Net-Zero Considerations within the Delivery of Major AEC Projects in the UK: A Thematic Analysis of the Key Challenges for Project Managers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- Please add the research gaps to the introduction. highlight the departure from published research.

2- Please add the research objectives and contributions to the penultimate paragraph of the introduction

3- Please support the choice of the methodology

4- Please explain the small sample size, 17 respondents

5- Please present quantitative statistical analysis of the results

6- Please add a section on implications of the results on practice

7- Please compare the results with published research

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript titled "Net-Zero Considerations within the Delivery of Major AEC Projects in the UK: A Thematic Analysis of the Key Challenges for Project Managers and Clients". We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing the paper and providing valuable feedback. Your suggestions and comments have been helpful in improving the quality of our work Below, we have addressed your comments in as much detail as possible. We have carefully considered and incorporated your suggestions where appropriate. Our responses are organised according to your numbered comments.

Comment 1 - Please add the research gaps to the introduction. highlight the departure from published research.

In the later version, we have refined and included a paragraph within the introduction outlining the research gap identified that sparked this study. The paragraph can be found between lines 67-81 in the manuscript’s introduction.

This paragraph outlines the research gap in AEC major project research, which has only featured detailed studies on these types of projects from the perspective of the sponsor and with a focus on procurement processes. As such limited studies exist looking at the implications of carbon during the entire project lifecycle. Similarly, the research is also scarce in the general PM community, where studies have discussed sustainability in general, but have not discussed the implications of the net-zero transition specifically. The only study (Terenzi et al., 2024) provides valuable insights and a conceptual model of the net-zero project but falls short of exploring the integration of net-zero considerations from the project manager's point of view. This limited published research around the PM profession and net-zero has served as the basis for our exploratory study.

Comment 2 - Please add the research objectives and contributions to the penultimate paragraph of the introduction

Changes have been made to the paragraph that should clarify the two main objectives/aims of the study. Contributions to the ongoing major project and PM literature are also outlined. Check between lines 82-92 in the introduction chapter of the manuscript.

Comment 3 - Please support the choice of the methodology

The methodology has been expanded, a new section to justify the research design has been added. As indicated there, the present study is a “qualitative exploratory study”. This research design is usual when limited previous research is available to establish a clear theoretical framework, as established in the introduction, limited studies have investigated the effects net-zero requirements and implications of the net-zero transition in the management of major projects. This is established clearly by systematic reviews from fellow academics such as Terenzi and Locatelli (2024), published a couple of months ago. This new section on research design can be found in between lines 372-389 (3.1.).

Moreover, in the following sections, we also include justification for the choice of methods (i.e. semi-structured interviews), the sampling (see response to comment 4), and the analytical approach (i.e. reflexive thematic analysis).

Comment 4 - Please explain the small sample size, 17 respondents

Current sample size has been justified based on previous studies that have featured a reflexive thematic analysis approach. Theoretical saturation for identified themes in these studies was usually reached out (90-95% of themes identified) by interview number 12. As such our sample size meets these standards while enabling additional interviews to ensure the validity of identified themes. References supporting these are included in the paragraph 395 to 410 within section 3.3.

Comment 5 - Please present quantitative statistical analysis of the results

While a detailed coding process was undertaken in NVivo, the reflexive thematic approach is a qualitative methodology that rarely features quantitative metrics of these codes. A higher frequency/prevalence of a code does not imply that a theme or sub-theme is more important than others. The analysis usually seeks out themes that are substantiated by the interviewee’s opinions and experiences, which are usually supported by the quotes. We have included detailed and extensive use of sample quotes from interviews to support the themes identified.

Comment 6 - Please add a section on implications of the results on practice

We have included some of these as part of the discussion, particularly those supported by previous studies (I.e. Focus on societal benefits and widening success criteria (Ika and Pinto, 2022) or Innovation Management and collaboration across sectors  (Kadefors et al., 2022).

We have also outlined results that contrast with what’s established in previous research, such as the knowledge/skills gap (lines – 680-694), which in our sample was identified as a barrier, although the lack of skills identified where more on the domain of Project Management, rather than carbon literacy (as identified by previous scholars). This section also provides some actionable steps for organisations and professional bodies.

While these are added, as the strategies/practices were not the focus of the study, these were not extensively covered in the interviews. As such, it’s considered that an entire section of “implications for practice” falls out of the scope.

Comment 7 - Please compare the results with published research

Discussions have been substantially rewritten. The two main discussion sections aim to address the two objectives within the scope of the paper.

In the first section (5.1.) compared with the previous draft, a different structure and format have been selected to ensure all the themes regarding challenges identified in the research are discussed in relation to the literature. As such, we have discussed the barriers (both those that are similar but also the differences encountered in the study) in relation to studies in past major and mega project research (i.e. Sankaran, Flybverg…), and in particular studies within the construction sector (the client point of view in particular as our sample featured PMs working on the sponsor side for the most part). (Kadefors et al. Lindegard… ). References are included in the section where findings are contrasted.

The second section (5.2.) is centred on PM team’s perceptions and has been positioned in relation to recent discourse in project management studies. As there is a scarcity of studies in this field that focus on carbon emissions specifically, the discussion has aimed to position these in relation to recent research on Sustainable Project Management (SPM) and in particular development that has resulted from the work of primary scholars in the field (e.g. Silvius, Ika, Locatelli, Friedrich) around the shifts that the Sustainable Project Management school of thought. These were briefly introduced and presented in the literature review (Section 2.2.2.).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sample Size and Representation

The sample size of 17 interviewees, though sufficient for thematic saturation, may not fully represent the diverse perspectives within the UK’s AEC sector.

There is a risk of findings being skewed due to overrepresentation of certain types of projects or organizations, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results.

Contextual Analysis

The manuscript addresses the complexities of integrating carbon metrics into AEC projects but lacks deep contextual analysis.

·         Different types of projects (e.g., infrastructure vs. buildings) and organizations (e.g., public vs. private sector) may face distinct challenges that are not fully explored.

   A more detailed analysis could provide richer insights and more tailored recommendations for specific project types or organizational contexts.

Discussion

·  The discussion section identifies several challenges but lacks robust, actionable strategies for overcoming them.

·       The paper would benefit from exploring best practices or innovative approaches that have been successful in similar contexts.

·    Including case studies or comparative analysis with other regions or sectors could strengthen the practical relevance of the recommendations.

Integration with Existing Literature

·     The thematic analysis is well-structured but seems somewhat disconnected from the broader literature on project management and sustainability.

·      The discussion would be stronger if findings were critically compared and contrasted with existing theories and empirical studies.

·      This integration would enhance the study's contribution to the literature and place it more firmly within ongoing scholarly debates.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript titled "Net-Zero Considerations within the Delivery of Major AEC Projects in the UK: A Thematic Analysis of the Key Challenges for Project Managers and Clients". We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing the paper and providing valuable feedback. Your suggestions and comments have been helpful in improving the quality of our work.

Below, we have addressed your comments in as much detail as possible. We have carefully considered and incorporated your suggestions where appropriate. Our responses are organised according to your comment headings:

Heading 1 - Sample Size and Representation

“The sample size of 17 interviewees, though sufficient for thematic saturation, may not fully represent the diverse perspectives within the UK’s AEC sector.

There is a risk of findings being skewed due to overrepresentation of certain types of projects or organizations, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results.”

Response:

We’ve aimed to acknowledge some of these within the conclusions (limitations paragraph at the end).

We agree that the majority of PMs experience was in infrastructure major projects (e.g. road, railways, or water infrastructure). This is also representative of these being frequently the larger projects within the UK. In any case, representation from buildings was present among the sampled interviewees, both for retrofit as well as for major projects (e.g. major hospital development, or a large museum project in London). Representation of energy generation major projects (i.e. energy power plants, nuclear, solar/wind power infrastructure…) was limited within the sample.

Regarding generalisability, this is a qualitative exploratory study, we aimed to diversify respondents to ensure results could be generalised to the UK context, but limitations remain (e.g. limited perspectives from the supply chain, limited perspectives from a few regional areas in the UK). We aimed to outline these limitations in the last paragraphs of the to include these limitations in the last paragraph of the conclusions.

Heading 2 Comments - Contextual Analysis

“The manuscript addresses the complexities of integrating carbon metrics into AEC projects but lacks deep contextual analysis.

Different types of projects (e.g., infrastructure vs. buildings) and organizations (e.g., public vs. private sector) may face distinct challenges that are not fully explored.

A more detailed analysis could provide richer insights and more tailored recommendations for specific project types or organizational contexts.”

Response:

Results - Might be difficult to find private projects with limited private client sponsors… With the initial focus on major projects, these are usually rarer among private investors. Currently, PPPs and PFIs are rare in the UK (at least for current major projects), and major infrastructure investments, which usually would be in the over 100 million £ are driven by public sponsors. Private sponsors usually are limited to a few major building and commercial developments. As such the sample, when based in the UK context will usually be biased towards public clients.

On another note, the current version aims to add some contextual analysis (as much as feasible within the 17 interviews) reflecting on patterns identified in the research. Within public sponsors an issue identified primarily faced by local authorities, including three major urban areas in the UK (who were interviewed), who faced severe challenges with funding and resourcing of teams to fund major energy retrofit schemes. This contrasted with large infrastructure developers. When positioning this in relation to recently proposed conceptual models for net-zero projects, showed that in AEC major projects the challenges tend to be wider for “upgrade asset (i.e. retrofits/refurbishments)” projects. Going forward, given how critical they are to achieve carbon neutrality, further research on the financing, planning and delivery/execution of those programmes and projects will be critical. We tried to capture all of these within the discussion (lines 666-679 and 681-696) and within out concluding thoughts, however, these two initial findings would require a further confirmatory study to ensure it’s a widespread challenge across the UK.

Heading 3 Comments - Discussion

“The discussion section identifies several challenges but lacks robust, actionable strategies for overcoming them.

The paper would benefit from exploring best practices or innovative approaches that have been successful in similar contexts.

Including case studies or comparative analysis with other regions or sectors could strengthen the practical relevance of the recommendations.”

Response:

Regarding the first two points, the current study was designed around the identification of challenges faced by PM teams. As such, the identification of strategies/best practices is considered out of the objectives of the present study – See paragraph in the introduction (lines 82-86).

The present paper included PM involved in 13 distinct major projects or programmes. However, with the survey being so widespread, the decision was made not to expand on the specific projects nor consider them as case-studies. The scope of the paper as indicated is in the UK, as such all data is based on the experience of PMs in this context. However, we acknowledge this within the conclusions as a direction for future research. As also indicated by the recent systematic review, this is an issue in the context of net zero projects (Terenzi et al., 2024), particularly in the context of the Global South.

Heading 4 - Integration with Existing Literature

“The thematic analysis is well-structured but seems somewhat disconnected from the broader literature on project management and sustainability.

The discussion would be stronger if findings were critically compared and contrasted with existing theories and empirical studies.

This integration would enhance the study's contribution to the literature and place it more firmly within ongoing scholarly debates.”

Response:

Discussions have been substantially rewritten, in particular the first section focused on challenges. The headings added, focus on the 4 major themes identified, which should ensure the themes from the original study are positioned against ongoing PM and construction management literature.  

On the first section (5.1.), compared with the previous draft, a different structure and format have been selected to ensure all the themes regarding challenges identified in the research are discussed in relation to the literature. As such, we have discussed the barriers (both those that are similar but also the differences encountered in the study) in relation to studies in past major and mega project research (i.e. Sankaran, Flybverg) and in particular studies within the construction sector (the client point of view in particular as our sample featured PMs working on the sponsor side for the most part. References are included in the section where findings are contrasted (see references in 5.1. section).

The second section is centred on the perspective of PM teams on their preparedness to integrate targets (second objective). Findings from the thematic analysis have been positioned in relation to recent discourse in project management studies. As there is a scarcity of studies in the PM field focusing on carbon emissions specifically, the discussion has positioned these in relation to recent research on Sustainable Project Management (SPM), in particular in relation to the work of primary scholars in SPM (e.g. Silvius, Ika, Locatelli, Armenia, Sabini, Friedrich – See references in 5.2).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Net-Zero Considerations within the Delivery of Major AEC Projects in the UK" addresses an important topic but falls short in delivering new insights. While the use of semi-structured interviews provides a detailed exploration of the challenges faced by project managers, the findings largely reiterate well-known issues, such as the difficulty and cost of integrating carbon targets into construction projects. The study does not go beyond the obvious challenges and fails to offer innovative solutions or actionable strategies that could advance the field.

 

Moreover, the connection to major projects feels superficial, as the challenges discussed are not unique to large-scale projects and could apply to smaller ones as well. The paper would have benefited from practical examples or case studies that demonstrate creative problem-solving in real-world scenarios.

There is not much a project manager can do about a major AEC project beyond the design. As an example, I know about a company that builds power lines and because of the nature of their work, they are often mobilize their sites in remote locations. They recently purchased a few electric pick up truck so they can assemble some roof top solar systems and use them as the roof of their temporary parking area and charge their cars when they are in the project. The main reason behind this is that they can generate electricity and thus charge their vehicles but they can't build a gas station. Rather than storing gas at their remote sites, now they can charge their cars themselves.

Overall, while the study contributes to the existing knowledge, it does not significantly push the boundaries or provide new perspectives on the integration of net-zero targets in the AEC sector.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript titled "Net-Zero Considerations within the Delivery of Major AEC Projects in the UK." We appreciate your feedback and would like to respond to the points raised in your review.

The response is organised in relation to what we identified as the main critiques in the feedback.  

In Paragraph 1 & Paragraph 4 - Claim of lack of new insights

The primary objective of our study was to explore the specific challenges faced by project managers in integrating carbon targets within major AEC projects in the UK, particularly from the perspective of those directly involved in managing these projects. While it is true that some challenges, such as cost and complexity, are well-documented, our study provides a novel contribution by highlighting these issues specifically within the context of major projects, which inherently involve more complexity, scale, and a higher degree of stakeholder engagement compared to smaller projects.

For example, the review/feedback characterises the discussion on costs in an overly simplistic manner. We think this does not accurately reflect the nuances in the analysis presented in the manuscript. We do not merely state that costs are an issue; rather, we delve into the nature of the different costs. For instance, we discuss the premium capital costs associated with low-carbon technologies but also explore other perceived additional costs related to the management of carbon. This includes expenses tied to carbon assessments, the implementation of carbon management systems, and the challenges of integrating these new requirements into existing project management frameworks. These complexities between different costs associated with carbon targets are examined in our results. Moreover, in Section 5.2 of the discussion, we take these challenges associated with carbon metrics and targets, including cost, and analyse them through the lens of Sustainable Project Management (SPM) scholarship. While the study sample still shows a prevalence of the view of carbon as an additional premium cost/major constraint to deal with our findings from interviews indicate a clear evolution in perspectives and attitudes from PMs and sponsors. For some sponsor organisations and project teams, carbon considerations are becoming an increasingly integral element of project success. This shift towards seeing carbon as a critical component of project success rather than just a cost is indicative of broader trends within the industry and represents a significant contribution to the ongoing discourse on integrating sustainability into project management.

In Paragraph 2  - Superficial Connection to Major Projects
We respectfully disagree with the assertion that the connection to major projects is superficial. Our study explicitly focuses on the unique characteristics and challenges associated with major AEC projects and programmes, including their scale, complexity, and the significant impact they have on both the environment and society. These aspects are distinctly different from those in smaller projects and are discussed in detail in our manuscript, particularly in sections that cover the scale of transition, the complexity of integrating new carbon metrics, and the readiness of project management teams. The thematic analysis identified specific issues that are particularly pertinent to large-scale projects, such as the increased risk and uncertainty related to integrating innovative and novel low-carbon technologies and solutions, which are less of a concern in smaller projects.

In Paragraph 2 - Lack of Solutions or Actionable Strategies
While the review suggests that the study should have offered more innovative solutions or actionable strategies, it is important to note that the scope of our research was exploratory and this was not part of the established objectives. The aim was to identify and understand the current challenges and barriers from the perspectives of those managing these projects, not to provide prescriptive solutions. By uncovering these challenges, we provide a foundation for future research to develop targeted interventions and strategies. Additionally, actionable insights such as the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration and the need for improved project management training and carbon literacy are discussed as critical steps towards overcoming these barriers, which can be seen as practical contributions within the scope of our study.

In Paragraph 3 - Practical Example Provided
The example provided by the reviewer concerning the use of electric vehicles and solar-powered charging stations in remote locations is indeed interesting; however, it falls outside the primary focus of our study. Our research is centered on the systemic and managerial challenges faced by project managers in major AEC projects in the UK. Interviewees provided examples of best practices during the interviews, including examples showing circular economies to reduce waste impacts, low-carbon construction technologies, materials, construction processes, even CPD initiatives etc. However, we do not consider that examples such as these or the one mentioned in the review are valuable for this manuscript, they are more relevant to operational logistics and smaller-scale innovations rather than the broader systemic issues we aimed to explore in major AEC projects.

In conclusion, we believe our study makes a significant contribution by addressing an under-researched area—the integration of net-zero carbon targets in major AEC projects from a project management perspective. The challenges we have identified are critical to understanding the current landscape and paving the way for future research and practical solutions.

We hope these clarifications address the concerns raised in the review, and we look forward to any further feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the raised comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much again for the time spent in reviewing the revisions made and feedback given which has helped in improving the quality of the manuscript. 

As the reviewer was satisfied with changes made in the previous round of revisions, no additional changes introduced in this round in response to the Reviewer's feedback. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to explore the challenges and barriers faced by construction project managers (PMs) when integrating carbon targets into major Architectural, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) projects in the UK, with a focus on achieving net-zero emissions. It also evaluates the readiness of project teams to deliver on these targets. The authors address an important research gap, as previous studies have often overlooked the perspective of PMs in this context.

The paper's objectives are clearly stated and aligned with the broader context of sustainability and climate change mitigation. While the study is positioned as filling a gap in existing literature, it could benefit from a more detailed justification of why the focus on PMs, as opposed to other stakeholders (such as clients or supply chain actors), is particularly crucial for understanding the challenges in integrating carbon targets.

The scope is somewhat limited to the UK context, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other regions with different regulatory and market environments.

The paper employs a qualitative exploratory research design, using semi-structured interviews with 17 AEC project professionals in the UK. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify the key challenges and barriers to integrating carbon targets. However, The sample size of 17 participants, while sufficient for an exploratory study, is relatively small and may not fully capture the diversity of experiences across the AEC sector. This could limit the robustness of the findings.

There is limited information on the selection criteria for interview participants, which raises questions about the representativeness of the sample. More detail on the participants' backgrounds, such as their specific roles, years of experience, and types of projects they manage, would enhance the study's credibility.

The paper does not clearly articulate the steps taken to ensure the reliability and validity of the thematic analysis, such as inter-coder reliability checks or member validation.

The research findings provide valuable insights into the practical difficulties faced by PMs in integrating carbon targets, such as the added complexity, cost implications, and lack of standardized practices.

The discussion could benefit from a deeper engagement with existing literature to position the findings more clearly within the broader context of project management and sustainability research. While some references are made to relevant studies, there is a need for a more thorough literature review.

 

The findings are primarily descriptive, focusing on identifying challenges rather than offering in-depth analysis or theoretical insights that could advance understanding in the field. The paper could strengthen its contribution by providing more concrete recommendations or frameworks for overcoming the identified barriers.

The paper's contributions would be more substantial if it offered a clearer theoretical framework or model for understanding the integration of carbon targets in AEC projects. The current approach is somewhat limited to describing the findings rather than developing new concepts or theories.

The recommendations provided are somewhat general and lack specificity. For instance, the suggestion to enhance training and tools for PMs is valid but could be more impactful if accompanied by detailed strategies or examples of best practices.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her constructive feedback. Several of the comments and suggestions have led to significant improvements in the manuscript, particularly with respect to further synthesis and the conceptual model we propose. We hope these modifications have contributed to strengthening both the clarity and the overall contribution of the work. 

In this revision, additional revisions have been made to the methodology and discussion sections. Additionally, we’ve made corresponding adjustments in the introduction, abstract, and conclusion to ensure consistency across the manuscript. 

The following response is structured around the specific feedback provided by the reviewer. Please find below our responses with the rationale of revisions made in the manuscript. 

Detail comments and response (per paragraph): 

Paragraph 2: (…) While the study is positioned as filling a gap in existing literature, it could benefit from a more detailed justification of why the focus on PMs, as opposed to other stakeholders (such as clients or supply chain actors), is particularly crucial for understanding the challenges in integrating carbon targets. 

Response:  

The previous studies on carbon in AEC major projects limited to particular processes (i.e. procurement in particular) and from a sponsor point of view. While PM literature has undertaken substantial work around SPM (covered in the manuscript’s literature review) and the role and challenges faced by PMs in delivering sustainable (broadly looking at the three dimensions of sustainability) projects, these have not been focused on the challenges that carbon emissions in particular pose. We’ve thus, added additional justification to provide further justification of why the PM perspective, which is lacking, is a critical point of view. 

Adjustments to manuscript introduction. Lines 72-83.  

Paragraph 3: The scope is somewhat limited to the UK context, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other regions with different regulatory and market environments. 

Response: The focus on the UK was defined since the beginning, as to establish a context where findings could be applicable to. This is not uncommon within construction management research (which often is contained to national contexts – E.g. ). In any case, we have added an explicit limitation note in the conclusions indicating a note of caution that findings are derived entirely from the UK context, which potentially limits transferability to other countries. We also encourage future studies to focus on other contexts, primarily that of emerging economies, where policy landscapes around net-zero might diverge from the UK. The influence that policy landscapes have on major projects, primarily those aiming to tackle grand challenges like net zero seems to be further reinforced by recent publications (Ika et al., 2024). 

Adjustments to manuscript in lines 919-928.  

Paragraph 4: The paper employs a qualitative exploratory research design, using semi-structured interviews with 17 AEC project professionals in the UK. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify the key challenges and barriers to integrating carbon targets. However, The sample size of 17 participants, while sufficient for an exploratory study, is relatively small and may not fully capture the diversity of experiences across the AEC sector. This could limit the robustness of the findings. 

Response:

Included as a limitation of the study. What we perceive as the major limitation is not necessarily representation across project types, but rather the criteria used to establish the interviewee sample. The criteria were based on project management experience as well as experience in integrating carbon requirements in their projects. This approach allowed for in-depth interviews with detail regarding challenges faced, however, it might have biased primarily from those “leading” in this area. We have noted this potential bias in our conclusions, as the sample (given the criteria specified, in particular the pre-requisite of involvement in the integration of carbon metrics) might not be representative of all the AEC industry PM profession. In this context, we have suggested a survey study (i.e. representative for the UK AEC industry) to validate and assess the prevalence of the PM perspectives identified in the paper.  

Adjustments to manuscript in lines 909-927 

Paragraph 5: There is limited information on the selection criteria for interview participants, which raises questions about the representativeness of the sample. More detail on the participants' backgrounds, such as their specific roles, years of experience, and types of projects they manage, would enhance the study's credibility. 

Response:  We have included further detail on the recruitment of participants (i.e. process) and the criteria we used for the purposive sample, who were invited to participate in the study.   

Adjustments to manuscript in lines 412-418. 

Paragraph 6: The paper does not clearly articulate the steps taken to ensure the reliability and validity of the thematic analysis, such as inter-coder reliability checks or member validation. 

Response:   

In the research analysis and thematic analysis steps we have included steps taken. We have expanded these in the manuscript (lines 436-463). These are consistent with best practices in reflexive thematic analysis and to increase the trustworthiness (credibility, dependability and confirmability) of findings and themes presented and discussed. The main steps were (more detail on manuscript): 

• Development of standard codebook 

• Transcript summary shared with participants  

• Thick descriptions  

Last paragraphs (grouped): The discussion could benefit from a deeper engagement with existing literature to position the findings more clearly within the broader context of project management and sustainability research. While some references are made to relevant studies, there is a need for a more thorough literature review. 

The findings are primarily descriptive, focusing on identifying challenges rather than offering in-depth analysis or theoretical insights that could advance understanding in the field. The paper could strengthen its contribution by providing more concrete recommendations or frameworks for overcoming the identified barriers. 

The paper's contributions would be more substantial if it offered a clearer theoretical framework or model for understanding the integration of carbon targets in AEC projects. The current approach is somewhat limited to describing the findings rather than developing new concepts or theories. 

Response: The final paragraphs on the review relate largely to similar issues with results and positioning of these in relation to the broader SPM literature.  

To address this, we added a new section to the discussion to provide a synthesis of the findings, focusing on both the challenges and PMs' perceptions of their readiness to integrate carbon targets. These findings are framed within three primary perspectives identified in the dataset, which are grounded in existing SPM and AEC PM literature. These perspectives highlight how PMs' views on carbon targets influence their perceived responsibilities, autonomy, and ability to deliver low-carbon projects. The distinct barriers associated with each perspective suggest that a multi-faceted approach is necessary to overcome them.  

We have adjusted Section 5.3 (starting at line 787). We have also introduced minor changes to the introduction, abstract, and conclusion to reflect these revisions. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, while the study contributes to the existing knowledge, it does not significantly push the boundaries or provide new perspectives on the integration of net-zero targets in the AEC sector.

Author Response

Response to the general comment provided:

Thank you for the peer review and time taken in revising the original manuscript. While we appreciate your recognition that the study contributes to existing knowledge, we respectfully disagree with the assertion that it does not provide new perspectives on net-zero integration in the AEC sector. This issue, while previously explored through technical terms (i.e. LCA of infrastructure assets, buildings…), has not been explored from the perspective of the project manager. Our analysis of evolving perspectives on carbon as a project success factor adds valuable insight to the challenges faced by PM teams, but also to how these are influenced by perspectives of PMs themselves around carbon metrics and deliverables.  

Based on other peer reviews, in the revised manuscript, we have incorporated and proposed a conceptual model that synthesises PM perspectives (Section 5.3.), highlighting distinct barriers and strategies for carbon integration. This addition offers a clearer framework for understanding the challenges project teams face in advancing net-zero goals. We think these elements contribute to advancing the discourse in this domain, particularly, from a perspective (i.e. that of the Project Manager) which has received limited attention. 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments