Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Earned Green Value management for project management:

A systematic review
Benjamin Koke a, Robert C. Moehler b, *
a
International Production Engineering and Management, Universita €t Siegen, Paul-Bonatz-Str. 9-11, Siegen, 57076, Germany
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Monash University, 23 College Walk, Clayton Campus, 3800, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As sustainability increases in significance for the project management sector, the need to apply man-
Received 19 October 2018 agement techniques to sustainability objectives grows. However, generic tools to measure the perfor-
Received in revised form mance of sustainability objectives and initiatives are scarce.
7 May 2019
Traditional project performance measurement uses the Earned Value Management (EVM) method to
Accepted 8 May 2019
Available online 10 May 2019
measure time, cost and scope. The objective of this paper is to investigate whether EVM can be adapted
to measure the performance of sustainability goals in projects.
By means of two Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR), this paper investigates the bodies of knowledge
Keywords:
Earned value management
of ‘sustainability in Project Management’ and ‘Earned Value Management’. A total of 2.232 publications
Earned Green Value Management from 6 databases from both fields were identified through the two SLM and analysed via two-stage
Project control screening process.
Sustainable project management The review found that the project control method EVM has not yet been used to track the performance
Project management of sustainability in projects. We therefore developed the conceptual framework for ‘Earned Green Value
Management’. Thus concluding, by incorporating sustainability in the business case (instead of scope),
extending monitoring into the product life cycle, addressing the triple bottom line, and translating
generic sustainability indicators into monetary terms to express value created through improved
resource performance (instead of expenses), EVM can be translated and applied to the measurement of
project sustainability and performance.
The conceptual framework presented herein lays the theoretical groundwork for a new project
management tool to track the attainment of sustainability goals in projects. It contributes to the current
research in sustainable project management by bridging a gap between traditional tools and normative
topics on an operational level.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
2. Background and terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
2.1. Earned Value Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
2.1.1. Project planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
2.1.2. Obtain project metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
2.1.3. Forecast future performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
2.2. Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
2.3. Sustainability in project management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
3. Local and global orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4. Values and ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
5. Transparency and accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
5.1. Previous systematic reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.C. Moehler).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.079
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197 181

Abbreviations ETC Estimate to complete

EV(A) Earned Value (Analysis)
AC(WP) Actual Cost (of Work Performed) EVM(S) Earned Value Management (System)
AE Apportioned Effort LOE Level of Effort
BAC Budget at Completion NVA Net Value Added
BCWS Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled OBS Organisational Breakdown Structure
BCWP Budgeted Cost of Work Performed PMB Performance Measurement Baseline
C/SCSC Cost/Schedule Control Systems Criteria PV Planned Value
CA(M) Control Account (Manager) RAM Responsibility Assignment Matrix
CF Carbon Footprint SPI Schedule Performance Index
CPI Cost Performance Index TCPI To-Complete Performance Index
CPM Critical Path Method VAC Variance at Completion
EAC Estimate At Completion WBS Work Breakdown Structure
ES Earned Schedule

6. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6.1. Review methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6.1.1. Systematic review for Earned Value Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6.1.2. Systematic review for sustainability in project management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
7. Results of the descriptive analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
7.1. Earned Value Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
7.2. Measuring sustainability performance in project and programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
8. Conceptual framework to integrate EVM and sustainability in project management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.2. Work Breakdown Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.3. Organisational Breakdown Structure, Responsibility Assignment Matrix and control accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.4. Work planning and scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.5. Budgeting and baseline establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.5.1. Indicator selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
8.5.2. The concept of value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
8.5.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
8.5.4. Baselining the cumulative Sustainable Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
8.6. Record actual costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
8.7. Measure progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
8.8. Definition of earning rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
8.9. Determine sustainability performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
8.10. Forecasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
8.11. Summary of the proposed conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

1. Introduction for sustainability in these industries over the past 15 years, advo-
cating sustainable project management as a new school of thought
Companies worldwide increasingly address changing market of project management (Turner et al., 2010). Huemann and Silvius
requirements generated by technological advances, competition, (2017) echo, ‘project management has a vital role in contributing
regulation, social pressure or economic demands through projects to sustainable development of organisations and society’ (p. 1066)
(de Magalh~ aes et al., 2018). These temporary organisations act as raising the societal responsibility of the project management
“vehicle for change” (APM, 2006a, p. xiv) and agencies for resource profession.
utilisation (Turner and Müller, 2003). The perception of projects However, despite the growing awareness of the importance of
and project management has transformed from project manager as the role of project management for sustainable development it
accidental profession (Pinto and Kharbanda, 1995), to systemic seems partially ill prepared to deal with sustainability (Moehler
organisational restructuring towards project-based work (Midler, et al., 2018). Silvius (2017) laments that integrating sustainability
1995) towards multi-project levels, i.e. programs and portfolios is a stretch for project management. According to Martens and
(Maylor et al., 2006). Carvalho (2016a: 24) there is a gap between perception of impor-
Project management scholars, too, have engaged in the tance and the actual use of sustainability in project management
discourse, Marcelino-S adaba et al. (2015) assessed sustainability in (SPM) practice’ with similarly observations for the potential to
various applications of project management recognised sustain- embrace measurements and techniques that allow the PM to report
ability as a challenge in the new product development, mining, and influence positively the project (Silvius and Graaf, 2019) and
energy, construction, and infrastructure sector. This became even stakeholders i.e. shared-value (Uribe et al., 2018). Marcelino-
clearer in Silvius (2017) analysis, demonstrating a growing concern Sadaba et al. add that a study to identify and characterize ‘a set of
182 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197

sustainability competences that project managers must acquire, is applied in projects with short timeframes (Becker and Kunz, 2009)
also lacking’ (2015: 14). or small budgets (Adamczyk, 1989).
To further highlight the growing importance of Project Man- For EVM to function properly, a range of requirements need to
agement, as a management innovation, from the management be fulfilled. EVM implementation requires top management and
theory perspective (Markard, 2017), Sankaran et al. (2018) recog- stakeholder support (Chen, 2008), as it will not only require addi-
nised the drive of social-technological needs with the development tional time, budget and staff (Chen, 2008) but possibly even
of tools e.g. Earned Value System, Work Breakdown Structure changes in organisational structure and culture (Chen, 2008;
(WBS), Cost Schedule System Criteria, etc. Browning (2014) notes Hofrichter, 1999). Furthermore, mechanisms must be in place to
that “all project work should add value in terms of both the re- support report generation and data processing (Chen, 2008).
sources consumed and the benefits provided (e.g., scope, quality, Achievable benefits include EVM being an integrative system to
technical performance, features, and functions)” (Browning, 2014: track budget, scope and time performance to obtain project
583). Project management literature provides a tool to manage benchmarks in portfolios and to generate valuable historical data
value of work created during a project, and it does so by integrating (Christensen, 1998; Hope and Moehler, 2014; Laird, 2013). The
the dimensions of cost, schedule and scope. This tool is known as method relies on facts to measure actual progress, thus yielding an
Earned Value Management, or simply EVM (PMI, 2013). Through accurate account of the project health, as well as tendencies for
staffing, procuring, reporting, and the managing of the project it- future performance (Christensen, 1998). When reasonably
self, EVM overlaps with every knowledge area of the Project employed, EVM can bestow additional rigour upon the project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMI, 2013). While both PMI and management profession (Christensen, 1998; Laird, 2013). This is
the Association of Project Management (APM) recognise the ur- mirrored by recent extensions with various emphases in the EVM
gency of Sustainability (APM, 2006b; PMI, 2011b), these standards and Project Control literature; e.g. separation of cost-based (EVM)
currently fail to address the issue of sustainability explicitly (Eid, and time-based duration - Earned Duration Management)
2009; Silvius and Schipper, 2014a). (Khamooshi and Golafshani, 2014); remodelled EVM to monitor
EVM has proven to be a useful tool when it comes to backing up project quality in the Brazilian agriculture industry (Dodson et al.,
a company’s balance sheet (Fleming and Koppelman, 2003) and 2015), also applied to the Construction Industry (Ong et al.,
EVM has the potential to back up a company’s Corporate Re- 2018); integrated carbon dioxide, cost and schedule management
sponsibility Reports. As of now, no formalism unifies EVM and system for building projects (Lee and Kim, 2017); and most recently
sustainability in Project Management (Willems and Vanhoucke, greenhouse gas emissions, only, as an additional control for envi-
2015). Thus, this paper is providing the theoretical ground for ronmental performance in the Construction Industry (Abdi et al.,
changing existing techniques of project management into suitable 2018a, 2018b).
techniques to address the challenge of sustainability. This paper EVM is often perceived to be overly prescriptive for the use in
devises a conceptual framework through two systematic literature most commercial projects (Fleming and Koppelman, 2010) because
reviews to lay the ground for a complete and sophisticated tool. of the usage of an “arcane and ponderous terminology” (Rose,
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: section 2 2003: 54) that requires special training to use a foreign language
provides an overview of the terminology relevant to the paper. in order to be a member of the team (Bryde et al., 2018; Fleming and
Section 3 describes the systematic review procedure. Section 4 Koppelman, 1994). Consequently, a number of authors have pro-
provides descriptive results of the performed literature analysis. posed simplified implementation models, which are summarised
The translation of EVM concepts to suit sustainability objectives in Fig. 1 below (PMI, 2011a).
section 5. Lastly, concluding remarks and an outlook are in section
6.

2. Background and terminology

2.1. Earned Value Management

Earned Value Management is a commonly used tool which in-

tegrates the baselines of scope, schedule and cost to enable the
project team to objectively assess project health in a visual manner
(Bryde et al., 2018) and provide informed performance forecasts
(Laird, 2013; PMI, 2011a, 2013). As opposed to traditional cost and
schedule management methods, EVM can make statements of the
value of the work done in relation to the expenses incurred and
time passed (Fleming and Koppelman, 1997, 2003). Thus, EVM is an
early warning indicator (Fleming and Koppelman, 2010), providing
management with a lever for replanning, resource reallocation, and
risk mitigation and protocols can be used to trigger payments in
alignment with Clients value perception (Chipulu et al., 2014).
Additional agency related characteristics for EVM to be successful
are; low level of goal conflict, opportunistic behaviour, information
asymmetry, concealment of negative outcomes; high degree of
trust, organisational justice; and complete information (Bryde
et al., 2018). EVM has become the gold standard for project per-
formance measurement (PMI, 2011a). While there are doubts about
the use of EVM in small and medium-sized enterprises, due to the
implementation being perceived as too administrative (Turner
et al., 2009, 2012), others suggest that the method can equally be Fig. 1. Outline of EVM procedure.
 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197 183

2.1.1. Project planning

EVM is not a magic tool that automatically yields project success
(Bryde et al., 2018; Laird, 2013; PMI, 2011a). Instead of focusing on
the measurement side of performance, what constitutes perfor-
mance must be laid out in the first place (Hofrichter, 1999). EVM
requires a solid and sound definition of the project scope in order to
know what is required, what is not, and when work is due (Fleming
and Koppelman, 2010). It is important to capture 100% of the scope
and to be mindful of changes to the scope, as they do not solely
affect the planned work, but also scheduling and budgeting
(Fleming and Koppelman, 2010).
A common way to obtain a proper scope definition is via a Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS), a hierarchical breakdown of work
from highest project-level down to activity level, where the plan-
ned work is expressed as work packages (PMI, 2013). It should be
deliverable- oriented, i.e. begin on the highest levels and then break
down into manageable, mutually exclusive elements based on a
parent-child-relationship (PMI, 2011a). Moreover, care is to be
taken for adequate work package sizing (Brandon, 1998; Ruskin,
2004).
The project as a temporary organisation is to be broken down in
the same fashion, resulting in the Organisational Breakdown
Structure (OBS). Integrating OBS with the WBS forms the Re-
sponsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) (PMI, 2011a) that clearly Fig. 3. Graphical representation of the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997).
identifies points of responsibility (Control Accounts, CA) (Fleming
and Koppelman, 2010). Any CA holds its respective work pack-
information distorts the performance measurement and impairs
ages, information about schedule, assigned budget and information
result reliability (PMI, 2011a). Recording of ACWP includes all direct
about account responsibility (Control Account Manager, CAM)
and indirect costs as indirect costs embody a large portion of ex-
(Fleming and Koppelman, 2010). Duration and budget information
penses (Fleming and Koppelman, 1994) which in turn is meaningful
are then to be obtained for each work package. In order to generate
for the “organisation’s efficiency, profitability, and competitive-
an integrated master schedule, all tasks must be sequenced in a
ness“ (PMI, 2011a: 51).
logical manner that shows interdependencies between work
Comparing ACWP to BCWS is insufficient to provide informa-
packages, which is usually achieved with techniques such as the
tional statements as to the project’s health. CA managers therefore
Critical Path Method. The schedule represents the time dimension
have to report a third metric that covers the dimension of the scope
of EVM, onto which cost estimates allocated to the work packages
which is known as Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP) or
are mapped as second dimension. Each CA now contains sufficient
Earned Value (EV). In order to determine EV, each work package
project information to form an integrated time-phased perfor-
needs to be assigned an earning rule which can be classified as
mance baseline, called Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS).
discrete (i.e. fixed formula, weighted milestone, percent complete,
Other terms include Planned Value (PV), and Performance Mea-
physical measurement) or non-discrete (apportioned effort, level of
surement Baseline (PMB). It is defined as the total sum of individ-
effort) methods (Fleming and Koppelman, 2010). The choice of
ual, measurable CA budgets commonly referred to as Budget at
measurement method correlates with the duration and inherent
Completion (BAC) (Fleming and Koppelman, 2010).
nature of the task (see Fig. 2).
Total EV is expressed as the cumulative sum of individual work
packages’ EV at the report date. Individual EVs, in turn, are calcu-
2.1.2. Obtain project metrics
lated as degree of realisation (%C,i) multiplied with the work pack-
Over the course of the project execution, project data are
age’s BAC:
gathered periodically. The first metric to be captured is the actual
The actual project health check happens through comparison of
expenses incurred within each control account, called the Actual
the three metrics. The performance indicators, as they are
Cost of Work Performed (ACWP), or Actual Cost (AC). It is vital that
described by the PMI (2011a), are shown in Fig. 3.
the reporting for incurred costs and the Earned Value (see below)
are suitably synchronised, since deferred collection of cost

= = % , (EQ. 1)

Fig. 2. Guidelines for selecting a measurement method (PMI, 2011a: 42).

184 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197

Table 1
Calculation and interpretation of Performance Indicators (PMI, 2011a).

Type Performance Indicator Formula Interpretation

Ahead On plan Delay/Overrun

Variances Cost Variance (CV) CV ¼ EV e AC >0 ¼0 <0

Schedule Variance (SV) SV ¼ EV e PV >0 ¼0 <0
Indices Cost Performance Index (CPI) CPI ¼ EV/AC >1 ¼1 <1
Schedule Performance Index (SPI) SPI ¼ EV/PV >1 ¼1 <1
Critical Ratio (CR) CR ¼ SPI * CPI >1 ¼1 <1

Table 2
Summary over forecasting methods (PMI, 2011a).

Forecast Method Formula Assumption

Estimate to Completion (ETC) ETC ¼ (BAC-EV)/CPI Cost needed to complete remaining work
Estimate at Completion (EAC) EAC ¼ AC þ (BAC-EV) Future cost performance will be performed at the budgeted rate
EAC ¼ AC þ [(BAC-EV)/CPI] ¼ BAC/CPI Future cost performance will be the same as all past cost performances
EAC ¼ AC þ [BAV e EV)/(EViþEVjþEvk)/ Future cost performances will be the same as the last three measurement periodes (i, j,k)
(ACiþACjþACk)]
EAC ¼ AC þ [(BAC-EV)/(CPI * SPI)] Future cost performance will be influenced additionally by past schedule performance
EAC ¼ AC þ [(BAC e EV)/(0.8* CPI þ 0.2* SPI) Future cost performance will be influenced jointly in some proportion by both schedule
and cost indices
Variance at Completion (VAC) VAC ¼ BAC e EAC Amount of budget deficit or surplus at the end of the project
VAC (%) ¼ BAC/EAC Amount of budget deficit or surplus of at the end of the project as percentage
To-Complete Performance Index TCPIEAC ¼ (BAC-EV)/(EAC-AC) CPI must improve to the TCPI calculated in order to terminate the project on EAC
(TCPI) TCPIBAC ¼ (BAC-EV)/(BAC-AC) CPI must improve to the TCPI calculated in order to terminate the project on initíal BAC

2.1.3. Forecast future performance non-governmental organisations and customers emphasise re-
The performances indices can be adduced to infer expected sponsibility reporting and inquire the origins of products (Keeble
future outcomes (see Table 1). A variety of forecasting formulas are et al., 2003).
available (Table 2). On the company-level, sustainability is often adapted in form of
Over the past years, the issue of forecasting has been much- Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). According to Russell (2008),
noticed in research (see section 3.1.5). It is worthwhile noting committing to and investing in a CSR strategy yields more benefit
that Fleming and Koppelman (2010) claimed CPI in conjunction than it bears risk. Among such benefits are image improvement,
with TCPI to be the most valuable indices, because CPI shows to increased performance, reduced cost and increased employee
which degree a project has sunk cost without adding value, and motivation (Hope and Moehler, 2014); effective and flexible inter-
TCPI indicates how (im-)possible it is to put the project back on nal organisational coherence; as well as risk mitigation, better so-
track. cial competence and stakeholder trust (Schieg, 2009).

2.2. Sustainability 2.3. Sustainability in project management

Few scholars or professionals today doubt that attaining sus- It has been suggested that project management is pivotally
tainable development is amid the most pressing challenges of our positioned inside an organisation to deal with the challenge of
time (Goedknegt and Silvius et al., 2012). A widely accepted defi- sustainability (Hope and Moehler, 2014). Projects can be conceived
nition of sustainability, or sustainable development, has been of as organisations as well, albeit of temporary nature (Turner and
developed by the World Commission on Environment and Devel- Müller, 2003). They are instruments of change, and their managers
opment as “development that meets the needs of the present are change agents (Maltzman and Shirley, 2013; Silvius and
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet Schipper, 2014a) operating at the forefront of executing organisa-
their own needs” (WECD, 1987: 41). While this definition is vague in tional strategies (Russell, 2008). As such, it is probable that project
nature, Elkington (1997) describes the concept of sustainability as managers are more aware of local or regional social issues and can
consisting of three pillars, namely economic prosperity, social well- assure for these to be brought up appropriately (Russell, 2008). For
being and prudent use of natural resources, and labelled it the companies that lack sustainability related elements in company
“triple bottom line” or “3P (People, Planet, Profit)”, which is rep- strategy, project management is in the position to advocate their
resented in Fig. 3. The posture that all three components are implementation by highlighting adverse effects to a high carbon
mutually dependent (Elkington, 1997; General Assembly resolution footprint and impaired reputation (Crawford, 2013). Silvius et al.
60/1, 2005), and that they need to be abided by simultaneously (2012) derive six principles of sustainability in project manage-
(Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002) is widely accepted as well. ment, which are briefly summarised below:
Business organisations as the third pillar of society (Wartick
et al., 1998) are increasingly urged to respond for a number of 1. Balancing or harmonising social, environmental and economic
reasons. Governments become aware of climate issues and react interests:
with stricter regulations (Epstein, 2008). Employees choose work-
places according to how they account for social and environmental A company must satisfy the triple bottom line as presented by
responsibilities (Keeble et al., 2003). Shareholders regard sustain- Elkington (1997). However, Labuschagne and Brent (2005) claim
ability as an indicator of financial accomplishment (Lynelle, 2001) that current project management frameworks fail to address all
and good corporate citizenship (Keeble et al., 2003). Governments, three pillars of sustainability.
 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197 185

2. Short-term and long-term orientation: In the context of sustainability, the economic principle to keep
expenses below earnings is extended to environmental and social
Any business should shift their mindset slightly away from income. With respect to Earth’s source and sink functions, natural
short-term financial performance towards the long-term effects of resources should not be depleted faster than they are provided, and
their actions, because environmental and social impacts, whether their resultant waste must not exceed the natural absorptive ca-
positive or negative, take time to manifest themselves (Hope and pacity (Gilbert et al., 1996). The same idea applies to human
Moehler, 2015). For that reason, Labuschagne and Brent (2005) resource, meaning that labour practices must avoid employees’
back the employment of a life-cycle perspective taking into ac- exhaustion and provide room for recovery.
count not only the project life-cycle, but also those of the resulting These principles often seem to be immediate proponents to
product and accompanying assets. traditional project management, as the comparison shown in Fig. 4
shows (Adopted from (Moehler et al., 2018; Silvius et al., 2012)).
3. Local and global orientation Indeed, transforming an entire methodology that has evolved over
decades, in order to turn it to advantages like the creation of eco-
Due to the globalisation, the amount of actors affected by an nomic benefits and competitive advantage, mastering complexity
organisation’s operations is increasing. Stakeholders can be a larger and dynamics of projects, promoting sustainable project results,
audience of customers, internationally acting suppliers, foreign improved risk management that reduces project trouble, and more
governments, as well as competitors. It is imperative to reflect retention of key project staff (Gareis et al., 2011) will be challenging.
behaviours and requirements of stakeholders on all levels to realize It is not by mere chance that Silvius et al. (2012) conclude that
sustainable development as a coordinated process between the integrating sustainability holds the potential to change the project
parties involved (Gareis et al., 2011). management profession.
Project managers will need to make use of all expertise available
4. Values and ethics in order to become experts in sustainability, to be able to
communicate the relating issues effectively; they have to lead by
Sustainability is a normative concept, and systemic change is example and get all key players involved; and must redirect their
important for its realisation. An important part of achieving sus- ways of thinking towards incorporating the whole chain instead of
tainability will therefore be the presence of a strong and dedicated only its links (Goedknegt and Silvius et al., 2012). This implies that
set of ethics and values in leaders and consumers, to lead and guide project managers need to become aware of their responsibility,
the right behaviours and attitude (Hope and Moehler, 2015). allowing them to form their set of professional ethics. They further
need to engage with their work much more creatively and collab-
oratively, and change the way they “perceive the world around
5. Transparency and accountability
them” (Silvius et al., 2012: xiv). This also implies, however, that
incorporating sustainability principles in project management
Transparency and accountability form part of Good Governance
cannot be a quick fix. Brent and Labuschagne (2007) recommend to
(Johnston, 2015). Transparency means for organisations to be open
introduce sustainability to project management in phases. In line
about “its policies, decisions and actions, including the environ-
with this statement, research using multiple case studies could
mental and social effects of those actions and policies” (Silvius et al.,
show that perceived impact and project success increase when
2012: 18), including the provision of clear and relevant information
importance is given to include sustainability in project manage-
to their stakeholders in due time. Accountability supplements the
ment (Martens and Carvalho, 2016b). LaBrosse (2010: 90)
transparency principle with clear and direct responsibility for
concluded that “it doesn’t matter where you begin, as long as you
aforementioned decisions and actions, and their resulting effects.
begin somewhere”. More importantly, zeroing in on the purpose of
this paper, Silvius et al. (2012) state that a change in the project
6. Consuming income instead of capital:

Fig. 4. Contrasts between the concepts of sustainable development and projects (Moehler et al., 2018; Silvius et al., 2012).
186 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197

management profession will entail the need to develop new tools, methodologies of performance measurement, namely Earned
as well as “new performance indicators to measure the achieve- Value Management, which may serve as powerful starting points to
ment of the project’s sustainability goals” (Silvius et al., 2012: xiv). address this shortcoming. The purpose of this paper is to investi-
gate whether the existing concepts of EVM (see section 2.1) can be
5.1. Previous systematic reviews used for measuring sustainability or, if not, how they need to be
modified. Therefore, two separate research questions have to be
Although sustainable development has traditionally received addressed:
less attention in project and pro-gram management than in com- RQ1: Has EVM to date been used to measure Sustainability?
panies (Gareis, 2013), the increasing number of publications o the RQ2: How has Sustainability in projects been measured to date?
subject speaks for itself: a bibliographic research conducted by To answer the above research questions in a comprehensive
(Martens and Monteiro de Carvalho, 2014) reported that almost matter, two independent systematic literature reviews were con-
half of the publications had been published within the past seven ducted. The findings from both reviews have been synthesised into
years (2009e2015). For the systematic review done by Silvius and a conceptual framework that will be presented in section 5.
Schipper (2014b) this figure increases to 76%. As result of sustain-
ability being a normative concept (Gareis, 2013), most studies 6.1. Review methodology
approach sustainability in project management from a “conceptual,
logical, or moral point of view” (Silvius et al., 2013: 213). One study A systematic review is “a review of research literature using
demonstrated that consideration of sustainability integration in systematic and explicit, accountable methods” (Gough et al., 2012:
Project Management is presently characterised by an approach of 2), serving as “a method of making sense of large bodies of infor-
damage control rather than seeking modern social responsibility mation, and a means to contributing to the answers to questions
(Silvius, 2017). Based on a literature review consisting of 42 papers about what works and what does not” (Petticrew and Roberts,
that address “project management” and “eco-design”, Brones et al. 2006). Regardless of discipline, systematic reviews have become
(2014) report that project management concepts and practices the gold standard to “synthesise the findings of several studies
have only been applied sparsely to considering environmental investigating the same question (Boland et al., 2014). Systematic re-
sustainability in product development in research. Yet, although views usually have very narrow research questions, which, com-
the topic of sustainability in project management is still in an early bined with strict quality criteria, result in a reasonable amount of
stage of development, it is concluded that regard to it will grow in studies to be included in the review whose results add up to
the near future (Silvius et al., 2013). In their review, Martens and answering the research question. This type of review is considered
Carvalho (2017) identify a number of publications that highlight aggregative (Gough et al., 2012). The procedure followed for this
the lack of and need for measurement systems for performance in review is adapted from the key phases presented by (Boland et al.,
operational practice, especially some that extend measurement 2014) and shown in Fig. 5.
beyond environmental factors. These include, by and large, publi- Conducting a systematic review in this context qualifies as
cations examined in the previous section of this paper. conceptual research, which is “related to the development of new
concepts or innovations and interpretations of new ideas for
existing methods” (Pilbeam, 2013: 7). One key feature of a sys-
6. Method tematic review is that all evidence pertinent to answering the
research question needs to be identified Boland et al. (2014). With
Sustainability is becoming a key theme in business nowadays. regards to quality assessments to be made in step 6, it must be
As a result, its significance for projects and the profession of project noted that strict quality assessment is necessary for identifying
management has been acknowledged. Previous studies have studies for narrow research questions (Jesson et al., 2013). Both
examined the penetration of the sustainability concept in project bodies of knowledge in this thesis need to be accessed broadly, in
management, showing that although the importance of incorpo- order to obtain a degree of saturation that is sufficient for
rating sustainability is steadily gaining momentum, keeping track answering the research question. Therefore, quality assessment is
of the performance of sustainability initiatives in projects falls short carried out with less rigor, and every piece of literature that could
at present. Project management itself, however, offers integrative provide any insight has been considered for inclusion.

6.1.1. Systematic review for Earned Value Management

In order to address RQ1, the body of knowledge on EVM was
limited to the databases Sciencedirect, Scopus, Web of Science,
GoogleScholar, JSTOR, ProQuest and Emerald Insight. The authors
followed the selection logic by Boland et al. (2014) under the
caption multi-disciplinary. All references found were downloaded
including their full-texts to the bibliographic software EndNote
(version X7). The lists of references was then searched for the
removal of duplications. Note that the search engine Google Scholar
has been precluded from further examination in both reviews
because the number of hits was considered too large to be handled
reasonably.
The search for literature about Earned Value Management was
performed on January 19, 2015 and repeated for publications after
2014 to 2019 on January 5, 2019. The results for all searches is
shown in Table 3 and divided by search (note duplications between
the two searches have been removed).
For Stage 1 screening, three criteria were introduced. Reference
Fig. 5. Systematic review procedure according to Boland et al. (2014). entries for which no abstract could be retrieved were excluded.
 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197 187

Table 3
Results of stage 1 screening for EVM.

Database Search Terms Search Range Number of references

2015 2019

Sciencedirect "Earned Value" Title-Abstract-Keywords; all years 59 222

Scopus "Earned Value" Title-Abstract-Keywords; all years 480 210
Web of Knowledge/Science (now) "Earned Value" Topic; all years 252 189
JSTOR "Earned Value" Full-text; all years 83 33
ProQuest "Earned Value" All fields except full-text; all years 167 138
Emerald Insight "Earned Value" In: ‘anywhere’; all years 108 35
Sum 1149 827
Minus Duplicates (446) (617)
Final Sum 703 210

Table 4 testing several numbers showed that an accepted range of 25

Distribution of EVM review results by type of reference. words yields satisfactory results in terms of number of references
Type of reference 2015 Number of results 2019 found, and this number has been applied for all searches. The
search for literature about sustainability in project management
Journal Article (and review for 2019) 133 46
Conference Paper 68 16
was performed on January 10, 2015 and repeated on the January 5,
Magazine Article 8 17 2019 for publications since 2014 (note duplications between the
Book Chapter 7 10 two searches have been removed). The result for all searches is
Blog/Website 49 shown in Table 5.
Book 22
After removing duplicates, 847 þ 1004 (2019 search added)
Thesis 24
Report 11 results remained for Stage 1 Screening, under application of the
quality criterion “Does the publication actually deal with Sustain-
ability in Project Management?” Answers to this question were
tabulated in Excel. The question could not be answered affirma-
Publications which were too similar to other publications (e.g. same
tively for 628 þ 689 (2019 search added) publications, leaving a
article published as journal article and conference paper) were
total of 223 þ 315 (2019 search added) publications addressing
excluded due to redundancy. Lastly, papers where EVM is merely a
sustainability in project management, of which 150 þ 232 (2019
side-remark in the paper and not topic of the research itself were
search added) full-texts could be obtained. The remaining publi-
not included in the review. A total of 346 þ 78 (2019 search added)
cations were then subjected to the following three relevance
publications was excluded in the Stage 1 Screening. 357 þ 132
criteria:
(2019 search added) references remained, of which 262 þ 132
(2019 search added) full-texts could be obtained. “Does the publication deal with sustainability in Project Man-
In Stage 2 Screening, a total of 37 þ 37 (2019 search added) agement?” (double-check initial inclusion criterion, decision
papers, which met the exclusion criteria outlined for Stage 1 now based on full-text)
Screening were excluded. Of the remaining 225 þ 121 (2019 search
“Does the publication deal with assessing sustainability (in-
added) citations, 128 þ 90 (2019 search added) were of empirical
dicators, values etc.)?”
nature, 97 þ 15 (2019 search added) were conceptual. Table 4 below
shows the distribution of types of the references. “Does the publication deal with measuring the progress of
sustainability?”
6.1.2. Systematic review for sustainability in project management
The literature search for answering RQ2 follows the same basic
Five references were excluded during Stage 2 Screening. Eight
outline. The searches herein were performed in the same databases.
references were book reviews (Kodukula, 2012), 57 references were
To find all relevant terms, i.e. “sustainability”, “sustainable” etc., the
similar or equal to other publications that were already included
wildcard “sustain*” was used as search term, where possible.
(Goedknegt, 2013), and nine references were compilations whose
Furthermore, since project management and sustainability are two
articles were already included individually in the sample. Out of the
different topics in general, their combined search was ensured by
final 145 þ 169 (2019 search added) full-texts, 65 þ 117 (2019
searching for both terms appearing within a distinct number of
search added) were conceptual, 70 þ 55 (2019 search added) were
words from each other, where applicable. A first quick search

Table 5
Results of Stage 1 screening for Sustainability in Project Management.

Database Search Terms Search Range Number references

2015 2019

Science-direct Sustain* w/25 "Project Management" Title-Abstract-Keywords; all years 49 854

Scopus "sustain*" W/25 "Project Management" Title-Abstract; all years 236 232
Web of Knowledge/Scinece sustain* NEAR/25 "Project Management" Search in topic; all years 149 157
JSTOR "Project Management sustain#" ~25 Full-text; all years 94 163
ProQuest all(sustain* N/25 "Project Management") All; all years 302 298
Emerald general: sustain* AND "Project Management" All fields; all year 187 1028
Insight
Sum 1017 2732
Minus Duplicates (327) (1545)
Final Sum 690 1187
188 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197

Table 6 these two issues. The imbalance between studies about cost and
Distribution of Sustainability in Project Management review results by time performance may stem from the fact that (Christensen and
type of reference.
Payne, 1992) have concluded more than 20 years ago that fore-
Type of reference Number of results casting can be predicted to about 10% from CPI as early as when a
2015 2019 project is 20 percent complete, which has become a widely
Journal Article/Review 81 131 generalized notion (Fleming and Koppelman, 2010) and has only
Book Section 24 17 been contested rather recently (Lipke et al., 2009). This stability of
Conference Paper 18 75
performance indices has been a focus of research recently (Kim,
Book 97
Unpublished Work 5 2015). A larger school of thought developed based on the findings
Thesis 58 that SV and SPI show false performance towards the end of a
Magazine Article 2 87 project, because SV will always equal 1, as the Earned Value will
Newspaper Article 17
ultimately always be the Planned Value (Lipke et al., 2009;
Vandevoorde and Vanhoucke, 2006). To overcome this limitation
Lipke et al. (2009) have developed the Earned Schedule (ES)
empirical and 10 þ 2 (2019 search added) could not be discerned method, and later enhanced it with a factor for schedule adherence
unambiguously. Table 6 shows the distribution of types of the and rework. The ES method and its resulting forecast metrics have
references. shown to outperform other methods such as the Planned Value
method (Anbari, 2003) or Earned Duration in several studies
(Vandevoorde and Vanhoucke, 2006; Vanhoucke and
7. Results of the descriptive analysis
Vandevoorde, 2007).
A big portion of research on progress tracking comes from the
7.1. Earned Value Management
construction industry. As scheduling and measuring progress with
traditional earning rules proves to be complicated, the use of op-
The final sample of 314 publications for Earned Value Manage-
tical recognition to measure Earned tons of steel or Earned cubic
ment has been assessed regarding their research focus within the
meters of concrete (Turkan et al., 2013), GPS and GIS (Buell, 2008),
EVM procedure. Table 7 below shows the distribution of research
time-lapse photography (Fard et al., 2007) and Scan-to-BIM
topics. In addition, the categories “quality management”, ”pro-
(Bosche  et al., 2015) have been investigated in order to replace
curement management”, and “other” were added. “Other” com-
the traditional tracking of percent complete based on work-hours.
prises publications that discuss the general implementation of
Another approach is to replace the subjective and often inaccu-
EVM, portray application examples (such as Scrum, Agile, etc.), deal
rate Percent Complete by linguistic fuzzy numbers in order to
with EVM on a general level (such as the PMI standard) or which
reduce uncertainty in the measure (Moslemi Naeni et al., 2014;
mention EVM on a side-note, but could still provide enough in-
Naeni and Salehipour, 2011; Salari et al., 2013). One further article
formation to not be excluded right away (see Table 8).
proposed a quantification model for incorporating Level of Effort
Excluding all publications in the cohort “other”, the above figure
(LOE) tasks into the measurement (Townsend et al., 2014).
shows that most focus in research has been on performance mea-
Another research trend that has seen some minor attention
surement and forecasting. In general, EVM researchers and scholars
dealt with including the aspect of quality into EVM. This has been
have been concerned with increasing reliability and accuracy of

Table 7
Results of distribution of EVM research topics.

Research topic Amount 2015 Amount 2019

Work definition (Project Scope) 0 0

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 3 0
Organisational Breakdown Structure (OBS) 0 0
Control Accounts (CA) 0 0
Scheduling 1 1
Establish Baseline (BCWS) 5 4
Budgeting 1 1
Definition of Performance Metrics (Earning Rules) 3 10
Measure Performance (BCWP) 5 11
Record Actual Costs (ACWP) 0 0
Determine Project Performance (CV, SV, CPI, SPI) 41 20
Forecasting (EAC, ETC) 48 27
Procurement Management 2 1
Quality Management 10 6
Other 95 51
Sum 223 132

Table 8
Re-definition of EVM project metrics.

EVM metric EGVM metric Formula

Cost Variance (CV) Net Green Value (NGV) ¼ EGV e AC

Schedule Variance (SV) Variance of Green Value (VGV) ¼ EGV e PGV
Cost Performance Index (CPI) Cost of Green Value (CGV) ¼ EGV/AC
Schedule Performance Index (SPI) Rate of Green Value (RGV) ¼ EGV/PGVa
a
) Note that for RGV, PGV must be greater than 0.
 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197 189

attempted to achieve through measuring the achievement of cost of buildings according to typical benchmark figures. The key
technical requirements (Solomon and Young, 2007), adjusting the metric collected is the energy consumption, while the earning rules
EV by including quality and failure cost (Gao and Ye, 2011) which is the energy tariff. The Earned Life Cycle Value of energy is the
often represent a fracture of a task’s total budget and can be value of the consumed energy in reference to the total estimated
assessed linguistically through fuzzy numbers (Xu et al., 2010). The life cycle budget of energy. In a similar fashion, Du et al. (2017)
mentioned methods range under names such as Quality Earned adopt EVM as real-time measurement for water consumption as a
Value (Jianmu et al., 2012) or Earned Quality Value (Ong et al., method to inform water resource management systems. BCWS and
2018). ACWP turn into planned and actual water consumption, while the
Another point worth mentioning here is concerned with the so- Earned Value is endowed with the meaning of irrigation. The per-
called S-Curve, i.e. the graphical representation of EV, PV and AC formance metrics thus indicate the amount of water consumption
over time. Many publications in the sample obtained describe S- in relation to resources made available through rain. Memarzadeh
curves as a means of their own, and some research has been done and Golparvar-Fard (2012) introduce the metrics budgeted Car-
on their mathematical representation and parameterization (Chen, bon Footprint (CF) of the work performed (BCFWP), budgeted CF of
2014; Cioffi, 2005; Warburton, 2011). The idea is to fit the curve to the work scheduled (BCFWS), and the actual CF of the work per-
the project data, for example by adjusting the curve parameters, to formed (ACFWP). They employ BIM to measure and calculate these
detect variations and trends, and make forecasts. What is often metrics and colour code the carbon-related progress of the con-
understated in these papers is that the S-curve represents the struction site. Based on these information, they further calculate
resource-loaded schedule over the project life-cycle, which as- the amount of trees needed to be planted in order to compensate
sumes that more resources are needed during execution than the created carbon footprint. Kim et al. (2015) use similar metrics,
during initiation and closing (Evensmo and Karlsen, 2005; PMI, namely Budgeted CO2 of Work Scheduled (BCO2WS), Budgeted CO2
2013). Some others describe the resource load as (bell-shaped) of Work Performed (BCO2WP) and Actual CO2 of Work Performed
normal distribution (Cass, 1994; Murmis, 1997). In any case, the (ACO2WP) integrated in the traditional EV metrics. The unit of
project shapes the S-curve, and not the other way round. Using a analysis sits at activity level, by adding a CO2 package to the cost
fitted curve to forecast project cost and duration detaches the in- and schedule information. Lastly, Abdi et al. (2018a, 2018b) allocate
formation from the schedule, thus the meaningfulness of such a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to work packages and use EVM to
forecast is questionable. measure and track project-related emissions. They define GHG
As pointed out earlier, the category “Other” encompasses a va- accounts as proxies to Control Accounts and provide reference ta-
riety of publications which advocate for the implementation of bles for the emissions of certain construction activities. They equate
EVM in a specific industry sector, such as in R&D (Banerjee, 2005), the total GHG budget to the BAC and define all emission undercuts
Construction (Alvarado et al., 2004; Czemplik, 2017; Hanna, 2012; as Earned Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Marco and Narbaev, 2013), Aviation (Locksley and Rice, 2000),
Energy (Mudau and Pretorius, 2009) and IT (Efe et al., 2018; 7.2. Measuring sustainability performance in project and programs
Erdogmus, 2010; Fowler and Chen, 2017; Luo, 2005). Conversely,
it has also been argued that traditional project management The PMI takes up the dictum presented at the outset: “What’s
methods like EVM are far less important for product development measured is managed e and sustainability is no exception. Define
projects (Bergman et al., 2011). The opinions about the use of EVM specific, measurable, sustainability goals within each project (…)
in the IT industry, however, differ. Becker and Kunz (2009) explain and then track those metrics as part of the project review process”
that the use of EVM can prove to be problematic in dynamic pro- (PMI, 2011b: 1). Similarly, Haanaes et al. (2011) argue that mea-
jects as the baseline can change repeatedly. While the APM notes surement is one way to step up to the sustainability embracers,
that there is a trend towards agile approaches in time-critical even if that implies that these ways of measuring need to be
projects with flexible scope (APM, 2012), and it has been pro- invented first.
posed that the concept of EVM can be applied within Agile Although studies have shown that the opportunities for
reporting (Alleman et al., 2003; Cabri and Griffiths, 2006), other including sustainable principles in the PMBoK Project Control and
authors claim that agile methods are a means to escape the “un- Monitoring process groups (i.e. those in which performance mea-
disciplined rut of traditional ‘Earned Value’” (Ambler, 2007: 60). surements takes place) are significantly lower (Eid, 2009, 2013), the
Lastly, other includes publications which describe imple- same studies show that the perceived level of ability to incorporate
mentation scenarios for EVM. A portion of papers utilizes the EVM sustainability in project management is highest for the project
methodology and applies it to different contexts, e.g. in Wireless content. Therefore, sustainability will play a major role in the
Sensor Networks (Suenaga et al., 2017), for solving multi-period project progress reports (Silvius, 2013) as they provide follow-up
multi-product production planning problems (Bagherpour and information regarding scope, objectives, critical success factors
Noori, 2012; Feylizadeh and Bagherpour, 2018; Noori et al., 2008), and more from the initial project planning processes (Silvius and
 
creative projects (Svir , 2017), or interfacing EVM with lean
akova Schipper, 2014b). Accordingly, many strongly advocate for the use
principles (Novinsky et al., 2018; Raid, 2012; Zhang et al., 2014). of sustainability indicators. Taylor (2010) recommends environ-
To this end, this study did not identify a single publication that mental indicators to be included in the regular project or program
explicitly employs EVM for measuring sustainability in a holistic KPIs, because reasonably chosen indicators are a means to provide
way. Thus, RQ1 cannot be answered positively. However, the better understanding of a project’s sustainability aspects (Silvius
sample holds exceptions that address the tracking of EVM. Vittorio et al., 2010). Other authors who champion the employment of
et al. (2009) derive variables from EVM called Estimated Cost, sustainability indicators and measuring performance of these
Actual Cost and Budgeted Cost, as well as indicators, whose cal- include, but are not limited to, Russell (2008), Perrini and Tencati
culations resemble the ones for traditional Earned Value. Here, cost (2006), Keeble et al. (2003) and Bal et al. (2013).
are not developed according to material and man-hours, but to Concerning sustainability indicators, a great deal of effort has
energy consumption in kilowatt-hours of an industrial plant. been dedicated to producing frameworks for their selection. While
Dwaikat and Ali (2016) use EVM in the context of building oper- Talbot and Venkataraman (2013) indicate that there is no standard
ating phase, to measure the actual end use energy cost performance for project reporting or management of sustainability, a fair amount
of green buildings. They baseline the life cycle energy consumption of publications invoke the indicators devised by the Global
190 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197

Reporting Initiative (GRI) (for example Carboni et al. (2013); (GPM Global, 2014). According to the standard, sustainability ob-
Crawford (2013); Epstein and Buhovac (2014); Labuschagne et al. jectives are translated to project objectives by scoring GRI in-
(2005a); Perrini and Tencati (2006); Silvius et al. (2010); Silvius dicators relevant to the project on a scale from 3 (lowest
et al. (2012); Talbot and Venkataraman (2011)), which has been impact ¼ best score) to þ3 (highest impact ¼ worst score) and
accepted as the global standard for reporting corporate sustain- collecting amendment strategies in a Sustainability Management
ability (Talbot and Venkataraman, 2013). Generally, the identifica- Plan.
tion of suitable indicators to measure the impact of an operational Maltzman and Shirley (2012) propose Earned Environmental
initiative depends on the following three essentials: data avail- Value Management as a tool to be included in an Environmental
ability, the methodology to translate the operational initiative in- Management Plan, which is supplemental to the traditional Project
formation, and the choice between qualitative methods or Management Plan. However, they do not provide insight or guid-
translating the measures into financial terms (Labuschagne and ance on functionality or use of said tool, either.
Brent, 2005). nchez (2015) proposes a framework for portfolio selection by
Sa
The literature examined in the systematic review returned only evaluation projects that address the triple bottom line in strategy
a few publications, usually with a strong contextual emphasis, that definition. The approach uses traditional management tools like
identified assessment or measurement of sustainability within stakeholder analysis and balanced scorecard as well as data
projects, presented below. envelopment analysis. With the latter, working with different units
Based on a general framework developed by Labuschagne et al. thus addressing the criterion multi-variable problem formulation.
(2005b), Brent et al. (2011a) introduce the Sustainability Cost Ac- € et al. (2017) conducted a case study in an infrastructure
Kivila
counting (SCA) method. The procedure assesses environmental and project to identify the control practices that a project organisation
social impacts of a new technology in financial terms following a uses for sustainable project management. Their findings reveal the
four-step methodology. For SCA, the authors adopted published use of a control package in managing sustainability during project
externality cost values based on cost approaches (estimate actual or execution. While they acknowledge that indicator sets for all three
hypothetical expenditures of reducing or eliminating impacts) and pillars of the triple bottom line were monitored and measured, they
benefit approaches (analyse effect of income generation on envi- do not provide more specific details as to their measurement. Plus,
ronmental and social quality). The authors conclude that the the authors point out that sustainability control needs to be inte-
approach sufficiently addresses the TBL approach, and that grated as part of general project management.
“Through the common denominator, the externalities can be Lastly, Barnard et al. (2011) explicitly recommend the applica-
incorporated with a typical internal (financial) evaluation of the tion of Earned Value Analysis to compare planned sustainability
performance of a technology” (Brent et al., 2011a: 49). However, the work with actual work in program management and to detect any
authors further infer that the practicality of SCA can be significantly deviations. This proposal, again, falls short of any explanation as to
impaired by uncertain externality cost data, as well as the fact that how this could be achieved.
not all criteria can be quantified in financial terms (Brent et al., In terms of the assessment of these indicators, and the oppor-
2011b). tunity of unifying these, it has to be noted that the method pro-
The procedure employed by Heuberger et al. (2007) based on posed by Martens and Carvalho (2013) relies on subjective
Multi-Attribute Utility Theory calculates a single value (Utility) assessment, and the results are on a scale from 1 to 5, which ren-
which represents the project’s estimated contribution to sustain- ders them complicated to unify in a meaningful manner. The same
able development of the country the project will be implemented applies to the tool described by Keeble et al. (2003). Although both
in. Relevant criteria were selected from various literature sources authors claim otherwise, their procedures appear to be suitable for
and through expert interviews. The criteria are then linked to in- post-project benchmarking rather than performance measure-
dicators, which in turn can be quantitative, qualitative or semi- ment. The P5 model created by GPM Global (2014), on the other
quantitative. Individual sustainability criteria for each project are hand, provides a means to unify the results in one figure against
calculated, weighted and added up. All results for the indicators are which the project performance can be assessed. Here, too, the
converted to a single utility value ranging from 1 and 1, via ab- qualitative scoring renders it complicated to assign an objective
solute utility functions that should be adjusted through baseline monetary value to the results. The frameworks introduced by
cases and best practice projects (Sutter, 2003). Heuberger et al. (2007), S anchez (2015) and Labuschagne et al.
Keeble et al. (2003) describe a tool for an energy company which (2005b) use unifying approaches as well. The former is, however,
consists of 69 (undisclosed) indicators that are assessed against explicitly designed for pre-project evaluation, and using it for
four questions relating to impacts on economy, society, environ- performance measurement seems complicated. The indicator
ment and natural resources. The indicators are ranked from 1 to 5, framework of Labuschagne et al. (2005b) is interesting because it
and the results aggregated in a summary scoring sheet. According converts indicator data to monetary expressions. Unfortunately, the
to the authors, the tool can be used several times throughout the conversion relies on data that are uncertain, unstable, and possibly
project life cycle, thus enabling it to be applied to performance unavailable. While evaluating project KPIs for strategic goals, the
measurement. framework proposed by Sa nchez (2015) operates on a higher and
The evaluation tool presented by Martens and Carvalho (2013) presumably more abstract level than is relevant to this paper’s
works in a similar way: relevant actions are identified along the scope. The selected method, however, may prove to be adequate for
five project phases, such as “Identify and document lessons learnt” handling data acquired in the project.
and “Release the product or services for the company’s operation”.
The actions are linked to evaluation conditions for all three TBL 8. Conceptual framework to integrate EVM and sustainability
dimensions, and compliance of the actions with the conditions are in project management
evaluated based on a 5-point Likert scale. Subsequently, averages
for each TBL dimension, as well as total average for each phase are The results presented in section 4.2 reflect the following situa-
calculated and displayed on a radar diagram. tion: the topic of sustainability inclusion in project management is
The GPM Reference Guide to sustainability in project manage- steadily gaining ground. While most publications continue to focus
ment (Carboni et al., 2013) points to the P5 (People-Planet-Profit- on normative aspects, i.e. outlines of necessities and guidelines of
Process-Products) impact analysis described in the P5 Standard the approach, little work is done on the prescriptive front. The need
 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197 191

to not only address sustainability through projects, but to also compelling reason to not adapt the approach on lowest WBS level:
measure and track effectiveness of such initiatives as well. The intersection at this level risks disregarding the criteria of mutual
techniques and tools to accomplish this, as presented in the pre- exclusiveness in traditional WBS, because changes to one indicator
vious chapter, are often qualitative (subjective, that is). Project may have immediate or postponed effects on other ones. This
management is a profession that is rich in tools as it is. Instead of makes unambiguous usage complicated, not least for the creation
designing a completely new methodology, the following chapter of control accounts.
will attempt to bridge the gap between existing project progress
management tools (EVM) and sustainability by introducing a con- 8.3. Organisational Breakdown Structure, Responsibility
ceptual framework which translates principles of EVM to perfor- Assignment Matrix and control accounts
mance measurement of sustainability indicators if and where
necessary. EVM works better on lower WBS levels than higher ones, Talbot
and Venkataraman point out that “the level at which indicator sets
8.1. Scope are tracked cannot contain too many indicators or the indicator set
will be too difficult to track in a project setting” (Talbot and
It has been pointed out earlier that a proper work definition is Venkataraman, 2013: 197). Following the above notion to tie sus-
most likely the step of the highest importance, because mistakes tainability objectives to deliverables induces interfacing the SBS
made here invariably propagate through the entire performance lowest level indicators with the WBS instead of the OBS. Indicators/
measurement process. Silvius concludes that “Integrating Sustain- objectives identified for any given deliverable then apply to all WPs
ability stretches the scope of the project and Project Management” that build a deliverable. Sustainability Accounts (SA) are mapped to
(Silvius, 2017: 6) which stresses the importance of performing this higher WBS levels, and accountability trickles down to work
step thoroughly. Sustainability must focus on the project context package CAs. Another consideration regarding indicators and SAs
and has to yield benefit to the executing organisation. Thus, sus- must be made here however: it should be scrutinized thoroughly
tainability has to be included in the project’s business case. There is a whether indicators that are not measurable as direct effects during
difference in the level of consideration, with focus on either the the project work (i.e. lagging indicators) should rather be assigned
delivery and management of a project (internal scope) or its results to entities of the permanent organisation. Mochal and Krasnoff
and end product (external scope) (Schipper and Nedeski, 2013). (2013) offer a solution to this by pointing out that a Project Man-
Either way, the scope definition uses a project charter as process agement Office as appropriate entity to assist in collection and
input (PMI, 2013) and Sustainability principles should be anchored consolidation of performance data.
in it (Tharp, 2013), for example by explicitly including green
statements and environmentally responsible (“SMARTER”) objec- 8.4. Work planning and scheduling
tives (Maltzman and Shirley, 2012). Examining the project context
requires the project executives to identify the indicators which are Since it has been shown that sustainability deliverables will
indeed relevant to the project and hence to the organisational reflect in the actual work, this results in the project being scheduled
strategy, and therefore ought to be included explicitly in the business as usual with sufficient time and budget for addressing sustain-
case (Carboni et al., 2013; GPM Global, 2014). ability objectives being accounted for. Since estimating and
measuring relevant indicators is a surplus in effort, the work
8.2. Work Breakdown Structure required needs to be added to indirect project cost and schedule.
Many authors argue in favour of a life cycle perspective which ex-
Several ways to include sustainability principles in the WBS ceeds the delivery of the project (Labuschagne and Brent, 2005;
could be identified. First, one approach proposes to detach sus- Maltzman and Shirley, 2012; Silvius et al., 2012). Hope (2012) re-
tainability from the regular project work and add it to the WBS fers to this as Project Legacy. As presented in section 2.3, long-term
separately (Mochal and Krasnoff, 2013). The second tactic works in orientation is critical for implementing sustainability in projects
a similar way: Haner (2013) recommends the use of a Sustainability (Silvius et al., 2012). The effects and impacts of the project de-
Breakdown Structure as part of a Sustainability Program Manage- liverables are the paramount aspect and should be given prece-
ment Plan (SPMP). Ferna ndez-Sa nchez and Rodríguez-Lo  pez (2010) dence over the project processes. Merely focusing on the process of
employ the similar term Sustainable Breakdown Structure that can project delivery would be the wrong direction for research.
follow the sustainable development pillars, for their methodology To address post-project benefit realisation, the performance
to identify sustainability indicators in construction. Consequently, baseline needs to extend (indefinitely) beyond the traditional at-
their lowest level packages contain indicators, rather than tasks. completion-point of EVM. Therefore, estimating and extrapolating
Third, sustainability can be considered on the lowest work package the estimated value of benefits over the entire project and product
level. For instance, Kim et al. (2015) and Terouhid et al. (2012) use life cycle can be considered. Following project handover, mea-
lowest level CO2 information for carbon budgeting purposes. surements will then not be continued by the project team, but by an
Similarly, the GPM P5 standard proposes to examine each work entity within the primary organisation. This is in line with the idea
package to address sustainability. This standard recommends the of Mochal and Krasnoff (2013) to have a Project Management Office
use of a Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) with clear sus- responsible for the project sustainability data, and benefit realisa-
tainability objectives (GPM Global, 2014). In conclusion, the tion management is ultimately a key responsibility of organisa-
following proposal is derived: driven by the organisational sus- tional management Carboni et al. (2013).
tainability, or CSR, strategy, a Sustainability Management Plan
should be employed for the project. Objectives defined herein 8.5. Budgeting and baseline establishment
should be broken down in a Sustainability Breakdown Structure
(SBS) to hold indicators relevant to the strategy at the lowest level. 8.5.1. Indicator selection
Since the objectives are tied to project deliverables rather than There are a lot of indicator sets available, and a few of them were
work packages, lowest level SBS units can be expected to intersect presented in section 4.2. Berring and Ung (2003) suggest that
with higher level WBS elements. Nonetheless, data collection and stakeholders need a decision-making tool based on unified anal-
reporting will continuously occur on work package level. There is a ysis. This point is even more significant given that EVM expresses
192 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197

data from three dimensions in monetary terms. Additionally, it is method needs some modification. Carboni and Hodgkinson (2013)
recommended to not stick too closely to set standards, as the choice argue that sustainability takes place at portfolio level. In order to
of indicators should be influenced by the organisation’s values, avoid over- and understatement of resource-efficiency, resource
culture, and its business realities (Keeble et al., 2003). At the same, metrics must relate to the appropriate entities (Müller et al., 2012).
it can be observed that many frameworks utilize the reporting in- Therefore, it is proposed that the project under consideration is not
dicators developed by the GRI, as it has also been outlined earlier. It benchmarked against the economy, but rather against its primary
can therefore be recommended to apply the GRI as basis for organisation. In SV, the company’s net contribution is analysed in
measuring sustainability with the conceptual framework described relation to the economy. Accordingly, the project must be analysed
herein. Nonetheless, the selection of appropriate sustainability in- in relation to its contribution to the firm (see Fig. 6). The project
dicators should be guided by the project’s business case for sus- benefits management plan holds financial targets as derived from
tainability and the organisational strategy (GPM Global, 2014) and the project’s business plan, where the financial value is expressed
is therefore at the discretion of the organisation itself. as net present value (NPV).

8.5.2. The concept of value 8.5.3. Terminology

The EVM concept expresses material usage and man-hours While this chapter introduces SV as method for monetizing
spent in terms of their respective price-tag. It has already been Sustainability indicators, the proposed framework provides the
pointed out that monetizing environmental and social value is ut- option for the practitioner to select whichever monetization is
terly intricate. Berring and Ung (2003) explain that quantification considered appropriate. Furthermore, “Earned Sustainable Value
and monetization of environmental aspects takes an entire body of Management” is a very attractive expression for verbal use. Thus,
referenced literature and empirical data to estimate monetary although SV has been employed here a more general formulation is
outcomes for each project position. Availability and quality of this favoured, as well as to avoid confusion in case that monetization is
type of data poses severe constraints to the feasibility of the pro- performed following other methodologies. Terminology should be
cedure. Epstein and Buhovac (2014) highlight willingness-to-pay guided by standard EVM expressions. Earned Sustainability appears
and willingness-to-accept methods, that rely on extensive sur- unfit as its acronym ES can easily be confused with Earned Schedule
veys among all stakeholders involved. Needless to say that this which is already in use. Furthermore, Earned Sustainability fails to
monetization is purely subjective, hence will be the value created, reflect the notion of value, with is a crucial component of the
and the cost and time consumption of the approach might as well approach proposed herein. Instead, it is proposed to follow the
outweigh the benefits. formulation denoted by (Maltzman and Shirley, 2012). They use the
A simple approach is proposed here: the Sustainable Value (SV) term “greenality” interchangeably for Sustainability. Plus, as noted
approach developed by Figge and Hahn (2005). The approach re- previously, they also employ the term “Earned Environmental
lates a company’s financial return (i.e. its Net Value Added (NVA)) Value Management”. While the term ‘green’ is deeply ingrained in
to its resource usage and compares it to a benchmark, usually the people’s heads as merely reflecting environmental aspects, “green”
economy that the company operates in. According to Figge and should address all three aspects of Sustainability. Further, “green”
Hahn, “Value is created whenever benefits exceed costs” (Figge and can invoke a positive image rather than a mere association of the
Hahn, 2004: 173). SV measures the value added that is generated by term with reducing negative impact rather. Although “green” has
a company using a portion of resources or materials instead of a also been portrayed negatively through terms like ‘greenwashing’,
benchmark. The validity of the approach is determined by the se- the notion of green in this context should be expanded to apply to
lection of the benchmark and the earnings figures (Figge et al., social and economic aspects as well. Moreover, one cornerstone of
2006). The SV methodology has some significant advantages: the this methodology is to express a project’s (and thus ultimately an
variables are also given in the GRI reporting guidelines; it addresses organisation’s) performance in terms of resource efficiency (i.e.
the need for unified metrics; and the calculations require data reduce negative impact) and to express it in an understandable
which should be available in a company from financial and re- language, i.e. in monetary terms. Green often being the colour
sponsibility reporting. While the SV method primarily builds on associated with money further bestows a double-barrelled mean-
eco-efficiency representing only a subset of sustainability, every ing upon the term ‘Green Value’. To conclude, this framework will
indicator which expresses a scarcity and is linkable to added value
can be adduced for the calculation, data availability provided.
However, SV alone cannot express every indicator in monetary
terms and thus has to be supplemented by other mechanisms. It
has been pointed out earlier that “Managers must quantify how one
variable drives another until the link to profit is clear” (Epstein and
Buhovac, 2014: 42). For some (primarily lagging) indicators, this is
relatively simple: for instance, reduced cases of corruption mean
less illegal relocation of budget, decreased employee turnover re-
duces recruitment cost, and improved product quality or safety lead
to less product recalls, which are costly as well. Other indicators like
child labour and trained professional emigration are by far less
straightforward.
The rationale is that SV is being created when return on capital
is greater than opportunity cost of capital. This means that the SV
baseline, as opposed to traditional Earned Value, does not display
the cumulative value of cost spent on work done, but rather the
value of cost avoided through resources saved. When comparing
the company with its benchmark economy, the company has to
perform better than the economy to add value. The economy hence
is a point of reference to compare against. For use in projects, the Fig. 6. Relationship between metrics on different hierarchical levels.
 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197 193

merge Earned Value Management with the word “Green” as ho- years to unfold. Three ideas come to mind. First, Epstein and
listically considered approach to sustainability, thus leading to the Buhovac express that “Managers must quantify how one variable
term Earned Green Value Management (EGVM). Consequently, drives an-other until the link to profit is clear” (Epstein and
Planned Value (PV) in EVM is translated to Planned Green Value Buhovac, 2014: 42). Thus, an attempt can be made to express lag-
(PGV). ging/leading indicators through variables which are measurable
during the project life cycle.
8.5.4. Baselining the cumulative Sustainable Value Furthermore, it has been pointed out earlier that Level-of-Effort
Apart from regular project data like duration and budget esti- (section 2.1.2) tasks can accrue Earned Value with no Actual Cost
mates, each work package now contains SV information, repre- being incurred. Sustainable Value can often be earned through
senting the monetary contribution of each work package in terms management processes without added expenses. Other examples
of resource efficiency compared to the organisation’s portfolio of relate to sustainable procurement or reducing other resource-
projects, and/or past project operations. Note that the cumulative intensive activities. Therefore, a good share of Sustainable Value
result is expected to be positive, since improved sustainability re- can be accounted for based on Level-of-Effort (LOE). To this end, a
sults should be targeted during work definition. This implies, positive appropriation can be provided to LOE, whose usage is
however, that contrary to traditional PV, the cumulative SV baseline otherwise explicitly discouraged (Fleming and Koppelman, 2010).
can take negative values or equal zero. The latter, PVG ¼ 0, would With all data readily acquired, EGV can be determined following
indicate that no improvement in sustainability compared to pre- the computations as described in section 5.5.2 and Figge and Hahn
vious projects or the selected benchmark (PGV > 0) are being (2005).
planned into the project goals. In line with the existing terminol-
ogy, the target measure shall be referred to as Green Value at 8.9. Determine sustainability performance
Completion (GVAC), regardless of positive or negative face value.
The calculation of performance indices and variances can pro-
8.6. Record actual costs ceed following the traditional EVM procedure. Their interpretation
changes accordingly: negative/positive variances between planned
As shown in section 5.5.2, resource usage will be compared to and achieved Sustainability indicate that to date, less/more re-
NPV. In other words, the project budget drives the use of resources sources have been saved than planned. Negative variances between
in terms of procured material, energy usage, employee commute planned Sustainability and incurred costs indicate that more
and travel, etc. That means, when the Actual Cost exceeds the money has been spent on Sustainability than sustainable benefits
baseline, this may have been caused by additional workforce could be achieved from it. This is important, because it can sharpen
deployed (and thus more resources were used). Alternatively, a the project team’s wits. For instance, Maltzman and Shirley (2012)
decision could have been made to increase expenses on sustainably show an example where deleting screensavers saved 1.9 million
sourced materials, thus having positive effect on the Sustainability kilowatts of energy and 266 000 dollars per year e for free. The
performance. The bottom line is that Actual Cost (AC) can also be same amount of energy can be saved by replacing 20 879 121
used for measurements and calculations in this method. 100W-bulbs with 9W-LEDs. At a cost of 7 V per LED that amounts
to almost 146.2 million euros. The re-definition of the project
8.7. Measure progress metrics is shown in Error! Reference source not found.

The Sustainability baseline is established through planned in- 8.10. Forecasting

dicator values for each work package, e.g. planned CO2 emissions
during any work package. For performance measurement, each These steps work according to regular EVM methodology. Ar-
indicator must be measured in the respective unit, and then con- guments in the formulas need to be replaced, the calculations
verted to SV as described earlier. Depending on the approach, the remain the same. The interpretations reads: “How much time will it
SV calculation can be simplified to formulas with either NVA or BAC take until we saved the resources we were supposed to have saved
as reference. by today” and “How much more (or less) do we need to spend in
order to achieve our Sustainability goals”.
8.8. Definition of earning rules
8.11. Summary of the proposed conceptual framework
Environmental indicators are recorded in absolute numbers
(m3, tons, etc.). Most indicators of economic sustainability already Fig. 7 shows the EGVM framework. The process-steps on the left
come as monetary expressions. Some thought, however, has to be correspond to the amended EVM process steps and thus follow the
given to indicators, which are not directly quantifiable/monetiz- structure of this paper. Each process-step contains sub-steps as
able, such as employee satisfaction and customer retention. In identified and explained in section 5 and can therefore be
these cases, a company should make use of past experiences. For employed as checklist for the EGVM methodology. The same con-
instance, every organisation should be able to determine the per- cepts are represented as a graphical workflow on the right-hand
unit opportunity cost for product recalls, or the recruiting cost side of the figure. Green process-steps indicate new or altered
per employee. These metric serve as appropriate monetary proxies concepts while blue blocks represent concepts that have been
for inclusion into a Sustainability baseline. Another aspect is much adapted without changes from the original EVM methodology.
more unwieldy: the issue of unsynchronized accrual has been
brought up already in the literature review of EVM. Epstein and 9. Conclusion
Buhovac (2014) discuss that Sustainability performance measure-
ment should make use of leading and lagging indicators as well. Sustainability has become a trending topic in project manage-
While this addresses the principle of long-term perspective, it ment practice and research. The focus of past considerations of this
presents in-project performance measurement with a problem, subject has mostly been normative. Effective implementation of
because benefits such as customer retention might not manifest sustainability objectives in projects requires proper tracking and
itself until in a further project, and other benefits might even take control effort as well. Project management literature already
194 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197

Fig. 7. EGVM conceptual framework.

provides a sophisticated tool for multidimensional project con- management practices. At the same time, EGVM does not replace,
trolling - Earned Value Management. As literature on operational- but supplement EVM. One major limitation of the framework is that
ization of sustainability in projects is scarce, this paper aims to it does not overcome a critical impediment to sustainability in
investigate existing conceptual and methodological overlap be- general: to produce a marked effect, sustainability management
tween the bodies of knowledge Earned Value Management and requires thorough measurement of key indicators, which has often
sustainability in project management. Using a systematic review been stated to be one inhibitor to engaging in sustainability.
methodology, a total number of 696 full-text references was
examined to answer the research questions “Has EVM to date been
References
used to measure Sustainability?” and “How has Sustainability in
projects been measured to date?” respectively. Abdi, A., Taghipour, S., Khamooshi, H., 2018a. A model to control environmental
The results of the review showed that EVM has been used for performance of project execution process based on greenhouse gas emissions
carbon emission budgeting, but not for sustainability in a holistic using earned value management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 36, 397e413. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.12.003.
way. By contrast, literature on sustainability in project management Abdi, A., Taghipour, S., Khamooshi, H., 2018b. Corrigendum to “A model to control
referred to EVM as a potential tool for sustainability performance environmental performance of project execution process based on greenhouse
measurement but without application. Subsequently, both bodies gas emissions using earned value management”[Int. J. Proj. Manag. 36 (3)(April
2018) 397-413]. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 36, 1047e1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/
were merged into one comprehensive conceptual framework that
j.ijproman.2018.07.006.
integrates sustainability with EVM methodology to apply to sus- Adamczyk, W.E., 1989. EV - not only for large projects. American Association for the
tainability, thus answering the research question. Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Transactions 38e42.
Alleman, G., Henderson, M., Seggelke, R., 2003. Making agile software development
The resulting framework Earned Green Value Management
work in a government contracting environment - measuring velocity with
(EGVM) differs from the traditional methodology in some key earned value. In: IEEE Comp. Soc, pp. 114e119.
characteristics. While most activities within project planning, i.e. Alvarado, C.M., Silverman, R.P., Wilson, D.S., 2004. Assessing the performance of
using a WBS, OBS and control accounts, can be adapted to EGVM, construction projects. Implementing earned value management at the General
Services Administration. J. Facil. Manag. 3, 92e105. https://doi.org/10.1108/
relevant indicators need to be identified through a Sustainable 14725960510808419.
Breakdown Structure. Additional time must be accounted for in Anbari, F.T., 2003. Earned value project management method and extensions. Proj.
project scheduling, in particular for increased measurement effort. Manag. J. 34, 12e23. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280303400403.
APM, 2006a. APM body of knowledge. In: 5th. Association for Project Management,
Major differences in methodologies prevail in life-cycle and value High Wycome, U.K.
considerations: first, to ensure effective benefits management, APM, 2006b. APM Supports Sustainability Outlooks. Princes Risborough, U.K.
EGVM should be applied on portfolio instead of project level. Second, APM, 2012. APM body of knowledge. In: 6th. Association for Project Management,
Princes Risborough, U.K.
the project life-cycle must be extended past the project closure and Bagherpour, M., Noori, S., 2012. Cost management system within a production
consider the effects of the product life-cycle. Third, the methodology environment. A performance-based approach. Proc. IME B J. Eng. Manufact. 226,
focuses on the triple bottom line of sustainability rather than the 145e153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405411404303.
Bal, M., Bryde, D., Fearon, D., Ochieng, E., 2013. Stakeholder engagement. Achieving
traditional iron triangle. Lastly, the perception of value creation shifts
sustainability in the construction sector. Sustainability 5, 695e710. https://
from a sunk cost perspective towards an opportunity cost based doi.org/10.3390/su5020695.
view, i.e. saved cost through increased efficiency of ecological and Banerjee, B., 2005. Applying EVM principles to tevatron beam position monitor
project. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Engineering Management Con-
human capital resources. While this framework proposes a resource
ference. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMC.2006.4279897.
efficiency based approach relying on the Sustainable Value method, Barnard, L.T., Ackles, B., Haner, J.L., 2011. Making Sense of Sustainability Project
other monetization methods are possible as well. Management. Explorus Group Inc., Grimsby.
In essence, EGVM is a first-of-its-kind tool that bridges the gap Becker, W., Kunz, C., 2009. Earned value methode. Betriebswirtschaft 69, 419.
https://doi.org/10.15358/0935-0381-2005-1-63.
between sustainable project management and traditional project Bergman, I., Gunnarson, S., Ra €isa
€nen, C., 2011. Decoupling and standardization in
 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197 195

the projectification of a company. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6, 106e128. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00623-5_14.
doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291053. Eid, M., 2009. Sustainable Development & Project Management. Lambert Academic
Berring, S., Ung, D., 2003. A Methodology for Environmentally Informed Decision- Publishing, Saarbrücken.
Making. Towards Sustainable Projects. CIFE Working Paper #WP 083 (Stan- Eid, M., 2013. How can sustainable development redefine project management
ford, CA, USA). processes? In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for
Boland, A., Cherry, M.G., Dickson, R., 2014. Doing a Systematic Review. Sage Publi- Effective Project Management. IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
cations, London. Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century.
Bosche , F., Ahmed, M., Turkan, Y., Haas, C.T., Haas, R., 2015. The value of integrating Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
Scan-to-BIM and Scan-vs-BIM techniques for construction monitoring using Epstein, M.J., 2008. Making Sustainability Work. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San
laser scanning and BIM. The case of cylindrical MEP components. Autom. Francisco.
ConStruct. 49, 201e213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.014. Epstein, M.J., Buhovac, A.R., 2014. Making Sustainability Work. Best Practices in
Brandon, D.M., 1998. Implementing earned value easily and effectively. Proj. Manag. Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental, and Economic Im-
J. 29, 11e18. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697289802900204. pacts. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
Brent, A.C., Labuschagne, C., 2007. An appraisal of social aspects in project and Erdogmus, H., 2010. Tracking progress through earned value. IEEE Software 27, 2e7.
technology life cycle management in the process industry. Manag. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2010.130.
Qual. 18, 413e426. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830710753811. Evensmo, J., Karlsen, J.T., 2005. Earned value. The hammer without nails? AACE Int.
Brent, A.C., van Erck, R.P.G., Labuschagne, C., 2011a. Sustainability cost accounting - Trans. 2005, CSC12eCSC22.
Part 1. A monetary procedure to evaluate the sustainability of technologies in Fernandez-Sa nchez, G., Rodríguez-Lo pez, F., 2010. A methodology to identify sus-
the South African process industry. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 17, 35e51. https://doi.org/ tainability indicators in construction project managementdapplication to
10.7166/17-2-143. infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecol. Indicat. 10, 1193e1201. https://doi.org/
Brent, A.C., van Erck, R.P.G., Labuschagne, C., 2011b. Sustainability cost accounting - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.04.009.
Part 2. A case study in the South African process industry. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 18, Feylizadeh, M.R., Bagherpour, M., 2018. Manufacturing performance measurement
1e17. https://doi.org/10.7166/18-1-129. using fuzzy multi-attribute utility theory and Z-number. Trans. FAMENA 42,
Brones, F., Carvalho, M.M. de, Senzi Zancul, E. de, 2014. Ecodesign in project man- 37e49. https://doi.org/10.21278/TOF.42104.
agement. A missing link for the integration of sustainability in product devel- Figge, F., Barkemeyer, R., Hahn, T., Liesen, A., 2006. The ADVANCE Guide to Sus-
opment? J. Clean. Prod. 80, 106e118. https://doi.org/10.1016/ tainable Value Calculations. A Practitioner Handbook on the Application of the
j.jclepro.2014.05.088. Sustainable Value. The ADVANCE Project.
Browning, T.R., 2014. A quantitative framework for managing project value, risk, Figge, F., Hahn, T., 2004. Sustainable value addeddmeasuring corporate contribu-
and opportunity. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 61, 583e598. https://doi.org/10.1109/ tions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 48, 173e187. https://
tem.2014.2326986. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.005.
Bryde, D., Unterhitzenberger, C., Joby, R., 2018. Conditions of success for earned Figge, F., Hahn, T., 2005. The cost of sustainability capital and the creation of sus-
value analysis in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 36, 474e484. https://doi.org/ tainable value by companies. J. Ind. Ecol. 9, 47e58. https://doi.org/10.1162/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.12.002. 108819805775247936.
Buell, M., 2008. Producing earned value from a geographic information system Fleming, Q.W., Koppelman, J.M., 1994. Essence and evolution of earned value. AACE
where scheduling tools were impractical. AACE Int. Trans. 2008, Int. Trans. CSC131eCSC137.
EVM71eEVM75. Fleming, Q.W., Koppelman, J.M., 1997. Earned value project management. Cost Eng.
Cabri, A., Griffiths, M., 2006. Earned value and agile reporting. In: AGILE 2006. IEEE. 39, 13e15.
https://doi.org/10.1109/AGILE.2006.21. Fleming, Q.W., Koppelman, J.M., 2003. What’s your project’s real price tag? Harv.
Carboni, J., Gonza lez, M., Hodgkinson, J., 2013. The GPM® Guide to Sustainability. Bus. Rev. 81, 20e22.
GPM global, USA. Fleming, Q.W., Koppelman, J.M., 2010. Earned Value Project Management, fourth ed.
Carboni, J., Hodgkinson, J., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and project port- Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, Pa.
folio management. PM World Journal II 1e10. Fowler, S., Chen, P.P., 2017. CsPI: a new way to evaluate cybersecurity investments: a
Cass, D.J., 1994. Improve schedule forecasting via earned value. Trans. AACE Int. position paper. In: Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-
1994, CSC71eCSC79. C), 2017 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, pp. 283e284. https://doi.org/
Chen, H.L., 2014. Improving forecasting accuracy of project earned value metrics. 10.1109/QRS-C.2017.55.
Linear modeling approach. J. Manag. Eng. 30, 135e145. https://doi.org/10.1061/ Gao, X., Ye, Z., 2011. The application of improved earned value model in engineering
(asce)me.1943-5479.0000187. quality and progress coordination management. In: Sun, D., Sung, W.P., Chen, R.
Chen, M.T., 2008. The ABCs of earned value application. AACE Int. Trans. 2008, (Eds.), Frontiers of Green Building, Materials and Civil Engineering, Pts 1-8,
EV31eEV38. pp. 4580e4584.
Chipulu, M., Ojiako, U., Gardiner, P., Williams, T., Mota, C., Maguire, S., Shou, Y., Gareis, R., 2013. Re-thinking project initiation and project management by
Stamati, T., Marshall, A., 2014. Exploring the impact of cultural values on project considering principles of sustainable development. In: G.,S.A.J., Tharp, J. (Eds.),
performance: the effects of cultural values, age and gender on the perceived Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global
importance of project success/failure factors. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 34, Publishing.
364e389. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2012-0156. Gareis, R., Huemann, M., Martinuzzi, R.-A., 2011. What can project management
Christensen, D., Payne, K., 1992. Cost performance Index stability: fact or fiction? learn from considering sustainability principles?. In: Project Perspectives 2011.
J. Pharmacol. 12, 27e40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10157891.1992.10462509. International Project Management Association, Helsinki, pp. 60e65.
Christensen, D.S., 1998. The costs and benefits of the earned value management General Assembly resolution 60/1, 2005, 2005. World Summit Outcome A/RES/60/1.
process. J. Pharmacol. 18, 1e16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10157891.1998.10462568. Gilbert, R., Stevenson, D., Girardet, H., Stern, R., 1996. Making Cities Work. The Role
Cioffi, D.F., 2005. A tool for managing projects. an analytic parameterization of the S- of Local Authorities in the Urban Environment. Earthscan Publications Ltd,
curve. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, 215e222. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Oxford.
j.ijproman.2004.08.001. Goedknegt, D., 2013. Sustainability in project management. Perceptions of re-
Crawford, L., 2013. Leading sustainability through projects. In: Silvius, G., Tharp, J. sponsibility. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for
(Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global, Effective Project Management. IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Hershey, PA. Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J., 2012. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Sage
Czemplik, A., 2017. Practical application of Earned Value Method to evaluation of Publications.
progress status of medium size construction projects. In: IOP Conference Series: Global, G.P.M., 2014. The GPM Global P5 Standard for Sustainability in Project
Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing, 1757-899X. Management. GPM Global, United States.
de Magalh~ ^
aes, R.F., Danilevicz, A.D.M.F., Palazzo, J., 2018. Managing trade-offs in Haanaes, K., Kong, M.T., Hopkins, M.S., Arthur, D., Reeves, M., Kruschwitz, N.,
complex scenarios: a decision-making tool for sustainability projects. J. Clean. Balagopal, B., Velken, I., 2011. Sustainability. The ‘Embracers’ Seize Advantage
Prod. 212, 447e460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.023. (North Hollywood).
Dodson, M., Defavari, G., Carvalho, V. de, 2015. Quality: the third element of earned Haner, J.L., 2013. Sustainability program management. In: Levin, G. (Ed.), Program
value management. Procedia Comp. Sci. 64, 932e939. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Management: A Life Cycle Approach. CRC Press.
j.procs.2015.08.610. Hanna, A.S., 2012. Using the earned value management system to improve electrical
Du, Z., Dong, Z., Wu, H., Yang, L., 2017. How to monitor and adjust in real time the project control. J Const. Eng. Manag. -Asce 138, 449e457. https://doi.org/
total water consumption and water use efficiency: earned value method. IOP 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000426.
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 59, 12062. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/59/1/ Heuberger, R., Brent, A., Santos, L., Sutter, C., Imboden, D., 2007. CDM projects under
012062. the kyoto protocol. A methodology for sustainability assessment e experiences
Dwaikat, L., Ali, K., 2016. Measuring the actual energy cost performance of green from South Africa and Uruguay. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 9, 33e48. https://doi.org/
buildings: a test of the earned value management approach. Energies 9, 188. 10.1007/s10668-005-9002-7.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en9030188. Hofrichter, D.A., 1999. Secrets of the rich and famous. J. Bus. Strat. 20, 22e26.
Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb040014.
Bus. Strateg. Environ. 11, 130e141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323. Hope, A., 2012. Project management as if the world matters: at the intersection of
Efe, P., Demirors, O., Benetallah, B., 2018. Measuring change in software projects sustainable development and project management. In: Northumbria Research
through an earned value lens. In: International Conference on Software Process Conference.
Improvement and Capability Determination. Springer, pp. 200e214. https:// Hope, A.J., Moehler, R., 2014. Balancing projects with society and the environment.
196 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197

A project, programme and portfolio approach. Procedia e Soc. Behav. Sci. 119, Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2014. A conceptual framework of sustainability in
358e367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.041. project management. In: PMI Research & Education Conference.
Hope, A.J., Moehler, R., 2015. Responsible business model innovation: reconceptu- Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T., Hodgson, D., 2006. From projectification to
alising the role of business in society. In: 15th Annual Conference EURAM, programmification. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24, 663e674. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Warsaw, Poland. j.ijproman.2006.09.014.
Huemann, M., Silvius, G., 2017. Projects to create the future: managing projects Memarzadeh, M., Golparvar-Fard, M., 2012. Monitoring and visualization of build-
meets sustainable development. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, 1066e1070. https:// ing construction embodied carbon footprint using DnAR - N-dimensional
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.014. augmented reality models. In: Construction Challenges in a Flat World,
Jesson, J.K., Matheson, L., Lacey, F.M., 2013. Doing Your Literature Review - Tradi- pp. 1330e1339.
tional and Systematic Techniques. Sage Publications, London. Midler, C., 1995. “Projectification” of the firm. The Renault case. Scand. J. Manag. 11,
Jianmu, Y., Shenbao, Y., Jing, Z., 2012. On reallocation of failed project resource 363e375. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-5221(95)00035-T.
based on priority. Syst. Eng. Procedia 4, 338e344. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Mochal, T., Krasnoff, A., 2013. GreenPM®. The basic principles for applying an
j.sepro.2011.11.084. environmental dimension to project management. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J.
Johnston, M., 2015. Good governance: rule of law, transparency, and accountability. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global,
Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/ Hershey, PA.
unpan010193.pdf. accessed 11.01.15. Moehler, R.C., Hope, A.J., Algeo, C.T., 2018. Sustainable project management: revo-
Keeble, J.J., Topiol, S., Berkeley, S., 2003. Using indicators to measure sustainability lution or evolution? Acad. Manag. Proc. 2018, 13583. https://doi.org/10.5465/
performance at a corporate and project level. J. Bus. Ethics 44, 149e158. https:// AMBPP.2018.13583abstract.
doi.org/10.1023/A:1023343614973. Moslemi Naeni, L., Shadrokh, S., Salehipour, A., 2014. A fuzzy approach for the
Khamooshi, H., Golafshani, H., 2014. EDM. Earned Duration Management, a new earned value management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32, 709e716. https://doi.org/
approach to schedule performance management and measurement. Int. J. Proj. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.02.002.
Manag. 32, 1019e1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.11.002. Mudau, R., Pretorius, L., 2009. Project control and risk management for project
Kim, B.-C., 2015. Probabilistic evaluation of cost performance stability in earned success - a South African case study. In: Proceedings of Picmet 09 - Technology
value management. J. Manag. Eng. 32, 4015025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) Management in the Age of Fundamental Change, vols. 1e5, pp. 1372e1377.
ME.1943-5479.0000383. Müller, F., Barkemeyer, R., Figge, F., Hahn, T., Liesen, A., McAnulla, F., 2012. Sus-
Kim, J., Koo, C., Kim, C.J., Hong, T., Park, H.S., 2015. Integrated CO2, cost, and tainable Value Creation by Nordic Companies. Sustainable Value Research,
schedule management system for building construction projects using the Berlin.
earned value management theory. J. Clean. Prod. 103, 275e285. https://doi.org/ Murmis, G.M. (Ed.), 1997. “S” Curves for Monitoring Project Progress. Project
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.031. Management Institute.
Kivil€
a, J., Martinsuo, M., Vuorinen, L., 2017. Sustainable project management Naeni, L.M., Salehipour, A., 2011. Evaluating fuzzy earned value indices and esti-
through project control in infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, mates by applying alpha cuts. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 8193e8198. https://doi.org/
1167e1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.009. 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.165.
Kodukula, P.S., 2012. Strategic project management transformation. Delivering Noori, S., Bagherpour, M., Zorriasatine, F., 2008. Designing a control mechanism for
maximum ROI & sustainable business value. Proj. Manag. J. 43, 100. https:// production planning problems by means of earned value analysis. J. Appl. Sci. 8,
doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21298. 3221e3227. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2008.3221.3227.
LaBrosse, M., 2010. Incorporating green in project management. Employ. Relat. Novinsky, M., Nesensohn, C., Ihwas, N., Haghsheno, S., 2018. Combined application
Today 37, 85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.20313. of earned value management and last planner system in construction projects.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., 2005. Sustainable Project Life Cycle Management. The In: 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.
need to integrate life cycles in the manufacturing sector. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23, International Group for Lean Construction, pp. 775e785.
159e168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.003. Ong, H.Y., Wang, C., Zainon, N., 2018. Developing a quality-embedded EVM tool to
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., Claasen, S.J., 2005a. Environmental and social impact facilitate the iron triangle in architectural, construction, and engineering
considerations for sustainable project life cycle management in the process practices. J. Con. Eng. and Manag. 144, 4018079. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
industry. Corp. Soc.l Respon. Environ. Manag. 12, 38e54. https://doi.org/ CO.1943-7862.0001533.
10.1002/csr.076. Perrini, F., Tencati, A., 2006. Sustainability and stakeholder management. the need
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., van Erck, Ron, P.G., 2005b. Assessing the sustainability for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Bus. Strateg.
performances of industries. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 373e385. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Environ. 15, 296e308. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.538.
j.jclepro.2003.10.007. Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences. A
Laird, A., 2013. Keeping on top of decommissioning work. Nucl. Eng. Int. 58, 38e40. Practical Guide. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA.
Lee, J., Kim, J., 2017. BIM-based 4D simulation to improve module manufacturing Pilbeam, C., 2013. Coordinating temporary organizations in international develop-
productivity for sustainable building projects. Sustainability 9, 426. https:// ment through social and temporal embeddedness. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (2),
doi.org/10.3390/su9030426. 190e199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.06.004.
Lipke, W., Zwikael, O., Henderson, K., Anbari, F., 2009. Prediction of project Pinto, J.K., Kharbanda, O.P., 1995. Lessons for an accidental profession. Bus. Horiz.
outcome. The application of statistical methods to earned value management 38, 41e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(95)90054-3.
and earned schedule performance indexes. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27, 400e407. PMI, 2011a. Practice Standard for Earned Value Management, 2nd. Project Man-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.009. agement Institute, Pennsylvania.
Locksley, R.H., Rice, C.B., 2000. Establishing a program for applying Earned Value PMI, 2011b. The Bottom Line on Sustainability (Philadelphia).
Metrics to flight test. IEEE Aerospace Conference 1e8. PMI, 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5th. PMI,
Luo, Y., 2005. Corporate governance and accountability in multinational enterprises. Pennsylvania.
Concepts and agenda. J. Int. Manag. 11, 1e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Raid, A.-A., 2012. A lean construction framework with Six Sigma rating. Int. J. Lean
j.intman.2004.11.001. Six Sigma 3, 299e314. https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461211284761.
Lynelle, P., 2001. Sustainability at Hewlett-Packard. From theory to practice. Calif. Rose, K.H., 2003. Review of earned value project management. Proj. Manag. J. 34, 54.
Manag. Rev. 43, 26e37. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166086. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280303400403.
Maltzman, R., Shirley, D., 2012. Green Project Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Ruskin, A.M., 2004. Two issues concerning the use of earned value measurements.
Maltzman, R., Shirley, D., 2013. Project manager as a pivot point for implementing Eng. Manag. J. 16, 26e30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2004.11415254.
sustainability in an enterprise. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Russell, J., 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility - what it means for the project
Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global, Hershey, PA. manager. In: Global Congress EMEA.
Marcelino-S adaba, S., Gonz rez-Ezcurdia, A., 2015. Using project
alez-Jaen, L.F., Pe Salari, M., Bagherpour, M., Wang, J., 2013. A novel earned value management model
management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a using Z-number. Int. J. Appl. Decis. Sci. 7, 97e119. https://doi.org/10.1504/
framework definition. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 1e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/ IJADS.2014.058037.
j.jclepro.2015.03.020. nchez, M.A., 2015. Integrating sustainability issues into project management.
Sa
Marco, A.D., Narbaev, T., 2013. Earned value-based performance monitoring of fa- J. Clean. Prod. 96, 319e330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.087.
cility construction projects. J. Facil. Manag. 11, 69e80. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Sankaran, S., Blomquist, T., Jacobsson, M., 2018. The future of project management
14725961311301475. as a sustainable transitioning innovation in management: a multi level
Markard, J., 2017. Sustainability transitions: exploring the emerging field and its perspective. In: Walker, D. (Ed.), 14th International Research Network on
relations to management studies. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2017, 14100. https:// Organizing by Projects (IRNOP), p. 18.
doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.14100abstract. Schieg, M., 2009. The model of corporate social responsibility in project manage-
Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2016b. The challenge of introducing sustainability ment. Verslas: teorija ir praktika 315e321. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648-
into project management function: multiple-case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 117, 0627.2009.10.315-321.
29e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.039. Schipper, R., Nedeski, S., 2013. Application of sustainability considerations in
Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2017. Key factors of sustainability in project man- practice. The open remote case. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability
agement context: a survey exploring the project managers’ perspective. Int. J. Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Proj. Manag. 35, 1084e1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.04.004. Silvius, A.J.G., 2017. Sustainability as a new school of thought in project manage-
Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2013. An exploratory study of sustainability evalu- ment. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1479e1493. https://doi.org/10.1016/
ation in project management. Prod. Manag. Dev. 11, 111e117. https://doi.org/ j.jclepro.2017.08.121.
10.4322/pmd.2013.019. Silvius, A.J.G., Graaf, M. de, 2019. Exploring the project manager’s intention to
 B. Koke, R.C. Moehler / Journal of Cleaner Production 230 (2019) 180e197 197

address sustainability in the project board. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 1226e1240. Management. IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.115. Townsend, L.A., Mazzuchi, T.A., Sarkani, S., 2014. A schedule-performance approach
Silvius, A.G., Schipper, R.P.J., 2014a. Sustainability in project management compe- for level-of-effort tasks. Eng. Manag. J. 26, 21e30. https://doi.org/10.1080/
tencies. Analyzing the competence gap of project managers. J. Hum. Resour. 10429247.2014.11432001.
Sustain. Stud. 2, 40. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2014.22005. Turkan, Y., Bosche, F., Haas, C.T., Haas, R., 2013. Toward automated earned value
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R.P.J., 2014b. Sustainability in project management. A tracking using 3D imaging tools. J. Const. Eng. Manag. -Asce 139, 423e433.
literature review and impact analysis. Soc. Bus. 4, 63e96. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000629.
10.1362/204440814X13948909253866. Turner, J.R., Ann, L., John, K., 2009. Project management in small to medium-sized
Silvius, A.J.G., 2013. Sustainability in project management processes. In: enterprises. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2, 282e296. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project 17538370910949301.
Management. IGI Global, Hershey, PA. Turner, J.R., Müller, R., 2003. On the nature of the project as a temporary organi-
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., Nedeski, S., 2013. Consideration of sustainability in zation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21, 1e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)
projects and project management. An empirical study. In: Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. 00020-0.
(Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management. IGI Global, Turner, R., Ledwith, A., Kelly, J., 2012. Project management in small to medium-sized
Hershey, PA. enterprises. tailoring the practices to the size of company. Manag. Decis. 50,
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R., Planko, J., van den Brink, J., Ko€hler, A., 2012. Sustain- 942e957. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227627.
ability in Project Management. Gower Aldershot, Farnham, Surrey, GBR. Turner, R.J., Huemann, M., Anbari, F.T., Bredillet, C.N., 2010. Perspectives on Projects.
Silvius, A.J.G., van den Brink, J., Ko €hler, A., 2010. The impact of sustainability on Routledge.
project management. In: Linger, H., Owen, J. (Eds.), The Project as a Social Uribe, D., Ortiz-Marcos, I., Uruburu, A.,  2018. What is going on with stakeholder
System: Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Project Management. Monash University theory in project management literature? A symbiotic relationship for sus-
Publishing, Clayton, Australia, pp. 183e200. tainability. Sustainability 10, 1300. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041300.
Solomon, P.J., Young, R.R., 2007. Performance-based Earned Value. Wiley-Blackwell, Vandevoorde, S., Vanhoucke, M., 2006. A comparison of different project duration
Hoboken, NJ, USA. forecasting methods using earned value metrics. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24,
Suenaga, S., Tei, K., Honiden, S., 2017. Applicability of earned value management for 289e302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.10.004.
deadline energy constrained applications. In: 2017 IEEE International Confer- Vanhoucke, M., Vandevoorde, S., 2007. A simulation and evaluation of earned value
ence on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM). IEEE, metrics to forecast the project duration. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 58, 1361e1374. https://
pp. 691e695. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2017.8289979. doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602296.
Sutter, C., 2003. Sustainability Assessment of Energy Related Projects under the Vittorio, C., Bruna Di, S., Vito, I., 2009. Energy budgeting and control. a new
Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol (Zurich, Switzerland). approach for an industrial plant. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 3, 131e156. https://
 
Svir akova, E., 2017. New method of monitoring a creative project and its use in doi.org/10.1108/17506220910970551.
practice. In: Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic Development, Innovation Warburton, R.D.H., 2011. A time-dependent earned value model for software pro-
Management, and Global Growth. jects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29, 1082e1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Talbot, J., Venkataraman, R., 2011. Integration of sustainability principles into j.ijproman.2011.02.008.
project baselines using a comprehensive indicator set. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 10, Wartick, S.L., Wood, D.J., Czinkota, M.R., 1998. International Business and Society.
29e40. Blackwell Business, Malden, MA.
Talbot, R., Venkataraman, R., 2013. Evaluating sustainability on projects using in- WECD, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
dicators. In: G.,S.A.J., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Willems, L.L., Vanhoucke, M., 2015. Classification of articles and journals on project
Project Management. IGI Global Publishing. control and earned value management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33, 1610e1634.
Taylor, T., 2010. Sustainability Interventions - for Managers of Projects and Pro- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.06.003.
grammes. Centre for Education in the Built Environment, Cardiff, Wales, UK. Xu, J., Zhang, H., Li, F., 2010. Project integrated management based on quality earned
Terouhid, S.A., Kibert, C.J., Fard, M.M., 2012. Applying the project management cost value. In: 2nd International Conference on Information Science and Engineer-
estimating standard to carbon footprinting. J. Sustain. Dev. 5, 1. https://doi.org/ ing, pp. 432e435. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISE.2010.5690973. ICISE2010.
10.5539/jsd.v5n10p1. Zhang, X., Wu, Y., Shen, L., Skitmore, M., 2014. A prototype system dynamic model
Tharp, J., 2013. Sustainability in project management. Practical applications. In: for assessing the sustainability of construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32,
Silvius, A.J.G., Tharp, J. (Eds.), Sustainability Integration for Effective Project 66e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.009.