An analysis of construction sector key performance indicators (KPIs),

Having identified diversity and different sustainability approaches amongst Carillion peers (Section 3.4.2.3) the researcher wanted to identify if this fragmentation was reflected across the wider supply network. To achieve this the researcher needed to select a measure that was accessible through published materials, reported in the same time period, would provide insight into the sustainability practices of network actors

Source Company Country

Carillion UK

Balfour Beatty UK

Interserve UK

Kier UK

Laing O'Rourke UK

Lend Lease Australia

Sir Rober McAlpine UK

Skanska (Sales: UK) Sweden Skanska (Sales: World inc UK) Sweden

Arcadis Netherlands

Groupo ACS Spain

Hochtief German

Peab Sweden

Royal BAM Netherlands

Wilmott Dixon UK Interface US M&S UK Patigonia US Unilever Netherlands Carillion identified Globescan’s 2015 Sustainability Leaders Survey

Main Contractor Peers in UK sector

European Companies in Construction Sector

Global Sustainability Leaders

Acquisti & Sostenibilità

107 and was a metric with a level of accepted uniformity thus allowing differences between actor approaches to be illustrated. Business or industry sector KPIs met these criteria and were selected. To enable a cross network perspective, organisations that represented each phase of the build process, or if not feasible the main suppliers in the phase were analysed. To represent the investor sector the Global ESG Benchmark for real estate (GRESB) was utilised. In 2016 they represented over 750 global investors and encouraged members to report on the KPIs that had been developed by the organisation (GRESB 2016). Developers and key clients were represented by seven major UK organisations that managed construction, of which three were private and four were either public or quasi-public clients (e.g. Network Rail, Highways England). Main contractors were represented by Carillion, Keir and Skanska. To ensure a more general peer group contractor perspective was included, Build UK, the industry body representing all UK contractors, was also reviewed. Raw material suppliers and product manufacturers were represented by two trade bodies, the Mineral Products Association (MPA) for cement and concrete and UK CARES; steel. These two groups were selected as representative of most of the UK product sector providers and both were supplying high impact, high volume materials within a build. . It should be noted that trade bodies and other representative organisations were counted as single units. Using an excel spreadsheet to record information all KPIs identified in online corporate reports, or online corporate pages for the organisations noted above were described and logged. They were grouped into the following sub sectors: Environmental, Economic, Social and Sustainable Development. KPIs which were worded in slightly different ways but clearly were had the same aim were grouped together. Finally, the total numbers of indicators were averaged by the number of contributor organisations to ensure they were comparable across network actor type. At this point the sub sector ‘Sustainable Development’ was eliminated as it contained few KPIs, and this grouping did not appear to provide any additional insights. KPIs were re allocated to Environment, Social or Economic, where most appropriate. The outcomes of this analysis are presented in chapter 4, section 4.3.

108 3.5.2.4 Meeting Notes, Observations, industry forums and ad hoc conversations (D10)

Throughout the period of doctoral research value was given to information derived from ad-hoc discussions, Carillion meetings attended (Table 13), industry forums and conference notes (Table 14). In addition, the researcher recognised online webinars being offered by companies working in the sustainability arena such as Ethical

corporation, Globescan and Ecovardis as an additional valuable source of information. Key global industry speakers provided their perspectives on aspects of sustainable supply chain management. For all interactions, notes were taken, usually manually and then typed. This process supported the review and thought process of the researcher and elicited additional memos from the material.

Table 13: Carillion meeting notes and ad hoc conversations

Date Meeting/Conversation 15.5.15 Meeting with S-BM

19.5.15 Notes from Carillion IMS team meeting

24.6.15 Notes: Carillion Heads of Supply Chain meeting, S-BM and researcher Sept 2015 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM

October 2015 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM Nov 2015 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM

2.11.15 Meeting: senior Supply Chain team Directors (SC-DB, SC-D1) S-BM and researcher

Dec 2015 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM January 2016 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM February 2016 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM

4.3.16 Notes: Health and Safety meeting – Present: HSS-HO, H&S team, S-BM and researcher

March 2016 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM 5.4.16 Online Meeting: SPSG – full team

21.4.16 Meeting: category management team, S-BM and researcher

1.5.16 Meeting: embodied carbon monitoring – present SC-RM2, D-HD, S-BM and researcher

5.5.16 Notes from HS&S meeting launching the Carillion ASR 2016. All HS&S team members present

May 2016 Meeting: SPSG update, present S-CM, SC-PM and researcher

26.7.16 Meeting sustainability content on Carillion website: S-CM, S-BM, intern and researcher

29.7.16 Notes: presentation of EPD research by UoS Masters student to CM-D Sept 2016 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM

12.8.16 Research update and discussion: SC-DB, S-BM and researcher October 2016 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM

109 Date Meeting/Conversation

21.11.16 Meeting: Corporate sustainability team, present S-CM, S-BM, corporate sustainability team member and researcher

January 2016 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM

8.2.17 Meeting: S-CM, S-BM recycled product content

8.3.17 CCS Sustainability Forum: Present CCS Sustainability team 21.3.17 Meeting: category management team, S-BM and researcher March 2017 SPSG Meeting – led by S-CM

3.4.17 Meeting: Sustainable procurement strategy - led by S-CM - attendance from sustainability, SC, operations and bid winning teams

5.4.17 CCS Sustainability Forum: Present CCS Sustainability team 19.4.17 Research update and discussion: SC-DB, S-BM and researcher 10.5.17 CCS Sustainability Forum: Present CCS Sustainability team

25.5.17 Meeting: Corporate Sustainable Procurement strategy – led by S-CM - attendance from sustainability, SC, operations and bid winning teams 14.6.17 CCS Sustainability Forum: Present CCS Sustainability team

10.7.17 CCS Sustainability Forum: Present CCS Sustainability team 10.7.17 CCS Infrastructure (Rail) team meeting

Sept 2017 BIM Tie Talks: presented by Carillion operations team

Table 14: Industry Forums and conferences attended

Date Event provider Industry Forums and conferences

July 2015 University of Surrey 8th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Industrial Ecology

17th _June 2016

Ecovardis Webinar: Interview with David Spacey: Director Heineken -Global Procurement

19th _October 2015

Ethical Corporation Webinar: Enabling Responsible Procurement strategy for business resilience

November 2015

IEMA Webinar – multiple presentations on the introduction of updated ISO 14001 November

2015

University of Loughborough

5th _{APRES Conference: Managing risk and enhancing} reputation

January 2016 IEMA Webinar: Climate Adaptation February

2016

Data Leaders Webinar: Changing approaches to procurement: industry views on the impact of increased data and interconnectivity

February 2016

IEMA Webinar: Natural Capital Protocol

March 2016 Ecobuild Attendance at Ecobuild exhibition and conference March 2016 Supply Chain School Completed on-line learning module: BIM

June 2016 University of Surrey SEES conference 16-17th _June

2016

United Nations UNEP Hotspot Analysis Prototyping Workshop, Paris

November 2016

BRE 6th APRES Annual Conference on ‘Responsible and ethical sourcing – a professional approach for materials, products and people’,

January 2017 Action Sustainability Webinar – online presentation for Carillion staff only: the introduction of ISO20400

110 Date Event provider Industry Forums and conferences

May 2017 Royal Holloway University

Conference: SDGs and sustainable supply chains in the post-global economy

30th _{May 2017 IEMA Webinar: Capital, Social and Environmental} 13th _{July 2017 Ecovardis Webinar: Ethical supply chains}

July 2017 University of Surrey PDS Conference

July 2017 NBS Workshop: embodied carbon

The documents and memos were logged in MAXQDA.

3.6 Limitations of the research methods

This research was conceived as a single case study analysis, a method that, whilst providing a richness of insight, is associated with a number of criticisms. Foremost amongst these are the concerns that case study results cannot be generalised to a wider population; indeed, that they are not replicable. Whilst the outcomes of this supply network approach are indeed drawn primarily from network actors within one company, the researcher has attempted to overcome this issue by incorporating interviews with inter-company actors, notes from industry meetings and conference materials, thus testing a wider level of industry applicability. There is also debate within the academic community regarding the relatively limited guidance on methodological techniques (Bennett, Elman, 2006) for case study implementation, which can result in the absence of systematic procedures (Yin, 2009, p. 14-15). Finally, there are concerns with single case studies that they may be affected by researcher subjectivity. This is a valid point but one which is equally present in other methodological approaches and indeed, within grounded theory, researcher engagement with the subject is acknowledged as part of the research process (Bryant, 2009).

The selection of a grounded theory methodology initially created difficulty for the researcher in establishing how to undertake a process which continues to have several contested approaches. Following extensive reading of key academics working in this field, such as Glaser, Strauss, Corbin, Charmaz and Bryant a position between the approaches of Chamaz and Bryant was adopted. However, this pragmatic, epistemological stance, would be seen as problematical by other researchers working with the model proposed by Glaser and Strauss (2008), where no prior knowledge or

111 epistemology position should be taken. As a researcher new to the process of coding, the use of coding programmes and continued development of coding it must be accepted that some subtlety or nuance offered by participants in interviews and meetings may have been lost. It is also accepted by researchers using grounded theory that the mere process of having to consolidate data into emerging categories becomes difficult and may be constraining, a point noted by Ellis (1986, p. 91) in her work on communities.

The grounded theory methodology was supported by mixed methods. Use of qualitative and quantitative material is considered wholly consistent with a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014) but, as with all combined approaches there remains the frequent difficulty of integrating these methods. Whilst this research has attempted to draw findings from both elements there are obvious issues in how to incorporate quantitative findings into the qualitatively driven coding and category development. Where text has been coded, the original material is always available for review, enabling re-assessment and even re-coding as greater or different meanings are ascribed to it as the research process develops. This is unlike quantitative coding which is precise, and the information provided by each code is single dimensional and has to totally represent the category concept it stands for (Sivesind, 1999). This has created some limitations in interpretation across datasets but the researcher believes that the mixed methods has created a greater illumination of the research problems. (put into thesis at this point).

The ability to construct coding that can function across datasets may also be a function of researcher experience and skill. This highlights one of the other major research dilemmas when using mixed methods. To achieve effective mixed methods research it requires the PhD researcher to have acquired a good working knowledge of the multiple methods being used. This includes their limitations, the procedures that need to be undertaken, the types of tools and their use and an ability to not only analyse but also interpret the findings. their assumptions, analysis procedures and tools, and an ability to understand and interpret results derived from those different methods. Despite engaging with the literature and undertaking training a PhD researcher, operating at an early stage in their research career, cannot have the same tacit knowledge that comes

112 with many years of experience with a particular type of methodology. However, it could be argued that this research has benefited from an open minded approach to different techniques, looking to work with those that best support the research questions, rather than being burdened by methodological prejudice (Cook, Reichardt, 1979).

113

Chapter 4. Network fragmentation