Abstract

Abstract

The concept of sustainable project management (SPM) has been the focus of much discussion in both industry debates and empirical research. Many organizations have claimed to adopt SPM practice as a competitive strategy. However, the impact of SPM on firm performance is unknown. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the relationship between sustainable project management practices and firm performance. The findings showed that sustainable project management practice has many advantages, including improved competitive advantage and better long term economic performance as measured by long-term profitability, return on assets (ROA), cash flow from operating activities, and better earnings quality. Companies that adopted SPM also reported improved customer satisfaction, lower operating cost in the long-term, better quality performance, increased innovative capabilities, high employee satisfaction, and improved organizational image. The study found evidence that organizational culture, stakeholder engagement, top management commitment, and employee training are important mechanisms that activate the relationship between SPM practices and firm performance. The systematic review revealed the need for further empirical research on sustainable project management practices and organizational performance. There is, in particular, a need to better understand how market dynamics impact SPM implementation. The systematic review also highlighted implications for both executives and project management professionals.

Keywords

  • sustainable project management
  • sustainability in project management
  • firm performance
  • systematic review

Full text

Article PDF

The complete historical article, including citations, references, tables, figures, and appendices, is preserved in the archive PDF.

Download Full Article

Cite this article

Recommended Citation

Alexis, J. (2017, May 26). Sustainable project management practice and firm performance: A systematic review of the evidence. New England Journal of Systematic Reviews, 1(2). Retrieved from https://nejsr.org