Factors That Stimulate Project Managers to Consider Sustainability; Exploring the Stimulus Patterns of Canadian Project Managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As sustainability is being integrated into corporate strategies, the discussions on sustainability have moved from whether it should be addressed in strategy, to how it should be integrated into business practices. And as projects are a vehicle for the implementation of organizational strategies, it is suggested that consideration of sustainability should be integrated into the processes and practices of project management. A pivotal role in this integration is foreseen for the project manager. The project manager has a central position in the project, which provides the opportunity to influence many aspects of the project. However, an opportunity to act is be enough, as many factors or circumstances influence the actual behavior of the project manager with regards to sustainability. In a European study into the factors that stimulate project managers to address sustainability, three distinct stimulus patterns were revealed. As national or societal culture is known to influence sustainability behavior, the study reported in this paper focuses on exploring the factors that stimulate Canadian project managers to consider sustainability in their projects. Similar to the European study, this study revealed three distinct stimulus patterns, that were characterized as ‘Intrinsically motivated’, ‘Pragmatic’ and ‘Normative driven’. The findings of the study confirm the patterns of the earlier study to a large extent. Two of the three patterns of the studies showed similar characteristics. The third pattern of the studies showed partial similarity and partial difference, with the European project managers tending more towards the opportunities for implementation of sustainability, and the Canadian project managers putting more value on the alignment of personal and organizational values.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".