Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Improved project control for sustainable development of construction

sector to reduce environment risks
Summaira Malik a, Fareena Fatima b, Asma Imran c, Lai Fatt Chuah d, Ji
rí Jaromír Kleme
s e,
Imran Hameed Khaliq f, Saira Asif g, Muhammad Aslam h, Farrukh Jamil h,
Abdullah Khan Durrani i, Majid Majeed Akbar i, Muhammad Shahbaz j,
Muhammad Usman k, A.E. Atabani l, Salman Raza Naqvi m, Suzana Yusup n,
Awais Bokhari h, n, *
a
Department of Economics, COMSATS University Islamabad (CUI), Lahore Campus, Defence Road, Off Rawind Road, Lahore, Pakistan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Central Punjab (UCP), Lahore, Pakistan
c
Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad (CUI), Lahore Campus, Defence Road, Off Rawind Road, Lahore, Pakistan
d
Malaysia Marine Department Northern Region, 11700, Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia
e
Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory e SPIL, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology e VUT Brno,
Technicka  2896/2, 61669, Brno, Czech Republic
f
Department of Public Health, University of Health Sciences Lahore, Pakistan
g
Department of Botany, PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
h
Chemical Engineering Department, COMSATS University Islamabad (CUI), Lahore Campus, Defence Road, Off Rawind Road, Lahore, Pakistan
i
Institute of Chemical Engineering and Technology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
j
Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalif University (HBKU), Qatar Foundation, P.O. Box 5825, Doha,
Qatar
k
School of Business and Economics, University of Management and Technology (UMT), Lahore, Pakistan
l
Alternative Fuels Research Laboratory (AFRL), Energy Division, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Erciyes University, 38039,
Kayseri, Turkey
m
School of Chemical and Materials Engineering, National University of Sciences and Technology, H-12, Islamabad, Pakistan
n
Biomass Processing Cluster, HICOE-Centre for Biofuel and Biochemical Research, Institute of Self-Sustainable Building, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Perak, 32610, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examines how environmental concerns impact the connectivity amid formal, informal control
Received 30 March 2019 and performance based on data gathered from different 156 construction companies. The empirical
Received in revised form outcomes illustrate that behaviour, outcome relationship between variables and clan control affirma-
23 August 2019
tively affect performance on construction projects. However, self-control is unimportantly identified
Accepted 27 August 2019
with project execution. This research uncovers that in construction projects, the adequacy of managerial
Available online 31 August 2019
control varies. The results further suggest that interior environmental concerns contrarily moderate the
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Kleme
s consequence of control of cleaner merchandise enactment during projects. However, external natural
hazards emphatically direct the adequacy of project control, showing noteworthy and assorted roles
Keywords: played by different ecological dangers in the assembly of control and project execution. The interactive
Cleaner project control empirical outcomes between formal control and external environmental hazards are significantly related
Construction sector to project performance(t > 2, and p < 0.05) however the controlling impact of the inner environmental
Environmental risk hazard on project control is relatively lower (b ¼ 0.338, p > 0.05). The study concluded the least signif-
Sustainable development
icant of all controller means towards the enactment of construction projects. Results showed that for
Formal and informal control
complex projects, operative control approaches should be prioritised over ineffective control methods.
Project control performance
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Chemical Engineering Department, COMSATS University
Islamabad (CUI), Lahore Campus, Defence Road, Off Rawind Road, Lahore, Pakistan. Due to increasing awareness regarding sustainable
E-mail address: awaisbokhari@cuilahore.edu.pk (A. Bokhari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118214
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214
development, the construction business is presently confronting
difficulties to lessen negative ecological effects while looking after
high constructability performance (Zhong and Wu, 2015). Produc-
tion and environmental wastes are dependent on construction
projects. However, they are separately assessed in construction
(Poor et al., 2017). Construction activities produce a massive
quantity of waste having considerable environmental effects (Yusof
et al., 2017). Due to increasing technology and management
methods, construction methods of developing countries are grad-
ually industrialising. This makes it fundamental to grow new haz-
ard assessment and control strategies. Past research appears to
overlook the hazard of the construction sector for new develop-
ment advances and techniques. The distinguishing proof of hazard
systems is misty, prompting the absence of clear direction for
hazard shirking and control (Wang et al., 2018).
Assessment of risks that threaten project execution is a primary
objective of the planning division of the project (Qazi et al., 2016).
However, an accurate assessment of control and risk can ensure a
project's success (Guo et al., 2014). The primary goal of a project
leader is to monitor the risks carefully and successfully accomplish
the tasks associated with any project which meticulously includes
the controlling and performance of it. Importantly, environmental
risks contribute to a significant extent for evaluating the control
and performance, precisely for those who are working in hazardous
industries such as construction which is not only labour intensive
but also marked as ‘one of the most dangerous industries’ by the
International Labour Organisation (Cooke, 2013).
The simultaneous presence of too many risks can cause delays in
completion, unreasonable spending, unsuitable outcomes or even
absolute disappointment of a task (Hwang and Ng, 2013). In
unfavourable environmental conditions the risks to hazardous ex-
posures, maybe 10 or even 1,000 times higher at work than else-
where (ILO, 2016). Rahman et al. (2014) defined environmental risk
as demarcated as some hazard or impending risk to the ecology (of
whatsoever gradation or interval) and comprises all sorts of in-
fluences. Abundant of the investigations steered have depicted
construction as a foremost backer to ecological disturbance,
contamination and detoxification. In the construction projects site,
assortment requirements to be commenced with superior metic-
ulousness and discussion, comprising exertions to capitalising en-
ergy through green construction. Green constructions are
especially premeditated to reason fewer risks to humans and the
ecology via efficiency utilisation of utilities and other possessions,
with a simultaneous lessening in leftover, contamination and
ecological impacts.
Tam et al. (2004) asserted that a sustainable construction proj-
ect necessitates the native construction sector to be worthwhile,
accomplished, and vigilant to the requirements of sustainable
project construction in all its events. The sustainable development-
mode is a development mode proposed when humans face the
environmental pressures and hazard risks from all aspects with the
purpose of the harmonious development and environmental safety
(Yin-can, 2017). Due to increasing awareness regarding sustainable
development, the construction business is presently confronting
difficulties to lessen negative ecological effects while looking after
high constructability performance (Zhong and Wu, 2015). Con-
struction activities produce a massive quantity of waste, having
considerable environmental effects (Yusof et al., 2017).
Numeral construction development projects recounted delays
or underprivileged performance due to explicit environmental
concerns. To evade any challenging problems in the construction
venture methodology, construction management requisite to be
prudent of the ecological dynamics (Kuye, 2004). Failure or success
of the project is also contingent with the environment (Youker,
1992). The outer hazard factors originate from sources outside
the control of venture the board. These sources incorporate polit-
ical, economic, social/cultural, technological, legal and environ-
mental components (Yean et al., 2010). In connection with the
perils from the outer condition, past investigations have featured
the requirement for hazard examination and management (Ankit
et al., 2013). Many studies support the view that high levels of
risk reduce project performance (Wallace et al., 2004); however,
the empirical evidence on informal control and performance with
the interaction of environmental risks still lacks in the literature.
The present study fills this gap and empirically presents a new
theoretical idea that positive and negative ecological hazards deal
with formal and informal controls and project execution.
The academic community holds diverging views on the rela-
tionship between definite control trends (e.g. behavioural and clan
control) and project performance. (Liu and Wang, 2016a,b). How-
ever, in developing countries like Pakistan, the moderating effect of
such risks are thoroughly ignored. Pakistan is the seventh highly
environmentally vulnerable country (ADB, 2017). Keeping in view
the importance of sustainable development, the present govern-
ment of Pakistan has initiated its countrywide 5 years ‘Clean and
Green Pakistan campaign to save the environment through
changing the mentalities of the corporate and general public. The
moderating effect of environmental risk may be higher in cultures
with low uncertainty avoidance. The present study contributes to
the ecological sustainability in terms of its socio-ecnomic and
environmental well-being while exploring the interaction of envi-
ronmental risks, control and performance. There is contradictory
evidence in the previous research work regarding the association
between control and project execution, due to the uncertain
moderating role played by internal and external environmental risk
(Perçin, 2008). Further analysis of the combined effects of risk and
control is needed. This study is an attempt to empirically examine
these types of relationships in numerous construction companies
of Provincial Capital (Lahore) of state of Punjab, Pаkistаn.
2. Literature review
2.1. Project performance
Lester (2007) declared that project performance is a multidi-
mensional construct that without doubt, implies diverse things to
various individuals. They believe that achievement is best vocal at
the start of a project in relation to key and measurable standards on
which the comparative performance or failure of the project would
be evaluated. Project performance measurement is vital during the
project lifetime and equally important for programme manage-
ment. It helps the project manager and project management office
(PMO) to early observe cost and planning issues and act early and
take remedial measures (Gaediner and Stewart, 2000); allows or-
ganisations to establish an apparent understanding of the health of
their projects; and can improve the morale of project teams.
Furthermore, measuring performance during project life can help
PMOs outline ongoing progress initiatives in areas where projects
tend to function at lower levels (Kerzner, 2001).
Project success relies on the threefold aspect (time, cost scope)
and also depends on the quality of the project. The threefold
constraint is one of the most commonly used methods for evalu-
ating projects (Lechler and Dvir, 2010). Adenfelt (2010) added а
fourth component regarding customer satisfaction/acceptance.
Importantly, this turns organisations' focus away from themselves
and towards customers, while reinforcing the role of the market in
a аvery successful project. The ‘scope’ component focuses on a
project's ‘deliverables’ (Abrantes and Figueiredo, 2015). The scope
is explained in a project charter that usually inculcates a portrayal
of the operational requirements for which the project outcomes are
 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214
proposed and an explanation of the results (i.e. a service or product
description). The scope component is more qualitative than quan-
titative; it involves monitoring and managing change. The most
common technique for measuring range is the analysis of variance,
which measures the extent of change in project performance. One
of the important aspects of project scope control is to determine the
cause of variance in relation to the baseline of the scope and to
decide about corrective action. Scope statement and work break-
down structure (WBS) are baselines of a scope, which is a detailed
list of project activities.
The ‘time’ component concerns a project's schedule, which
should include planned dates for activities and milestones
(Braimah and Ndekugri, 2008). The ‘cost’ component relates to a
project budget. The budgeting process focuses on determining the
cost of project activities and establishing a cost base. The cost
baseline is a record of the expected cost of a project or project
phase. The relationship between the parameters is such that if one
of the three constraints changes, at least one other parameter is
likely to be affected. Projects are characterised as successful if they
are completed by the latest scheduled date and by budget guide-
lines, and if they operate in accordance with the client's
specifications.
2.2. The risk in construction projects
According to Mhetre et al. (2016), risk management is a tech-
nique that should be applied within an industry. According to Wu
et al. (2019), the structural understanding of planners and spe-
cialists in off-site construction (OSC) ventures was viewed as the
most basic hazard factor inside China. It was also observed that less
experienced professionals in OSC tend to see dangers with higher
degrees of centrality.
Yuang et al. (2018) developed 16 social dangers (risks) for
development extends in elevated dense urban territories. The re-
sults revealed that Social risks are highly associated with difficult
ecologies and unreasonable behaviour. Mavi and Standing (2018)
identified critical success factors in construction projects. They
found an organisation, external environment and sustainability as
the main determining factors in Australian construction projects.
Snyder (2011) characterises a venture hazard as a questionable
occasion or condition that, on the off chance that it happens, has an
affirmative or negative impact on somewhere around one antici-
pate objective. Any number of possible risks could steer to a pro-
ject's non-fulfilment, so it is important to determine which risk
factors are present simultaneously throughout a project (Schmidt
et al., 2012). The simultaneous presence of too many risks (such
as adverse events) can cause delays in completion, economic dis-
orders, negative results or even abrupt failure of a project (Hwang
et al., 2013).
Assessment of risks that threaten project execution is a highly
recommended and an essential point of the project planning pro-
cess (Qazi et al., 2016). Without understanding the elements that
would be postponed a project, project managers can be caught
unprepared. However, not all risks are equal. Within the relevant
literature, numerous approaches to risk classification have been
suggested to ensure effective risk management in construction
projects. Tah and Carr (2000) categorise risks as either internal or
external. In general, it's easier to identify internal risks, manage and
contain than external risks; however, an assessment accuracy of
both can ensure a project's success (Guo et al., 2014).
Project managers must identify and prioritise internal risksd-
those originating within the organisation (Keil et al., 2013)dsuch
as the company's financial solvency and whether or not they
possess sufficient resources, infrastructure and equipment to
complete the project according to schedule (Teller and Kock, 2013).
3
The unpredictability of a basic framework would change contingent
upon a group's area; this may require thought amid the hazard
evaluation process. Staffing issues (disease or termination) likewise
be viewed as interior project risks.
External risks are often beyond the control of the organisation
and team overseeing a project. Subsequently, external risks are
progressively hard to anticipate and control (Guo et al., 2014). As-
pects, for instance, impoverishment, fiscal turmoil, warfare, crimi-
nality, and additional adversative proceedings impended team's
aptitude and capability to complete a project effectively (Alquier
et al., 2000). This sort of occasion specifically compromises the
project, however regularly shocks project directors because of
deficient investigation of external risks.
Since successful appraisal of inward and outer hazard is essen-
tial for the viable task the board, this procedure ought to be
directed cautiously. It is essential that risk assessment teams be
composed of members from diverse backgrounds (Schmidt et al.,
2012). The availability of several views on the same problem
would provide a more complete analysis. By making a domain
helpful for conceptualising, project team members would be
agreeable openly communicating their musings, prompting an
intensive survey of inside and outer project risks.
2.3. Impact of project control on project performance
Project control, one of the major subjects in the literature is the
exertion of describing control. As the project management explo-
rations had an assortment of connotations for ‘control’. Control is
demarcated as a character, as a procedure, and as a consequence
(Olawale and Sun, 2010). Control is also deliberated as a prepara-
tion, an arrangement and a concern (Isaac and Navon, 2014).
The possibilities of practising the control techniques in the field
of cleaner production are very wide. This conception is based on the
Process Control theory. The main objective to implement cleaner
project control is to increase the efficiency of the company's ac-
tivity. The main task of the cleaner production implementation
within the company is to minimise the impact of environmental
risks in company's activities by implementing cleaner production
options, which give not only environmental benefits, but also have
economic effects. The main tasks of the cleaner project control are
to monitor output variables by measurement, making rational de-
cisions of effective regulation of the process on information about
the current and desirable state of the process basis and effective
implementation of these decisions (Simutis, 1999).
The correlation between management control and performance
is studied less often (Kirsch et al., 2010). In addition, the literature
on this subject provides contradictory results. According to Klien
et al. (2006), two types of management control can have adverse
effects on organisational learning: behavioural control and
outcome control. Klien's results demonstrate that behavioural
control and learning directly influence project performance, while
outcome control contributes only indirectly to the impact on
learning.
The effects of management control can be affected by certain
project features, e.g., supply situation (Tiwan and Keil, 2010). The
impacts may shift, as indicated by task nature (Keil et al., 2013). The
present study employs empirical results produced by Liu (2015) to
detail the control execution relationship with regards to con-
struction ventures. To meet high-quality standards and to accom-
plish time and budget objectives, leaders of construction projects
should practice effective forms of management control. A sum-
marised form of discussion is presented in Table 1.
Harris et al. (2009) conducted a case study to examine the
relationship between uncertainty and control, finding that flexi-
bility may be required when initial conditions are questionable, and
4 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214
Table 1
Summary of key literature review - in general.
Authors Data Sources/Study Sample
Kirsch et al. It is primary research that collected data through 95
(2010) information systems project teams.
Klien et al. (2006) Data from a sample of software development
professionals
Liu and Wang The study attempted on 195 medical IS projects from
(2016) 160 hospitals
Wiener and Examined the data from IT vendor.
Saunders
(2014)
Heales et al. Steered IS projects with six dissimilar project
(2007) managers
Keil et al. (2013) data collected from 63 completed IT projects in China Keil et al. (2013) analysed the directing impacts of necessity hazard and user risk on the
Rustagi (2008) Data obtained from 138 client-vendor from
outsourcing comapnies.
Harris et al. (2009) Conducting a in a sample of IT companies
Goebel and Data was retrieved from cross-sectional investigation Goebel and Weißenberger (2017) examined the relationship between the effectiveness of the
Weibenberger among 295 older administrative accountants
(2017)
Liu (2015) Based on data acquired from 128 IS projects
that compelling control in these circumstances requires the uti-
lisation of conventional controls. The empirical findings of Kirsch
et al. (2010) support the view that under particular conditions,
team clan control is facilitated by project managers under certain
conditions as team leaders. Goebel and Weißenberger (2017)
examined the relationship between the effectiveness of the con-
trol system and organisational commitment with different man-
agement control mechanisms. Their results supported the view
that these two outcomes consequently affect the overall perfor-
mance of the organisation. The results suggest that particularly
informal control mechanisms are positively related to profitable
outcomes. The results of Liu (2015) demonstrate that conduct,
result, faction and restraint have a directional association with
venture execution. In any case, the danger of multifaceted nature
moderately affects the control and development of project execu-
tion. The event of raised hazard intricacy brings down the impacts
of conduct and poise on execution, while the proficiency of the
outcome and control of the clan's increments. Where risks are
present, project managers frequently monitor progress and ensure
that project results are according to business policy (Sabherwal and
King, 1995). Monitoring results also drive the development team to
Findings
The correlation between management control and performance is studied less often.
Results demonstrate that behavioral control and learning directly influence project
performance, while outcome control contributes only indirectly to the impact on learning.
Studied found that self-control is unrelated to performance. Their results support the argument
that the effectiveness of management control varies and not all control modes significantly
affect performance.
Reported that as companies increasingly engage in inter-organizational projects, including off-
shoring projects, corporate clients find it increasingly challenging to effectively exercise
control beyond organizational boundaries. The researchers investigated the customer's job in
advancing casual control in between authoritative activities including removed customer-
seller connections, just as the adequacy of these types of control. Their outcomes show that
even though control of the tribe is substantially harder to advance than poise in the connection
between the customer and the supplier, just group control has an immediate positive effect on
task execution. Likewise, national social qualities and relevant elements moderate both the
advancement and adequacy of casual control.
Studied the effectiveness of control mechanisms, including how they were established and
applied and their evolution throughout a project. They found that formal controls were
embraced on task components with plainly characterized undertaking results, while casual
controls were received primarily in connection to components of the project that were hazy
and regularly identified with individuals. While formal controls were overwhelming at
undertaking inception, as a rule, these controls turned out to be less prevailing through the
span of the project.
connection between control (formal and casual) and venture performance. They found that the
two kinds of hazard moderate the impacts of formal and casual control on execution. In
particular, prerequisite and user risk decreased the positive impact of control on project
execution, suggesting that the usage of powerful control was important to guarantee great
project execution.
Rustagi (2008) recommend that customers having specialized in technical management skills
have a solid trust in their providers. They utilize prescribed regulator systems to a reduced
degree. Errand vulnerability was observed to be decidedly connected with the utilisation of
prescribed control, while the essential dimension of capability associated with the
redistributed action was not identified with the measure of formal control.
Conducted a case study to examine the relationship between uncertainty and control, finding
that flexibility may be required when initial conditions are questionable, and that compelling
control in these circumstances requires the utilisation of conventional controls.
control system and organizational commitment with different management control
mechanisms. Their results supported the view that these two consequences consequently
impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. The consequences advocated that
particularly informal control mechanisms are positively related to profitable outcomes.
The results of show that a directional relationship with project performance. However, the risk
of complexity has a controlling outcome on the controller and construction project enactment.
The occurrence of elevated risk complication lowers the possessions of behavior and control on
enactment, while the efficiency of the result and controller of the clan's increases.
minimise the difficulty and create an easy-to-use top-level system
for complex problem solving (Keil et al., 2013). According to (Zutshi
and Creed, 2015), cost-benefit analyses to identify tangible and
intangible costs and benefits from the environmental management
system (EMS) should be undertaken by construction firms. Ac-
cording to Rahman and Esa (2014), a hazard is characterized as any
hazard or potential hazard to the ecology (of whatever degree or
length).
Internal environmental risk leads to conflicts among project
managers and the project team (Wallace et al., 2004), and can
establish an unreliable association between project managers and
the development team. Based on the literature, the present study
assumes that the high environmental risk intensifies the connec-
tivity between project control and performance. A least exterior
ecological hazard provides predictable tasks to team members.
When external organisations react unexpectedly or when com-
petitors take unforeseen preventive measures, the project team has
to put extra effort and commitment to manage the desired
outcome. Moreover, high external environmental risk demands
competence and flexibility for satisfactory performance
(Eisenhardt et al., 2010). These objectives can be achieved through
 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214
formal and informal controls (Keil et al., 2013).The project man-
agers focus on internal environmental risks that are critical to
project success (Schmidt et al., 2012). The project managers have
limited control over internal environmental risks, as this risk can be
controlled by increasing co-operation between the project manager
and the rest of the organisation. (Schmidt et al., 2012).
3. Research methodology
The research methodology is a paradigm that forms the basis of
research and involves research philosophy, research approach,
research strategy, time horizon and methods of research. The
overall research methodology adopted for this study is summarised
in Table 2. The present cross-sectional study was conducted in the
construction industry of Provisional Capital of State (Lahore) of
Punjab, Pakistan. The target population is currently employed by
project managers in the construction industry in Lahore. An
extensive list of construction companies officially registered with
the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) was identified through
several sources and the Constructors Association of Pakistan (CAP).
3.1. Sample size determination
According to PEC.org and CАP, there are 464 registered con-
struction companies in Lahore, Pakistan. The sampling unit of the
study consists of project managers working on construction pro-
jects in Lahore. To estimate sample size, Lwanga and Lemeshow
(1991) approach was used, in which the optimum sample size
was calculated as
z2 Pð1  PÞN
n¼ 2
(1.1)
d ðN  1Þ þ z2 Pð1  PÞ
where.
z ¼ 1.96 at 95%confidenceinterval (CI),
P ¼ 0.2,proportion of anticipated study population,
N ¼ 464, Population size, number of companies,
d ¼ 0.05 absolute precision (spread ±5%).
After putting the values in the formula,n ¼ 311. At least two
project managers from each company were contacted (311/
2 ¼ 155.5) to avoid single-source bias. So a total of 156 companies
were randomly selected. 311 questionnaires were distributed via
email and personal visits; where companies did not respond to
initial request, other companies were contacted from the popula-
tion. Out of 311 questionnaires, 263 participants responded with
the response rate of 84.65%.
Based on the discussion in the literature review, the hypoth-
esised model with instrument details is presented in Fig. 1.
3.2. Hypotheses
H1. An affirmative connectivity exists between formal control and
project performance in construction projects.
H2. An affirmative connectivity exists between informal control
Table 2
Summary of research methodoƖogy.
PhiƖosophy Аpproаch Strаtegy Choice
Positivism Deductive Survey Mono method: Quantitative
5
and project performance in construction projects.
H3a. An affirmative effect of formal control on project perfor-
mance in construction projects is modest by outer ecological
hazard.
H3b. An affirmative effect of informal control on project perfor-
mance in construction projects is modest by outer ecological
hazard.
H4a. An affirmative effect of formal control on project perfor-
mance in construction projects is modest by inner ecological
hazard.
H4b. An affirmative effect of informal control on project perfor-
mance in construction projects is modest by inner ecological
hazard.
H5a. The effect of formal control on project performance in con-
struction projects is moderated more by internal than by outer
ecological hazard.
H5b. The effect of informal control on project performance in
construction projects is elevated modest internal than an outer
ecological hazard.
4. Empirical results
Table 2 represents the demographics of the respondents. A
sample size of 263 respondents was taken, with 254 male re-
spondents and 9 females’ respondents. The target population is
project managers employed in the construction industry in Lahore.
Table 3 describes the demographics of the respondents. 59.56% of
respondents of the sample size had a bachelor degree, 38.69% with
a master/MSc degree and 1.7% with PhD degree. 48.69% of re-
spondents had between 5 and 10 y of experience in construction
projects and 9.13% with more than 10 y of experience in construc-
tion projects. 80% of respondents were above 40 y of age. Table 4
presents the coding of variables to simplify our model for empir-
ical analysis.
Table 5 provides information about descriptive statistics. Re-
spondents had a positive perception about the informal control and
formal control with mean values (4.05 and 3.510) and S.D (0.4737
and 0.5689). The mean value of formal control is greater than
informal control, which shows that respondents had a more posi-
tively perceived the formal control than informal control. Mean of
project performance is 3.592, which means mostly respondents
had agreed with the statements on performance. Similarly, re-
spondents had a positive perception of the internal environment
risk and external environment risks with mean values (3.379 and
3.66) and S.D (0.6872 and 0.7565). The normality of the dependent
variable is also assessed through statistics of Skewness and kurto-
sis. According to Kline (2011), the acceptable value of skewness and
kurtosis is less than 3 and 10. Results showed that the value of
skewness of project performance is 0.792, which is less than 3 as
recommended. Similarly, the value of kurtosis of project perfor-
mance is 1.191 less than 10 as recommended. These statistics
confirm the normality of project performance.
Two-tailed Pearson correlation is tested through SPSS with
significance level p < 0.05 and p < 0.01. Correlation test is essential
in identifying the relationship among variables. If the value of
Time Horizon Samplingmethod
Cross-sectionаƖ Probability: simplerandom
6 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214

Fig. 1. Hypothesised framework for study.

Table 3 4.1. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

Demographics of respondents (n ¼ 263).

Characteristics Frequency Percentage SPSS software version 25 was used to perform exploratory factor
Gender
analysis (EFA) to assess the factor structure of the constructs as this
Male 254 96.5 software can easily deal with interpretation distortions and can
Female 9 3.5 easily define the degree of correlation between the resulting factors
Age (Bezerra, 2009). In Table 7, the KMO (KaisereMeyereOlkin) value is
21e30 117 44.52
0.724, greater than the recommended significance threshold of 0.5.
31e40 66 25.21
Above 40 80 30.27 The strength of the factors is further indicated by the p-value,
Education Level which is < 0.001.
Bachelor 157 59.56
Master/MS 102 38.69
PhD 4 1.7
4.2. Structural equation modelling (SEM)
Experience Level
Below 5 Years 111 42.17 4.2.1. A-construct validity
Between 5 and 10 Years 128 48.69 A construct is valid when the construct measures what it is
10 Years or above 24 9.13
supposed to measure’. The best way to determine construct validity
is factor analysis (Hair et al., 2010). In structural equation modelling
(SEM), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to validate the
correlation (r) among pair is greater than 0.9, then it showed the measurement model.
problem of multicollinearity. In this study, the value correlation
among all pairs is < 0.9. Its mean there is no issue of multi- 4.2.2. B-Confirmatory Factor Analysis
collinearity in this study, as presented in Table 6. CFA was used to assess the validity of the measurement model.
 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214 7

Table 4
Coding of variables.

Codes Constructs Items

For_C Formal Control

Beh_C Behavioural Control
BCl Behavioural Control The client expected the construction team to follow an understandable written sequence of steps toward the accomplishment of
project goals.
BC2 Behavioural Control The client expected the construction team to follow articulated written system construction rules toward the accomplishment of
project goals.
BC3 The client assessed the extent to which existing written procedures and practices were followed during the construction process.
Ot_c Outcome Control
OC1 Outcome control The client placed significant weight upon timely project completion.
OC2 Outcome control The client placed significant weight upon project completion within budgeted costs.
OC3 Outcome Control The client placed significant weight upon project completion to the satisfaction of the client
OC4 Outcome control The client used pre-established targets as benchmarks for construction team performance evaluations
Infor_C Informal control
Cl_C Clan control
CC1 Clan control The client actively participated in project meetings to understand the construction team ‘s goals, values, and norms.
CC2 Clan control The client attempted to be a “regular” member of the construction team.
CC3 Clan control The client attempted to understand the construction team's goals, norms, and values.
CCA Clan control The client attempted to form a committee that often communicated with the construction team.
CCS Clan control The client actively joined the construction team for important decision making.
Se_C Self-control
SC1 Self-Control The construction team autonomously set specific goals for this project without the involvement of the client.
SC2 Self-Control The construction team autonomously defined specific procedures for the activities of this project without the involvement of the
client
SC3 Self-Control The construction team autonomously set specific timelines for this project without the involvement of the client.
SC4 Self-Control The construction team autonomously chose experienced professionals for the project construction.
In_EN_R1 Internal Environment The project lacked top management commitment
Risk
In_EN_R2 Internal Environment The ownership or senior management changed during the process of development.
Risk
In_EN_R3 Internal Environment A mismatch existed between the organization culture and the required business process changed tor the new systems.
Risk
In_EN_R4 Internal Environment Resources were shifted away from the project because of changes in organizational priorities.
Risk
In_EN_R5 Internal Environment Project implementation had a major effect on organizational structure.
Risk
EX_EN_R1 Poor site conditions (location, ground, etc.)
EX_EN_R2 External Environment Unpredictable weather conditions
Risk
EX_EN_R3 External Environment Fluctuations in the cost of building materials
Risk
EX_EN_R4 External Environment Changes in law and regulations
Risk
Pro_Per1 Project performance On average, our projects have high schedule adherence.
Pro_Per2 Project performance On average, our projects have high budget adherence.
Pro_Per3 Project performance On average, our projects have high quality adherence.

Table 5
Frequency AnaƖysis of Discriptive statistic.

Frequency Percent VaƖid Рercent CumuƖative Рercent

BeƖow 5 Years 111 42.17 42.17 42.17

Between 5 and 10 Years 128 48.69 48.69 90.86
10 Years or Above 24 9.13 9.13 100.0
TotaƖ 263 100.0 100.0

CFA was performed on the complete measurement model, which

was assessed through fit indices to represent the model's reliability,
along with observed data (Furr and Bacharach, 2013).

Table 6
Correlations. 4.2.3. C-Measurement model
Measurement models have to be analysed before structural
For_C Infor_C Pr_P In_R Ex_R
modelling. AMOS 20 was used for the construction of the mea-
For_C 1
surement and structural models. The model fits of measurement
Infor_C .364** 1
Pr_P .239** .340** 1 and structural models were assessed through absolute fit and in-
In_R .137* .142* .146* 1 cremental fit indices. Absolute fit indices include normed chi-
Ex_R .171** 0.022 .143* .370** 1 square and RMSEA. Incremental fit indices include a comparative
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). fit index and Tucker-Lewis coefficient (non-normed fit index).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 8 shows that the chi-square value is < 3.0 for both the
8 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214

Table 7 discriminant validity is satisfied if the square root of AVE is greater

KMO and Bartlett's test. than the relationship between's pair of dormant factors. Table 10
KaisereMeyereOlkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .724 showed that the square root of AVE on the diagonal, which were
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1512.779
satisfied the discriminant validity.
Df 231
Sig. .000 4.3. Structural model

Widespread acceptability of the SEM confirms its importance.

Table 8
Model fit indices.
Fit indices CFA
c /df
2
1.357
CFI 0.95
NNFI 0.95
RMSEA 0.037
c2 255.029
measurement and structural models, df ¼ 1.357 and 2.57.
RMSEA ¼ 0.037 and 0.07. As suggested by Cheung and Rensvold
(2002), CFA can be used to check reliability. However, in SEM,
composite reliability is measured instead of reliability, which is
measured through Cronbach's alpha (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Table 9 showed that the composite reliability of all the constructs is
equal to or above 0.7, as recommended. After determining the
reliability of the study, convergent and discriminant validities were
assessed. Table 9 showed that all standardised factor loadings on
each construct are significant, with p < 0.001 and t > 2.0. Composite
reliability (CR) of most of the constructs is above 0.7 and AVE of
each construct is > 0.5, except in the case of behavioural control
(0.457). After considering the standardised factor loadings, CR and
AVE, the convergent validity is satisfied. Fig. 2 presents the graph-
ical presentation of the measurement model, which is tested in
Table 9.
After determining the convergent validity, discriminant validity
was assessed. For that purpose, AVEs, as suggested by Fornell and
Larcker (1981), were used. According to Zait and Bertea (2011),
Graphical display of SEM makes it a more suitable technique than
regression and correlation. Analysis of larger models can be
SEM handled through SEM, and it is also helpful in modelling the error
terms. The direct and indirect impact of predictors on outcome
2.57
0.9 variables can be checked through SEM. According to Byrne (2013),
0.9 analysis of moment structures (AMOS) is the best way to analyse
0.07 the hypothesised paths. The hypothesised path to analyse the
275.73 moment structure of our model is graphically presented in Fig. 3,
and its results are presented in Table 11.
Table 11 showed that three values of ‘t’ statistics are greater than
1.96. This implies that all hypotheses are supported except for H2b.
Standardised regression coefficients are 0.230 (t ¼ 2.310, p < 0.05)
from behavioural control to project performance; 0.229 (t ¼ 3.130,
p < 0.05). from outcome control to project performance; and 0.260
(t ¼ 3.252, p < 0.05) from clan control to project performance. The
standardised regression coefficient from self-control to project
performance is 0.042 (t ¼ 0.443, p > 0.05), which is not significant.
To test the modesting role of internal and external environ-
mental risks, two modes were constructed. The first was developed
a аnаlysis of the moderating role of inner ecological hazard on the
connection betwixt formal/informal control and project perfor-
mance. The second model analyses the moderating role of outer
ecological hazard on the connectivity between formal/informal
control and construction project performance. For moderation
analysis, standardised variables and interaction terms were devel-
oped. In Model 1, the interaction terms are between informal/
formal control and external environment risk. In Model 2, inter-
action terms are between informal/formal control and internal
environmental risk.

4.4. Moderation Аnаlysis

Table 9
Results of construct reliability and convergent validity of constructs. 4.4.1. Results of model 1
The moderating effect of external environmental risk between
Component
project control and project performance is analysed in Table 11. The
Loadings a CR AVE
results from Table 12 indicate the model has a good fit (c2 ¼ 7.8,
Formal Control BC1 0.765 0.72 0.626 0.457 df ¼ 3, c2/df ¼ 2.6, RMSEА ¼ 0.06, NNFI ¼ 0.93, CFI ¼ 0.95).
BC2 0.768 Results of moderation model 1, presented in Table 13 showed
OC1 0.859 0.729 0.519
OC2 0.859
that the interaction between formal control and external environ-
Informal Control CC1 0.764 0.648 0.744 0.53 mental risk is significantly related to project performance(t > 2, and
CC2 0.806 p < 0.05). Additionally, the interaction between informal control
CC3 0.766 and external environment is significantly related to project per-
CC5 0.583
formance (t > 2 and p < 0.05). Fig. 4, shows that externаl environ-
SC1 0.868 0.828 0.616
SC2 0.87 mental risk strengthens the positive connection betwixt formal
SC3 0.818 control and project performance. This means that when external
Internal Environmental Risk In_EN_R1 0.741 0.701 0.74 0.5 environmental risk is high, then a positive relationship between
In_EN_R2 0.784 formal control аnd project performаnce is also high.
In_EN_R3 0.809
In_EN_R4 0.637
External Environmental Risk Ex_EN_R1 0.651 0.706 0.718 0.591 4.4.2. Results of model 2
Ex_EN_R2 0.775 The moderаting effect of externаl environmental risk between
Ex_EN_R3 0.864 project control аnd project performаnce is tested in Table 14. The
Ex_EN_R4 0.586
results show that the model has a good fit (c2 ¼ 2.316, df ¼ 1, c2/
Project Performance Pro_Per1 0.847 0.7 0.715 0.565
Pro_Per2 0.749 df ¼ 2.316, RMSEА ¼ 0.07, NNFI ¼ 0.92, CFI ¼ 0.90). Table 14, shows
Pro_Per3 0.748 that interaction between formal control and internal environ-
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
mental risk is significantly related to project performance with t > 2
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. and P < 0.05. It also shows that the interaction between informal
a. Rotation converged in six iterations. control and internal environment is significantly related to project
 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214 9

Fig. 2. Measurement model.

Table 10 behaviοur control, controllers emphasise the relevance and

Results of discriminant validity. importance of process management (Keil et al., 2013). Behaviοur
Ex_R Cl_C In_R Pr_P Beh_C Ot_C Se_C control ensures that controls improve project performance in case
Ex_R 0.84
of construction (Hendersοn and Lee, 1992). The quantitative results
Cl_C 0.001 0.72 of our study revealed an affirmative and significant connection
In_R .370** 0.085 0.7 betwixt the οutcοme cοntrοl and the performance of the con-
Pr_P .143* .260** .146* 0.74 struction project (b ¼ 0.229, p < 0.05). The results demonstrated full
Beh_C 0.114 .427** 0.069 .228** 0.67
support for this hypοthesis. The significance of achieving project
Ot_C .164** .368** .149* .173** .361** 0.72
Se_C 0.036 .137* .130* .253** 0.075 0.028 0.78 objectives is stressed in the οutcοme control. Project managers can
provide effective criticism of redresses and upgrades by evaluating
*** Significant at p < 0.001.
** Significant at p < 0.01.
the finished work (Klein et al., 2009). In this manner, the item can
* Significant at p < 0.05. be conveyed with a planned degree. Οutcοme cοntrοl likewise ex-
pands the viability of choosing, arranging and usage of related work
and the presentation objectives are effectively accomplished. The
performance with t > 2 and P < 0.05. The interaction moderation consequences of this examination are reliable with the investiga-
Table 15 and graph presented in Fig. 5 shows that internal envi- tion by Liu (2015) who concentrated the effect of venture the board
ronmental risk dampens the positive relationship between formal and task execution with regards to IS advancement undertakings
control аnd project performаnce. This means that when internаl and discovered a positive connection between factors.
environmental risk is high, the positive relationship between The second hypothesis of the study is that there is a positive
formal control аnd project performаnce is low. relationship between informal control and project performance.
Our results show that it is a positive and significant relationship
between clan cοntrοl and construction prοjects (b ¼ 0.260,
5. Discussion p < 0.05). Cοοperative relationships with collective values and
norms can enhance performance (Kirsch et al., 2010). Project
The first hypοthesis of the study suggests that there is an affir- managers can develop this among their project team by actively
mative connection betwixt fοrmal control and prοject execution. attending team meetings.
The result of this study indicates a positive and significant impact of However, there is no significant relationship between self-
behaviοur control and project execution (b ¼ 0.230, p < 0.05). In
10 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214

Fig. 3. StructurаƖ model.

Table 11
ResuƖts of StructurаƖ ModeƖ.

Hypotheses HypothesisedPаths Stаndаrdized Regression Weights (b) t-vаƖue P-vаƖue ResuƖts

H1а Pr_P4Beh_C 0.23 2.31 0.021 Supported

H1b Pr_P4out_C 0.229 3.13 0.002 Supported
H2а Pr_P4cƖ_C 0.26 3.252 0.001 Supported
H2b Pr_P4Se_C 0.042 0.443 0.658 Not Supported

Table 12
ResuƖts of ModeƖ 1 Fit.

Meаsurement ModeƖ c2 df c2/df cFI NNFI RMSEА

<3 >0.95 >0.95 <0.08

*(>0.90 is аƖsoаcceptаbƖe) *(>0.90 is аƖsoаcceptаbƖe)
7.8 3 2.6 0.95 0.93 0.06

*Suggested by Cheung аnd RensvoƖ;d (2002).

cοntrοl and with performance in cοnstructiοn prοjects (b ¼ .042,
p > 0.05). This empirically proves that all cοntrοl modes are not
effective for performance enhancement in the context of con-
struction projects. Our result findings are different from Liu (2015).
The reason for the insignificant result could be the effectiveness of
self-control approach for individual goals but not for the entire
project. Anοther explanation is complexity and specificity οf con-
struction projects.
The third οƅjective of the study was to determine the moder-
ating role of external environmental risk between project control
and performance. The results show a positive and significant
moderating impact οf external environmental risks (b ¼ 0.32,
p > 0.05). The results show that the external environmental risk
modest the effect οf infοrmal cοntrοl οn the performance affirma-
tively and significantly. The affirmative effect is elevated, when the
external environmental hazard is higher (b ¼ 0.345, p > 0.05).
The fourth οƅjective οf the study is to determine the moderating
impact of internal environmental risk οn prοject cοntrοl and prοject
perfοrmance. The results support the argument that there exists
the positive effect of formal control οn the performance οf con-
struction projects with the moderating role of internal environ-
mental risk (b ¼ 0.338, p > 0.05).
 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214 11

Table 13
ResuƖts of Moderаtion ModeƖ 1.

Hypothesised Pаths Stаndаrdized Regression Weights (b) t-vаƖue P-vаƖue

Project performаnce ) Formаl control .127 1.989 .047

Project performаnce ) Informаl control .305 4.951 ***
Project performаnce ) External Environmental Risk FormаƖ control .321 5.10 ***
Project performаnce ) External Environmental Risk InformаƖ control .354 4.894 ***
Project performаnce ) Externаl Environmental risk .115 1.951 .051

Fig. 4. Interaction moderаtion of model 1.

Table 14
ResuƖts of ModeƖ 2 Fit.

Meаsurement ModeƖ c2 Df c2/df cFI NNFI RMSEА

<3 >0.95 >0.95 <0.08

>0.90 >0.90
2.316 1 2.36 0.90 0.92 0.07

Table 15
ResuƖts of Moderаtion ModeƖ 2.

Hypothesised Pаths Stаndаrdised Regression Weights (b) t-vаƖue p-vаƖue

Project performаnce ) FormаƖ controƖ .160 2.559 .010

Project performаnce ) InformаƖ controƖ .272 4.356 ***
Project performаnce ) InternаƖ environmental risk  FormаƖ controƖ .338 5.378 ***
Project performаnce ) InternаƖ environment risk  InformаƖ controƖ .318 4.306 ***
Project performаnce ) InternаƖ environmental risk e.066 1.100 .271

Fig. 5. Interaction moderаtion of model 2.

12 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214
The fifth hypothesis is also supported by results (b ¼ 0.318,
p > 0.05) According to the results, moderating effects of internal
and external environmental risks varies according to project con-
trol and performance aspects. The effects of formal and informal
controls on performance are lower when the internal environ-
mental risk is higher, while controls are more effective with higher
external environmental risk. This has also been presented in Figs. 4
and 5. Formal and informal control with elevated internal ecolog-
ical risk lead to declined project performance. While controls with
higher external ecological risk yield higher returns. These findings
provide new evidence that in the presence of external environ-
mental risk, controls can perform better. This result supports the
frameworks underway with the claim that environmental uncer-
tainty affirmatively moderates the control effectiveness (Rustagi,
2008).
This study introduces new theoretical ideas by demonstrating
that positive and negative environmental risks interact with the
control. Specifically, inner ecological dangers adversely moderate
the linkage between control and execution. Also, outer ecological
hazard directs the viability of control emphatically. This investi-
gation adds to writing by depicting diverse jobs played by inward
and outer ecological dangers. Besides, there is tremendous writing
on associations between natural dangers and formal control (Harris
et al., 2009), but the empirical evidence on informal control and
performance with the interaction of environmental risks is still
lacking. The present study makes it possible and fills this gap.
6. Conclusion and future recommendations
Current research has been conducted to empirically evaluate the
critical capacity of internal and external environmental risks in the
sustainable development of construction projects. The hypothesis
which posits the affirmative connection betwixt formal control and
project execution has been fully supported by our results. On the
other hand, the speculation that places the positive connection
between formal control and task execution is somewhat bolstered.
Initially, this research found that conduct, result, and group con-
trols decidedly influence the presentation of development projects,
though the relationship of discretion with execution is inconse-
quential. This perception shows that the adequacy of administra-
tive controls changes in development ventures. Not all control
modes fundamentally impact the presentation of development
projects. Compelling control modes ought to along these lines be
organised over insufficient control modes for development ven-
tures. Second, the outcomes show that inner condition hazard
contrarily directs the impact of formal and casual controls on the
undertaking execution of development ventures, while outer con-
dition chance emphatically directs the viability of formal and casual
controls. This finding proposes that the various kinds of condition
dangers assume noteworthy and differing jobs in directing the
connection between control and execution.
The Present study has not examined this type of relationship
from the perspective of other stakeholders; for instance, senior
executives and project proponents. Some stakeholders focus on
high-level risk, so additional perspectives would be helpful in this
area. Future research can be directed in other under-developed and
developed nations to explore the hazard, the executives rehearses
and their suggestions as far as viable natural hazard board in
development projects. There is a huge need to build up an efficient
way to deal with cleaner chance administration in the nearby
condition of Pakistan, so the dangers of natural hazard can be
limited separately and all things considered. Due to increasing rates
of project outsourcing, future studies should compare the effects of
environmental risk in internal and outsourced projects. External
environmental risk level can be different for outsourced and
internal projects, and inaccurate estimation of those risks may pose
a threat to outsourced projects.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Economics, Management and
Chemical Engineering Departments of COMSATS University Islam-
abad, Lahore Campus, Malaysia Marine Department and to the EU
project Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory e SPIL, funded
as project No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_ 003/0000456, by Czech Re-
public Operational Programme Research and Development, Edu-
cation, Priority 1: Strengthening capacity for quality research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118214.
References
Abrantes, R., Figueiredo, J., 2015. Resource management process framework for
dynamic NPD portfolios. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (6), 1274e1288.
Adenfelt, M., 2010. Exploring the performance of transnational projects: shared
knowledge, coordination and communication. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (6),
529e538.
ADB-Asian Development Bank, 2017. Climate Change Profile of Pakistan. Asian
Development Bank Metro Manila, Philippines, ISBN 978-92-9257-721-6. http://
doi.org/10.22617/TCS17876.
Alquier, A., Cagno, E., Caron, F., Leopoulos, V., Ridao, M., 2000. Analysis of external
and internal risks in project early phase. Proceeding of PMI Research Confer-
ence, pp. 147e155.
Ankit, P.M., Jayesh, K., Pitroda, R., Bhavsar, J.J., 2013. A study of risk management
techniques for construction projects in developing countries. Int. J. Innov.
Technol. Explor. Eng. 3 (5), 139e142.
Bezeera, F.A., 2009. Multivariate Analysis for the Courses of Administration, Ac-
counting Sciences and Economics, pp. 73e130. Atlas, Sa ~o Paulo, Brasil.
Braimah, N., Ndekugri, I., 2008. Factors Influencing the selection of delay analysis
methodologies. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 789e799.
Byrne, B.M., 2013. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS:
Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Psychology Press, Routledge
Taylor and Francis Group, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203774762 ebook ISBN 9781134809349.
Cheung, G.W., andRensvold, R.B., 2002. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for
testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 9 (2), 233e255.
Cooke, T., 2013. Can knowledge sharing mitigate the effect of construction project
complexity? Constr. Innovat. 13 (1), 5e9.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Furr, N.R., Bingham, C.B., 2010. Micro foundations of performance:
balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organ. Sci. 21 (6),
1263e1273.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable vari-
ables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 382e388.
Furr, M., Bacharach, V.R., 2013. Psychometrics. An Introduction, second ed. Sage, Los
Angeles. -13: 978-1452256801.
Gardiner, P.D., Stewart, K., 2000. Revisiting the golden triangle of cost, time and
quality of NPV in project control, success and failure. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 18 (4),
251e256.
Goebel, S., Weibenberger, B.E., 2017. Effects of management control mechanisms:
towards a more comprehensive analysis. J. Bus. Econ. 87, 185e219.
Guo, F., Chang-Richards, Y., Wilkinson, S., Li, T.C., 2014. Effects of project governance
structures on the management of risks in major infrastructure projects: a
comparative analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (5), 815e826.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., 2010. RE Anderson Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey. ISBN 10:1e292-02190-X.
Harris, M.L., Collins, R.W., Hevner, A.R., 2009. Control of flexible software devel-
opment under uncertainty. Inf. Syst. Res. 20 (3), 400e419.
Heales, J., Susilo, A., Fiona, R., 2007. Project Management Effectiveness: the choice -
formal or informal controls. Australasian J. Inf. Syst. 15 (1), 153e167.
Henderson, J., Lee, S., 1992. Managing I/S design teams: a control theories
perspective. Manag. Sci. 38 (6), 757e777.
Hwang, B.-G., Zhao, X., Ping Toh, L., 2013. Risk management in small construction
projects in Singapore: status, barriers and impact. Int. J. Proj. Manag 32 (1),
116e124.
Hwang, B.G., Ng, W.J., 2013. Project management knowledge and skills for green
construction: overcoming challenges. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (2), 272e284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.05.004.
ILO- International Labour Organisation, 2016. ASEAN in Transformation: the Future
of Jobs at Risk of Automation. International Labour Organisation, Geneva, ISBN
978-92-2-130965-9.
Isaac, S., Navon, R., 2014. Can project monitoring and control be fully automated?
 S. Malik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118214
Construct. Manag. Econ. 32 (6), 495e505.
Keil, M., Rai, A., Liu, S., 2013. How user risk and requirements risk moderate the
effects of formal and informal control on the process performance of IT projects.
Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22 (6), 650e672.
Kerzner, H., 2001. Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Sched-
uling, and Controlling, eleventh ed. John Wiley& Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jer-
sey, USA, ISBN 978-0-470-27870-3.
Kline, R.B., 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 5th ed.
The Guilford Press, New York, pp. 3e427.
Kirsch, L., Ko, D., Haney, M., 2010. Investigating the antecedents of team-based clan
control: adding social capital as a predictor. Organ. Sci. 21 (2), 469e489.
Klein, R., Rai, A., 2009. Inter-firm strategic information flows in supply chain lo-
gistics relationships. MIS Q. 33 (4), 735e762.
Klein, G., Beranek, P., Martz, B., Jiang, J., 2006. The relationship of control and
learning to project performance. Cybern. Syst. 37 (2), 137e150.
Kuye, J.O., 2004. Continental policy targeting and the nepadisation process: issues,
trends and options. J. Public Adm. 39 (4), 458e469.
Lechler, T.G., Dvir, D., 2010. An alternative taxonomy of project management
structures: linking project management structures and project success. IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag. 57, 198e210.
Lester, A., 2007. Project Management, Planning and Control: Managing Engineering,
Construction and Manufacturing Projects to PMI, APM and BSI Standards. In:
The Boulevard Langford Killington, seventh ed. Oxford OX5 IGB, United
Kingdom. ISBN-13: 978-0081020203.
Ling, F.Y.Y., Hoang, V.T.P., 2010. Political, economic, and legal risks faced in inter-
national projects: case study of Vietnam. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 136,
156e164.
Liu, S., 2015. Effects of control on the performance of information systems projects:
the moderating role of complexity risk. J. Oper. Manag. 36, 46e62.
Liu, S., Wang, L., 2016a. Influence of managerial control on performance in medical
information system projects: the moderating role of organisational environ-
ment and team risks. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (1), 102e116.
Liu, S., Wang, L., 2016b. Influence of managerial control on performance in medical
information system projects: the moderating role of organisational environ-
ment and team risks. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (1), 102e116.
Lwanga, S.K., Lemeshow, S., 1991. Sample Size Determination in Health Studies: A
Practical Manual. World Health Organisation, Geneva.
Mavi, R.K., Standing, C., 2018. Critical success factors of sustainable project man-
agement in construction: a fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP approach. J. Clean. Prod. 194,
751e765.
Mhetre, K., Konnur, B.A., Landage, A.B., 2016. Risk management in construction
industry. Int. J. Eng. Res. 5, 153e155, 2016.
Olawale, Sun, 2010. Cost and time control of construction projects. Construct.
Manag. Econ. 28 (5), 509e526.
Perçin, S., 2008. Fuzzy multi-criteria risk - benefit analysis of business process
outsourcing (BPO). Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur. 16 (3), 213e234.
Poor, H.G., Mehdi, S., Vicente, G., 2017. An input-output simulation model for
assessing production and environmental waste in construction. J. Clean. Prod.
143, 1094e1104.
Qazi, A. J. Quigley, Dickson, A., Kirtopoulos, K., 2016. Project Complexity and Risk
Management (ProCRiM), towards modelling project complexity driven risk
paths in construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34, 1183e1198.
13
Rahman, N.N.N.A., Esa, N., 2014. Managing construction development risks to the
environment. In: Kaneko, N., Yoshiura, S., Kobayashi, M. (Eds.), Sustainable
Living with Environmental Risks. Springer, Tokyo.
Rustagi, S., King, W.R., Kirsch, L.J., 2008. Predictors of formal control usage in IT
outsourcing partnerships. Inf. Syst. Res. 19 (2), 126e143.
Sabherwal, R., King, W., 1995. An empirical taxonomy of the decision-making
processes concerning strategic applications of information systems. J. Manag.
Inf. Syst. 11 (4), 177e214.
Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., Cule, P., 2012. Identifying software project risks:
an international Delphi study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 17 (4), 5e36.
Simutis, R., Levi
sauskas, D., Stankevi
cius, G., 1999. Modeling and Identification of
the Technological Process. Training Book, Kaunas, Lithuanina, Technologija.
Snyder, R., 2011. Risk management within information systems development. In:
Association for Global Business Annual Proceedings: Newport Beach, CA,
pp. 1050e6292. November 17-19, 2011.
Tah, J.H.M., Carr, V., 2000. Information modeling for construction project risk
management system. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 7 (2), 107e119.
Tam, C., Tam, V., Tsui, W.S., 2004. Green construction assessment for environmental
management in the construction industry of Hong Kong. Int. J. Proj. Manag 22
(7), 563e571.
Teller, J., Kock, A., 2013. An empirical investigation on how portfolio risk manage-
ment influences project portfolio success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (6), 817e829.
Tiwana, A., Keil, M., 2010. Control in internal and outsourced systems development
projects. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 26 (3), 9e44.
Wallace, L., Keil, M., Rai, A., 2004. Understanding software project risk: a cluster
analysis. Inf. Manag. 42 (1), 115e125.
Wang, T., Gao, S., Li, X., 2018. A meta-network-based risk evaluation and control
method for industrialized building construction projects. J. Clean. Prod. 205,
552e564.
Wiener, M., Saunders, C.S., 2014. Who is the favored bride? Challenges. In:
Hirschheim, R., Heinzl, A., Dibbern, J. (Eds.), Switching to a Multi-Vendor Off-
shoring Strategy, Information Systems Outsourcing. Springer, Berlin, Heidel-
berg, Germany, ISBN 978008101734-0, pp. 289e312.
Wu, Ping, Xu, Y., Jin, R., Lu, Q., Madgwick, D., Hancock, C.M., 2019. Perceptions to-
wards risks involved in off-site construction in the integrated design & con-
struction project delivery. J. Clean. Prod. 213, 899e914.
Yin-can, Y., 2017. Marine Geo-Hazards in China. Elsevier, ISBN 978-0-12-812726-1.
Youker, R., 1992. Managing the international project environment. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 10 (4), 219e226.
Yusof, N.A., Awang, H., Mohammad, I., 2017. Determinants and outcomes of envi-
ronmental practices in Malaysian construction projects. J. Clean. Prod. 156,
345e354.
Yuang, J., Chen, K., Chuang, Ji, Wang, Mirosalow, Skibniewski, 2018. Social network
analysis for social risks of construction projects in high-density urban areas in
China. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 940e961.
Zait, P.A., Bertea, P.E., 2011. Methods for testing discriminant validity. Manag.
Market. J. 9 (2), 217e224.
Zhong, Y., Wu, Peng, 2015. Economic sustainability, environmental sustainability
and constructability indicators related to concrete- and steel-projects. J. Clean.
Prod. 108, 748e756.
Zutshi, A., Creed, A., 2015. An international review of environmental initiatives in
the construction sector. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 92e106.