*5.2. Thematic Area 2: Mechanism. What Mechanism (for Measuring SDG Impacts) Is in Place to Achieve the Outcomes?*

The second area of discussion was for the participant to self-assess their company's "awareness and application" and also, if they were applying SDGs, what the level of process maturity of their SDG measurement was. The data in Figure 8 show the feedback from the participants when they were asked to score themselves against a Likert-style scale, as shown in the first row in columns c and d.


*Sustainability* **2019**, *11*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 30

**Figure 8***.* Results of the self-assessed level of awareness-application and process maturity (colour representation shown in columns c and d in titles row). **Figure 8.** Results of the self-assessed level of awareness-application and process maturity (colour representation shown in columns c and d in titles row).

### 5.2.1. Company's "Awareness and Application" of SDG Measurement in Construction Projects 5.2.1. Company's "Awareness and Application" of SDG Measurement in Construction Projects

As part of the interviews, all participants were asked to describe their awareness of sustainability, sustainable development and SDGs. They were then asked to describe their current level of SDG measurement maturity. The data on these are shown in Figure 9. At the lower end of the spectrum (level 3 = unaware and not doing it), participant 37 admitted As part of the interviews, all participants were asked to describe their awareness of sustainability, sustainable development and SDGs. They were then asked to describe their current level of SDG measurement maturity. The data on these are shown in Figure 9.

that, regarding "the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, I had never heard of them—a request for an interview came through and [name withheld] only heard of them through a bid we were working on that included an SDG question. The SDGs have no current place in our business". As this was a board member, this was surprising because it was expected that senior staff would have some level of SDG knowledge. In the middle range, which was "aware and not doing", representing 47% of the participants, At the lower end of the spectrum (level 3 = unaware and not doing it), participant 37 admitted that, regarding "the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, I had never heard of them—a request for an interview came through and [name withheld] only heard of them through a bid we were working on that included an SDG question. The SDGs have no current place in our business". As this was a board member, this was surprising because it was expected that senior staff would have some level of SDG knowledge.

participant 4′s answer was typical: "Awareness is that we are doing some discrete things but not in any depth". The reasons for this varied, but a common theme was that there was not a requirement from governments or clients, as participant 21 shares: "We do not have a demand from our clients or from our communities that we work to measure against the SDGs. Like many in our industry, these are not common terms that we use… we do not have as much benefit from embedding them as much as a large global company that perhaps needs to demonstrate SDG impact more visibly. A lot of the things we do implicitly encompass the SDGs, but we are not explicitly measuring against them". In the higher range, which was "aware and measuring", represented by 38% of the participants, there were some examples of significant progress, such as that shared by participant 7: "Every single In the middle range, which was "aware and not doing", representing 47% of the participants, participant 40 s answer was typical: "Awareness is that we are doing some discrete things but not in any depth". The reasons for this varied, but a common theme was that there was not a requirement from governments or clients, as participant 21 shares: "We do not have a demand from our clients or from our communities that we work to measure against the SDGs. Like many in our industry, these are not common terms that we use . . . we do not have as much benefit from embedding them as much as a large global company that perhaps needs to demonstrate SDG impact more visibly. A lot of the things we do implicitly encompass the SDGs, but we are not explicitly measuring against them".

project in the organisation will feed into SDG number 11—'sustainable cities and communities'—and every project in the organisation will address at least 4–5 of the SDGs". In the higher range, which was "aware and measuring", represented by 38% of the participants, there were some examples of significant progress, such as that shared by participant 7: "Every single project in the organisation will feed into SDG number 11—'sustainable cities and communities'—and every project in the organisation will address at least 4–5 of the SDGs".


*Sustainability* **2019**, *11*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 30

**Figure 9.** Graphical representation of results from the self-assessed level of "awareness-application". **Figure 9.** Graphical representation of results from the self-assessed level of "awareness-application".

### 5.2.2. Company's Level of SDG Measurement Process Maturity 5.2.2. Company's Level of SDG Measurement Process Maturity

As part of the interviews, the second quantitative question all participants were asked was to describe their current level of SDG measurement maturity. The data on these are shown in Figure 10. The banding levels for this question were: 0 = no SDG processes, 1 = currently defining processes, 2 = early processes in place and 3 = sustainable SDG processes. Overall, the quantitative data showed that nearly half (49%) were at level 0 or level 1, which meant that no effective processes were in operational use. Only 23% stated that they were at level 2, the early adoption stage of processes, with a very small group (8%) stating that they had repeatable processes in place. As part of the interviews, the second quantitative question all participants were asked was to describe their current level of SDG measurement maturity. The data on these are shown in Figure 10. The banding levels for this question were: 0 = no SDG processes, 1 = currently defining processes, 2 = early processes in place and 3 = sustainable SDG processes. Overall, the quantitative data showed that nearly half (49%) were at level 0 or level 1, which meant that no effective processes were in operational use. Only 23% stated that they were at level 2, the early adoption stage of processes, with a very small group (8%) stating that they had repeatable processes in place. *Sustainability* **2019**, *11*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 30

**Figure 10.** Graphical representation of results of the self-assessed level of "SDG measurement maturity" (colour representation shown in Figure 8 in column h in the titles row). **Figure 10.** Graphical representation of results of the self-assessed level of "SDG measurement maturity" (colour representation shown in Figure 8 in column h in the titles row).

The second major finding derived from this analysis is as follows. Findings #2: only a small percentage of companies have a repeatable process as an operational One of the best, participant 13, stated: "We are at Level 3, we have managed processes, metrics and quality management", which was similar to participant 23: "we have some consistent ways we do

The analysis of the contextual issues that affect companies' ability to measure SDG impacts successfully were captured using a strength, weakness, opportunity and threat (SWOT) approach. The eight themes are shown in the nodal framework in Figure 7 and include: leadership and strategy; knowledge; outputs-to-outcomes; tools, processes and systems; change management; performance management; project-to-portfolio levels; and geographic issues. These were all derived from the preceding survey of 325 engineers, as shown in Figure 3. The qualitative analysis shared below is complemented by using the twin-track approach described in Figure 6, which includes the textanalysis software-enabled word-count data. The approach was to identify key words and relate their frequency of use to the qualitative findings to assist the understanding of the emerging issues. For example, in this first context thematic, "leadership and strategy", as shown in Table 2, the key words associated with this thematic are: leadership (and its derivatives, such as leader), strategy, CEO/executive and align/governance/direction/vision, which are all words associated with

For the leadership and strategy node, there were high levels of relevant statements coded (n = 63) from the 40 participants (using the NVivo software), reflecting the importance of this thematic. In terms of key word usage, this thematic was the fifth most frequently used (n = 584) across the 40 interviews, which equates to once every 120 words. Within this category, the frequency of use of "align", "governance", "direction" and "vision" were noted since these words are all associated with

The most impactful statements collected were the frequent references to a "greater value" beyond profit. This sentiment sits well with creating shared value and the triple bottom line discussed earlier. This viewpoint was personified by participant 11: "a key part of leadership is doing the right

*5.3. Thematic Area 3: Context. What Issues Influence the Successful Use of an SDG Measurement* 

*Mechanism to Achieve the Desired Outcomes?* 

leadership capabilities and actions.

5.3.1. Leadership and Strategy

leadership capabilities.

things that are aligned to SDGs, but we do not look at every SDG and answer how they contribute to the goals. But we do cover a lot of the issues at project level."

In reality, many of the participants only conducted measurement at a high level, such as participant 34: "In the past we have done a review to see how our strategy fits with the SDGs. We found that the SDGs were impacted by our work, some more than others, in terms of the goals and targets; they are not particularly relevant to the work that we do so our priorities have been elsewhere and therefore our resources have been focused elsewhere". About a third of the participants said that they could, at a high level, link their SDG priorities to the formal sustainability reporting that they did on the Global Reporting Index (GRI), such as participant 26, who stated: "Well, we are all aware and starting to do it. We started using the Global Reporting Index framework on sustainability three years ago and we started reporting on our corporate results yearly on that but, at the project level, we have been a bit slower pushing up to that". Amongst the lowest performers was participant 9, who stated: "in terms of SDG reporting processes we are close to 1. Our maturity is still low, although our sustainability reporting is much higher. We have not yet made it integrated to SDGs and have not yet generated a report against them. That is what we are talking about now and what we want to achieve".

The second major finding derived from this analysis is as follows.

Findings #2: only a small percentage of companies have a repeatable process as an operational "mechanism" for measuring SDG impacts at company and project levels. Most have an aspiration to do so but believe that the government and their clients need to require its implementation.
