Construct validation for technical sustainability as the fourth pillar for achieving sustainable construction: a case for Zimbabwe

Shi et al. (2019) reported that the theory of sustainability has continually evolved from the embryonic period (<1972) to the moulding period (1972–1987) and to the current developing period (>1987). Consequently, Brundtland (1987) defined sustainable development as development: “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Furthermore, sustainability was defined in the circumstance of meeting current generational needs without compromising the capacity of future generations to meet theirs (Rout et al., 2020). While this definition remains fundamental to underpin any advances in sustainability, its various aspects have evolved with time. Within the current developing period, sustainable development integrates environmental, economic and social concerns, primarily the triple bottom line (Elkington, 2012; Correia, 2019). Systems thinking took precedence in exposing the interconnectedness of the environmental, economic and social parts of a complex system, underpinning the Sustainable Development Goals (Rout et al., 2020; Cheshta and Singh, 2023). However, sustainability and sustainable development are criticised as complex concepts with difficult, applicable practical purposes (Rout et al., 2020). This is evidenced by prevalent challenges that doggedly persist, as the construction industry struggles to initiate and operationalise sustainable construction interventions (Tunji-Olayeni et al., 2023). The built environment utilises 36% energy use, accounts for approximately 40% of global carbon emissions (Chen et al., 2023), accounts for 20–50% of total life cycle carbon (Röck et al., 2020). Zhong et al. (2021) relayed that building material emissions’ contribution to material efficiency is 49%. Furthermore, the built environment is a major consumer of resources, generates substantial waste and remains energy inefficient (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, 2023). Omnipresent challenges include: excessive resource consumption; harm to nature; increased contribution of toxins; poor life cycle costing; and a decrease in the quality of life, due to construction activities (Shurrab et al., 2019; Kibert, 2022). As circularity, water efficiency, energy efficiency, durability and life cycle costing have become pertinent in construction-related decision making, technical sustainability is now core (Chen et al., 2023; Li et al., 2025). Bojacá et al. (2012) refer to technical sustainability as the ability to maintain technology under optimal use during its economic life. Technological interventions underpinned by technical sustainability are paramount to achieving sustainability in construction and these include technical capacitation initiatives and construction policy instruments that underpin performance (Willar et al., 2021; Bhattacharya et al., 2020). The importance of technical sustainability is underpinned by the key interlinked technical levers of whole life carbon assessment (Wang et al., 2024), cleaner energy supply (Camarasa et al., 2022), circular design and deconstruction (Hossain et al., 2020), water efficient design (Amaral et al., 2020), adequate human resources technical capacity (Chigara et al., 2026), among others. Durdyev et al. (2018) stated that the sustainability concept is inadequately implemented in many developing countries (including Zimbabwe), with a reluctance to adopt sustainable technologies such as green and circular technologies. As such, energy, water and waste management challenges constrain the realisation of sustainable construction in Zimbabwe (Juru, 2022) and the lack of institutional frameworks further exacerbates the conundrum (Shava, 2021). In addition, Chigara et al. (2026) suggested that building a resilient and sustainable built environment must entail closing the existing gaps in policy, skills, regulation and technical capacity within Zimbabwean construction. Related to this, Nidhin et al. (2025) remarked that construction stakeholders possess low levels of knowledge regarding the design and construction of zero-carbon buildings and Akindele et al. (2023) exposed that inadequate policies and support as a critical barrier to sustainable construction practices.

These challenges are resolvable by developing and implementing relevant sustainable construction principles. The Conseil International du Batiment (CIB) defines sustainable construction as “creating and operating a healthy built environment based on resource efficiency and ecological design” (Kibert, 2016). From this definition, it is noteworthy that sustainable construction is open to contextual interpretation. Construction projects face challenges in evolving sustainability models due to their complexity, distinctiveness and fragmentation (Ingle et al., 2021). However, Elkington (2012) coined the “triple bottom line” phraseology that includes economics, environment and equity. In addition, Talan et al. (2020) emphasised the three crucial pillars of sustainability as economic, environmental and social. Despite these widespread assertions, dissimilar considerations have been offered by Hill and Bowen (1997), Galla (2012), John and Narayanamurthy (2015) and Piercy and Rich (2015). Hill and Bowen (1997) introduce four pillars of sustainability as being: social, economic, biophysical and technical. Galla (2012) acknowledged culture as a pillar of sustainability. Goh and Rowlinson (2013) conceptualised a maturity model for sustainable construction that considers economic, environmental, social, cultural and human aspects. John and Narayanamurthy (2015) reflected sustainability as having an additional ethical factor to it. Piercy and Rich (2015) expand on six pillars as being relevant to achieving sustainability, namely: environmental, workforce, supply chain, community, governance and quality aspects. However, they (Piercy and Rich (2015) also highlight that the choice of emphasis on pillars for projects is informed by consensus among stakeholders and the emergent concerns. Considering these variants, embedding context-specific sustainability within the operations of construction sectors is inconsistent but pertinent to resolve distinct challenges (such as excessive waste of resources, carbon emissions and harm to nature) (Ershadi and Goodarzi, 2021).

Challenges confronting Zimbabwe, as alluded to by Shava (2021) and Juru (2022), require further evolution from the triple bottom line towards a restorative and transformative approach to sustainability, situated within the technical pillar or dimension. Braungart and McDonough (2009) are in congruence with this contextual approach and argue that while the triple bottom line depends on a resilient and durable built environment, developing economies may consider broader pillars. Evidently, the global appreciation of sustainable construction is uneven. Darko et al. (2019) revealed weak international integration beyond a few developed countries. Furthermore, a projection of an increased share building material emissions from 22% in 2020–51% in 2060 in low and lower middle-income regions supports this conceptual trajectory as these factors are attributable to varying technical priorities for infrastructure development. Technically sustainable projects must develop water usage strategies for water stressed developing countries (Mannan and Al-Ghamdi, 2020). Sharma et al. (2020) suggested that sustainable indicators for performance measurement should adopt an integrated approach to multi-pillar analysis of all relevant aspects. Cumulatively, this prevailing discourse has led to the formulation of the following research question namely:

Against this contextual background, this present research aims to: develop and validate a stochastic sustainable construction model by delineating a fourth pillar of “technical”, to the three existing pillars of sustainability. Associated objectives are to:

• determine significant sustainable construction indicators aligned with the economic, environmental, social and technical pillars for sustainable construction; and

• validate the constructs of the economic, environmental, social and technical pillars for achieving sustainable construction.

The inclusion of the technical sustainability pillar necessitates developing countries to achieve sustainable construction by focusing their attention on critical technical priorities is supported by various scholars. For example, Fitriani and Ajayi (2023) and Sandaruwan et al. (2025) proposed the development and implementation of standardised benchmarks and appraisal systems as critical for enhancing sustainable construction practices and responding to climate change challenges. In addition, Erdenekhuu et al. (2022) revealed that improving construction project performance is related to the adequate control of sustainability risk factors such as air pollution, water consumption and solid waste generation, which require the determination and operationalisation of indicators situated within a “technical” sustainability pillar.

Sustainability can be underpinned through various theories that include: capital theory approach (Stern, 1997); natural capitalism (Hawken et al., 1999); integrated and dynamic approach (De Wit and Blignaut, 2000); complexity (Walby, 2003); and resilience (Redman, 2014). Portney (2015) highlighted that the conceptual underpinnings of sustainability have converged towards addressing climate change concerns, protecting water supplies and systems and waste management alternatives. These are intrinsically complex systems problems which can be resolved through complexity theory. Complexity refers to indeterminate systems whose outcomes are difficult to predict (Ehrenfeld, 2008). In the construction environment, Wood and Gidado (2008) asserted that the processes must be perceived as a complex, dynamic phenomenon in a complex and non-linear setting. De Vries (2023) reported that the key attributes of complex systems usually comprise elements, relationships, an environment and an internal structure. Furthermore, complexity cannot be defined objectively due to its characteristics of distinction (variableness) and connection (interdependence between and among parts) (De Vries (2023). Based on this foundation, this present study is underpinned by the complexity theory through the analysis of how significant sustainable construction indicators are distinguished and related across and within various economic, environmental, social and technical pillars. In addition, the contextual peculiarities of the Zimbabwean construction industry policies define the environment and the internal structure of this analysis. That is, the lack of legislative frameworks supporting sustainable construction (Shava, 2021) defines sector that is devoid of strategic clarity, but presents an opportunity to reveal key indicators that have a comprehensive sustainable construction impact.

The constructs of sustainable construction and pillars of sustainability in construction (economic, environmental, social and technical) are defined in Table 1. These constructs are reviewed hereafter.

Goodhew (2016) states that difficulties in sustainable construction “lie in the areas of changing technology, climate, politics, consumer behaviour and the way we live our lives.” Aligned to this position, Pearce et al. (2018) envisaged construction best practices that entail advances in technologies, materials and processes that significantly improve resource efficiency, contributing to reduced environmental impacts, improved economy of projects and increased health and well-being of workers. Earlier, Ainger and Fenner (2014) proposed four absolute sustainability principles that could be applied to buildings namely: environmental sustainability (within limits), socio-economic sustainability (development), intergenerational stewardship and consideration of complex systems, as viable responses. Other studies have revealed several key facets of sustainable construction. These include the: cradle-to-cradle model (Braungart and McDonough, 2009); circular economy model (MacArthur, 2013); biophilic design (Kellert et al., 2011); passive house (Feist et al., 2020); living building challenge (McLennan, 2004); and lean Construction (Koskela, 2020). Alternatively, Kibert (2022) defined the achievement of sustainable construction through the following principles namely.: reducing resource consumption, maximising resource reuse, using renewable and recyclable resources, protecting the natural environment, eliminating toxics, applying life cycle costing and pursuing quality. Similarly, Tafazzoli et al. (2020) revealed sustainable drivers as: mitigating the negative impact of the built environment; contributing to the user’s health, comfort and productivity; reducing the operation costs of the facility; increasing property value and rate of occupancy; and setting rules, standards and legislation serving sustainability. Feasible sustainable construction indicators must address the: core aspects of the suggested sustainable construction models and principles; and utility of all resources on a construction project namely, material, plant and labour.

Yılmaz and Bakış (2015) stated that ecological and social sustainability cannot exist without economic sustainability; consequently, the three must be provided through a balanced and consistent synergy. However, the same authors (Yılmaz and Bakış, 2015) revealed that adapting environment and energy policies is paramount to supporting economic sustainability of eco-friendly and innovative buildings. This assertion presents the need for technological advances in the construction sector and these are best interrogated through technical sustainability pillars (Pappas, 2012; Willar et al., 2021). Liu et al. (2020) asserted that sustainable construction ensures quality of life through lessening the adverse impact on the environment, human health and biodiversity. Consequently, the following elements of sustainable development must be distinguished namely.: facility life cycle costing, landscaping, greening adjacent territories, limited use of raw materials, using natural energy sources, protecting ecosystems, provision of social self-determination, cultural diversity, promoting safe working environments and protection and promotion of human health. Promoting sustainable construction requires adequate financial resources. Shan et al. (2017) bemoans the existence of barriers to adequate financing of sustainable construction, which include a lack of knowledge on sustainable construction, high upfront costs and regulatory gaps. Financing challenges are topical to resolve sustainable construction expectations. Gunduz and Almuajebh (2020) revealed that financial, managerial and authorities’ approval mechanisms are critical to promote the success of sustainable construction projects.

Sertyesilisik (2017) supported the utility of regenerative construction project management towards attaining sustainable construction and suggests allocating sustainable construction goals to the roles of project managers. While it seems noble, extending the emphasis to all project actors would be more beneficial to changing the sustainability culture of the sector. Kiani Mavi et al. (2021) explored this view and revealed challenges with implementing sustainable construction in complicated and complex relationships within sustainable construction project management. Yet, Willar et al. (2021) highlighted that integrating sustainable construction at the inception stage reinforces the relevance of indicators such as strong occupational health and safety and environmental management systems.

Alaloul et al. (2021) revealed the construction sector’s contribution to economic stability in Malaysia and suggest a sustainable conceptual framework whose response linkages that comprise economy-environmental and technical-environmental subcategories of administrative policies, technological advancements and environmental allocation. In addition to economic growth and stability, the framework (Alaloul et al., 2021) ensured social prosperity and avoided environmental degradation, as well as contributed to other sectors such as agriculture. Importantly, these relationships were intertwined among various pillars and the construction sector was shown to contribute to different industrial sectors because it is embedded within their upstream and downstream supply chains. In addition, the technical interventions are evident in responding to economic and environmental concerns. Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos (2023) undertook a study with a similar broad focus in Greece but the magnitude of the indicators under study differed.

Although Ribas and Cachim (2019) developed a functional economic sustainability of buildings methodology and revealed that indicators do not wholly contribute to economic concerns (e.g. the costs of: raw materials, transportation, water, waste management processes and storage costs). For example, the nature of raw materials and waste management processes (cf. Shahid et al., 2023) contribute to their costs and the determination of their sustainability. This nature is construed through technical, social and environmental lenses before the costs are established (thus, supporting a multi-lens consideration of indicators). These findings are like the intrinsic aspects of an economic sustainability assessment of the construction sector within three developed countries (the USA, China and the UK) (cf. Alaloul et al., 2022). The authors (Alaloul et al., 2022) revealed the significance of incorporating economic and environmental sustainability aspects in construction policy if economic stability is to be uplifted. Moreover, the generation of employment and standardised social development were also revealed to be critical. Through a single case study, Fregonara et al. (2018) acknowledged the vital role of life cycle cost analysis and risk analysis in achieving economic-environmental sustainability, technological-economic feasibility and socio-economic factors through the consideration of economic-environmental indicators. While a single case study strategy (Fregonara et al., 2018) does not support the generalisation of the findings, it does reveal the interconnectedness of economic and environmental sustainability through technological options within life cycle costing. These technological options contribute to technical performance and broadly to technical sustainability.

Eilers et al. (2016), Chaturvedi et al. (2018) and Shurrab et al. (2019) revealed the pertinent contribution of social dimensional aspects of adequate working conditions to achieving sustainable construction. However, Taherkhani (2023) and Kristoffersen et al. (2024) proffered that the social pillar is the least developed, lacks a universally accepted definition and requires a defined application. This contributes to its definition being limited to contextual factors (such as cultural values, historical injustices, economic and political systems) and having a plethora of applicable indicators (e.g. quality of life, ecological impacts, health and safety, training and education, security and cultural diversity) (Gurmu et al., 2022). In congruence, Montalbán-Domingo et al. (2019) reported that social sustainability criteria of employment-related aspects, adequate training, health and safety and boosting local development were prevalent in public construction contracts. However, Gurmu et al. (2022) exacerbated the social sustainability conundrum by revealing that policies and guidelines on social sustainability within construction industries vary significantly across the globe. For example, Almahmoud and Doloi (2015) developed a social sustainability model for construction projects through social network analysis; however, they appealed for caution when applying the model to various contexts due to the diverse stakeholders’ interests that must be accounted for.

Dang et al. (2020) concluded that construction enterprises in China must focus on technology investment and innovation to achieve sustainable construction using modern methods of construction. Zvavadskas et al. (2021) relayed that technological, economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability must be applied in civil engineering, construction and building technology, while Khural et al. (2022) uncovered their inter-connectedness amid sustainability performance. The sustainable construction indicators (coded I01 to I32) and their sources from previous studies, that contributed to the stochastic model are presented in Figure 1. In addition, the Figures shows how the various authors have treated these indicators; economic, environmental, social or uncategorised. Those that have no code (E – economic, En – environmental and S – social, were uncategorised by the authors.

This study aimed to develop and validate a stochastic sustainable construction model by delineating a fourth pillar of “technical”, to the three existing pillars of sustainability. Rout et al. (2020) report that economic, environmental, social and technical perspectives must be interrogated and potentially contribute to a holistic exposition and response to sustainability concerns.

The evidence from the presented suggests that the triple bottom line cannot be considered as the only lens through which sustainable construction can be achieved. Various authors have interrogated numerous indicators that have contributed towards various sustainability pillars, however, aligning these indicators to specific pillars may have lessened the impact of suggested interventions. The reviewed studies reveal that sustainable construction indicators are interconnected and their strength is magnified in exposing their unique contribution to each pillar. This viewpoint is supported by the complexity theory that underpins this study. Further to this, the technological trajectory of the construction sector has been acknowledged by various authors with some already anticipating and interrogating the feasibility of technical sustainability within their study areas. However, empirical evidence on the admissibility of technical sustainability as a fourth pillar in a developing country has not been presented. In addition, the interconnectedness of the indicators that would support such a stochastic model is yet to be ascertained.

A postpositivist philosophical stance was adopted due to the need to collect and analyse primary quantitative data for inference to a generalised population, to contribute to knowledge. This stance is supported by similar construction related studies by Spellacy et al. (2020) and Bayramova et al. (2021). The same 32 sustainable construction indicators used in studies by Moyo et al. (2024a, 2024b) were adopted in this study. As previously highlighted in the studies by Moyo et al. (2024a, 2024b), primary data were collected through an online questionnaire. To counter any bias, probability sampling was used for defined populations. More specifically, simple random sampling was used to select participants from construction and consultancy firms, Simple random sampling was used to provide every single member of the population with an equal chance to participate, as postulated by Leedy and Ormond (2016). Its advantage over other probability sampling methods (like stratified, clustering and systematic) was the availability of a list of the population, the avoidance the most investigator bias, as opined by Saunders et al., 2019). As such, each sampling unit was assigned a code and random numbers were generated until the valid responses, that achieved the sample size, were reached. In total, frequency (f) = 54 (or 18.620%) architectural firms, f = 43 (or 14.830%) civil and structural engineering firms, f = 22 (or 7.590%) quantity surveying firms and f = 121 (or 41.720%). All categories of construction companies were invited to participate. Participants included at least one professional from the architectural, civil/structural engineering and quantity surveying firms and construction companies associated with the Construction Industry Federation of Zimbabwe; this totalled a population size of 240. Due to the lack of a defined population to select from and a recognition that the variables under study require professionals with specific knowledge within the target institutions, purposive sampling was used to identify participants from government departments and academic institutions. Leedy and Ormond (2016) reports that purposive sampling can be used for quantitative studies if probability sampling is logistically impossible. From the purposive sampling, 20 senior managers (government bodies and parastatals) and 30 built environment academics (academic institutions) (or 17.240%) were targeted to participate in the questionnaire survey. Only those with a minimum of five years’ experience were invited to participate (as a key sample entry criteria), with an expected 50% response rate anticipated from the 290 participants as suggested by Leedy and Ormond, 2016.

The questionnaire data collection instrument consisted of three sections. Section 1 introduced the study and allowed the participants to offer their informed consent (Ahmed et al., 2021; Ellis et al., 2021). Section 2 collected demographic data related to qualifications, the highest educational level attained and the type of organisation and experience. In addition, the importance of sustainable construction indicators to each of the economic, environmental, social and technical sustainability was sought. A five-point Likert scale was adopted, where 1 = not important, 2 = of little importance, 3 = somewhat important, 4 = important and 5 = very important.

The collected data were initially analysed through the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test to determine the internal consistency of the study’s four constructs (social, environment, economic and technical). The reliability of the questionnaire (in providing stable and consistent results) was confirmed by a Cronbach’s alpha reliability test of > 0.700.

Given a plethora of sustainable construction indicators for measuring sustainable construction performance, there is often a notable overlap among indicators, as they are not necessarily unique or significant to specific sustainability pillars or dimensions. In addition, several uncategorised indicators hold the potential to reveal multiple interrelationships across sustainability performance pillars, similar to studies by Khural et al. (2022) and Moyo et al. (2026). To address this challenge, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to uncover the factor structure underlying a wide range of sustainable construction indicators. EFA is beneficial in determining the underlying data structure when it is not well established because it enables researchers to identify how indicators cluster together into factors (items) (Hair et al., 2019). In this study, principal component analysis (PCA) was the preferred extraction method used to reduce dimensionality and reveal the most significant clusters of sustainability indicators, as alluded to by Bors (2018). While PCA is commonly associated with data reduction within EFA, it provides a pragmatic approach to extraction that enables the development of a parsimonious and interpretable measurement model (Hair et al., 2019). Contrariwise, the common factor analysis’s goal is latent construct identification and postulates unobserved casual factors (Hair et al., 2019), which is beyond the scope of this study.

To conduct EFA, two data inspection techniques were used to test if sufficiently large relationships exist within the data set of interest to conduct EFA (Tobias and Carlson, 1969), that is, Bartlett’s Test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1950; Dziuban and Shirkey, 1974) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974). Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity must be significant (p  < 0.05) to conduct EFA. While KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy > 0.600 is considered evidence of an adequate sample size for EFA (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013). Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation was the preferred factor rotation method recommended by Matsunaga (2010). For a clear pattern of the factor structure, small factor loadings were supressed. A cut-off ˂ 0.500 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) was preferred because it promotes interpretability and consistency with the underlying theories Where cross-loading occurred, factors that cross-loaded highly with the ratio of cross-loading above 75% were also removed. Factors with eigenvalues of > 1.000 and cumulative variance of at least 50% of the total variance are significant (Hair et al., 2019; Kum et al., 2024). The revealed components/factors were defined by the constituent variables.

Beyond identifying the factor structure, EFA also provided an early-stage assessment of validity. The valuation of the measurement model comprises the use of factor loadings, the estimation of the composite reliability (CR > 0.600), an evaluation of convergent validity using average variance extracted (AVE ≥ 0.500), Cronbach’s alpha (>0.500) and content validity (discriminant- > 0.300 < 0.900 on separate factors with minimal cross loadings) (Hair et al., 2019). In addition, content and face validity were determined by identifying how the extracted factors aligned with established complexity and sustainability theory, and by assessing whether the resultant clusters were conceptually meaningful. This approach enabled the study not only to identify significant indicator clusters for sustainable construction performance but also to establish a robust and theoretically grounded sustainable construction achievement model that integrates technical sustainability as a fourth pillar.

This is to confirm that the study titled “Construct validation for technical sustainability as the fourth pillar for achieving sustainable construction: a case for Zimbabwe” has adhered to all applicable ethical standards and guidelines throughout the research process. Data collection was only commenced after ethical approval of a low-risk study was granted by an Ethics review committee in 2023. The study aligns with the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional ethical guidelines pertaining to ensuring participant anonymity, voluntary participation, informed consent, data usage and transparency in data handling. All potential participants were appraised of the particulars of the research study, their rights and measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity before written consent was obtained from all willing participants for the online questionnaire survey.

Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of the sample. The survey achieved a response rate of 52.1%, which is at least 40% of the population, which adds to the validity of the results (cf. Baruch, 1999). No response bias is likely to have affected the study as the sample generally aligned closely with expected distributions of the respondent groups (for example, construction company professionals and quantity surveying professionals had the highest and lowest percentage of respondents, aligning with the proportion of the populations). The adequacy of the sample size was confirmed by a usable sample of 151, which is considered adequate for EFA, as it is > 100 (Hair et al., 2019). A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was conducted to compare the estimated population proportion with the observed sample proportion, as shown in Table 2. A p -value of 0.220, which is > 0.050, was computed indicating that the sample proportions do not differ significantly from the population proportions (Babbie, 2021). Construction companies contributed the most respondents with 50.990% and this is pertinent as they physically undertake the projects and know first-hand what is relevant for prioritisation. Respondents with honours/postgraduate qualifications (37.100%) were the most represented and Quantity Surveyors recorded the most participation (60.000%). Although all the experience categories are defined, those with 0–5 years dominated with 41.700%.

The EFA results for the four constructs of the study, namely, economic, environmental, social and technical sustainability pillars, is reported below.

KMO was 0.896 for the economic sustainability pillar, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was also significant at 0.000, and therefore, the sample meets the size and variance requirements for conducting EFA. Furthermore, four factors, namely 1 = cost-effective green technologies; 2 = cost-efficient decent work objectives; 3 = adequate resources management; 4 = cost-efficient construction methods and procurement, were extracted, explaining 56.875% of the total variance. A total of 26 indicators were retained out of a total of 32. Table 3 presents the retained factors structure for the retained components.

KMO was 0.876 for the environmental sustainability pillar, and the Bartlett’s Test of sphericity was also significant at 0.000, and therefore, the sample meets the size and variance requirements for conducting EFA. Furthermore, four factors, namely: 1 = interventions for environmental concerns; 2 = effective workforce management for promoting environmental preservation; 3 = adequate compliance and capacitation for environmental impact; 4 adequate environmental management on construction projects, were extracted, explaining 60.657% of the total variance. A total of 28 indicators were retained out of a total of 32. Table 4 presents the retained factors structure for the retained components.

KMO was 0.842 for the social sustainability pillar, and the Bartlett’s Test of sphericity was also significant at 0.000, and therefore, the sample meets the size and variance requirements for conducting EFA. Furthermore, four factors, namely: 1 = effective construction methodologies for enhancing social value; 2 = adequate social well-being for workers; 3 = efficient technologies for improving the quality of life; 4 = adequate worker motivation and community social responsibility, were extracted, explaining 61.777% of the total variance. A total of 31 indicators were retained out of a total of 32. Table 5 presents the retained factors structure for the retained components.

KMO was 0.834 for the technical sustainability pillar, and Bartlett’s Test of sphericity was also significant at 0.000, and therefore, the sample meets the size and variance requirements for conducting EFA. Furthermore, four factors, namely: 1 = policy support for decent working conditions; 2 = implementation of efficient technological advances; 3 = adequate sustainable construction practices; 4 = adequate construction project technical management, were extracted explaining 59.830% of the total variance. A total of 27 indicators were retained out of a total of 32. Table 6 presents the retained factors structure for the retained components.

Table 7 shows the reliability and validity of different components under four constructs of the study. For content validity, discriminant validity was demonstrated by the distinct factor loadings (>0.300 < 0.900) on separate factors, with no cross-loadings. Cronbach’s alpha was used to test the reliability for each of the four components under each construct. All constructs have Cronbach’s alpha values >0.600. The lowest Alpha was for the two components under environmental sustainability, namely “adequate compliance and capacitation for environmental impact” (0.601); “adequate environmental management on construction projects was extracted, explaining” (0.616) and “adequate construction project technical management” (0.687) under technical sustainability. The rest of the alpha values were acceptable, >0.700; good, >0.800 and excellent, >0.900. The overall internal consistency reliability (based on Cronbach’s alpha) for each construct is acceptable. Composite reliability (CR) was also determined for the components. All CR values were above 0.600, with the lowest being ‘adequate compliance and capacitation for environmental’ with CR = 0.678. Most CR values for the components exceeded 0.800 or 0.900, indicating strong reliability. Therefore, all composite reliability constructs were well within acceptable limits.

Average variance extracted (AVE) was conducted to determine the convergent validity of the constructs. According to Hair et al. (2017), AVE ≥ 0.500 typically indicates that, on average, the construct explains at least half of the variance of its indicators. However, there are exceptions to the rule which posit that AVE can be slightly ˂ 0.500 if the CR is high (i.e. > 0.600), because a higher composite reliability can compensate for a marginally lower AVE (Hair et al., 2017). Most constructs met or exceeded the 0.500 cut-off except for one component under environment “effective workforce management for promoting environmental preservation” (0.489), which is slightly below the 0.50 threshold. However, its CR is 0.904, which is > 0.600 in line with Hair et al. (2019), making the construct acceptable despite the AVE being marginally <0.500. Therefore, convergent validity can be considered sufficient for all constructs.

Although most of the indicators contributed to all the constructs, it is essential to note that several indicators did not show any significance to the constructs. Still, those that were significant reveal and confirm the complexity of sustainable construction considerations and the interconnectedness of the four pillars under study. The determined constructs are discussed hereafter.

Economic sustainability had the fewest number of contributory indicators. The indicators of: adequate competence of key project staff (I01); adequate health and safety (I03); community and stakeholder involvement in construction projects (I08); compliance with building regulations (I09); stability and security for construction workers (I13); and adequate construction project whole life cycle assessments (I28) were considered insignificant to ensuring economic sustainability within the construction sector in Zimbabwe. The exclusion of I01, I08, I13 and I28 is noteworthy and opposes the findings of Sertyesilisik (2017), Willar et al. (2021) and Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos (2023). These findings reveal that the construction sector has not realised the economic benefits of acquiring competent project staff, assuring community and stakeholder involvement, ensuring stability and security of workers and assuring adequate whole life cycle assessments with the case. However, dismissing these omissions as contextual is detrimental to enhancing economic sustainability. In fact, the findings depict concerning deficiencies within sustainability-related instruction and experiences, as alluded to by Durdyev et al. (2018). Despite this, these anomalies can be aligned with the chronic economic challenges the country has endured (cf. Shava, 2021).

Table 7 shows the economic sustainability pillar constituent factors of cost-effective green technologies, cost-efficient decent work objectives, adequate resources management and efficient construction methods and procurement. The incorporation of cost-effective green technologies is pertinent to realising economic sustainability within the sector. Not only are green technologies critical (cf. Shurrab et al., 2019), but adequate life cycle costing must be undertaken (Liu et al., 2020) to select cost-effective technologies associated with waste management, reduction of carbon footprint, energy efficiency, water efficiency, resource efficiency (cf. Willar et al., 2021; Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos, 2023). The exclusion of the I28 is thus concerning within this case. In addition, sustainable eco-designs and material use that lead to economic benefits are supported. Resource-constrained developing countries like Zimbabwe must invest in green technologies that can be replicated due to their cost advantages, similar to the global trajectory as reported by Shurrab et al. (2019), Masia et al. (2020), Willar et al. (2021), Singh et al. (2023). However, caution must be considered not to invest in poor quality technologies by overly emphasising cost. Consequently, it would be advantageous if usable databases for efficient and cost-effective green technologies were available for the construction sector at large.

Decent work conditions for construction work (i.e. conditions that promote opportunities for both men and women to obtain productive work in conditions that encourage freedom, equality, security and human rights) are inadequately provided for in developing countries, as exposed by Moyo et al. (2026). Yet, there is evidence of how its sufficient inclusion leads to productivity and performance gains (Chaturvedi et al., 2018; Ugulu et al., 2020), although decent work is not directly associated with sustainable construction models, globally. That said, cost efficient decent working conditions must be entrenched in construction activities. This means that societal aspects (e.g. ensuring equal opportunities, upholding workers’ rights and providing adequate workers’ representation) must be implemented and monitored on construction sites. Excluding cost-efficient decent work objectives in developing countries like Zimbabwe has the potential to distort sustainable construction achievement and reporting.

Economic sustainability cannot be achieved without adequate management of scarce resources. I07 and I04 require resourceful management, with the highest factor loadings, as supported by Saeed and Kersten (2017) and Rostamnezhad et al. (2020). Human resources are vital in developing countries’ construction environments, where technological advancement is limited. Even so, the adequacy of these resources promotes the economic sustainability of the sector, and this means that the workers have a greater propensity to contribute to economic growth if their working conditions and skills are improved (Rout et al., 2020). Other key aspects of construction material supplier assessment and organisational expenditure on sustainability pursuits cannot be ignored because they are also relevant to achieving economic sustainability and this aligns well with the study by Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos (2023).

The component of efficient construction methods and procurement is crucial to ensuring wider economic prosperity. For example, incorporating efficient construction methods likely ensures savings while the procurement of efficient resources possibly contributes to the profitability, viability and sustainability of organisations. As supported by Sertyesilisik (2017) and Wuni et al. (2021), the indicators of I30, I31, I32, contribute to economic advantages by reducing the time taken to complete projects and by procuring services that are cognisant of sustainable pillars achievement. Although these findings align with the case under study, the level of economic development within the case may lessen the expected benefits.

The environmental sustainability pillar excluded the indicators of I01, I06, I08 and I27. Of the four indicators, only I01 is not supported by previous authors as being relevant for ensuring environmental sustainability. Rostamnezhad et al. (2020) and Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos (2023), among others, identified the link between I06, I08 and I27 and enhancing environmental sustainability. However, the findings in this present study area differed, and this is likely due to the omission of environmental sustainability-related consideration and discourse during sustainability expenditure budgeting, community and stakeholder discourse and construction material supplier assessment and selection. This indicates the lack of a relevant policy that affirms and regulates sufficient environmental consideration within these aspects (cf. Goodhew, 2016).

Table 7 reveals that the environmental sustainability pillar consists of interventions for environmental concerns, effective workforce management for promoting environmental preservation, adequate compliance and capacitation for environmental impact and adequate environmental management on construction projects. Regarding the interventions, I23 and I20 had the highest factor loadings. Policy interventions aligned with circularity and green technology incorporation (Masia et al., 2020) are required to drive the environmental sustainability pillar. The diminishing construction resource base and environmental concerns demand that construction organisations implement interventions that control resource consumption and the negative anthropogenic impact of construction activities. Such interventions can engender amendments to the building bylaws to align with the intended sustainable objectives. Associated with this, the workforce that undertakes construction projects must be empowered to effectively contribute to environmental preservation. This can be directly and indirectly secured if satisfactory income distribution among construction workers and employment creation are achieved. Despite previous studies like those by Gurmu (2021) and Govindan et al. (2020), not aligning these indicators with environmental sustainability, this present study reveals that if workers receive satisfactory income and adequate employment is available, they will not engage in other construction-related activities that are detrimental to the environment within their communities. In addition, ensuring the workers are satisfactorily treated has a consequence on ensuring the environmental sustainability of construction organisations. This is a novelty of this study.

Adequate compliance and capacitation for environmental impact is another significant factor contributing to the environmental sustainability of construction organisations. Assuring I09 and I04 contributes to achieving this component. These findings resonate well with those of Montalbán-Domingo et al. (2019). However, emphasis on the crafting of environmentally compliant regulations and skills development learning objectives is vital if this component is to be well implemented and monitored. Adequate environmental management on construction projects is expected. Achieving this is predicated on implementing adequate governance and organisational excellence of construction projects and adequate health and safety within construction organisations and on construction sites. Although previous studies support the significance of I06 (Lam, 2022) on environmental issues, the indicator of I03 (Singh et al., 2023) is not situated within the environmental discourse, within this case. Yet, health and safety aspects affect the environmental considerations on construction sites; for example, the failure to handle or store hazardous materials on sites can lead to environmental pollution. Another example is the use of inefficient machinery that exposes the workers to unsafe working conditions (Edwards et al., 2019) and contributes to emissions that increase the carbon footprint (cf. Moyo et al., 2019b).

The social sustainability pillar had the fewest exclusions. Only the indicator on I01 was excluded as being significant to ensuring social sustainability within the construction sector, contrary to the findings of Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos (2023). The lack of a connection between the indicator and social sustainability reveals the lack of consideration of social aspects by project staff within the case. These resonate with the findings of Taherkhani (2023) and Kristoffersen et al. (2024) on how the lack of an adequately defined social pillar contributes to its lacklustre application. Once the social sustainability pillar is well constructed, it can be well articulated to construction project staff to ensure widespread appreciation and application.

Table 7 reveals that the social sustainability pillar is composed of effective construction methodologies for enhancing social value, adequate social well-being for workers, efficient technologies for quality of life and adequate worker motivation and community social responsibility. Despite social sustainability being observed as the least developed within the construction environment (Kristoffersen et al., 2024), there is a realisation that construction methodologies used on sites must enhance the social value of workers and stakeholders. Within this component, indicators of I28 and I32 had the highest factor loadings. Contrary to the findings by Omotayo et al. (2023) and Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos (2023), whole life cycle assessments can contribute to the social sustainability pillar by facilitating the inclusion of materials and systems that improve the social value of stakeholders in Zimbabwe. This can include the inclusion of materials that do not pose a threat to the health of workers or the exclusion of systems that can contribute to the discomfort of the users of the buildings (tenants). However, the indicator of I32, as suggested by Willar et al. (2021), contributes to the social value of stakeholders. For example, the selection of contractors that implement social responsibility strategies within the communities in which they undertake construction projects is envisioned.

The second component of adequate social well-being for workers is supported by the indicators of I15 and I16, with the highest factor loadings. These indicators align with the findings from previous studies by Ugulu et al. (2020) and Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos (2023). Workers can only have favourable well-being if their workplace rights are upheld and if their work-life balance is adequate. Construction companies and workers must ensure that the work environment caters for training that is aligned with workers’ rights and that workers’ unions are allocated space to communicate any workers’ grievances. Furthermore, decent working hours must be instituted to allow workers time to rest and be with their families. Decent working hours are those that are regulated and are composed of the regular working hours and overtime. It is pertinent that the necessary policies that support the achievement of adequate social well-being of workers are implemented.

Efficient technologies for ensuring the quality of life of workers and stakeholders are also necessary within this construct. The indicators of I22 and I23 contributed the most to the construct with the highest factor loadings. Previous studies by Saeed and Kersten (2017) and Masia et al. (2020), among others, allocate these indicators to the environmental and economic sustainability pillars. However, social sustainability traits are extractable through the same indicators, as empirically revealed. I22 comprises the use of systems that improve comfort without sacrificing the safety of workers and users – for example, the use of smart ventilation fans for enhancing comfort for workers in enclosed work areas. I23 is also pertinent through protecting worker health and safety and strengthening community well-being (Moyo et al., 2019b). This can be achieved through the reduction in hazardous waste on construction sites that lowers exposure to toxic substances and the reduction of pollution for communities by reducing landfill waste.

Adequate worker motivation and community social responsibility are other essential components of the social sustainability pillar. This is mainly constituted by the indicators of I12 and I08. These indicators align with the findings of Eilers et al. (2016) and Rostamnezhad et al. (2020). Ensuring workers’ morale is satisfactory and germane towards achieving productive and healthy workers. In addition, allowing community and stakeholder involvement in construction projects promotes the realisation of practical and context-specific interventions that support the social well-being of workers.

The technical sustainability pillar excluded 5 indicators of I09, I16, I17, I27 and I32. However, it is important to acknowledge the inclusion of 27 indicators within this case. Previous studies did not ordinarily allocate these indicators under technical sustainability but under economic, environmental and social sustainability pillars. The exclusion of the 5 indicators reveals the lack of policies that promote the practices described within the indicators, as outlined by Hill and Bowen (1997) and Pappas (2012). Policy support for decent working conditions, implementation of efficient technological advances, adequate sustainable construction practices and adequate construction project technical management are the components that constitute the technical sustainability pillar (refer to Table 7). Policy support for decent working conditions component caters for the provision of adequate policies that ensure quality work through addressing adverse working conditions (cf. Moyo et al., 2024b). The indicators of I13 and I15 had the most influence within this component. Addressing stable and secure working opportunities requires the promulgation of regulations that encourage more extended employment contracts while incentivising clients to develop infrastructure continuously. Although this is difficult to achieve within developing countries, any incremental gains will be paramount to the sustainability of the construction workforce. Furthermore, the strict implementation of existing policies on upholding workers’ rights and adequate workers’ representation is necessary. Related to this, creating and implementing alternative technological strategies of training workers on decent working conditions and their surveillance would contribute significantly towards promoting them on construction projects.

The implementation of efficient technological advances is also highly supported by I22 and I23, as the social sustainability component of efficient technologies for quality of life. Despite the unavailability of previous studies that support its inclusion within technical sustainability, its relationship across the other three sustainability pillars does make sense. Manandhar et al. (2019) and Dang et al. (2020) proffer that construction organisations must invest in efficient technological advances to remain sustainable. This also applies to developing countries, as they may experience a net benefit compared to the investment.

The facilitation of adequate sustainable construction practices is also paramount. I25 and I26 had the highest contribution to the component. Although authors like Omotayo et al. (2023) and Isaksson and Buregyeya (2020) aggregate these indicators to the triple bottom line pillars, the empirical findings suggest that technical connotations are inherent in fulfilling these indicators. Eco-designs require the provision of structurally sound, functional, durable and maintainable construction. Associated with this, the selection of construction materials must produce structurally sound, functional, durable and maintainable construction. Consequently, the achievement of technical sustainability relies on embedding sustainable construction practices within a foundation of robust technical competence.

Adequate construction project technical management is another significant component of technical sustainability. I01 and I28 are the highest contributors to this pillar. Both indicators require construction professional development that focuses on enhancing technical competence in the management of construction projects. Lam (2022) and Stanitsas and Kirytopoulos (2023) allude to the importance of these indicators towards economic and environmental sustainability; however, these findings allocate these indicators to achieving technical sustainability as well.

Generally, the 4 pillars are constituted by various components of the same indicators, as shown in Figure 2. Each of the indicators possesses intrinsic features that contribute to each of the four pillars. From the Figure 2, it is evident that the indicators have unique characteristics that allow them to contribute to various pillars, which is contrary to the studies presented in Figure 1. However, these findings strengthen the argument that achieving sustainability in construction cannot be resolved from a global and holistic perspective, but requires contextual and dynamic deliberation. The stochastic model reveals the importance of establishing metrics that allocate feedback for continuous improvement with strong consideration of the complex relationships within and among the indicators. This deepens knowledge and understanding of sustainable benefits that emanate from various singular interventions. In fact, this contributes to an intensive and extensive interrogation of sustainable construction interventions and the consequent allocation of benefits to every possible recipient.

This study has contributed a crucial theoretical context and specifically, support the relevance of complexity theory within construction sustainability research. Revealing the multi-pillar context of significant indicators is paramount towards achieving sustainable construction in a developing country like Zimbabwe. In addition, the exclusivity of the triple bottom line when engaging in sustainability discourse within the construction sector of a developing country is challenged, and the inclusion of technical sustainability is supported. Furthermore, sustainable principles from various theoretical backgrounds were amalgamated to conceive a stochastic four-pillar sustainable construction achievement model. The findings support the defragmentation of sustainable construction indicators, for amplification of their constituent contribution to each of the economic, environmental, social and technical sustainability pillars.

Given the aim of the current study was to develop and validate a stochastic sustainable construction model by delineating a fourth pillar of “technical”, to the three existing pillars of sustainability, further studies will establish causal links to assess the feasibility of technical sustainability as the fourth sustainability pillar based on the developed model using EFA. Future studies must reveal the structural model of this undertaking. Due to the stochastic nature of the model, the study’s findings are limited by the selected indicators and the economic environment in Zimbabwe, but the approach can be replicated in other countries.

Construction-related challenges within the Zimbabwean construction sector indicate deficits within the sustainable construction concept and these are further exacerbated by the absence of a context-specific sustainable construction framework. Consequently, this study sought to develop and validate a stochastic sustainable construction model by delineating a fourth pillar of “technical”, to the three existing pillars of sustainability. These four pillars are partially supported by previous studies that revealed the importance of the triple bottom line and technical sustainability in ensuring sustainable construction. The economic pillar revealed the constructs of cost-effective green technologies, cost-efficient decent work objectives, adequate resource management and cost-efficient construction methods and procurement. Ensuring environmental sustainability was signified by interventions for environmental concerns, effective workforce management for promoting environmental preservation, adequate compliance and capacitation for environmental impact and adequate environmental management on construction projects. Regards social sustainability, significant variables were: effective construction methodologies for enhancing social value, adequate social well-being for workers, efficient technologies for quality of life, adequate worker motivation and community social responsibility. Policy support for decent working conditions, implementation of efficient technological advances, adequate sustainable construction practices and adequate construction project technical management were significant for technical sustainability realisation. The validity for each of economic, environmental, social and technical sustainability was confirmed by significant factor loadings, adequate composite reliability and average variance extracted.

The findings confirm the utility of the complexity theory in determining multi-pillar indicators and the holistic consideration of various sustainable construction principles. This is an essential step in configuring sustainable construction achievement. More specifically, technical sustainability was exposed as fundamental for a developing country like Zimbabwe. The formulation of sustainable construction policies must incentivise the adoption of green technologies and modern technologies, support decent work objectives to remedy the skills gap and promote sustainable procurement of resources. Professional bodies of construction professionals should promote sustainable construction awareness and implementation by refocusing their design and project management towards technologically sound developments and advances. In addition, they should support technological skills development through continuous professional development and refining professional competency testing. Construction companies should leverage technological advancements to improve their performance, viability and efficiency. The study recommends the deliberation of broader and diverse perspectives when modelling sustainable construction achievement. Such deliberation must entail detailed, accurate articulation and assignment of constituent data towards a multi-pillar sustainability lens. Identifying this detail will assist in emphasising the benefits derived from each activity on each sustainable pillar. Thus, an accurate measurement of sustainable construction achievement is envisaged in future research (perhaps as a procedural “blueprint” guidance for practitioners), and the determination of previously ignored value aspects is promoted.