Sustainability

Sustainability on Construction Projects as a Business Opportunity Carmichael, Balatbat Full Paper Peer Reviewed
Sustainability on Construction Projects as a Business Opportunity

David G. Carmichael and Maria C. A. Balatbat The University of New South Wales
ABSTRACT Construction contractors, have historically and quite naturally been motivated by profit; the profit motive is driven by their shareholders and the necessity to survive in business. Environmental and social issues, when considered, were a secondary priority or something that was obligatory, and generally viewed as being counter to profit; that is, their inclusion either reduced revenue or increased costs. However, this paper argues for a more positive view of sustainability, in that contractors should view it as a business opportunity, and something that can contribute to the health of their companies rather than detract from it. The paper encompasses: the primary sustainability criteria applying to construction projects, namely economic, environmental, and social; secondary criteria relating to, among others, pollution (air, water and soil), emissions, hazardous materials, land use, waste generation and disposal, resource usage, and energy use; and contractor actions necessary to achieve sustainability. The secondary criteria are looked at from the viewpoint of all project stakeholders, namely the client, contractor (including shareholders), subcontractors, suppliers, and the public. Comment is made on contractor triple bottom line reporting, and the process of changing contractor attitudes to appreciate the benefits of sustainable practices such as savings in disposal costs, reduced material inputs, reduced insurance, avoided environmental legislation penalties, clean production, and energy efficiency. It is also argued that improved public image can lead to a larger market share. The production output (end-product) of a construction project is fixed, and hence a contractor's profit will only be improved through production efficiency, and part of this efficiency it is suggested can derive from adopting sustainable practices. INTRODUCTION The construction process is one involving large consumption of materials and energy, and historically releasing pollution (atmosphere, water, soil), generating large amounts of waste, and not looking far beyond individual project boundaries. Many environmental and social matters often took a back seat, though this in more recent years has been changing. Observations by the authors are that many construction firms, particularly at the small- to medium-end of the business size spectrum, are still slow in addressing social and environmental concerns. This paper argues for a positive view of sustainability, in that it is suggested that contractors should view sustainability as a business opportunity, and something that can contribute to the health of their companies rather than detract from it. Sustainability thinking is being driven by the worlds concerns over increasing industrialisation and population, material and resource consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, pollution and waste generation. Contractors contribute significantly to these activities. While contractors produce new and better infrastructure for the enjoyment of society, they must acknowledge, in doing so, that there are simultaneous downsides. There is a need for contractors to address material and resource usage, particularly virgin materials, energy usage, waste and pollution. And if contractors dont do this willingly, eventually society will force them to.
2009 SSEE International Conference Solutions for a Sustainable Planet Society for Sustainability & Environmental Engineering, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 22-24 November 2009
Contractors contribute to one important phase of the life cycle of infrastructure. Acting alone, the impact of contractors might be suboptimal in the context of all infrastructure phases, but is still significant nevertheless. Acting with other phase contributors will be better again. Added to this increased consciousness about consumption, pollution and waste is the growing voice of the community and the rapid information transfer possible via the internet. Contractors can no longer operate in isolation from the community. Contractors are being obliged to be more transparent in their operations, and demonstrate responsiveness to community concerns. New technology is available to contractors to enable them to address many of the sustainability issues directly, and reduce their own footprints. There is the ability to engage this new technology as older, less friendly technology, becomes obsolete. Additional drivers of change to sustainable practices, independent of any voluntary contractor actions, are changing government policy and regulations, stakeholder and shareholder expectations, and changing client procurement policies. Sustainability is an area of increasing government and media focus around the world. This increasing focus on sustainability has placed many industries under scrutiny by governments, the media and the public. Increasingly clients, particularly public-sector clients, are modifying their procurement practices to address sustainability criteria, in response to community movements. While sustainability is not going to be addressed by the odd one or two contractors, collectively all contractors are able to make a large impact. This will involve reducing material consumption and pollution, demonstrating transparency and responsiveness, and adopting new friendly technologies, amongst others, and being proactive in dealing and engaging with worker and community issues. Ideally, these will be a set of integrated actions (and dispersed throughout the contractors organisation) rather than add-ons to existing practices. Paper outline. This paper first examines some underlying issues to do with sustainability and its relationship to construction contractors. Carbon emissions and sustainability criteria are addressed. The paper then looks at the background literature to sustainability being viewed as an opportunity, before discussing the opportunities and the benefits from looking positively at sustainability. Triple bottom line reporting is discussed. The paper next reports a survey carried out to establish the degree of sustainability reporting undertaken by the major Australian construction companies, as an indicator of current sustainability activity by these companies. Conclusions follow. The reader will find useful the coverage of sustainability as it applies to the niche work of construction contractors, work which is often given second priority to the design and operation phases of infrastructure. CARBON EMISSIONS Emission reporting requirements currently in place only affect the larger contractors. The National Greenhouse Emissions Reporting Scheme only covers the big emitters who release more than 125,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent to the atmosphere (NGER Act). And proposed carbon trading schemes will impact contractors only indirectly. Nevertheless contractors are able to voluntarily reduce their emissions and promote sustainability. The construction industry is energy intensive. The Department of Climate Change in its National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (2008a) gives manufacturing and construction as being responsible
2009 SSEE International Conference Solutions for a Sustainable Planet Society for Sustainability & Environmental Engineering, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 22-24 November 2009 2
for 8.2% of Australias total emissions, with the production of cement, a major construction material, being responsible for approximately 0.67% of Australias total emissions. Steel production, the other major construction material, is also a large energy user. Cheng et al. (2008) report that buildings consume over 30% of global energy; the construction phase accounts for 10-20% of the energy consumed by a building over its whole of life, with building operation accounting for the remainder. Consequently, the introduction of a carbon trading scheme will significantly impact the construction industry. And, while contractors may have only a minor say in incorporated material choice, there is still the potential for contractors to reduce on-site energy usage. As energy costs increase, this will lead to a focus on reducing wasted energy from plant and equipment usage, and the movement and storage of materials and people on project sites. Design and planning of the construction operations will need to be actively undertaken and continuously refined in order to use energy more efficiently. For some contractors, design and planning construction operations formally will be a new experience. The threat of carbon leakage, whereby some construction operations transfer offshore to noncarbon compliant countries, will be an added spur to contractors to operate more efficiently at home. Non-compliant countries will have considerably cheaper costs of operation. And even with transport costs added, the total cost may be less than doing the same thing in Australia. There may be a growth in overseas pre-fabrication, with products shipped ready for installation, instead of being manufactured in-situ. The final assembly will occur in Australia, but the preceding steps in the construction process may change. The Department of Climate Change (2008b) recognises that there may be movement of work to overseas countries in an attempt to satisfy emission reduction targets. The carbon emissions of these non-compliant countries, such as China, will increase to satisfy the export market (BBC, 2009). The construction industry will need assistance through the Emissions-Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) scheme. (The illogicality of a carbon trading scheme that forces production and carbon emitting practices overseas, together with the extra carbon emitted through transport of the products back to Australia, rather than produce the same goods more carbon-efficiently in Australia, is beyond the scope of this paper.) The viability of the manufacturing and construction sectors in Australia would be improved by the government keeping the cost of carbon low, applying surcharges to goods produced in noncarbon compliant countries, and giving assistance through EITE. Cement Australia (Ritchie, 2008), among others, voices concerns about the impact of the proposed carbon trading scheme on the construction industry. However these are governmental decisions and beyond the influence of individual construction contractors. SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Sustainability for a contractor involved in the construction process may be assessed against conventional generic sustainability primary criteria of economic, social and environmental. Secondary criteria will be peculiar to the construction process. See Table 1. These criteria impact the construction process in many ways.
Table 1. Contractors primary and secondary sustainability criteria. Primary criteria Secondary criteria Economic Expenditure/Cost over time capital, operating, Income Cash flow Return on investment/Profit Depreciation/Replacement/Maintenance etc Health stakeholders Safety (accidents, injuries, death) stakeholders Employment Work conditions Community/public acceptability etc Resource usage Pollution/Toxins water, air, soil Dust Noise, vibrations Water supply Waste (materials, wastewater), discharges Energy, water usage Greenhouse gas emissions Traffic to/from and within site Flora, fauna Land use etc
Social
Environmental
Alternative options available to the contractor can be assessed against these criteria, together with technical criteria such as reliability, availability, flexibility and durability. But because it is a multicriteria decision problem, subjectivity is necessarily involved in establishing priorities or weightings for the criteria. As such, each contractor may come to a conclusion different to other contractors. BACKGROUND TO SUSTAINABILITY AS AN OPPORTUNITY In general business terms, a number of authors have suggested looking at the opportunity side of sustainability. See for example Hart et al. (2003), Larson et al. (2000), Hart and Milstein (1999), Day (1998), and Hutchinson (1992), though the belief in the benefits is not universal (for example, Taylor et al., 2003). Zambon and Del Bello (2005) highlight the importance of reporting to stakeholders of sustainable activities undertaken. In terms of construction businesses, there have been fewer contributions. It is noted that the present paper deals only with the construction phase and the activities of contractors during that phase. The paper doesnt address other phases of the life cycle of infrastructure such as the design phase, where terms such as green buildings (for example Lockwood, 2006; Horman et al., 2006; Kua and Lee, 2002) or sustainable design (for example Bunz et al. 2006) might be used, or broad issues (incorporating the construction phase as one element) associated with the built environment where terms such as sustainable construction (for example van Bueren and
Priemus, 2002; Howard, 2000; Ebohon and Rwelamila, 2001; Burgan and Sansom, 2006; Gonzalez and Navarro, 2006; Hartkopf and Loftness, 1999; Rwelamila et al., 2000) might be used. Attempts have been made to increase the competitiveness of construction under sustainability (Thorpe et al., 2008). And it has been suggested that construction activities be planned with sustainability in mind. Adetunji et al. (2003) report a survey finding that a proactive sustainability strategy, supported by effective reporting to essential stakeholders, can have a major positive impact on organisational competitiveness and there is a tendency for firms with a higher turnover to engage proactively with sustainability. Adetunji et al. discuss barriers and drivers to sustainability among contractors. Leiper et al. (2003) report, for one constructionto-services company, how the journey towards sustainability has facilitated greater innovation, enhanced individual and corporate responsibility and improved product delivery, in both construction and maintenance activities. Leiper et al. discuss drivers, barriers and challenges to the implementation of sustainable practices. SUSTAINABILITY AS AN OPPORTUNITY Commonly, sustainability issues are regarded by contractors as an impediment or nuisance to their business operations. The focus is on generating maximum profit on short-term projects, with little long-term strategy so necessary for sustainability. Observations by the authors are that adopting sustainability practices is seen as an added cost or more regulations to follow. The parallel here is with the introduction of the quality initiatives of the 1980s, but hopefully some of the failed implementations wont be repeated. The alternative view is to regard sustainability as an opportunity that can add value (sustainability value) to shareholders, and profitability to a business, independently of any moral, ethical or corporate social responsibility (CSR) concerns. Contractors might see their world as contained within the boundaries of their construction sites. However this is being challenged, so that contractors see themselves as part of the wider world, and their actions having impact beyond their site boundaries. They have an obligation to the environment and society wider than their construction projects. Adopting sustainability thinking raises the social and environmental practices of contractors. Contractors then need to start thinking against a triple bottom line (TBL) of economic, social and environmental criteria. The focus is to demonstrate lower costs and risk, or higher market share and revenue, through adopting a sustainability framework. The contractors businesses, the environment and society all simultaneously gain. Value to a contractors shareholders might be seen in terms of reputation, cost reduction (profit gain), risk reduction, and business growth. There is a need to be profitable on todays job while positioning the business for future work. That is, there are both short-term and long-term goals. And they depend on interaction with wider stakeholders - stakeholders external to the immediate project suppliers, subcontractors, the community, clients, regulators and consultants. These wider stakeholders cannot be ignored if the firm is to survive and prosper long-term. By embracing these wider stakeholders within a broad sustainability framework, it is suggested, creates a differentiated position with competitors, and an enhanced reputation and positioning for future growth. Positioning for the future might also be dependent on innovation and having the in-house competencies and skills to adapt to future scenarios. Innovation creates the new products and services for the firm to prosper into the future.
Sustainability thinking provides the vision or direction for a firm to take. It points the way to new, untouched markets. The development of company skills in reducing pollution and waste, using resources efficiently etc presents an opportunity. Continuing business-as-usual may generate profits in the short term, but without embracing sustainability, the long-term performance of a contractor firm is uncertain. Pre-occupation with todays business, and pre-occupation with project cost savings, at the expense of the bigger and long-term picture may lead to the contractors business faulting. DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFITS There is a growing belief that the changing of work practices to those with a sustainability focus will improve the bottom line, and improve both shareholder and stakeholder value. The major benefits are summarised here. Enhanced image. With a sustainability image, the contractor is a more saleable product or service, enhancing the prospect of winning future tenders and work. Branding and reputation are improved. Interaction with external stakeholders (suppliers, subcontractors, clients, regulators, the community, government) will enhance the contractors reputation, and smooth project implementation. Clients will be rewarded by being associated with infrastructure built on sustainability principles, and this in turn will have positive spin-offs for the clients. The communitys perception of the contractor, now seen as a good corporate citizen with the publics interest at heart, will rise; community opposition to construction projects and complaints could be expected to decrease, facilitating project implementation. Repositioning, competitiveness. Moving towards sustainability thinking repositions the contractor for future work. The contractor can be differentiated in the market from other contractors. Increased competitiveness will follow. Waste reduction. If organised correctly, less waste means that resources are being used more efficiently, there are lower material costs, and there are less costs associated with waste disposal. Collectively there are less carbon emissions. The ultimate goal is zero waste; everything is used and reused. Pollution. Pollution prevention can be aided by worker involvement, addressing worker attitude, and improving work practices over time. This can be supplemented by new technologies. Risk reduction. Environmental and safety legislation is growing continuously. Such legislation brings with it attendant liabilities. Work practices built on sustainability principles should implicitly satisfy much of this legislation, thereby reducing or avoiding liability risks associated with non-compliance. Non-compliance brings with it legal costs, possible fines and convictions, and difficulties in maintaining current clients and securing new business. Employee motivation. Greater employee motivation is anticipated, in line with other introductions such as environmental initiatives in past years. There will be less lost time due to worker injuries. TBL AND COMPANY DISCLOSURES Sustainability when viewed in terms of environmental, social and economic criteria, may be reported by companies through a triple bottom line (TBL). This is often part of a broader form of
reporting referred to as corporate social responsibility. This type of reporting being unregulated (except when required by environmental protection agencies) and voluntary suggests that there is no consensus in practice on what criteria or indicators to disclose in the TBL report. The TBL report is also rarely attested by a third party, raising concerns on the accuracy of data reported and the bias towards selecting indicators with positive scores to be included in the report. The notion of reporting these three broad components began appearing in the corporate agenda in the 1990s to address the limitations of financial reports, which often exclude externalities. Its appeal to good corporate citizenship prompted both the public and private sector to develop reporting guidelines. For example, in Australia the Department of Environment and Water Resources released a report titled Triple Bottom Line in Australia A Guide to Reporting Against Environmental Indicators. On an international level, the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) indicate at least 79 key performance indicators that could potentially be reported by a company. SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING A study was undertaken into contractor sustainability reporting, as a possible indicator of the current worth that contractors attach to sustainability, it being reasoned that if sustainable practices were being adopted then some reporting of this would follow. Substantial sustainability practices could be expected to be reported in depth. To enjoy some of the benefits of adopting sustainable practices, these have to be communicated to others. Sustainability reporting could also be expected to be a way that a company might express its values. Companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and whose predominant work was construction, including buildings and infrastructure, were selected for study. This gave a sample size of forty-two companies. Companies, whose predominant work was consulting or development, were excluded, as were companies engaged in the mining industry. The forty-two publicly listed companies represent the major construction companies in Australia, but not the majority of companies which are medium to small in size and are not listed. Two companies indicated that they reported in accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2009a, b) principles and guides. GRI is a framework for reporting according to economic, environmental, social, human rights, society and product responsibility impacts. Five of the companies appeared on the Corporate Register (CorporateRegister.com) with sustainability reports. Corporate Register is a directory of company-issued CSR, sustainability and environmental reports (Corporate Register, 2009). Three of the companies appeared in the SAM Sustainability Index (AuSSI, 2008). Sam indices track the performance of Australian companies that lead their industry in terms of corporate sustainability. They are based on triple bottom line reporting of economic, environmental and social indicators. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI, 2009) and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP, 2009) were not accessed. Company websites and annual (2009) reports provided further insight. Table 2 indicates the various aspects reported on websites and in annual (2009) reports. Table 2. Contractor website and annual (2009) reporting; numbers of companies (sample size of 42).
Reporting item Health and safety Environment Quality Community Indigenous affairs CSR Sustainability
Current website 14 14 5 9 2 1 9
Annual (2009) report 10 8 1 8 0 0 12
Levels of reporting ranged across a broad spectrum. On websites, and of those 9 reporting sustainability, 2 were judged to only give a brief mention, 4 basic information, 0 more detailed information of goals and actions, and 3 extensive information. In annual (2009) reports, and of those 12 reporting sustainability, 3 were judged to only give a brief mention, 2 basic information, 2 more detailed information of goals and actions, and 5 extensive information. Each company reports differently, and so it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the practices of the companies. Some companies are still finding their way, and some companies are not in a position to report against frameworks such as GRI; some companies have expanded their existing safety and environmental reporting to include sustainability. It is unclear as to what effect the global financial crisis of 2008 had on company sustainability practices, even though mention is made of this in some reports. A conclusion might be that a few contractors are early adopters while the majority are yet to make a serious move. Anecdotal observations by the authors of small- to medium-sized companies indicate that they are largely yet to embrace sustainability. Through discussions with the early adopters, it was found that they perceive a business advantage in sustainable practices, on top of being good corporate citizens. CONCLUSIONS The introduction of practices to address sustainability criteria is anticipated to have a net beneficial effect for construction contractors, no matter what the size of their business. Such practices need to be integrated through a contractors organisation, and promoted to external stakeholders. By modifying conventional practices to address social and environmental criteria along with the more usual economic criteria, contractors, the construction industry and the community will gain. REFERENCES Adetunji, I, Price, A., Fleming, P. and Kemp, P. (2003), Sustainability and the UK Construction Industry A Review, Engineering Sustainability I56, No. ES4, December, pp. 185-199. AuSSI (2008), The Australian SAM Sustainability Index, <http://www.aussi.net.au>. BBC (2009), China Seeks Export Carbon Relief, 17 March 2009, BBC News, UK, <http:// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7947438.stm>. Bunz, K. R., Henze, G. P. and Tiller, D. K. (2006), Survey of Sustainable Building Design Practices in North America, Europe and Asia, Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, pp. 33-62. Burgan, B. A. and Sansom, M. R. (2006), Sustainable Steel Construction, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 62, No. 11, November, pp. 1178-1183.
CDP Carbon Disclosure Project (2009), What We Do, <https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/ WhatWeDo/Pages/overview.aspx>. Cheng, C., Pouffary, S., Svenningsen, N., and Callaway, M. (2008), The Clean Development Mechanism and the Building and Construction Sector A Report for the UNEP Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative, 2008, United Nations Environment Programme, France, <http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1071xPABuildingsandCDM.pdf>. Corporate Register (2009), Global CSR Resources, <http://www.corporateregister.com>. Day, R. M. (1998), Beyond Eco-Efficiency: Sustainability as a Driver for Innovation, unpublished, World Resources Institute. Department of Climate Change (2008a), National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006 Accounting for the Kyoto Target, June 2008, Canberra, <http://www.climatechange.gov.au /inventory/ 2006/pubs/inventory2006.pdf>. Department of Climate Change (2008b), Assistance to Emissions-Intensive Trade-Exposed Industries, <http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/report/pubs/greenpaperch9.pdf>. DJSI Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (2009), <http://www.sustainability-index.com>. Ebohon, O. J. and Rwelamila, P. M. (2001), Sustainable Construction in Sub-Saharan Africa: Relevance, Rhetoric and the Reality, Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries; Africa Position Paper, 16 pages. Global Reporting Initiative (2009a), GRI Portal G3 Guidelines, <http://www. globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/G3Guidelines>. Global Reporting Initiative (2009b), GRI Portal What is GRI?, <http://www. globalreporting.org/ AboutGRI/WhatIsGRI>. Gonzalez, M. J. and Navarro, J. G. (2006), Assessment of the Decrease of CO2 Emissions in the Construction Field through the Selection of Materials: Practical Case Study of Three Houses of Low Environmental Impact, Building and Environment, Vol. 41, No. 7, pp. 902-909. Hart, S. L. and Milstein, M. B. (1999), Global Sustainability and the Creative Destruction of Industries, unpublished paper, University of North Carolina. Hart, S. L., Milstein, M. B. and Caggiano, J. (2003), Creating Sustainable Value, The Academy of Management Executive (1993), Vol. 17, No. 2, May, pp. 56-69. Hartkopf, V. and Loftness, V. (1999), Global Relevance of Total Building Performance, Automation in Construction, Vol. 8, No. 4, April, pp. 377-393. Horman, M. J., Riley, D. R., Lapinski, A. R., Korkmaz, S., Pulaski, M. H., Magent, C. S., Luo, Y., Harding, N. and Dahl, P. K. (2006), Delivering Green Buildings: Process Improvements for Sustainable Construction, Journal of Green Building, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 123-140. Howard, N. (2000), Sustainable Construction The Data, BRE Client Report Number CR 258/99, March, 42 pages. Hutchinson, C. (1992), Corporate Strategy and the Environment, Long Range Planning, Vol. 25, No. 4, August, pp. 9-21. Kua, H. W. and Lee, S. E. (2002), Demonstration Intelligent Building A Methodology for the Promotion of Total Sustainability in the Built Environment, Building and Environment, Vol. 37, pp. 231-240. Larson, A. L., Teisberg, E. O. and Johnson, R. R. (2000), Sustainable Business: Opportunity and Value Creation, Interfaces, Vol. 30, No. 3, May - June, pp. 1-12. Leiper, Q., Fagan, N., Engstrom, S. and Fenn, G. (2003), A Strategy for Sustainability, Engineering Sustainability I56, No. ES1, March, pp. 59-66. Ritchie, S. (2008), The Impact of the Proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on Cement Australias Investment in our Nations Future, 12 September, Cement Australia, Canberra,
<http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/consultation/pubs/0850-cementaustralia.pdf>. Rwelamila, P. D., Talukhaba, A. A. and Ngowi, A. B. (2000), Project Procurement Systems in the Attainment of Sustainable Construction, Sustainable Development, Vol. 8, pp. 39-50. Taylor, N., Barker, K. and Simpson, M. (2003), Achieving `Sustainable Business': a Study of Perceptions of Environmental Best Practice by SMEs in South Yorkshire, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 21, pp. 89-105. Thorpe, D., Ryan, N. and Charles, M. B. (2008), Environmental Sustainability a Driver for Innovation in Construction SMEs (2008). In Clients Driving Innovation: Benefiting from Innovation (12-14 March 2008), Third International Conference of the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Construction Innovation. van Bueren, E. M. and Priemus, H. (2002), Institutional Barriers to Sustainable Construction, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 29, pp. 75-86. Zambon, S. and Del Bello, A. (2005), Towards a Stakeholder Responsible Approach: The Constructive Role of Reporting, Corporate Governance, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 130-141. BIOGRAPHIES Professor David G. Carmichael is a graduate of The University of Sydney (B.E., M.Eng.Sc.) and The University of Canterbury (Ph.D.), a Fellow of The Institution of Engineers, Australia, and a Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and formerly a Graded Arbitrator with The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia, an Accredited Mediator, and Head of the Department of Engineering Construction and Management at The University of New South Wales. He is currently Professor of Civil Engineering at The University of New South Wales and a Consulting Engineer. He has acted as a consultant, teacher and researcher in a wide range of engineering and management fields, with strong interests in all phases of project management and construction management. Major consultancies have included the structural design and analysis of civil and building structures; the planning and programming of engineering projects; the administration and control/replanning of civil engineering projects and contracts; and various construction and building related work. In addition there have been numerous smaller consultancies in the structural, construction and building fields. He has provided expert reports and expert witness in cases involving structural failures, construction accidents and safety, and contractual and liability matters. He is the author and editor of twenty one books and over ninety papers in structural and construction engineering and construction and project management. Email: D.Carmichael@unsw.edu.au Dr Maria C. A. Balatbat is a Senior Lecturer at the University of New South Wales and a Fellow at CPA Australia. She has expertise in carbon accounting and teaches advanced financial accounting in the undergraduate and postgraduate programs. Before joining UNSW in 2001, Maria was a Teaching Fellow at Nanyang Business School in Singapore and a Lecturer at University of Sydney. Her other research interests are in the areas of equity offerings, corporate governance, capital markets, earnings management and capital budgeting, among others. Maria has published her work in Accounting and Finance, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, JASSA Finsia Journal of Applied Finance and the Engineering Economist. Maria was a recipient of the prestigious RJ Chambers PhD Scholarship in Accounting whilst at the University of Sydney. Prior to her academic career Maria worked as a consultant and auditor with the Ernst & Young offices in Manila and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Email: M.Balatbat@unsw.edu.au
10

Sustainability

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sustainability

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sustainability on Construction Projects as a Business Opportunity Carmichael, Balatbat Full Paper Peer Reviewed

Sustainability on Construction Projects as a Business Opportunity

Annual (2009) report 10 8 1 8 0 0 12

Potrebbero piacerti anche