The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Creating a 'sustainability sublime' to enable megaprojects to meet the united Nations sustainable development goals
Abstract
Despite cost and schedule overruns and benefits shortfalls, megaprojects (which are large‐scale projects that typically cost over a billion dollars and take years to develop and build) continue to be promoted and built creating a megaproject paradox. Prominent megaproject scholar Bent Flyvbjerg (2014) argued that this could be motivated by four ‘sublimes’—technological, political, economic and aesthetic that drive new megaprojects being put forward despite their poor performance. Recent evidence shows that better governance practices are helping to improve the overall performance of megaprojects. Despite the United Nations setting 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030, there are severe shortfalls in initiatives from governments, public organizations and private businesses endangering the achievement of targets set for these goals. In addition, time is running out to achieve these goals with only a decade left. The current initiatives contributing to these goals appear to be focused on individual SDGs even though many of these are interrelated. This article proposes that if politicians, engineers and scientists, businesses leaders and design thinkers could be motivated by a ‘sustainability sublime’ to create megaprojects that contribute to SDGs, it could benefit both the society and the planet. It also argues that a more integrated view of UN SDGs and a suitable governance structure should be applied to ensure that megaprojects created as a result of the sustainability sublime deliver benefits towards achieving UN SDGs.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This confirms previous research on sustainability in project results, where a broader perspective than traditional cost, time, and quality is called for.
“This confirms previous research on sustain ability in project results, where a broader perspective than the tradi tional cost, time, and quality is called for”
From Rethinking the project life cycle – how circularity challenges processes, roles and governance (2025) · cites this paper as Sankaran et al., 2020
Citations
Cites
Geels, F. W. (2002) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8 · Cited by 7,275
Atkinson, R. (1999) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(98)00069-6 · Cited by 2,359
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 62
- Aras G., 2010, A handbook of corporate governance and social responsibility, 265
- 10.1016/j.ccs.2017.09.006 · DOI
- Beer S., 1972, Brain of the firm: The managerial cybernetics of organization
- Beer S., 1979, The heart of enterprise
- Beer S., 2003, Diagnosing the system for organizations
- 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.006 · DOI
- Bradley G., 2016, Benefits realization management, 10.4324/9781315569055 · DOI
- Busco C., 2017, Sustainable development goals: Integrating sustainability initiatives with long term value creation, Strategic Finance, 2020
- Cleland D. I., 1975, Systems analysis and project management
- 10.1111/isj.12138 · DOI
- Costanza R., 2014, An overarching goal for the UN sustainable development goals, Solutions, 5, 13
- 10.1177/8756972819896113 · DOI
- Devi T. R., 2012, Work breakdown structure of the project, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2, 683
- Eckerson W. W., 2010, Performance dashboards: Measuring, monitoring, and managing your business
- Er M., 2013, Novel approaches to organizational project management research: Translational and transformational
- 10.1002/pmj.21409 · DOI
- 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198732242.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781107050891 · DOI
- Frick K. T., 2008, Decision‐making on mega‐projects
- 10.1111/1468-2451.5501002 · DOI
- 10.1038/495305a · DOI
- 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000254 · DOI
- Jaradat R. M., 2015, Complex system governance requires systems thinking ‐ how to find systems thinkers, International Journal of System of Systems Engineering, 6, 53, 10.1504/IJSSE.2015.068813 · DOI
- Joslin R., 2017, Governance and governmentality of projects, 159
- Juárez A.B. Padilla R.J.&Piña I.B.(2012).Using viable systems model as a diagnostic tool of the sustainable tourism (pp.397–409) Proceedings 56thAnnual Meeting to the International Society of the Systems Sciences 15–20 July San Jose California.
- Jugdev K., 2012, Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin and Prescott—The elucidation of project success, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5, 757
- Keating C. B. (Ed.). (2014).Governance implications for meeting challenges in the system of systems engineering field. 20149th International Conference on System of Systems Engineering (SOSE): IEEE. pp.154–159. · DOI
- 10.1332/030557312X655431 · DOI
- Lieberman A., 2018, SDGs show slow progress, not on track to reach 2030 targets, UN reports, Devex News, 2020
- 10.1177/875697281704800506 · DOI
- Morris P., 1988, The anatomy of major projects: A study of the reality of project management
- Menga F., 2018, Bigger is better or how governments learned to stop worrying and love megaprojects, Studies of Transition States and Societies, 1, 3
- Merrow E. W., 2011, Industrial megaprojects
- Meuleman L., 2008, Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets: The feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations
- 10.1007/978-981-13-0475-0 · DOI
- Müller R., 2020, Springer Handbook of Systems Science
- 10.4337/9781788110976 · DOI
- Müller R., 2019, Modeling organizational project management, Project Management Journal, 50, 1, 10.1177/8756972819847876 · DOI
- Nevell M., 2011, Bridgewater 250: The archaeology of the world's first industrial canal
- Nhamo G., 2020, Scaling up SDGs implementation, 3, 10.1007/978-3-030-33216-7_1 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.005 · DOI
- Ninan J., 2019, Systems thinking using SSM and TRIZ for stakeholder engagement in infrastructure megaprojects, Systems, 7, 1, 10.3390/systems7040048 · DOI
- Nunes A. R., 2016, The importance of an integrating framework for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: The example of health and well‐being, BMJ Global Health, 1, 3, 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000068 · DOI
- Nye D. E., 1994, American technological sublime
- OECD, 2015, Effective delivery of large infrastructure projects: The case of the new international airport of Mexico City, 10.1787/9789264248335-en · DOI
- Oisen R. P., 1971, Can project management be defined?, Project Management Quarterly, 2, 12
- Pelham N.(2019).An investigation into the impact of governance on megaprojects PhD Thesis University of Melbourne Australia.
- Pich M. T., 2002, On uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity in project management, Management Science, 48, 955
- PMI, 1989, A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide)
- PMI, 2016, PMBOK guide
- 10.1108/IJMPB-07-2017-0080 · DOI
- PWC, 2014, Successful capital project delivery: The art and science of effective governance
- Roorda C., 2012, Guidance manual
- Sabel C. F., 2012, Experimentalist governance, The Oxford Handbook of Governance, 1, 2
- Sheffield J., 2015, Systems thinking: Taming complexity in project management, On the Horizon, 20, 126, 10.1108/10748121211235787 · DOI
- 10.1177/875697281704800602 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11625-016-0383-3 · DOI
- UN SDG Report, 2020, The sustainable development goals report
- 10.1515/9780804776554 · DOI
- Williams T., 2005, Learning from project failure, International Journal of Project Management, 13, 151
- 10.1002/pmj.20099 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rethinking the project life cycle – how circularity challenges processes, roles and governance
Lingegård, S., & Hedborg, S. (2025) · Project Leadership and Society · doi:10.1016/j.plas.2025.100194 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Sankaran, S., Müller, R., & Drouin, N.
- Affiliations
- School of the Built Environment University of Technology Sydney Ultimo NSW Australia
- Venue
- Systems Research and Behavioral Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 813-826
- ISSN
- 1092-7026
- 1099-1743
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review