From Triple Bottom Line Logic to ESG Operationalisation: Developing a Sustainable Business Model Framework for the Construction Sector
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61954/2616-7107/2026.10.1-10Keywords:
Business Model Canva, Construction, ESG, Key Performance Indicators, Sustainability.Abstract
Background. The construction sector is project-based and multi-actor, which means that early design and procurement decisions determine long-term environmental and social impacts. However, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework remains too broad to guide daily trade-offs and produce the verifiable, comparable evidence that clients and regulators demand. Construction firms require an operational logic that translates sustainability aims into managerial levers, embeds them in project routines, and produces verifiable performance information suitable for assurance and procurement evaluation.
Purpose. This study develops a construction-tailored framework that translates environmental, social, and governance (ESG) themes into implementation architecture for sustainable business model innovation (BMI). The aim is to make ESG actionable at the level of value proposition design, key activities, partner governance, and value capture, while preserving proportionality and reporting readiness.
Findings. An integrative literature review and conceptual framework analysis produced three connected artefacts: (i) a VSME-aligned ESG theme structure; (ii) a Sustainable Construction Business Model Canvas; and (iii) an ESG–Business Model–KPI matrix with indicative metrics for embodied carbon via EPD/LCA, waste diversion and circularity measures, health and safety incident frequency (e.g., TRIR/LTIFR), and governance and compliance controls. The artefacts establish traceable linkages between ESG themes and business-model components, and translate them into decision rules relevant to tendering, procurement, and site management. The framework is calibrated for proportionality, enabling SMEs to adopt a minimum viable indicator set while allowing larger contractors to extend coverage to Scope 3 engagement, supplier due diligence, and assurance-ready data processes.
Implications. ESG is reframed from a reporting overlay into implementation architecture for sustainable business model innovation in construction. The proposed framework supports prioritisation, measurable performance management, and stakeholder transparency, and can be adapted to organisational size and data maturity. Future research should validate the hypothesised causal pathways through multiple-case studies, expert elicitation, and project-level KPI testing, including ex-ante dashboards that connect leading indicators to cost, risk, and schedule outcomes.
References
Abdelsalam, S. M. A. (2023). The effect of corporate governance mechanisms on construction industry growth. Marginal Journal of Management, Accounting, General Finance and International Economic Issues, 2(3), 804-819. https://doi.org/10.55047/marginal.v2i3.732
Abdullah, S. N., Aziz, A., & Azani, A. (2022). The effect of board independence, gender diversity and board size on firm performance in Malaysia. Journal of Social Economics Research, 9(4), 179-192. https://doi.org/10.18488/35.v9i4.3226
Ahmed Ali, K., Ahmad, M. I., & Yusup, Y. (2020). Issues, Impacts, and Mitigations of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the Building Sector. Sustainability, 12(18), 7427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187427
Anderson, J., & Moncaster, A. (2023). Embodied carbon, embodied energy and renewable energy: a review of environmental product declarations. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings, 176(12), 986–997. https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.21.00160
Argalis, P. P., Šinka, M., Andžs, M., Korjakins, A., & Bajāre, D. (2024). Development of new bio-based building materials by utilising manufacturing waste. Environmental and Climate Technologies, 28(1), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2024-0006
Aziz, A., Chandran, K., Zakaria, N., & Foo, S. M. (2023). Board structure and firm performance of financially distressed companies: evidence from Malaysia. Quantum Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(5), 86-100. https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v4i5.253
Bloomberg. (2024). Global ESG assets predicted to hit $40 trillion by 2030, despite challenging environment. https://www.bloomberg.com/company/press/global-esg-assets-predicted-to-hit-40-trillion-by-2030-despite-challenging-environment-forecasts-bloomberg-intelligence
Bocken, N., Short, W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A., & Platts, K. (2000). Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(7), 754–771. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570010330739
Cabinet Office. (2020). Procurement Policy Note 06/20: Taking account of social value in the award of central government contracts. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-policy-note-0620-taking-account-of-social-value-in-the-award-of-central-government-contracts
Cataldo, I., Banaitienė, N., & Banaitis, A. (2021). Developing of sustainable supply chain management indicators in construction. E3S Web of Conferences, 263, 05049. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126305049
Cataldo, I., Banaitis, A., Samadhiya, A., Banaitienė, N., Kumar, A., & Luthra, S. (2022). Sustainable supply chain management in construction: an exploratory review for future research. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 28(7), 536-553. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2022.17202
Chen, T.-F., & Lu, T.-T. (2024). Case study of the Grade a construction company on operational difficulties in Taiwan. International Journal of Application on Economics and Business, 2(1), 3141–3149. https://doi.org/10.24912/ijaeb.v2i1.3141-3149
Costa, L. C. B., Nogueira, M. A., Ferreira, L. C., Elói, F. P. d. F., Carvalho, J. M. F. d., & Peixoto, R. A. F. (2022). Eco-efficient steel slag concretes: an alternative to achieve circular economy. Revista IBRACON De Estruturas E Materiais, 15(2), e15201. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952022000200001
Dartois, S., Mom, S., Dumontet, H., & Hamida, A. B. (2017). An iterative micromechanical modeling to estimate the thermal and mechanical properties of polydisperse composites with platy particles: application to anisotropic hemp and lime concretes. Construction and Building Materials, 152, 661-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.181
Delehan, S., Vilčeková, S., Melehanych, H., Burdová, E. K., & Khorolskyi, A. (2024). A comparative assessment of the capabilities and success of the wood construction industry in Slovakia and Ukraine based on life cycle assessment certification standards. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, 1319823. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1319823
Dsilva, J., Zarmukhambetova, S., & Locke, J. (2023). Assessment of building materials in the construction sector: a case study using life cycle assessment approach to achieve the circular economy. Heliyon, 9(10), e20404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20404
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Directive (EU) 2024/1275 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on the energy performance of buildings (recast). Official Journal of the European Union, L series. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1275/oj/eng
Fobbe, L., Niss, C., & Hilletofth, P. (2024). Continuous and changing stakeholder engagement for organisational sustainability: proposing the stakeholder engagement flow model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(6), 6061-6074. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2908
Freeman, R. E., & Phillips, R. A. (2002). Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense. Business Ethics Quarterly: The Journal of the Society for Business Ethics, 12(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.2307/3858020
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success, Yale University Press, New Haven. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300138498
Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. (2000). Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: The construction of complex products and systems. Research Policy, 29(7–8), 955–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00114-1
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy – A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(2), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.10025194
Hoseini, S. A., Fallahpour, A., Wong, K. Y., Mahdiyar, A., Saberi, M., & Durdyev, S. (2021). Sustainable supplier selection in construction industry through hybrid fuzzy-based approaches. Sustainability, 13(3), 1413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031413
Ibrahim, F. (2023). Innovative strategy for sustainable business model development with value and social impact approach for economic sustainability. Journal of Contemporary Administration and Management (ADMAN), 1(3), 285-292. https://doi.org/10.61100/adman.v1i3.96
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406
Jiang, Y., Phelipot-Mardelé, A., Collet, F., Lanos, C., Lemke, M., Ansell, M. P., & Lawrence, R. (2020). Moisture buffer, fire resistance and insulation potential of novel bio-clay plaster. Construction and Building Materials, 244, 118353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118353
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.
Keena, N., Rondinel-Oviedo, D. R., Pomasonco-Alvis, M., & Bouffard, A. (2024). Beyond green: integrating economic and social aspects to environmental life cycle assessments in Canadian housing. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1363(1), 012017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1363/1/012017
Khalim, S. M. A., & Lee, C. K. (2020). Implementation of environmental management system (EMS) in construction industry: investigation of success factors. Journal of Governance and Integrity, 4(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.15282/jgi.4.1.2020.5611
Liang, H., Lin, K., & Zhang, S. (2018). Understanding the social contagion effect of safety violations within a construction crew: a hybrid approach using system dynamics and agent-based modeling. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2696. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122696
Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Latvia. (2020). Corporate governance code: Good corporate governance recommendations for companies in Latvia. Latvian Corporate Governance Advisory Board. https://www.tm.gov.lv/en/corporate-governance-code
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(12), 1228–1263. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570510633639
Nouri, F. A., Nikabadi, M. S., & Olfat, L. (2019). Sustainable service supply chain practices (SSSCPS): A framework development. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 69(4), 813-833. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-09-2018-0314
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Wiley.
Ott-Holland, C., Shepherd, W., & Ryan, A. M. (2019). Examining wellness programs over time: predicting participation and workplace outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(1), 163-179. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000096
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2010.495581
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford Business Books.
Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.055
Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. van der. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. The Journal of Economic Perspectives: A Journal of the American Economic Association, 9(4), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97
Project Management Institute. (2021). A Guide to The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide) and The Standard for Project Management (7th ed.). Newtown Square, PA, USA.
Puriwat, W., & Tripopsakul, S. (2022). Unveiling the power of ESG: How it shapes brand image and fuels purchase intentions - an empirical exploration. HighTech and Innovation Journal, 3(4), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.28991/hij-2022-03-04-07
Rezaee, Z. (2016). Business Sustainability Research: A Theoretical and Integrated Perspective. Journal of Accounting Literature, 36(1), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2016.05.003
Roukoz, K., & Ersenkal, D. (2023). Environmental, Social and Governance-related Challenges in the Construction Industry (CIC 2023). Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil Infrastructure and Construction (CIC), 2023(1), 1238–1252. https://doi.org/10.29117/cic.2023.0153
Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., & Setunge, S. (2019). Estimation of environmental emissions and impacts of building construction – A decision making tool for contractors. Journal of Building Engineering, 21, 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.10.023
Sarajoti, P., Chatjuthamard, P., Papangkorn, S., & Phiromswad, P. (2022). Perspective chapter: The environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment and its implications. In M. Sarfraz (Ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century (Business, Management and Economics series). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108381
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Sonnemann, G., Gemechu, E. D., Adibi, N., De Bruille, V., & Bulle, C. (2015a). From a critical review to a conceptual framework for integrating the criticality of resources into life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.082
Sonnemann, G., Gemechu, E., Remmen, A., Frydendal, J., & Jensen, A. A. (2015b). Life cycle management: implementing sustainability in business practice. LCA Compendium – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment, 7-21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7221-1_2
Srivastava, N., & Srivastava, G. (2023). Role of occupational health and safety issues on employee commitment and employee retention. Journal of Informatics Education and Research. 3(2), 632-637. https://doi.org/10.52783/jier.v3i2.154
Sulaiman, N. N., Omar, A. J., Pakir, F., & Mohamad, M. (2024). Evaluating environmental, social and governance (ESG) practice among Malaysian public listed construction companies using FTSE Russell rating model. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 15(1), 25-40. https://doi.org/10.30880/ijscet.2024.15.01.003
Sullivan, M. S., Chorzepa, M. G., & Durham, S. A. (2020). Characterizing the Performance of Ternary Concrete Mixtures Involving Slag and Metakaolin. Infrastructures, 5(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures5020014
Tambovceva, T., Urbāne, V., & Levins, J. (2020). Innovations in construction waste management: case of Latvia. Marketing and Management of Innovations, (3), 234-248. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2020.3-17
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
Tor, M. A., & Mamman, J. E. (2025). A Review of Challenges Influencing Stakeholders Engagement in Construction Project Delivery. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1492(1), 012031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1492/1/012031
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Treptow, I. C., Kneipp, J. M., Gomes, C. M., Kruglianskas, I., Favarin, R. R., & Fernandez-Jardón, C. M. (2022). Business Model Innovation for Sustainable Value Creation in Construction Companies. Sustainability, 14(16), 10101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610101
Vanderschelden, B., Bossche, N. V. D., & Steeman, M. (2021). Hygrothermal Performance of Bio-Based Insulation Material in Wood-Frame Walls Exposed to Unintended Moisture Sources. 1st International Conference on Moisture in Buildings 2021 (ICMB21), Online. https://doi.org/10.14293/ICMB210063
Wang, M., & Gong, H. (2018). Not-in-My-Backyard: Legislation Requirements and Economic Analysis for Developing Underground Wastewater Treatment Plant in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2339. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112339
Witkowska-Dąbrowska, M., Świdyńska, N., & Napiórkowska-Baryła, A. (2021). Attitudes of communities in rural areas towards the development of wind energy. Energies, 14(23), 8052. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238052
Zhang, B., Yang, M., Xiong, Y., & Liu, Y. (2024). Can digital transformation promote service innovation performance of construction enterprises? The mediating role of dual innovation. Sustainability, 16(3), 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031176
Zhang, C., Lv, L., & Wang, Z. (2023). Evolutionary game analysis for key participants’ behavior in digital transformation of the Chinese construction industry. Buildings, 13(4), 922. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13040922
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Economics Ecology Socium
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
If the article is accepted for publication in the journal «Economics. Ecology. Socium» the author must sign an agreementon transfer of copyright. The agreement is sent to the postal (original) or e-mail address (scanned copy) of the journal editions.
