Mapping the landscape of risk management research in green building projects: a bibliometric review Open Access

The rapid expansion of urban areas and the unprecedented growth of cities have positioned the construction industry as a crucial element in addressing societal demands and improving living standards. However, this sector’s environmental impact is considerable, marked by extensive resource consumption and substantial emissions generation (Braulio-Gonzalo et al., 2022; Elseknidy et al., 2024; Elseknidy et al., 2020; Lima et al., 2021). Studies indicate that construction-related activities are responsible for roughly 35% of global emissions and account for 45%–65% of waste in landfills. (Karimi et al., 2023; Saad et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2022). In addition, buildings represent substantial energy consumers, contributing to 36% of global final energy consumption and 39% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions (Kineber et al., 2023; Oke et al., 2023; Wuni et al., 2023). The Conference of the Parties 21, held in Paris in 2015, established two long-term goals to enhance global climate efforts by 2025 (Atwoli et al., 2022; Daoud et al., 2025). These goals include reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2025–2030 and decreasing vulnerability to climate change impacts (Elseknidy et al., 2025). Given these contributions, the construction sector is crucial in the global pursuit of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 (Gonnon and Lootens, 2023; Kineber et al., 2024b). These challenges have intensified the need for sustainable construction practices. Green buildings (GBs), also known as sustainable buildings, have become a viable option in this regard by emphasising sustainability and lowering emissions (Franco et al., 2021; Karimi et al., 2023; Kineber et al., 2024a; Wuni et al., 2023). Different perspectives are used to define GBs, reflecting their complexity. The World Green Building Council (2016) defined a GB as one that, through its design, construction or operation, minimises adverse effects and potentially produces beneficial benefits on the climate and natural environment.

Similarly, the USEnvironmental Protection Agency (2016) defined GBs as the practice of creating structures and using processes that maintain environmental responsibility and resource efficiency throughout a building’s life cycle, from initial siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and final deconstruction. To strengthen these sustainable practices, GB projects can seek certifications through various green building certifications and rating systems that assess different aspects of sustainability and performance. Certifications such as leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED, USA, since 1998), building research establishment environmental assessment method (BREEAM, UK, since 1990), comprehensive assessment system for built environment efficiency (Japan, since 2001) and green star (Australia, since 2003) provide criteria that emphasise energy, water, materials and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) (Herazo and Lizarralde, 2015). For instance, LEED categorises features into domains such as energy and atmosphere, focussing on energy efficiency and renewable energy, which greatly affects certification results (Sezer and Fredriksson, 2021). Similarly, BREEAM also emphasises factors such as indoor air quality and thermal comfort, which are essential for the health and well-being of occupants (Gurgun and Arditi, 2018). These certifications demonstrate a commitment to sustainable construction and indicate the wider advantages of GBs.

GBs offer significant advantages in environmental, economic and social aspects (Franco et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022). From an environmental perspective, green roofs and walls significantly reduce energy consumption and CO₂ emissions. This is evidenced by the decreased energy demand and the mitigation of urban heat islands that these systems provide (Karimi et al., 2023; Meena et al., 2022; Saad et al., 2021). These structures also improve IEQ and enhance human health and well-being by fostering healthier indoor environments (Campiotti et al., 2022). Economically, GBs are linked to lower maintenance and operational costs and demonstrate a 34% reduction in default risk within the commercial mortgage-backed securities market, a phenomenon attributed to a green price premium (Liu et al., 2022; Pragati et al., 2023). Socially, these buildings improve air quality and reduce noise pollution, which is important for urban living (Al-Kayiem et al., 2020; Shen and Li, 2023; Zhao et al., 2023). The integration of greenery systems, including vertical greening, improves thermal comfort, decreases indoor air pollutants and lowers annual electricity consumption by about 25% (Yang et al., 2023). In addition, the comprehensive advantages of GBs, including economic, environmental and social aspects, have been evaluated to improve cost efficiency and enhance overall benefits (An and Pivo, 2020; Hemalatha et al., 2021; Ramakrishnan et al., 2023).

GBs can support sustainable development by using resources efficiently and promoting long-term environmental stewardship. GBs projects have garnered considerable interest from academics and practitioners due to their distinct characteristics, which present new challenges in risk management. While GBs practices offer clear environmental, economic and social benefits, they also introduce new complexities and risks not typically encountered in conventional construction. These include regulatory uncertainties, high initial costs, evolving technologies and a need for specialised knowledge. As such, risk management becomes a central concern in ensuring the success of GB’s projects. However, despite increasing interest in this area, the literature remains fragmented, lacking a merged overview of the intellectual landscape.

Traditional construction and GBs practices differ notably in the risks associated with their distinct objectives and methodologies (Koc et al., 2023; Wuni et al., 2023). Traditional construction usually focusses on cost, time and quality, often neglecting environmental and health factors, which may result in long-term sustainability issues (Cao et al., 2022; Al-Mhdawi et al., 2023; Al-Mhdawi et al., 2024a, 2024b; Karakhan and Al-Mhdawi, 2024). In contrast, GB projects prioritise the minimisation of environmental impacts and the enhancement of occupant health. However, this focus introduces additional complexities and uncertainties (Zhao et al., 2023). For example, GB projects encounter specific risks, including a shortage of experienced green construction personnel, limited access to dependable green subcontractors and rising costs of green materials (Robbins et al., 2020). Furthermore, GB projects face an additional variety of significant risk factors, including financial, material and equipment, design, technical, stakeholder, management, environmental, legal and regulatory risks, which are not as prevalent in traditional construction (Koc et al., 2023).

The complexity present in GBs necessitates a thorough risk assessment model that examines the impact level, likelihood of occurrence and manageability of risks, as demonstrated in studies carried out in Vietnam (Erdenekhuu et al., 2022; Koc et al., 2023). The incorporation of sustainable practices in GBs frequently leads to increased initial expenses and longer payback durations, presenting financial difficulties for stakeholders (Nguyen and Macchion, 2022a). Furthermore, certain GBs materials include hazardous chemicals aimed at enhancing energy efficiency, which pose health risks not commonly linked to conventional construction methods (Nguyen et al., 2021). The necessity for specialised knowledge and experience in GBs is important, as indicated by the negative correlation between effective risk assessment and participants’ experiences with GBs (Erdenekhuu et al., 2022). In addition, the greening of existing buildings introduces specific risks, especially regarding environmental control, which is crucial for the ongoing performance of buildings (Assaad et al., 2021).

Research on GBs and related risk management has proliferated in recent years, resulting in an extensive body of literature that, nevertheless, remains somewhat fragmented (Franco et al., 2021; Karimi et al., 2023; Wuni et al., 2023). Indeed, while numerous studies address specific aspects of risk management in GBs, relatively few integrate these findings into a more comprehensive and coherent framework. Consequently, it becomes challenging to identify core themes, recognise influential contributors and pinpoint emerging research directions. In this context, bibliometric analysis – supported by tools such as VOSviewer – offers a structured and visual means of examining citation networks, discerning thematic clusters and uncovering collaborative patterns. Furthermore, such an approach clarifies the underlying structure of current knowledge, highlights previously overlooked connections and provides valuable insights that can guide subsequent inquiries and inform policy decisions. Ultimately, the perspective gained through bibliometric analysis enhances the overall understanding of risk management in GBs and strengthens the foundation for future innovation in this rapidly evolving field.

Although there is increasing interest in risk management in the green building sector, the existing literature on this subject is still quite limited. Wuni et al. (2023) analysed the literature from 2006 to 2022 and identified 96 critical risk factors for GB projects. Moreover, Nguyen and Macchion (2023) reviewed 64 articles spanning the same period and highlighted several gaps, including inconsistencies in identifying GBs risk factors, a lack of investigation into the relationships between GBs risks and project outcomes and insufficient exploration in cross-country or developing country contexts. In addition, Guan et al. (2020) used a systematic literature review followed by the application of the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) method to examine 16 constraint factors, 22 risk factors and 11 objectives throughout a GBs project’s lifecycle, effectively mapping out the complex matrix of risk interdependencies. Finally, Wang et al. (2024) synthesised insights from 52 articles published between 2011 and 2023, identifying significant research gaps and suggesting future directions for risk management in GB projects. Table 1 summarises previous review papers.

The studies conducted by Guan et al. (2020) primarily focused on identifying common risk factors in GBs and analysing the relationships between them. Furthermore, Wang et al. (2024) explored common themes of risk management within the same context. Although prior research has addressed various aspects of risk management in GB projects, it remains evident that no comprehensive bibliometric analysis has yet examined the intellectual structure, key trends and research paths in this domain. This absence hinders the ability to clearly identify thematic clusters, influential authors and critical areas in need of further investigation.

To this end, this study aims to address the fragmented understanding of risk management in green buildings by:

• examining publication trends and citation impact to reveal how research interest has evolved over time;

• identifying influential institutions and countries to understand global engagement and collaboration patterns; and

• exploring prominent authors and thematic clusters to highlight key research areas and identify gaps for future investigation.

The findings of this study are anticipated to enrich the understanding of researchers and project stakeholders by clarifying the intellectual landscape of risk management in GBs. Specifically, applying bibliometric analysis helps identify principal research themes, influential authors and emerging areas of inquiry. The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 outlines the study’s bibliometric methodology. Section 3 presents the results and discussion, including the scientometric analysis. Finally, Section 4 provides conclusions, recommendations and directions for future research.

This research used a three-step methodology for literature review and analysis, as illustrated in Figure 1. The approach draws on established methods from numerous construction management studies (e.g. Al-Mhdawi et al., 2025; Almashhour et al., 2025; Mohamed et al., 2025; Dacre et al., 2024; Ojiako et al., 2024) and was specifically adapted to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the research landscape on risk management in green building projects. The process involved:

• selecting a suitable academic database and identifying relevant journals;

• determining appropriate keywords for the search; and

• conducting a comprehensive content analysis of the retrieved literature.

Each of these steps is explained in detail in the following sections.

Scientometric analysis is a quantitative method used to evaluate scientific output and research trends within a specific field by analysing bibliographic data from publications (Aliu et al., 2023). The growing popularity of this approach is largely attributed to advancements in, as well as the availability and accessibility of bibliometric softwaretools such as Gephi, Leximancer and VOSviewer, along with scientific databases such as Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS) (Donthu et al., 2021). In this study, VOSviewer, a tool renowned for its effectiveness in visualising and mapping the relationships among various bibliometric indicators, including authors, institutions, keywords and citations, was used (Tamala et al., 2022).

The analysis encompassed several key aspects:

• the annual trend of risk management studies in GBs;

• network analysis of article citations;

• network analysis of the most contributing institutions;

• network analysis of active countries;

• network analysis of active authors; and

• network analysis of keywords.

To ensure a balanced assessment of scholarly impact, this study used normalised citation scores, which account for differences in publication years by adjusting citation counts relative to the time elapsed since publication. This approach allows recent works to be more fairly compared with older, more established publications. In addition, trends in publication volume were interpreted in conjunction with citation patterns to identify potential lags in recognition and the influence of temporal publishing dynamics. These steps enhance the objectivity of the analysis and ensure more accurate identification of high-impact contributions.

In the field of construction management research, the main databases – Scopus, WoS and Google Scholar – provide distinct benefits. According to Jin et al. (2019), Scopus is frequently favoured due to its extensive coverage and advanced analytical tools. Alamdari et al. (2023) characterised Scopus as the largest abstract and citation database currently accessible, providing scholars, government bodies and business organisations with a repository that contains more than 1.8 billion cited references dating from the 1970s. Like WoS, Scopus offers effective tools that improve the search, evaluation and management of cited references, which in turn enhances research methodologies. In addition, it is compatible with contemporary science mapping tools, including VOSviewer, which was used in this study (Zhao et al., 2019).

To ensure a fair assessment of influence across publications from different years, normalised citation scores were used alongside raw citation counts. This adjustment accounts for the time each publication has had to accumulate citations, helping to mitigate bias against more recent works. Through applying normalised metrics, the study offers a more balanced and accurate view of research impact over time, thereby strengthening the validity of citation-based indicators used to identify influential literature in risk management for GBs.

According to Singh et al. (2021), Scopus generally indexes a greater number of publications than WoS, owing to its more extensive journal coverage and the inclusion of a wider range of document types. However, WoS may provide more extensive historical insights into specific disciplines due to its longer history of indexing. In summary, Scopus’s comprehensive database, sophisticated analytical features and wide-ranging coverage position it as a preferable option for research in construction management, offering notable advantages compared to both WoS and Google Scholar. Scopus was selected for journal selection in this study due to its comprehensive collection of high-quality peer-reviewed articles, ensuring that the literature review includes the most relevant and influential research in the field (Al-Mhdawi et al., 2024a, 2024b). The selection of target journals for this study was based on the following criteria: the journals must be published in English, have an impact factor of at least 1.0 and be classified in the top quartile of the Scopus database, reflecting their significant influence in advancing construction management research.

Articles relevant to the study were identified through the Scopus database. Keywords were selected based on articles that have been published previously (Guan et al., 2020; Wuni et al., 2023) that reviewed the analysis of the relationships between risk factors in GB projects. The search string used in this study was as follows:

TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“green building” OR “green construction” OR “green retrofit” OR “green project” OR “sustainable building” OR “sustainable construction” OR “sustainable project” OR “energy-efficient buildings” OR “zero energy buildings” OR “high-performance building” OR “high-performance construction” OR “high-performance project”) AND (“risk factor” OR “risk factors” OR “risk management” OR “risk identification” OR “risk classification” OR “risk categorization” OR “risk assessment” OR “risk analysis” OR “risk evaluation”)).

The criteria for inclusion and exclusion are important in systematic and bibliometric reviews because they establish the scope and ensure the relevance and quality of the synthesised evidence. The criteria assist in identifying studies that are pertinent to the review question, thus influencing the evidence base that will be examined (Jin et al., 2019). This study presents the criteria in Table 2. The search process concluded on 21 June 2024, yielding 252 documents from Scopus. Following the application of the exclusion criteria, 146 documents were retained after the title exclusion, 93 after the abstract exclusion and 78 after the full-text exclusion, leading to a final sample of 78 documents.

Content analysis is a versatile research method used to identify key aspects and derive valid conclusions from written, verbal or visual communication by applying either qualitative or quantitative methods tailored to the specific requirements of the project (Chan et al. (2018); Krippendorff, 2018). This approach systematically gathers and arranges information, enabling the analysis of trends and patterns in documentation (Krippendorff, 2018). In this study, a qualitative content analysis was adopted to:

• analyse the annual research trends related to GBs risks, drivers and uncertainty factors;

• examine common tools and techniques used for identifying and assessing risks and the classification methods and category names used in the selected articles; and

• systematically identify, classify and analyse key risks, drivers and uncertainty factors affecting GBs projects, contributing to the development of a framework for effective risk management that integrates sustainability objectives.

To ensure analytical clarity and manage the visual complexity of the network analyses, a citation threshold of ≥15 citations was applied for article inclusion in citation mapping. This approach aligns with established bibliometric practices where thresholds typically range between 10 and 20 citations to filter less impactful works and enhance the interpretability of visualisations (Donthu et al., 2021; Zupic and Čater, 2015). Zupic and Čater (2015), for instance, emphasise the use of thresholds like 10 or 15 citations in co-citation and bibliographic coupling to balance data set size with analytical clarity.

In this study, we conducted exploratory trials using varying thresholds (10, 15 and 20 citations). The 15-citation cutoff was found to offer the optimal balance between network density and clarity, capturing a cohesive and interpretable cluster of highly cited works without excessive fragmentation or exclusion of relevant studies. Thus, the threshold selection is empirically informed and context-specific to the characteristics of our data set.

Figure 2 illustrates the annual distribution of publications on risk management for GBs between 2013 and 2024. While fluctuations are clear, two peak years – 2017 and 2023 – stand out for their significant increase in publication volume. These surges may align with broader industry and policy developments, such as the growing global emphasis on climate-resilient construction practices and the mainstreaming of sustainable building certification systems. Conversely, dips in publication activity (e.g. in 2014 and 2019) may reflect shifting research funding priorities or temporary saturation in certain research areas. Notably, the steady rise in publications post-2019 aligns with increased global urgency around sustainability, as reflected in policy dialogues from COP26 onwards. This trend analysis not only reveals the evolving academic interest in risk management for GBs but also underscores the field’s responsiveness to global environmental and regulatory developments. Understanding these patterns helps contextualise the current research landscape and indicates where momentum may continue to build in future studies.

Table 3 presents a detailed breakdown of the reviewed articles used in this study, divided into two main periods: 2013–2018 and 2019–2024. In the earlier period (2013–2018), 36 articles were analysed, while the later period (2019–2024) saw an increase to 42 articles, reflecting the growing interest and expanding research within the field in recent years. This increase in reviewed articles underscores the continuous and evolving engagement of scholars in risk management for GBs, despite variations in annual publication numbers. Overall, this analysis highlights an ongoing commitment to exploring risk management for GBs, with recent years showing a resurgence in academic attention. Nevertheless, the challenge remains for future research to ensure its impact, relevance and ability to drive innovation in sustainable construction practices as the field continues to adapt to emerging challenges and opportunities.

In this research, VOSviewer software was used to conduct a network analysis of selected journals within the domain of GBs studies, specifically examining citation links among sources. The methodology uses citations as the analysis type and the source as the analysis unit. Out of an initial data set of 40 sources, only 15 met the inclusion criteria of having at least two documents and 10 citations, highlighting selective yet significant scholarly communication within this field. In the network map produced, each journal is represented as a node, where the node size correlates with the journal’s publication volume and the thickness of the connecting lines illustrates the strength of the citation relationships.

Figure 3 incorporated a colour map indicating the average publication year (avg. Pub. Year), which serves as a gauge of publication history. Table 4 lists the top 14 journals in the GBs domain ranked by citation count. Figure 3 and Table 5. reveal that the “Journal of Cleaner Production” is especially prominent, with 15 articles constituting 17.85% of the total analysed and accruing 1,231 citations, thus affirming its critical role and substantial impact within the research network. “Sustainability” also shows considerable activity, with 10 articles and 240 citations, indicating robust engagement in GBs discussions. In addition, the “International Journal of Project Management”, with only two articles, has nevertheless accumulated an impressive 494 citations, evidencing its significant influence. These findings underscore the pivotal contributions of journals such as the “Journal of Cleaner Production” and “Sustainability” in fostering academic dialogue and collaboration within their fields.

The analysis centred on citation links among sources, with a stipulated threshold of at least 15 citations necessary to include in the review. The threshold of 15 citations was selected to ensure the inclusion of documents with a minimum level of academic visibility and impact. Out of the 84 documents evaluated, 55 surpassed this threshold, demonstrating a significant level of scholarly engagement and impact within this domain. The network map generated through this analysis revealed a densely interconnected cluster of 39 items, showing a vigorous exchange of ideas and research findings among a core group of studies, as depicted in Figure 4, which illustrates the density map of the article citation network.

Table 5. lists the most influential documents within the data set, organised by citation count, normalised citation impact and number of links to other articles. Prominent among these is Hwang’s (2013) work, which, with 338 citations and nine links, plays a foundational role in shaping subsequent research in the field. Chan et al. (2018) follows closely, receiving 319 citations and achieving a high normalised citation score of 3.99, reflecting its significant reception and integration into the broader discussion on risk management research for GBs. Other noteworthy contributions include Yang (2014), which has accrued 253 citations and Zhao (2016), with 207 citations and 14 links, both of which exemplify not only frequent citations but also extensive connectivity within the scholarly network. The articles by Darko (2017 and 2018) received 341 citations, highlighting an evolving research interest and significant ongoing contributions to the field.

This citation network analysis not only highlights the most impactful research but also clarifies the complex interactions among these studies, providing insights into the development and evolution of risk management in GBs as an academic discipline. The visualisation furnished with the analytical data in Table 5 facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the principal drivers of research and discussion within this field, thereby aiding future scholarly endeavours and collaborations.

This section presents the results of the institutional network analysis, based on citation link strengths and publication counts. Out of the 84 institutions assessed, only 10 met this threshold, indicating a significant level of scholarly engagement and impact within this specialised domain. The results of this analysis are visually represented in Figure 5, which illustrates a network map highlighting the connectivity among these institutions. Each node in the network represents an institution, with the size of each node corresponding to the volume of publications, and the lines between them indicate the strength of the citation relationships.

This visual representation is presented in Table 6, which lists the top ten contributing institutions organised by their number of documents, citations and total link strength. Notably, the National University of Singapore stands out, with seven documents and 720 citations, amassing a total link strength of 52. This positions it as a central node within the network, indicating its substantial influence and leadership in GBs research. Following closely is the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, which has three documents and 481 citations, and also demonstrates significant academic influence with a link strength of 24. Other institutions, such as the University of Padova and Yildiz Technical University, although contributing fewer documents, still exhibit significant connectivity within the network, indicative of their strategic roles in the research community. For instance, despite having only 40 citations across three documents, the University of Padova shows a robust link strength of 28, highlighting its effective collaborative engagements. This analysis not only identifies the institutions that are central to the advancement of GBs studies but also provides insights into the structure of scholarly networks, underscoring the importance of collaborative dynamics in driving research impact.

International collaboration significantly enhances research diversity by bringing together a wide array of perspectives, expertise and resources, which are often unavailable in a single country or institution. This diversity is essential for creating holistic and high-quality research, particularly in fields that involve varied cultures, environments and challenges (Hussein et al., 2021). In Figure 6, the VOSviewer network is constructed by selecting “co-authorship” for the analysis type and “countries” as the unit. Here, “active countries” refers to nations that are involved in co-authored publications, indicating collaborative research output across borders. The criteria require a minimum of three documents and 10 citations per country. This visualisation highlights collaboration between countries and emphasises those that make significant contributions to GB risk management research.

Network analysis revealed that out of 34 countries, only 10 met the established criteria. The resulting visualisation highlights these countries as nodes of varying sizes, which correspond to their research contributions. Notably, larger nodes for countries such as China and the UK suggest significant research activities. The link strength between these nodes, which is indicative of the collaboration level, varies widely. Australia showed the highest level of collaboration, with a total link strength of 20, whereas Turkey demonstrated minimal collaborative efforts.

Further analysis of the link strengths between countries indicated differing levels of international engagement. For example, despite high research output, countries such as the USA and Canada have lower collaboration intensities. This finding suggests the potential underutilisation of opportunities for international collaboration. Moreover, Figure 7, a comparative analysis of GB Research Impact by Country, provides a detailed comparison of research outputs and collaborative efforts across different nations, reinforcing the idea that high research output does not necessarily correlate with intense international collaboration. It is recommended that countries with substantial contributions in the field seek more international partnerships to enhance their research impact and address global challenges more effectively.

Network analysis using VOSviewer offers valuable insights into scholarly collaboration dynamics, highlighting how researchers interact based on shared interests, interdisciplinary work and geographic collaboration distributions. This method is essential for visualising the structure and scope of academic networks (Cugmas et al., 2020). In this study, network analysis was conducted by selecting “co-authorship” as the analysis type with “authors” as the analysis unit. The inclusion criteria for the network required each author to have a minimum of 3 published documents and at least 10 citations. The results show that of the 253 authors examined, only nine surpassed these thresholds.

Figure 8 displays a network chart that clearly maps the connections between these authors. The chart emphasises collaborative tendencies through visual cues; nodes represent individual authors and lines between them indicate co-authorship relationships, with thicker lines suggesting stronger collaborative bonds. Notably, only six of the nine qualifying authors are depicted in this visual representation. In the chart, only six authors are depicted out of a total of nine because of the absence of connections for the remaining three. Consequently, the largest connected cluster comprises six authors.

Table 7 provides a comprehensive overview of author-specific metrics such as document count, citation count and total link strength, revealing their contributions and prominence within the field. Notably, Hwang B. emerged as a significant figure, with seven documents and an impressive 943 citations, emphasising his considerable impact and widespread recognition within the field of GB risk management. These data are instrumental in identifying the key contributors, facilitating collaboration and enhancing the overall academic environment.

Analysing keyword co-occurrence in risk management for GBs is beneficial for identifying core research themes and emerging trends, which can significantly inform and shape the direction of future sustainable development efforts. In this research, VOSviewer software was used to conduct a detailed network analysis of keyword co-occurrence within publications on GBs studies. The method focused on examining “all keywords by applying an inclusion threshold of a minimum of five occurrences”. This threshold was met by 36 keywords from an initial set of 752, highlighting the centrality and relevance of these terms within the field. To enhance the specificity and clarity of the network visualisation, common terms such as “China”, “construction” and “construction industry” were excluded, allowing for a more focused analysis of relevant research themes. Figure 9 displays the resulting network visualisation, which illustrates the intricate relationships and associations among the selected keywords. In this visualisation, each node represents a keyword, with the node size or colour indicating its prominence within the data set. The links between nodes represent co-occurrence, with thicker lines indicating stronger associations between keywords, reflecting their frequent co-presence in the scholarly literature.

The analysis identifies four distinct clusters, each representing a conceptually coherent group of keywords within the data set. Cluster one includes terms like “Risk Assessment” and “Sustainable Development”, suggesting a significant emphasis on evaluating sustainability and risk in architectural and building contexts. Cluster two, encompassing keywords such as “Green Building” and “Project Management”, reflects a focus on sustainable construction practices and project oversight. Cluster three, which includes “Developing Countries” and “Green Buildings”, indicates discussions centred around sustainability in developmental contexts. Finally, cluster four focuses on foundational terms such as “Building” and “Risk”, pointing to fundamental research themes within GBs studies.

This comprehensive keyword co-occurrence analysis not only maps the thematic landscape of the field but also provides valuable insights into emerging research trends and potential areas for further investigation. Such a detailed understanding is crucial for researchers seeking to align their work with the field’s evolving priorities and to contribute effectively to the advancement of knowledge in GBs studies.

This section presents emerging research directions that can shape future studies in risk management research for GBs. As the field evolves alongside global sustainability goals, there is a growing need to align risk frameworks with environmental performance standards, integrate innovative technologies and address new regulatory and occupant-driven challenges.

Research in this area focuses on integrating risk management frameworks with GBs standards such as LEED and BREEAM (Wang et al., 2024). Traditional risk management may not fully address the specific risks associated with achieving a high environmental performance (Koc et al., 2023). By aligning risk strategies with these certifications, risks can be better managed throughout the building lifecycle, from design to maintenance, ensuring that sustainability targets are met (Wuni et al., 2023).

The adoption of new technologies in GBs introduces risks related to potential failure and integration challenges (Darko et al., 2017; Karimi et al., 2023). Research in this area aims to assess and manage these risks, ensuring that emerging technologies, including smart systems and renewable energy sources, perform reliably and contribute to a building’s sustainability and resilience (Wuni et al., 2023).

GBs projects must navigate a complex and changing regulatory landscape. Research has focused on the risks associated with regulatory compliance, including the impact of evolving laws and the challenges of meeting different standards across jurisdictions (Liu et al., 2022). The effective management of these risks ensures that buildings comply with the necessary regulations while achieving sustainability goals (Erdenekhuu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2024).

Climate change poses significant risks to GBs that must be designed to withstand future environmental challenges (Chen et al., 2024). Research examines these risks and develops strategies to enhance building resilience, ensuring long-term sustainability and protecting investments in green infrastructure (Al-Mhdawi et al., 2022a; Wang et al., 2024).

GBs must also ensure the health and safety of occupants by addressing risks related to indoor air quality, ventilation and material use (Franco et al., 2021; Al-Mhdawi et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2024). Research aims to mitigate these risks, ensuring that green buildings provide healthy and safe environments, in addition to meeting environmental objectives (Wuni et al., 2023).

There is a lack of longitudinal studies that track the evolution of risk factors, management practices and performance outcomes in GBs over time. In addition, research in underrepresented regions, particularly developing countries, is essential to understand local barriers and to promote inclusive, global progress in sustainable construction (Nguyen and Macchion, 2022a). Addressing these directions will help future studies close existing gaps, respond to emerging challenges and contribute meaningfully to the development of effective and adaptive risk management strategies in GB projects.

This study provides the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of risk management in GB projects, offering a systematic examination of the intellectual structure, thematic evolution and scholarly influence within this field from 2013 to 2024. Through scientometric techniques applied to 78 peer-reviewed articles from the Scopus database, the study uncovers an upward trajectory in publication volume, particularly in 2017 and 2023, reflecting a growing global concern for sustainability in the built environment.

The analysis identifies key contributors to the academic discourse, with institutions such as the National University of Singapore and Hong Kong Polytechnic University demonstrating substantial citation impact. The Journal of Cleaner Production emerged as the most prolific and influential outlet, underscoring its central role in advancing GB-related risk research. Furthermore, the keyword co-occurrence network reveals four dominant research clusters:

1. sustainable development and risk assessment;

2. project management in green construction;

3. sustainability in developing countries; and

4. foundational studies on GBs risk typologies.

These clusters indicate the multifaceted and interdisciplinary nature of the domain.

Despite the evident progress, the review exposes critical gaps that hinder the field’s maturity. Notably, there is a lack of research from developing countries, minimal focus on the integration of emerging technologies [e.g. digital tools, artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT)] in risk identification and mitigation and insufficient longitudinal studies to track evolving risks across the GBs lifecycle. In addition, few studies link risk management practices to actual project outcomes such as cost efficiency, energy performance or stakeholder satisfaction. These omissions limit the applicability and scalability of current frameworks in diverse global contexts.

The findings of this study offer valuable insights for a broad range of stakeholders engaged in GB projects, including academics, policymakers and industry practitioners. For researchers, the identified thematic clusters and evolving publication trends provide a roadmap for future investigations, enabling scholars to focus on emerging areas of inquiry and collaborate within the most influential author and institutional networks.

For policymakers, the results offer a foundation for benchmarking national and institutional performance in GBs research and innovation. The study’s findings highlight key areas where policy support and funding can be directed, particularly towards addressing under-explored risk factors and encouraging interdisciplinary and international collaboration. Understanding the global distribution of research activity and its associated risk themes allows for more strategic and informed policy development that aligns with long-term sustainability and climate resilience goals.

Industry leaders can also benefit by identifying leading institutions and research clusters to form strategic partnerships, access cutting-edge knowledge and attract talent. Moreover, insights into prevalent and emerging risk themes can support the integration of best practices in risk assessment, mitigation and project planning. These contributions can ultimately enhance the delivery of high-performance, resilient and sustainable buildings. Collectively, these implications reinforce the relevance of the study in shaping more effective, informed and forward-looking strategies across academia, industry and government sectors involved in advancing GBs practices.

Despite the progress made in risk management research for GBs, several critical gaps remain. A significant shortfall is the underrepresentation of studies from developing regions, where GBs implementation is often shaped by distinct socio-economic conditions, resource limitations and evolving policy frameworks. These contexts present unique risk profiles that remain insufficiently explored in the current literature.

Moreover, the limited application of longitudinal approaches hinders the ability to track how risk factors, mitigation strategies and performance outcomes evolve. This temporal dimension is crucial for understanding the long-term effectiveness of risk management practices in dynamic environments. In addition, while integrating emerging technologies such as AI, building information modelling (BIM) and the IoT is frequently mentioned, the specific risks associated with their implementation, such as system reliability, cybersecurity and interoperability, are often overlooked or under-explored.

To address these gaps, future research should prioritise region-specific case studies, especially in underrepresented and developing economies, to ensure more inclusive and context-sensitive insights. The adoption of mixed-method and longitudinal research designs would also provide a richer understanding of how risk evolves and how mitigation measures perform. There is a need for studies that critically examine the impact of diverse regulatory frameworks and cultural factors on the adoption and operationalisation of GBs standards across different regions.

Finally, enhancing stakeholder involvement, including policymakers, developers, contractors and end users in risk identification and assessment processes, can improve the practical relevance of research outcomes. Doing so will support the formulation of more adaptive, resilient and inclusive risk management strategies that align with the complex realities of sustainable construction projects worldwide.

This study, while comprehensive, has certain limitations. The reliance on the Scopus database may exclude relevant studies indexed in other databases, potentially narrowing the scope of the review. In addition, the analysis was constrained to publications in English, which could omit significant contributions in other languages. Finally, the study focused on bibliometric indicators and did not delve deeply into the contextual nuances of individual studies, which may limit the depth of thematic insights. Future research could address these limitations by incorporating diverse databases, multilingual studies and mixed-method approaches.