*2.1. Sustainable Development Goals*

The most significant global response to the planetary boundary challenge was in 2015, when all governments ratified the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals [4] (as shown in Figure 1), to be achieved by 2030 (with 169 targets and 244 indicators also agreed in 2017). This represented a major step change in the implementation of the sustainability agenda and effective responses to the planetary boundary challenge. Although the SDGs build on the earlier Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) [4] by focusing on similar issues, the SDGs differ from the MDGs because they are for all countries in the world to implement, developed and developing alike [15]. Also, unlike the MDGs, the SDGs are focused on monitoring, evaluation and accountability across society, not just at national level, which is why it is critical that the link is made from the "bottom to top", meaning from the delivery of project-level impacts that can be assessed against the national and global targets and indicators. The research presented later shows this cannot currently be achieved, and the evidence [16,17] illustrates that the golden thread from project measurement to national/global level is missing. There is a gap between theory and practice [11,13]. The most significant global response to the planetary boundary challenge was in 2015, when all governments ratified the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals [4] (as shown in Figure 1), to be achieved by 2030 (with 169 targets and 244 indicators also agreed in 2017). This represented a major step change in the implementation of the sustainability agenda and effective responses to the planetary boundary challenge. Although the SDGs build on the earlier Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) [4] by focusing on similar issues, the SDGs differ from the MDGs because they are for all countries in the world to implement, developed and developing alike [15]. Also, unlike the MDGs, the SDGs are focused on monitoring, evaluation and accountability across society, not just at national level, which is why it is critical that the link is made from the "bottom to top", meaning from the delivery of project-level impacts that can be assessed against the national and global targets and indicators. The research presented later shows this cannot currently be achieved, and the evidence [16,17] illustrates that the golden thread from project measurement to national/global level is missing. There is a gap between theory and practice [11,13].

*Sustainability* **2019**, *11*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 30

**Figure 1***.* The United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals [4] (full details can be accessed at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/). (Usage of graphic agreed by UN). **Figure 1.** The United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals [4] (full details can be accessed at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/). (Usage of graphic agreed by UN).

In order to understand why there is a perceived gap, it is helpful to analyse the structural build of the SDG performance framework. In this regard, the SDG delivery targets are understandably ambitious and needed a reporting framework that would drive meaningful and verifiable progress towards the 2030 targets. In 2017, the UN's Inter-agency Expert Group on Targets and Indicators for Sustainable Development designed a mechanism that linked goals, targets and indicators across the geographic and governance boundaries at national, regional and global levels [18]. Within this framework, shown in Figure 2, the Expert Group designed thematic areas that could also be used at the subnational level, but, because the targets and indicators were originally designed to be used at the global, regional and national levels, they had reduced applicability at organisational or project levels. Considering the aforementioned literature, it is possible to synthesise the first proposition related to the Sustainable Development Goals as follows. Based on this discussion, the first proposition was developed, shown below. **Proposition 1 (P1).** *There is currently a gap in the knowledge base in regard to understanding how to measure*  In order to understand why there is a perceived gap, it is helpful to analyse the structural build of the SDG performance framework. In this regard, the SDG delivery targets are understandably ambitious and needed a reporting framework that would drive meaningful and verifiable progress towards the 2030 targets. In 2017, the UN's Inter-agency Expert Group on Targets and Indicators for Sustainable Development designed a mechanism that linked goals, targets and indicators across the geographic and governance boundaries at national, regional and global levels [18]. Within this framework, shown in Figure 2, the Expert Group designed thematic areas that could also be used at the subnational level, but, because the targets and indicators were originally designed to be used at the global, regional and national levels, they had reduced applicability at organisational or project levels. Considering the aforementioned literature, it is possible to synthesise the first proposition related to the Sustainable Development Goals as follows. Based on this discussion, the first proposition was developed, shown below. *Sustainability* **2019**, *11*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 30

**Figure 2.** The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target and indicator framework developed by the UN subcommittee [18]. **Figure 2.** The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target and indicator framework developed by the UN subcommittee [18].

stimulate economic prosperity, reduce poverty and raise standards in health, education and gender equality [21]. It is apparent that ameliorating many of the risks associated with grand challenges, such as climate change, can only be achieved through investment in appropriate and resilient

A growing area of research has been in the comparison of construction projects' impacts on sustainable development from different angles. For example, Shen et al. [23] highlighted the role of projects to impact across the triple bottom line of people, profit and planet [7–9]. In this regard, construction projects are acknowledged as making an impact on the economic and social development of nations. Increasingly, recognition is given that these dual aims of economic development and social development can be achieved in harmony and, indeed, provide competitive advantage for firms [24,25]. Other studies have delved deeper into the changing nature of how project sustainability has changed within the construction industry. For example, Edum-Fotwe and Price [26] highlighted the issues that affect the assessment of social factors of construction projects, which this article suggests can be combined with the environmental and economic requirements of projects. Defining infrastructure project success is central to understanding how to link global-national level SDGs with local infrastructure projects because it allows stakeholders to align their expectations against shorter-term outputs as well as the longer-term outcomes and SDG impacts. More recent research into project success definition [27] has consistently identified benefits and outcomes as being a critical determinant for the assessment of project success. Considering the aforementioned literature, it is possible to synthesise the second proposition related to SDGs in the context of

**Proposition 2 (P2).** *The definition of infrastructure project success should be viewed from a systemic* 

As discussed above, there is evidence of an increasing interest, and in some cases demand, for promoting SDG measurement in the construction industry [19,20], with one report [14] that surveyed 325 engineers having a 95% demand from practitioners, who said that this was "very important" to them, with only 30% stating that they had adequate tools, processes and systems to measure them at project level. The survey [14] indicated four primary shortfalls for measuring SDGs on infrastructure projects, namely, leadership (1), tools and methods (2), engineers' business skills in measuring SDG impact (3) and how project success is too narrowly defined as outputs (such as time, cost and scope) and not outcomes (longer-term local impacts and stakeholder value) (4). This highlights that there

*perspective, where there is a broader consideration of the overall performance of the project*.

*2.3. Challenges and Opportunities for Measuring SDGs in the Construction Industry* 

*2.2. SDGs in the Context of Infrastructure Projects in the Construction Sector* 

infrastructure projects in the construction sector as follows.

infrastructure and engineering [22].

**Proposition 1 (P1).** *There is currently a gap in the knowledge base in regard to understanding how to measure SDG performance at the project level.*
