SECTOR DEL TURMELL-PORTS DE BESEIT

Of crucial importance for adopting and implementing socio-economic sustainability on sustainable regeneration projects is the attitude and commitment required from practitioners. The quest to fully embrace the sustainability principles requires from practitioners to fully commit themselves to sustainability principles. Generally, the performance of sustainable regeneration projects is demonstrated through the interest and commitment which is attached to the sustainability deliverables by practitioners who are involved in the delivery of the project.

Without such commitment, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to genuinely and effectively adopt and implement the core principles of sustainability in any particular regeneration project, to realise its potential benefits. It is widely argued that commitment from the top management of an organisation can be a major driving force towards the adoption of sustainability into an organisation’s practices. For sustainable regeneration, such commitment requires that practitioners commit their efforts and resources in a manner that transcend the commitment usually given to the delivery of traditional construction projects. With the right attitude and commitment, practitioners will be able to prioritise the key social and economic sustainability deliverables beyond any other consideration or constraints associated with the project. It is believed that regeneration projects, for instance, would achieve greater sustainable impacts when genuine commitment is obtained from the top management of construction organisations, and when they are truly committed to championing its core principles on the projects.

In most cases, the commitment to adopt and implement sustainability principles on sustainable regeneration projects has largely being influenced by the cost perception which is usually associated with sustainability (Pitt et al., 2009). This perception to a very large extent, has undermined practitioners’ drive to fully adopt and implement sustainability factors on their regeneration projects. Apparently, this cost perception can also be seen to have been exacerbated by the present economic conditions whereby most construction organisations, and particularly the small to medium ones, are finding it difficult to cope financially. In that regard, their commitment to promoting sustainability practices is likely to be geared towards

152

their economic survival, and hence, relegating any issues relating to sustainability to the background. It is suggested that sustainable regeneration projects can only realised their full socio-economic sustainability impacts when practitioners who are considered as key stakeholders in their delivery, demonstrate adequate commitment to fully embrace the sustainability principles (CLG, 2008).

From the semi-structured interview in Table 5.1, it was discovered that out of the twenty-one (21) who were interviewed for the present study, surprisingly, only 7 (33%) practitioners have cited commitment as a driver for their organisations to adopt and implement socio-economic sustainability on their regeneration projects. Although this result seems not to be encouraging, it is refreshing to note that at least one-third of the practitioners who were interviewed, are being driven by commitment to adopt and implement socio-economic sustainability on their projects. A comment made by one practitioner during the interview discussion, when asked about the main drivers that were influencing their organisation to adopt and implement social and economic sustainability on their projects was:

…We see it as part of our commitment to provide services on our projects that will benefit the community socially and economically. We pretty much take on apprentices on our regeneration projects and provide young people with jobs and skills for the future. These are some of the things we always try to do. …As organisation, we are very much committed to all our sustainability responsibilities to the communities, because we think that’s the right thing to do.

The present study also obtained data through a questionnaire survey to complement the findings obtained from the semi-structured interviews with the 21 practitioners. To this end, views were sought from the 193 practitioners who took part in the questionnaire survey phase of the study. The results obtained (Table 5.2) show that of the 193 practitioners, 20.7% have indicated that ‘commitment to sustainability objectives’ was a very important driver, compared to only 1.6% of them who did not consider it as an important driver at all towards the adoption and implementation of socio-economic sustainability factors in their projects. Similarly, the findings in Table 5.2 also suggest that a little of over 50% of practitioners either consider the ‘commitment to sustainability objectives’ as a very important or important driver, compared to about 48% who either consider it as a fairly important or slightly important driver towards the adoption and implementation of socio-economic sustainability

153

on their projects. The ‘very important or important’ result (50.20%) from the questionnaire survey did not lend support to the ‘very important or important’ result (33%) obtained from the interviews. Again, the difference could also be as a result of the population from which both data was taken.

The findings as per Table 5.1 and 5.2 are in line with findings from the literature review, in which it was suggested that the issues relating to commitment was one of the drivers which was influencing some of the practitioners to promote sustainability practices on their projects (Turcsanyi and Sisaye, 2013; Smith and Sharicz. 2011; Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011). The over 50%, very important or important result obtained from the analysis of the questionnaire survey can be observed to be higher and more encouraging than the result obtained from the semi-structured interview (33%). However, this notwithstanding, it can be highlighted that both results (Tables 5.1 and 5.2) show a positive sign towards a greater commitment for sustainability practices for future regeneration projects.

It can be assumed that the lack of adequate commitment demonstrated in both results could be due to the conventional way successes of an organisations’ performance are assessed. Generally, organisations are seen to be successful when they have made enough profits from their business practices. Hence, many such practitioners who want to be seen as ‘successful’, will be more inclined to adopt and implement practices that will enable them make profits for their organisations. Similarly, it can also be inferred that the perceived cost of sustainability has also influenced and determined the commitment levels of practitioners in their quest to adopt and implement socio-economic sustainability factors on the regeneration projects. This position supports the work of Presley and Meade (2010), in which it was observed that the commitment and attitude of practitioners towards sustainability principle was a direct product of the entrenched financial bottom-line practices of their organisations. However, it is believed that if such profit-oriented and the perceived cost of sustainability issues are not addressed in a decisive and timely manner, they are likely to have serious implications on practitioners’ commitments towards the successful delivery of future regeneration projects. Authors like Smith and Sharicz (2011) have admonished organisations, not to only take into account the profit-oriented practices of their operations, but adopt and implement practices that help to deliver the core principles of sustainability for the projects. It is widely said that the potential for any sustainable regeneration project to deliver a broad range of socio-

154

economic benefits will be elusive if practitioners limit their commitments to cost and profit related issues of the projects (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011).