The findings highlighted that client power was found to be one of the most significant enablers and barriers to building sustainability as the client takes precedence in the supply chain holding the greatest influence and power (Ahmed and Kangari, 1995; Ryd, 2004). The power of the client was so great that if a particular product was requested supply chain actors would be required to provide it, regardless of sustainability implications as highlighted below:
‘They were adamant on having slate from China. You look at the embodied carbon on that. Crazy. You know we just get the green guide out and say do you really think you want to get that from there, this is the green guide … no, no, you want that black, looks awful, but that's what they wanted, and they're paying the bill.’ (Participant C1)
The power from the client impacts on the supply chain structure by providing the impetus to follow traditional hierarchical supply chain patterns which are held in place by institutional pressures. The importance of the client has become a normative pressure as it is legitimate practice to meet client requests without question (Ryd, 2004). The client has traditionally been the vital actor in the chain and has continued to fulfil this role. Power imbalances particularly enforced by normative pressures have prevented influential relationships from forming between the client and the rest of the supply chain as each remains set on their own responsibilities (Cheng et al., 2001; Kornelius and Wamelink, 1998). Emphasis on cost, quality, time and traditional construction procurement systems has inhibited the development of innovation in the industry as premiums are placed on normative structures and terms. The singularity of supply chain roles has encouraged a self-protecting supply chain sceptical of influence. The prospect of knowledge sharing appears to open up potential for risk as
186 companies conceal ideas which may increase profits. Movement away from social norms through fears of contract loss and failure in a highly competitive industry is simply avoided (Kumaraswamy and Dulaimi, 2001).
It is argued that higher levels of innovation often occur when innovative procurement methods are used which is usually the product of a much more integrated team, furthering the importance of communicative processes in the diffusion of innovation (Walker at al., 2003; Rogers, 1971). It is often acknowledged however that businesses will always try to resist change due to social and cultural barriers which are often developed over time due to normative pressures (Peansupap and Walker, 2005; Abbott, 1988). The positive changes to potential procurement practices through integrated approaches further supports the argument for a network based supply chain to aid the diffusion process. The suggestion is that integrating procurement methods could enable low carbon decision making strategies to diffuse throughout the supply chain (Kumaraswamy and Dulaimi, 2001). Current procurement practices discourage innovative practices (Blayse and Manley, 2004). Supply chain actors are thought to adhere to structured roles in order to protect themselves from failure and contract loss, something which innovative processes may not support (Kumaraswamy and Dulaimi, 2001).
The structure of construction projects has meant that knowledge is often not transferred to further projects, particularly if the client does not require it (Blayse and Manley 2004). Construction clients’ requests differ for each project, restraining the potential for knowledge transfer (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). Some clients can be highly innovative, whilst others may not be particularly open to innovation, ensuring the use of tried and tested building techniques and avoiding risks (Blayse and Manley, 2004). The key to diffusing low carbon innovation is reaching those who are not naturally innovative. Client outlooks on issues such as sustainability can be culturally driven.
Variances in culture types affect the client’s environmental attitudes which may be influenced internally or externally (Jones et al., 2007). Cultural differences will impact on the trade-offs which occur between supply chain actors which are highly dependent on ethical foundation (Jones et al., 2007). The power of cultural forces within an industry means that currently environmental issues are low on the agenda. Cultural influences between the client and the supply chain are opportunistic. These influences could have the greatest impact on the diffusion of low carbon decision making strategies. As new relationship formations occur
187 there are greater prospects for increasing collaborative processes and shared learning opportunities (Rogers, 1971; Peansupap and Walker, 2005).
The emphasis on the client is supported by von Hippel (1976) who emphasised the position of the ‘user’ or ‘client’ in innovative processes. His paper noted that in around eighty percent of cases the user is the key innovator. Von Hippel’s argument correlates with Rogers (1971) innovation curve showing innovators as the smallest group in the diffusion process (see Figure 2.10). The linkages between Roger’s ‘S’ curve and the supply chain are clear as in the construction supply chain the smallest group (clients) have the greatest power to innovate (Kilinc, Bazak and Yitmen, 2015).
Currently, Institutional pressures force clients to behave in certain ways, i.e. financial restraints and contractual obligations act as a coercive pressures maintaining traditional structures and hierarchies. Additionally, the normative pressures which expect clients to remain at the helm of the project are positive for construction clients, therefore there is little motivation to relinquish power. Having the client at the top of the chain driving innovation is the social norm (Briscoe and Dainty, 2005). The importance of client influence, innovation and the power the client held was considered to be one of the most important aspects in the development of low carbon decision making.
Client power itself could be seen as a coercive pressure by the rest of the chain who are often bound by client demands; however, the normative pressure of social expectations and norms within the industry have provided the cornerstone by which client power has been held in place. The expectation of client leadership meant that other supply chain actors did not try to influence sustainability outcomes. Interestingly the client is often forced into certain actions by external coercive barriers such as cost, which inhibit the development of low carbon innovation (Prue and Devine, 2012).
The findings showed that there appears to be a circularity of circumstances which inhibit sustainability originating from client power. The client is bound by contractual coercive pressures. Clients also accept normative pressures as they are favourable to them as they are held in high esteem. It is not therefore wholly feasible or desirable for the client to advocate change. If the client does not lead the implementation of low carbon innovation then diffusion is highly unlikely to occur. The hierarchical nature of construction supply chains means that innovations must be led by the client (Ryd, 2004; Cao, Li and Wang, 2014; Stock
188 et al., 2000; Rosinski et al., 2014; Dirix et al., 2013) which is supported in the following evidence:
‘Hmm … that's a difficult one that is. I think … well, the client's got to ultimately lead it, and has got to want it, and I think if they lead it and want it, it'll get in to everybody's head that it's going to happen. Whether it's the architects that sort of … takes the lead or the services consultant, I'm not sure.’ (Architect, supply chain position 3)
Although the client may be led by coercive pressures, normative pressures allow the client to remain the key actor in the construction supply chain. There is a perception that all innovative change requires client leadership in order for it to diffuse (Ryd, 2004; Cao, Li and Wang, 2014). If client demand for sustainability is limited, other supply chain actors will see limited advantage to implementing low carbon construction strategy. Additionally, other supply chain actors working in close proximity with the client such as architects felt that they were not in a position influence sustainability outcomes if it was not prompted by the client. An example of this can be seen below:
‘It can't really have an effect because people aren't engaged early enough and is there no appetite for it. Well, again, I see it, from experience, and this is just my working experiences, there is no appetite to measure the building energy through its whole lifecycle unless it's prompted.’ (Architect, supply chain position 3)
Institutional pressures exerted upon each section of the supply chain have worked against those who wish to implement sustainability into construction practices. Fear of transcending social norms and losing legitimacy has discouraged the implementation and diffusion of low carbon practices. If the implementation of new practices requires client backing and approval and this is not available then low carbon practice will not diffuse. The data shown above suggests that there was simply no call for emissions measurement unless prompted and directly influenced by the client. Often the client will choose to forgo any further costs or additional practices to ensure emphasis is kept on remaining in budget, creating high quality buildings and finishing on time (Abanda et al., 2013).
5.7.2 Influencing the client
The client’s position has led other actors in the supply chain to address whether they should
be exerting greater influence over the client in low carbon construction. There was a suggestion that there was an overreliance on following social norms. The quotation below highlights how normative influences exerted on the supply chain inhibit client influence regarding low carbon decision making:
189
‘Unless in a way, as part of an architect's obligations, once you're' in a relationship with a client, you do have an obligation to inform them of a lot of things, whereas I don't think you have to do anything to do inform them about how environmental they would have to be, you know, because you do have to be safe, you do have to be … there's other factors that are included.’ (Architect, supply chain position 3)
The design team acknowledge that there is a clear obligation to inform the client on many aspects of the project but there is no obligation to advise them on environmental issues. Normative pressures which informally encourage information exchange between the design team and the client does not enforce the inclusion of sustainability outcomes. Therefore firms will not view increasing environmental programmes as a legitimate practice (Zhu and Sarkis, 2007). One solution which seems to have aided the development of influence between supply chain actors and the client is the building of relationships as illustrated by the evidence below:
‘You know develop a relationship with the client, so that they continue to make sure that the building functions as it should do, I think that can certainly help sustainability, and I think that's what a lot of good practices do who are committed. They develop bonds and relationships with the client and manage multiple buildings and, in that way, they continue to come back and check and refine and resolve issues, you know, every building is a new thing and there are always going to be minor little things that go wrong, sometimes they're major, umm, because you're testing something in an unknown environment.’ (Architect, supply chain position 3)
Although relationships are occurring it is not yet considered a social norm and so therefore is not a normative institutional pressure. In order for relationships to become established, the act of increasing influential relationships would need to become the norm, exerted through institutional pressures.