and recycling of con-
stage, such as the use of precast methods. In fact, a few struction and demolition wastes, providing in-house
clients such as Kowloon Canton Railway (KCR) have training on environmental management, and legal mea-
started to impose the requirement of environmental sures on environmental protection. However, the effec-
performance in the tendering documentation. Never- tiveness of these measures can only be realized if all
theless, a different view was raised over the govern- construction professionals participate in applying them.
mental enforcement. One interviewee suggested that the The findings of this study can provide a reference for
voluntary-based implementation of environmental adopting effective measures in order to obtain the ben-
management will be more effective as compulsory efits of and mitigate the effects of barriers to the
mechanism can involve less incentive thus take out the mission of improving environmental performance in
true commitments. construction.
 L.Y. Shen, V.W.Y. Tam / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 535–543
References
[1] McDonald B. RECON waste minimisation and environmental
program. Proceedings of CIB Commission Meetings and Pre-
sentations, RMIT, Melbourne, 14–16, February 1996.
[2] Zhang ZH, Shen LY. Promoting urbanization towards sustain-
able development in China. Journal Tsinghua University 2000;
40(1):2–6.
[3] SEPB (China State Environment Protection Bureau. China
Environment State Report in 1997. Environment Protection,
Beijing 1998;Issue 249(July):3–8.
[4] WB (World Bank; 1998) 1998 World development indicators,
Oxford University Press.
[5] EPD (Environmental Protection Department) Environment
Hong Kong annual report 1999, Hong Kong Government, 8–15,
1999.
[6] Poon CS. Management and recycling of demolition waste in
Hong Kong. Proceedings, 2nd international conference on solid
waste Management, Taipei, Taiwan, 2000, 433–442.
[7] Uher T. Absolute indicators of sustainable construction, Pro-
ceedings of COBRA 1999, The challenge of change: construction
and building for the new millennium, 1–2 September University
of Salford, UK, 243–253, 1999.
[8] March MC. Construction and environment—a management
matrix. Chartered Builder, June Issue, 1992.
[9] Shen LY, Bao Q Yip SL. Implementing innovative functions in
construction project management towards the mission of sus-
tainable environment. Proceedings of the millennium conference
on construction project management, Hong Kong Institution of
Engineers, 24 October 2000, 77–84.
[10] Hendrickson C, Horvath A. Resource use and environmental
543
emissions of US construction sectors. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 2000;126(1):38–43.
[11] HKQAA (Hong Kong Quality Assurance Agency; 1999). ISO
14001: An executive’s guide for environmental management sys-
tem certification, Hong Kong Government, 8–9.
[12] ISO (International Organization for Standardization; 1999). The
ISO survey of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certificates. Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization, 1999.
[13] HKCA (Hong Kong Contraction Association) (2000), Available
at: http://www.hkca.hingenet.com/members’’.
[14] ASD (Architectural Services Department; 1999). Architectural
services Department Environmental Report 1999, Architectural
Services Department of the Hong Kong Government, 3–14.
[15] Ofori G. Sustainable construction: comment. Construction
Management and Economics 1998;16(2):141–5.
[16] Tan TKA, Ofori G, Briffett C. ISO 14000: its relevance to the
construction industry of Singapore and its potential as the next
industry milestone. Journal of Construction Management and
Economics 1999;17(4):449–61.
[17] Chen Z, Li H, Wong TC. Environmental management of
urban construction projects in China. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 2000;126(4):320–4.
[18] Zhang ZH, Shen LY, Love P, Treloar G. A framework for
implementing ISO 1400 in construction. International Journal of
Environmental Management and Health 2000;11(2):145–8.
[19] Jeljeli MN, Russell JS. Coping with uncertainty in environmental
construction: decision-analysis approach. Journal of Construc-
tion Engineering and Management 1995;121(4):370–9.
[20] McDonald B. Implementing a waste management plan during the
construction phase of a project: a case study. Journal of Con-
struction Management and Economics 1998;16(1):71–8.