Engineering–Procurement–Construction (EPC) projects continue to experience cost overruns and schedule delays despite extensive research on project risks. Existing studies largely examine governance mechanisms and risk factors separately, limiting the understanding of how governance arrangements are associated with project outcomes. This study addresses this gap by developing an integrated Governance–Risk–Performance perspective for complex EPC and infrastructure project contexts.
A PRISMA-guided systematic literature review of the Scopus database identified 180 peer-reviewed studies published between 2005 and 2026. Structured data extraction, binary explicit-evidence coding, thematic synthesis and a 6 × 6 cross-tabulation matrix were used to map study-level co-occurrences between six governance mechanisms and six project-risk categories.
The review identified six standardized governance mechanisms and six project-risk categories across the 180 reviewed studies. The interaction matrix contained co-occurrence evidence in all 36 governance–risk combinations. Governance or management recommendations and frameworks (G6) showed the highest co-occurrence with organizational, operational, interface or management risk (R5) and general, project or external risk evidence (R6), with 157 studies in each interaction. Among the more specific mechanisms, coordination, collaboration, partnering and integration (G5) showed the strongest associations with R6 and R5, occurring in 77 and 76 studies, respectively. These findings indicate that EPC risks are discussed in relation to multiple governance mechanisms rather than through isolated one-to-one relationships. Practitioners should therefore assess governance arrangements across the entire project-risk portfolio, while future research should empirically test the relationships mapped by the proposed taxonomy.
This study moves beyond conventional factor-frequency reviews by mapping recurring co-occurrences between governance mechanisms and project-risk categories. The resulting taxonomy provides a structured diagnostic foundation for future empirical research and practical assessment of governance arrangements discussed alongside cost and schedule risks. Future studies should test these mapped relationships using project-level and longitudinal evidence.
