**3. Results**

The presentation of results is primarily based on responses from top-level directors, managers, partners, and superintendents of construction companies. The survey covered the following sectors of the construction industry: industrial, residential buildings, non-residential buildings, mining, road and highways, others. More than 80% of the sample is composed of companies with less than 20 years of experience, with an average of 12.5 years and standard deviation of 9.84. Thirty-two companies were predominant, with a turnover level above US\$30 million. In terms of number of employees, there were 30 small companies with 1–100 employees (40%), 21 medium-size companies with 101–500 employees (28%) and 24 large companies with more than 500 employees (32%). Detailed data can be seen in Table 2.


**Table 2.** Cross tabulation No. of Company Employees vs. Turnover (Million USD).

Several statistical tests were performed to validate the survey and identify the significant sustainable construction strategies implemented by Chilean construction firms. Section 3.1 evaluates reliability, and the validity of the survey which was assessed based on Cronbach's alpha, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett's sphericity tests. Section 3.2 shows the importance of dimensions evaluated based on the median of the strategies for each dimension. Section 3.3 shows the results of several comparative tests to identify the socio-demographic variables that have the strongest impact on the sub-dimensions. Section 3.4 shows the ranking of sustainable construction strategies implemented by Chilean construction firms. Section 3.5 shows significant associations among sub-dimensions through an analysis of association. Finally, Section 3.6 shows the results of the Opinion dimension about the construction companies' overall level of sustainability.

#### *3.1. Survey Reliability and Validity*

The scale's internal consistency was measured by the Cronbach's alpha indicator (0.962), estimating the reliability of 40 items with 71 valid cases. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to estimate the scale validity of the construct. In the correlation matrix, high and significant associations were observed among statements. In addition, a very small determinant was found, indicating that a factor analysis should be performed. The same applies to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0.82) and Bartlett's test of sphericity (x2 approx.: 2361.56, gl: 780 and significance: 0.00), whose result is significant. Considering these two indicators, a factor analysis is appropriate. In the exploratory factor analysis, eight dimensions that account for 71.99% of the total variance of sustainability were configured. Although there are eight dimensions in the exploratory analysis, only five are distinguished in the sedimentation graphic, which is consistent with the theoretical dimensions of the scale. Based on the results of the reliability and factor analyses, it is concluded that the survey is both valid and reliable.

### *3.2. Importance of Dimensions*

Table 3 shows the importance given to the dimensions by the respondent. The dimension with the highest median is Project (32.9%), followed by Market (30.8%), Organization (27.6%) and Process (26.4%). The Project dimension is the highest, but with increased dispersion (less homogeneous). Otherwise, the Market dimension has lesser dispersion (more homogeneous data). The Opinion dimension is indicative of the overall sustainability assessment. From the average behavior of the sub-dimensions of the construct, the most highly valued are (1) Sustainability in construction and/or design, but with increased dispersion (less homogeneous), associated with the Market dimension; (2) Sustainability in the environment, also associated with the Market dimension; and (3) Assessment of Sustainability associated with the Opinion dimension, with a slightly increased dispersion (less homogeneous), regarding the Sustainability in the environment. Likewise, Sustainability in Facilities is one of the most highly valued dimensions, which is a consequence of the close relationship with the Sustainability sub-dimension in construction and/or design, where both sub-dimensions are grouped in the Project dimension.



**Note:** ( \*) Distribution of mean scores of each dimension.

#### *3.3. Impact of Companies' Socio-Demographic Variables on Sustainable Business Strategies*

First, a one-way ANOVA test was carried out to identify which socio-demographic data have a significant effect on which sub-dimensions. Next, multiple comparison tests were carried out to identify significant relationships between socio-demographic variables and sustainable strategies.


#### *3.4. Ranking of Sustainable Strategies*

Table 5 ranks the sustainable construction strategies implemented by Chilean construction companies based on the obtained score of each sub-dimension.


**Table 4.** Multiple Comparison Tests on the Turnover Sub-Dimension.

**Note:** (+): In that category, it means that scores are higher, (−): In that category, it means that scores are lower.

**Table 5.** Ranking of importance in the implementation of sustainable strategies.


**Note:** (\*) Distribution of the mean scores for each sub-dimension.

#### *3.5. Association Among Subdimensions*

Table 6 shows the results of the analysis of associations among the sub-dimensions. This table reveals that the most significant associations are: (1) Sustainability in the Facilities with Sustainability in the Construction and/or design (*R*-value 0.816), in which 66.6% of each sub-dimension's total variability is explained by the other; and (2) Sustainability of Acquisition with Supply Chain and Financial Sustainability (*R*-value 0.796), in which 63.4% of each sub-dimension's total variability is explained by the other.



#### *3.6. Overall Opinion About Company Sustainability*

When respondents were asked about "an overall assessment of the degree of implementation of sustainable practices in their company", only 32% answered, "almost always" and "always". When asked, "Do you think the implementation of sustainability strategies could be applicable in your company?" 70.6% responded, "almost always" and "always". However, there is unanimity among the 88% of respondents who answered, "almost always" and "always" regarding the question of whether "they think it is important to implement sustainability strategies in construction". Surprisingly, no one answered "never" and "hardly ever" to this question. Moreover, 36% of the companies stated that they favor technological solutions for energy efficiency, and 32% of the respondents indicated that they favor the reduction of energy consumption as solutions.
