Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Managerial Capacity Needs of Built Professionals to Deliver Environmentally Sustainable Buildings (ESBs) in Urban Projects in Ghana

Submitted:

01 June 2026

Posted:

03 June 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Urban construction plays an important role in Ghana’s development, but it also contributes to environmental problems such as high energy use, waste generation, and resource depletion. This study examined the managerial capacity needs of built environment professionals for delivering environmentally sustainable buildings in urban projects in Ghana. A quantitative survey design was used, and a structured questionnaire was administered to 100 architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, and project managers in the Greater Accra and Ashanti regions. The data were analysed using factor analysis in SPSS, with reliability testing to confirm the consistency of the instrument. The findings showed that managerial capacity needs are grouped into four main areas: individual, organisational, industry, and state-level needs. At the individual level, stakeholder engagement, risk management, and environmental knowledge were identified as key skills. At the organisational level, firms need stronger strategies, supervision, and quality control systems. At the industry level, certification, training, and knowledge-sharing platforms were important, while at the state level, respondents highlighted the need for better regulation, streamlined permitting, and government-led training. The study concludes that improving managerial capacity is essential for mainstreaming environmentally sustainable buildings in Ghana. Strengthening training, organisational systems, industry standards, and public policy will help support a more sustainable construction sector.
Keywords: 
managerial capacity needs
;  
urban project
;  
environmentally sustainable buildings
;  
built professionals
;  
built environment
Subject: 
Engineering  -   Architecture, Building and Construction

1. Introduction

Urban projects are central to global sustainability, given its influence on environmental preservation, economic growth, and social well-being [1]. Yet, it remains a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, excessive resource consumption, and waste generation [2,3]. In response, Environmentally Sustainable Buildings (ESBs) have gained prominence as a strategy to mitigate these impacts by integrating energy efficiency, renewable resources, waste minimisation, and enhanced occupant health into building design and operation [4,5].
In Ghana, urban projects contributes an average of 14.34% of GDP and is a major source of employment [6,7]. However, the industry is constrained by unsustainable practices that undermine environmental and socio-economic development [8,9]. While ESBs offer a pathway towards sustainable growth, their adoption has been slow, largely due to capacity gaps among built environment professionals.
Research identifies three dimensions of capacity needs: technical, financial, and managerial [10,11]. Technical gaps include limited expertise in passive design, renewable energy integration, and sustainable material selection [11]. Financially, the lack of green loans, subsidies, and tax incentives discourages investment in Environmentally Sustainable Buildings (ESBs) [12,13]. Managerially, professionals face challenges in sustainable procurement, interdisciplinary collaboration, and performance assessment [14,15]. These deficiencies restrict the industry’s ability to coordinate complex projects and implement sustainability at scale. Compounding the problem is the absence of robust green building policies, codes, and demonstration projects, which has created regulatory uncertainty and limited market demand [16].
Capacity building has therefore become a priority for advancing Environmentally Sustainable Buildings (ESBs). Defined as the enhancement of knowledge, skills, resources, and institutional frameworks, capacity building enables professionals to align practice with sustainability goals [17,18]. While prior studies have explored technical and financial aspects, managerial capacity has received comparatively little attention, despite being critical for integrating sustainability principles into project management, leadership, and stakeholder coordination [11,19].
This study addresses this gap by examining the managerial capacity needs of built environment professionals in Ghana to deliver Environmentally Sustainable Buildings (ESBs). It asks: What managerial competencies are required to strengthen the ability of professionals to successfully implement environmentally sustainable buildings? By answering this question, the paper provides evidence to inform professional training, policy interventions, and institutional reforms that can accelerate the mainstreaming of sustainable construction in Ghana. In doing so, it contributes to the broader agenda of aligning the construction sector with climate action and sustainable development goals.

2. Materials and Methods

  • Sustainability and the Built Environment
The concept of sustainability has evolved into a central framework for addressing global environmental, social, and economic challenges. Defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, sustainability is grounded in the interdependence of ecological, social, and economic systems [20,21]. Within this framework, the built environment (BE) sector has been identified as a crucial driver of sustainable development due to its extensive use of natural resources, its role in shaping human settlements, and its influence on climate change outcomes [1].
The built environment contributes significantly to environmental degradation through high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy consumption, and waste generation [22,23]. At the same time, it offers opportunities to reduce negative impacts and promote more resilient, resource-efficient systems. Sustainable construction, often described as a subset of sustainable development, emphasizes reducing resource use, minimising waste, and ensuring the health and well-being of occupants [4]. Consequently, the built environment is not only an area of concern but also a domain of opportunity, where innovation, managerial capacity, and collaboration among professionals are essential to achieving sustainability goals.
  • Concept of Environmentally Sustainable Buildings
Environmentally Sustainable Buildings (ESBs), often referred to as “green” or “high-performance” buildings, are designed and constructed to reduce environmental impacts while enhancing social and economic benefits. They integrate principles such as resource conservation, energy efficiency, water management, waste minimisation, and improved indoor environmental quality [24,25]. By incorporating life cycle assessment, ESBs aim to evaluate and mitigate ecological impacts from material extraction, construction, operation, and demolition stages.
Empirical studies have shown that ESBs can significantly reduce operating costs, energy consumption, and carbon emissions compared to conventional buildings [26,27]. Techniques such as passive design, renewable energy integration, efficient HVAC systems, and sustainable material selection are integral to this process [28,29]. Moreover, ESBs address water scarcity through the adoption of reuse, recycling, and efficient consumption strategies, further contributing to sustainable urban development [30,31].
In the Ghanaian context, ESBs are increasingly recognised as a means to balance the growing demand for infrastructure with the need to protect natural resources and improve living standards [12,32]. However, their implementation remains limited due to technical, financial, and managerial challenges that restrict professionals’ ability to deliver on sustainability commitments.
  • Urban Projects and Sustainability Challenges
Urban projects are one of the largest contributors to national GDP, averaging 14.34% of output, and provides significant employment opportunities [6,7]. The sector, however, is also characterised by inefficiencies, resource wastage, and unsustainable practices that exacerbate environmental degradation [8]. Issues such as poor planning, limited adoption of energy-efficient technologies, and a lack of coordination among stakeholders hinder progress toward sustainability [33,34]
The housing deficit, estimated at over two million units, further pressures the industry to increase output, often at the expense of sustainable practices [35]. Although local building materials such as pozzolana cement, bamboo, and laterite are available, their use remains limited, with conventional, high-impact materials dominating the market [36]. Consequently, the sector continues to face tension between meeting housing demands and reducing its environmental footprint.
Policy interventions and stakeholder collaboration are needed to mainstream sustainability. Yet, weak regulatory frameworks, corruption, and limited enforcement of environmental codes remain obstacles [37]. Against this backdrop, the capacity of built professionals to lead sustainable construction becomes critical.
  • Role of Built Environment Professionals in ESB Delivery
Built environment professionals including architects, engineers, urban planners, and construction managers, play pivotal roles in shaping the sustainability outcomes of projects. Their decisions regarding design, material selection, procurement, and project management significantly influence the environmental performance of buildings [38,39]. For instance, architects can integrate passive design principles, while engineers are central to the specification of energy-efficient systems and renewable technologies.
Construction managers and contractors influence the sustainability of projects through their management of materials, site practices, and stakeholder coordination [40]. However, Akinshipe [41] argue that many professionals lack the requisite skills and competencies to deliver ESBs effectively. This skills gap, coupled with limited collaboration among stakeholders, undermines the potential for scaling up sustainable construction practices in Ghana.
Effective ESB delivery therefore requires professionals to possess not only technical expertise but also managerial capabilities in leadership, collaboration, procurement, and project governance. Without such capacities, sustainability initiatives risk remaining at the policy or advocacy level without effective implementation.
  • Capacity Building in Urban Projects
Capacity building (CB) has emerged as a critical strategy for strengthening the ability of professionals and organisations to deliver sustainable outcomes. Defined as the process of developing knowledge, skills, resources, and enabling conditions, CB operates at multiple levels: individual, organisational, industry, and state [17]. At the individual level, education and lifelong learning are essential to ensuring professionals acquire up-to-date knowledge and skills [42]. At the organisational level, fostering a culture of innovation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing enhances collective capacity [43,44].
At the industry level, networks, partnerships, and research collaborations facilitate knowledge exchange and technology transfer [45]. The state, as a major client and regulator, also plays a central role by creating policies, incentives, and institutional frameworks that enable capacity development [46].
In Ghana, however, capacity building remains fragmented and underdeveloped. Misalignment between academic curricula and industry needs, weak organisational structures, and limited state-led initiatives have slowed progress [47,48]. Enhancing capacity therefore requires a systemic approach that integrates all levels of the construction ecosystem.
  • Managerial Capacity Needs for Delivering ESBs in Urban Projects
Managerial capacity refers to the ability of professionals to lead, coordinate, and oversee projects effectively while integrating sustainability principles. It includes competencies in sustainable procurement, collaborative design, stakeholder engagement, project governance, and performance monitoring [19,49]. In the Ghanaian context, limited managerial capacity has been identified as a major barrier to ESB delivery [50].
Leadership is a critical component, as professionals must inspire teams to adopt sustainable practices and ensure accountability across project phases. Collaboration is equally vital, given the multidisciplinary nature of ESBs, which require architects, engineers, planners, and contractors to work cohesively [51]. Additionally, professionals must be equipped to manage risks, evaluate project performance using sustainability indicators, and adapt procurement processes to prioritise green technologies and materials [52].
Without these managerial capacities, even technically sound and financially supported projects risk underperformance. Strengthening managerial capacity is thus essential for mainstreaming ESBs in Ghana and ensuring alignment with global sustainability agendas.
  • Previous Empirical Studies and Research Gaps
Several studies have examined barriers and enablers of sustainable construction in Ghana and other developing countries. For example, Addy et al. [12] and Agyekum et al. [32] identified financial and technical challenges as key obstacles, while Afful et al. [53] highlighted gaps in professional training and certification. International studies also stress the importance of managerial competencies, yet few have explored these systematically in the Ghanaian context [19,50].
This gap underscores the need for focused research on managerial capacity needs. While technical and financial aspects of ESBs are well-documented, managerial competencies such as leadership, collaboration, and governance remain underexplored. Addressing this gap is critical to enhancing the role of built professionals in achieving sustainable construction outcomes.

2.1. Methodology

The study used a quantitative methodology, gathering data through a structured questionnaire survey and a review of the literature. This all-encompassing strategy was created to guarantee that the managerial skills necessary for the effective execution of ESBs were appropriately recognized.
  • Research Strategy
The primary quantitative research approach used in this study is to measure the managerial capacity needed by Ghanaian building professionals. That approach was chosen due to its ability to provide quantifiable data that can undergo statistical analysis and yield lucid insights [24]. With an emphasis on the design and delivery of ESBs, a standard questionnaire was created to gather primary data from various construction industry players.
  • Research Design
This study employed a descriptive research approach, which is suitable for investigating the current status of built environment professionals’ knowledge and behaviors about ESBs [51]. At the individual, business, organizational, and governmental levels, this design assisted in identifying certain capability gaps and needs. Since the questionnaire was created based on observations made during the literature review, the questions asked were pertinent to the study’s objectives.
  • Data Collection
To attain methodological rigor, the study employed a two-phase data collection procedure. To find important components of managerial competence, such as collaborative design, stakeholder engagement, project governance, and other managerial mechanisms pertinent to the delivery of ESB, a thorough literature search was first conducted. A structured questionnaire measuring managerial capacity demands in terms of a state, industry, and organizational dimension was designed using these findings as a basis. A total of thirty Likert-scale questions (1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) were included in the questionnaire. These questions were carefully crafted to capture the nuances of how managerial capacity needs of built professionals to deliver ESBs were regarded to be both a barrier and a facilitator. Ten construction professionals participated in a pilot study to improve the instrument prior to full deployment. The questionnaire’s clarity and reliability were demonstrated during this pretesting phase, which also produced a very high Cronbach’s α value of 0.922, indicating great internal consistency across the items. In order to guarantee representation of the professionals’ roles (architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, and project managers), the validated questionnaire was administered to 100 professionals working in the built environment in Ghana’s Greater Accra and Ashanti regions. The professionals were randomly stratified by important roles. Yamane’s procedure for a 95% confidence level with 5% precision and an expected population of 15,000 professionals was used to determine this sample size. Pilot testing helped to increase the validity and generalizability of the results as well as the robustness of the data gathering procedure when combined with systematic sampling.
  • Sampling Techniques and Sample Size
Stratified random sampling and snowball sampling were all employed in the study. To guarantee representation across important fields, participants were chosen at random from professional associations such the Ghana Institution of Surveyors, Ghana Institute of Architects, and Ghana Institution of Engineers. To find additional suitable people with experience in sustainable construction projects, snowball sampling was employed. After applying Yamane’s formula (n = N/(1+N(e²)) to a population of 15,000 built environment professionals in Ghana, with a 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error, the sample size was determined to be 100 responders [6]. This method integrated practical access to the field’s specialist knowledge with the statistical population’s representativeness.
  • Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 26 (SPSS v26), was used to analyze the data. To characterize the replies, identify patterns and dimensions in the managerial capacity requirements of the built environment professionals to deliver ESBs, factor analysis was computed. The gauge instrument was tested for reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha [14]. Latent dimensions of managerial capacity are identified using Varimax rotation and PCA (Principal Component Analysis). Suitability was validated using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s Test.
  • Ethical Considerations
The study adhered strictly to ethical standards while conducting the investigation. After being fully informed about the purpose of the current study, their voluntary involvement, and the confidentiality of the data, each participant provided signed informed consent. To protect respondents’ identity, coded identifiers were used to anonymize the questionnaires. Participants were free to leave at any time without incurring any fees. According to KNUST’s research data management policy from 2022, the collected data was stored on password-protected servers for five years after publication before being irreversibly deleted using approved data wiping software. These actions complied with both international research ethics norms and Ghana’s Data Protection Act of 2012. The integrity of the data gathered and the participants’ rights were enhanced by this adherence to ethical research methods [20].

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Results of Respondents

The demographic profile of the participants in the questionnaire survey, which sought to investigate the managerial capacity needs of built environment professionals in delivering Environmentally Sustainable Buildings (ESBs) in Ghana, is presented in this section. To evaluate the representativeness and context of the financial difficulties stated, it is crucial to comprehend these demographics (Table 1).
Quantity surveyors made up the largest professional group (34%), followed by engineers (21%) and project managers (21%). The prevalence of project and cost management positions suggests that the respondents have firsthand experience with managerial decision-making in building projects, which makes their observations on the need for financial capacity more pertinent.
32% of respondents had a master’s degree, whilst 51% of respondents had a bachelor’s degree. This cohort’s high level of education indicates that they are technically literate, which is relevant for analyzing their answers about the managerial resources needed to deploy ESBs.
According to the demographic statistics, the professionals working in the built environment are primarily well educated, with a notable proportion of quantity surveyors and engineers. Given that their positions and credentials allow them to directly encounter the financial difficulties related to sustainable building practices, this profile offers a solid basis for analyzing their managerial capacity requirements.

3.2. Managerial Capacity Needs of Built Professionals to Deliver Environmentally Sustainable Buildings (ESBs) in Urban Projects in Ghana

This section reports the findings on the managerial capacity requirements of construction professionals for delivering environmentally sustainable buildings (ESBs) in Ghana. The data was collected through structured questionnaires (Section D) which measured the extent to which respondents agreed with different managerial capacity needs across individual, state, industry, and organizational levels. Factor analysis using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was applied to confirm the suitability of the data.

3.2.1. Suitability of the Data for Factor Analysis

To assess the adequacy of the dataset, two preliminary statistical tests were conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy was 0.794, indicating that the dataset is suitable for factor analysis. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity produced a chi-square value of 2798.398 with 435 degrees of freedom and a significance level of p = .000, confirming strong correlations among the variables.
Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test Results.
Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test Results.
Test Value
KMO Measure 0.794
Bartlett’s Approx. Chi-Square 2798.398
df 435
Sig. .000
Source: SPSS Version 26 (2025).

3.2.2. Total Variance Explained

The factor analysis extracted four components with eigenvalues greater than 1. Together, these four components explained 67.81% of the total variance. Component 1 explained the highest variance (36.65%), followed by Component 2 (15.06%), Component 3 (9.27%), and Component 4 (6.83%). This confirms that the managerial capacity needs can be meaningfully grouped into four broad dimensions.
Table 3. Total Variance Explained.
Table 3. Total Variance Explained.
Component % of Variance Cumulative %
1 36.65% 36.65%
2 15.06% 51.71%
3 9.27% 60.98%
4 6.83% 67.81%
Source: SPSS Version 26 (2025).

3.2.3. Communalities of Managerial Capacity Needs

Communalities indicate how much variance in each item is explained by the extracted components. High values suggest stronger representation.
Organizational-level barriers such as lack of firm strategies to attract ESB projects (0.870), absence of external quality control services (0.841), and low level of knowledge and expertise for supervision (0.855) were strongly explained by the factors.
Industry-level needs like industry-specific certification and training (0.760) also showed strong representation.
Individual-level skills such as effective stakeholder engagement (0.794) and risk management skills (0.724) also had high communalities.
Table 4. Communalities of Managerial Capacity Needs.
Table 4. Communalities of Managerial Capacity Needs.
Item Extraction
Effective stakeholder engagement (Individual) 0.794
Skill in risk management (Individual) 0.724
Streamlined permitting processes (State) 0.755
Industry-specific certification and training (Industry) 0.760
Lack of firm strategies to attract ESB projects (Organizational) 0.870
Absence of external quality control services (Organizational) 0.841
Low knowledge/expertise for supervision (Organizational) 0.855
Source: SPSS Version 26 (2025).

3.2.4. Component Loadings by Capacity Level

The Component Matrix highlights how strongly each questionnaire item loaded on the extracted components. Key findings are presented below:
  • Individual Level: Respondents emphasized stakeholder engagement (0.782), environmental knowledge (0.698), and risk management (0.685) as the strongest managerial capacities required at the individual level. Leadership and project management skills also loaded highly (>0.60).
  • State Level: State-sponsored training programs (0.726), streamlined permitting processes (0.711), and effective monitoring and enforcement (0.695) were the most critical state-level managerial supports. However, weaknesses such as lack of advocacy for ESB practices (loading spread across multiple components) suggest gaps in government commitment.
  • Industry Level: Industry-specific certification and training (0.747) and collaborative platforms for knowledge sharing (0.636) were strongly highlighted. Innovation and adherence to industry standards also had significant factor loadings (>0.65).
  • Organizational Level: The analysis showed organizational factors as highly influential, with very strong loadings on negative barriers such as: Lack of job descriptions mandating sustainability (0.928), Low level of knowledge for supervision (0.909), Absence of external quality control services (0.911), No sanctions/incentives to incorporate sustainability (0.905). Positive capacities like allocation of resources (0.735) and performance measurement systems (0.762) were also notable.
The results suggest that the managerial capacity needs of built professionals are multi-dimensional and heavily influenced by organizational and state-level factors, followed by individual and industry capacities. While individuals require skills in project management, risk management, and stakeholder engagement, systemic and organizational weaknesses (e.g., lack of strategies, quality control, and supervision expertise) appear as the most critical barriers to ESB delivery in Ghana.

4. Discussion

This study examined the managerial capacity needs of built environment professionals in Ghana for the delivery of Environmentally Sustainable Buildings (ESBs). The results, derived through factor analysis, revealed four main dimensions of managerial capacity; individual, organisational, industry, and state-level, that together explained 67.81% of the variance. This multidimensional structure reinforces the argument of Sang et al. [14] and Omotayo et al. [52] that managerial competencies extend beyond individual knowledge and must be understood across different levels of the construction ecosystem.
At the individual level, the strongest needs identified were stakeholder engagement, risk management, and environmental knowledge. These findings align with earlier studies which emphasised the centrality of collaboration and risk awareness in sustainable project delivery [15,54]. The emphasis on stakeholder engagement, in particular, resonates with Ingle et al. [11], who observed that ineffective collaboration among professionals is a persistent challenge in developing economies. However, unlike earlier work which tended to highlight technical deficiencies such as passive design skills and renewable energy knowledge [55], the present study shows that professionals themselves recognise that their ability to engage stakeholders and manage risk is just as crucial. This indicates a growing awareness that managerial expertise is not secondary but integral to sustainable construction.
At the organisational level, significant deficiencies were reported in the areas of firm-level strategies to attract ESB projects, external quality control, and supervisory expertise. Previous studies largely attributed weak ESB adoption to external barriers, including regulatory gaps and limited incentives [37]. By contrast, this study demonstrates that internal organisational shortcomings are equally critical. The absence of long-term sustainability strategies within firms suggests that even when supportive external frameworks exist, organisational inertia could hinder progress. This extends existing literature by exposing weaknesses in the internal governance of construction organisations, an area that has received limited empirical attention. It also suggests that managerial capacity must be framed not only as an individual competency but as an organisational responsibility embedded in strategic planning and corporate culture.
At the industry level, the need for certification schemes, structured training, and collaborative knowledge platforms emerged strongly. These results reinforce the observations of Afful et al. [10] and Akinshipe et al. [56], who highlighted the lack of systematic professional development in Ghana’s construction sector. By stressing certification, respondents underscored the necessity of formal recognition and standardisation of ESB competencies, echoing Boyer et al. [57], who argued that sustainability transitions require industry-wide mechanisms rather than isolated initiatives. The study therefore adds weight to the argument that professional bodies and industry associations must play a more proactive role in mainstreaming sustainability knowledge and ensuring consistency in practice.
At the state level, respondents highlighted government-led training, streamlined permitting processes, and stronger monitoring and enforcement as vital supports. These findings are consistent with earlier work identifying regulatory uncertainty as a key barrier [13,16]. However, this study adds nuance by revealing that professionals expect the state not only to regulate but also to actively build capacity through training and advocacy. This differs from much of the literature, which portrayed professionals as the primary agents of capacity development [50]. The results thus highlight a more complex partnership model in which the state, industry, and professionals must share responsibility for advancing ESBs.
Overall, the findings both affirm and extend prior research. They affirm the importance of collaboration, leadership, and regulatory support as outlined by Sang et al. [14] and Raouf & AlGhamdi [15]. They also extend existing knowledge by identifying firm-level strategic gaps as a critical barrier to ESB delivery in Ghana. Whereas earlier studies have emphasised external constraints such as weak policy and limited finance [9,58], the present results demonstrate that internal organisational strategies or the lack thereof can be just as decisive. This suggests that previous work, while not necessarily questionable, is incomplete, as it overlooked the role of organisational governance in shaping sustainable construction outcomes.
The findings further open new directions for investigation. The limited prioritisation of advocacy for ESBs at the state level suggests that government commitment remains uneven, requiring deeper policy analysis. Similarly, the identification of organisational weaknesses points to the need for research into change management, leadership development, and governance structures within construction firms. Finally, while this study revealed strong demand for industry-specific certification and training, it did not assess the adequacy of existing curricula in Ghana. Future research should therefore evaluate whether current academic and professional programmes are fit for purpose in equipping practitioners with the managerial skills needed for ESB delivery.
The study reveals that Ghanaian professionals are aware of sustainability imperatives but face fragmented managerial capacity across individual, organisational, industry, and state levels. The results agree in part with existing literature but also highlight underexplored weaknesses in internal organisational strategy and state-led advocacy. These insights underscore the importance of adopting a holistic capacity-building approach that integrates professional training, firm-level reforms, industry-wide certification, and state-supported interventions. Only through such a comprehensive strategy can managerial capacity gaps be effectively bridged to mainstream ESBs in Ghana and align the construction sector with global sustainability goals.

5. Conclusions

This study set out to examine the managerial capacity needs of built environment professionals for the delivery of Environmentally Sustainable Buildings (ESBs) in Ghana. The findings revealed that while the technical and financial barriers to ESB delivery have been extensively discussed in the literature, managerial capacity remains a critical yet underexplored determinant of successful implementation. Through a quantitative assessment of professionals across architecture, engineering, surveying, and project management, the study established that managerial capacity needs are multidimensional, cutting across the individual, organisational, industry, and state levels. Together, these four dimensions explained nearly 68% of the variance in managerial capacity needs, underscoring their importance in mainstreaming sustainability in Ghana’s construction sector.
At the individual level, the results indicated that skills in stakeholder engagement, risk management, and environmental knowledge were the most pressing needs. These findings echo prior research that emphasises the central role of professionals in coordinating diverse project actors and ensuring sustainability considerations are integrated into decision-making [19,54]. The evidence shows that without stronger project leadership and collaborative skills, even technically feasible and financially supported ESB initiatives may falter.
The organisational level emerged as the most critical domain of need. Lack of firm-level strategies to attract ESB projects, low knowledge and supervision expertise, absence of performance measurement systems, and limited allocation of resources were strongly represented. This aligns with Ingle et al. [11], who argue that organisational systems must embed sustainability into procurement, monitoring, and quality assurance to drive change. The absence of such institutionalised frameworks in Ghana undermines the ability of individual professionals to champion ESB practices effectively.
At the industry level, certification systems, collaborative platforms, and knowledge-sharing mechanisms were found to be essential. However, these are weakly developed in Ghana, limiting opportunities for professionals to learn from demonstration projects and adopt best practices [10]. Strengthening industry-wide standards and creating incentives for innovation will therefore be indispensable for scaling ESBs.
The state level was also found to be influential, particularly regarding regulatory enforcement, streamlined permitting processes, and state-led training programmes. The absence of strong policy backing and limited advocacy for ESB practices reflect gaps in governmental commitment, consistent with Afful-Mensah et al. [37]. This indicates that while professionals may be willing to adopt sustainable practices, weak regulatory support and fragmented institutional frameworks undermine their efforts.
Taken together, the study concludes that Ghana’s transition toward environmentally sustainable construction depends heavily on addressing these managerial capacity gaps. Strengthening capacity requires a systemic approach: empowering individuals with leadership and risk management skills; building organisational strategies, performance systems, and supervision expertise; enhancing industry-level standards and certifications; and developing state-led policies and incentives. The results reinforce the argument of Omotayo et al. [52] that managerial competencies are as crucial as technical and financial capacities in embedding sustainability into construction practice.
Beyond identifying capacity gaps, the findings raise important considerations for both policy and practice. First, universities and professional institutions need to reform curricula and continuous professional development programmes to embed managerial competencies in sustainability. Second, firms should institutionalise sustainability through policies, procurement strategies, and resource allocation. Third, policymakers should design enabling frameworks that include incentives, sanctions, and clear regulatory guidelines for ESBs. Without such systemic action, Ghana risks falling behind in meeting global sustainability commitments and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 on sustainable cities and communities.
Finally, the study opens several avenues for future research. While this work focused primarily on managerial capacity needs, future studies could adopt a mixed-methods approach to explore how these needs interact with technical and financial dimensions in real project contexts. Longitudinal studies could also examine how capacity-building interventions influence ESB uptake over time. Comparative studies between Ghana and other Sub-Saharan African countries could provide valuable insights into regional best practices and context-specific challenges. Moreover, investigating client and end-user perspectives on managerial practices could enrich understanding of how demand-side dynamics affect ESB delivery.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the successful delivery of ESBs in Ghana is contingent not only on technical expertise and financial resources but also critically on managerial capacity. Addressing gaps at individual, organisational, industry, and state levels is essential for aligning Ghana’s construction industry with global climate action and sustainable development agendas. Building managerial capacity will therefore be central to transforming the construction sector into a driver of environmental sustainability, economic growth, and social well-being [9,49].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Michael Owoahene Acheampong and Godwin Kojo Kumi Acquah; methodology, Michael Owoahene Acheampong, Godwin Kojo Kumi Acquah and Isaac Akomea-Frimpong; software, Michael Owoahene Acheampong; validation, Michael Owoahene Acheampong, Godwin Kojo Kumi Acquah and Aba Essanowa Afful; formal analysis, Michael Owoahene Acheampong; investigation, Michael Owoahene Acheampong, Emmanuel Awenboro Anak and Samuel Awinbono Asaah; resources, Godwin Kojo Kumi Acquah and Isaac Akomea-Frimpong; data curation, Michael Owoahene Acheampong and Emmanuel Awenboro Anak; writing—original draft preparation, Michael Owoahene Acheampong and Kwaku Wireko; writing—review and editing, Michael Owoahene Acheampong, Godwin Kojo Kumi Acquah, Aba Essanowa Afful and Isaac Akomea-Frimpong; visualization, Michael Owoahene Acheampong; supervision, Godwin Kojo Kumi Acquah and Isaac Akomea-Frimpong; project administration, Michael Owoahene Acheampong; funding acquisition, Godwin Kojo Kumi Acquah and Isaac Akomea-Frimpong. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Committee on Human Research, Publications and Ethics (CHRPE) of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) for institutional and academic guidance. The authors also appreciate the contributions of all individuals who assisted with data collection and administrative support during the study. During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used Large Language Models (OpenAI, GPT-5.3, Perplexity) for the purposes of drafting, editing, and refining sections of the manuscript. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Tuprnaite. The role of the construction industry in sustainable development. Environ. Eng. 2017, 20, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
  2. Vasilca, S.; Georgescu, I.; Popescu, C. The environmental impacts of building construction: A life cycle assessment approach. Sustainability 2021, vol. 13, 1112. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sparrevik, M.; Wangen, H.F.; Fet, A.M.; Boer, L. Greenhouse gas emissions from building construction: A critical review. Present. At. Mater. Today Proc. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  4. Adebayo, A. Sustainable construction in Africa. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Creating a Sustainable Construction Industry in Developing Countries, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 11–13 November 2002. [Google Scholar]
  5. Agyekum, K.; Ayarkwa, J.; Adinyira, E. Strategies for promoting green buildings in Ghana. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2020b, vol. 10(no. 3), 407–422. [Google Scholar]
  6. G. S. S. (GSS). Rebased 2013–2017 Annual Gross Domestic Product; Accra: GSS, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Owoo, N. S.; Lambon-Quayefio, M.P.; Onuoha, H. Construction sector growth and employment generation in Ghana. Afr. Dev. Rev. 2020, vol. 32(no. 2), 169–181. [Google Scholar]
  8. Djokoto, S. D.; Dadzie, J.; Ohemeng-Ababio, E. Barriers to sustainable construction in the Ghanaian construction industry: Consultants’ perspectives. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, vol. 7(no. 1), 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Agyekum, K.; Adinyira, E.; Baiden, B.; Osei-Tutu, E. Sustainable construction in Ghana: Current challenges and the way forward. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020a, vol. 20(no. 3), 253–262. [Google Scholar]
  10. Afful, A.; Agyekum, K.; Ayarkwa, J. Capacity gaps in delivering green buildings in Ghana: Perspectives of construction professionals. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ingle, R.; Kulatunga, U.; Amaratunga, D.; Liyanage, C. The role of managerial capacity in sustainable construction. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2020, vol. 38(no. 3), 383–398. [Google Scholar]
  12. Addy, M. N.; Agyekum, K.; Ayarkwa, J.; Owusu-Manu, D. Barriers to sustainable construction in developing countries: A Ghanaian perspective. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2020, vol. 18(no. 6), 1517–1536. [Google Scholar]
  13. Agyekum, K.; Ayarkwa, J.; Adinyira, E.; Baiden, B. Promoting green building in Ghana: Perspectives from built environment professionals. J. Green Build. 2020b, vol. 15(no. 1), 127–146. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sang, P.; Liu, J.; Zhang, R. Managerial competence and sustainability integration in construction project management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, vol. 144(no. 5), 04018020. [Google Scholar]
  15. A. Raouf, S.G. Managerial skills for sustainable project delivery: A Middle Eastern perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, vol. 37(no. 4), 587–598. [Google Scholar]
  16. Afful-Mensah, G.; Agyekum, K.; Nyarko, K.B. Policy and regulatory challenges of green building development in Ghana. J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 2020, vol. 22(no. 1), 39–56. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kululanga, G. K. Capacity building in the construction industry of developing countries. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. 2012, vol. 17(no. 1), 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  18. Omotayo, T.; Boateng, P.; Osei-Kyei, R.; Aigbavboa, C. Managerial capabilities for sustainable construction: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, vol. 335, 130271. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sang, P.; Ma, Y.; Li, X. Managerial challenges in implementing green construction practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, vol. 172, 560–571. [Google Scholar]
  20. J. D. a. T. Marshall, M.W. Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, vol. 39(no. 3), 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ragheb; El-Shimy, H.; Ragheb, G. Green architecture: A concept of sustainability. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, vol. 216, 778–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Čuček, L.; Klemeš, J.J.; Kravanja, Z. A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, vol. 34, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Boyer, J.; Dulmin, R.; Mininno, V. Barriers to sustainable construction: Stakeholder perceptions. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2016, vol. 6(no. 1), 52–67. [Google Scholar]
  24. Feng, P. Sustainable architecture: A critical framework. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2014, vol. 57(no. 2), 128–138. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hussein, H. Principles of green building design. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2012, vol. 1(no. 1), 41–54. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lockwood, C. Building the green way. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, vol. 84(no. 6), 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  27. U. D. o. Energy. Building Technologies Program: Benefits of Green Buildings; DOE.: Washington, D.C., 2008. [Google Scholar]
  28. Akadiri, P. O.; Chinyio, E.A.; Olomolaiye, P.O. Design of a sustainable building: A conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings 2012, vol. 2(no. 2), 126–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sujanova, J.; Rybar, J.; Martens, B. Sustainable building materials and their impact on the environment: A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2019, vol. 22, 122–127. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rodrigues, A.; Costa, C.; Ribeiro, L. Water efficiency strategies in sustainable buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production 2012, 29–30, 176–187. [Google Scholar]
  31. a. P.-P. Silva-Afonso, R. The importance of water efficiency in sustainable buildings. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, vol. 25(no. 14), 3415–3426. [Google Scholar]
  32. Agyekum, K.; Ayarkwa, J.; Adinyira, E. Barriers to the adoption of sustainable construction in Ghana. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. 2020a, vol. 25(no. 1), 45–63. [Google Scholar]
  33. Twumasi-Ampofo, K.; Osei-Tutu, E.; Agyekum, K. The state of energy efficiency in the Ghanaian building industry. J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 2013, vol. 15(no. 5), 111–125. [Google Scholar]
  34. R. O. a. D.-N. Asamoah, I. Sustainable housing finance in Ghana: Prospects and challenges. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2014, vol. 29(no. 1), 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  35. UN-Habitat, The State of Housing in Africa Report; United Nations Human Settlements Programme: Nairobi, 2020.
  36. Ampadu-Asiamah, J.; Afram, S.O.; Osei-Tutu, E. Use of local building materials in Ghana: Challenges and prospects. J. Sci. Technol. 2013, vol. 33(no. 2), 78–86. [Google Scholar]
  37. Afful-Mensah, G.; Kissi, E.; Amoah, C.; Asare, J. Regulatory frameworks for sustainable construction in developing countries: Insights from Ghana. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, vol. 276, 123248. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mawed, M.; Fouchal, F.; Zayed, T. Integrated sustainable building design: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, vol. 132, 110093. [Google Scholar]
  39. Masood, R.; Choudhry, R.M.; Kim, J. Building professionals’ roles in delivering sustainable construction projects. Procedia Eng. 2017, vol. 196, 157–164. [Google Scholar]
  40. Opoku. The role of construction professionals in sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, vol. 223, 963–972. [Google Scholar]
  41. Akinshipe; Smallwood, J.; Emuze, F. Competencies for sustainable construction: An exploratory study of built environment professionals in South Africa. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2019, vol. 9(no. 5), 630–646. [Google Scholar]
  42. Love, P. E. D.; Haynes, N.S.; Irani, Z. Construction managers’ expectations and observations of graduates. J. Manag. Eng. 2001, vol. 17(no. 3), 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lazar, J. Knowledge sharing in construction project teams. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2000, vol. 18(no. 6), 413–421. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bossink, A. G. Managing drivers of innovation in construction networks. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, vol. 130(no. 3), 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kulatunga, U.; Amaratunga, D.; Haigh, R.; Rameezdeen, R. Capacity building in the Sri Lankan construction sector. In Proceedings of the 7th International Postgraduate Conference in the Built and Human Environment, 2007; pp. 655–666. [Google Scholar]
  46. W. a. M. Didibhuku, M. Developing human resource capacity in construction. In Proceedings of the 3rd Built Environment Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 6–8 July 2008. [Google Scholar]
  47. R. a. E. Cabahug, D.J. Construction education: Are industry needs being met? In Proceedings of the CIB W89 International Conference on Building Education and Research, 2002; pp. 167–176. [Google Scholar]
  48. M. a. C. Murray, A. The relevance of construction education in a global economy. Educ. Train. 2007, vol. 49(no. 1), 30–44. [Google Scholar]
  49. S. Y. a. A. Raouf, S.G. Managerial skills for sustainable construction practices. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2019, vol. 8(no. 1), 34–44. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ingle, S.; Kassem, M.; Greenwood, D. Skills and capacity for delivering sustainable construction in emerging economies. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2020, vol. 38(no. 5), 447–465. [Google Scholar]
  51. Chan, P. C.; Darko, A.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Owusu-Manu, D.G. Barriers to green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, vol. 172, 1067–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Omotayo, T.; Boateng, P.; Osobajo, O.; Ekundayo, D.; Ebohon, O.J. Capacity building for sustainable construction: A review of global practices and emerging trends. Sustain. Dev. 2022, vol. 30(no. 2), 345–361. [Google Scholar]
  53. Afful; Fugar, F.; Adinyira, E.; Osei-Tutu, E. Bridging the green building knowledge gap: Professional training and certification needs in Ghana’. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. 2021, vol. 26(no. 2), 79–96. [Google Scholar]
  54. Chan, P. C.; Darko, A.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Owusu-Manu, D. Strategies for promoting green building technologies adoption in the construction industry: Ghanaian perspective. Build. Environ. 2018, vol. 128, 31–41. [Google Scholar]
  55. Oti, H.; Kurul, E.; Cheung, F.; Tah, J.H.M. Sustainable design capabilities of construction professionals: Gaps and strategies. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, vol. 26(no. 5), 861–880. [Google Scholar]
  56. Akinshipe; Aigbavboa, C.; Thwala, W. An evaluation of skills gap for sustainable construction in developing countries. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2019, vol. 15(no. 2), 102–119. [Google Scholar]
  57. Boyer, J.; Sarkis, J.; Cloutier, C. Managing energy efficiency performance in the built environment: A literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, vol. 65, 477–491. [Google Scholar]
  58. Addy, M.; Agyekum, K.; Kissi, E.; Adinyira, E. Barriers to the adoption of green building technologies in Ghana. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2020, vol. 18(no. 6), 1429–1445. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Demographics of Respondents.
Table 1. Demographics of Respondents.
Demographics Frequency Percent
Occupation Quantity Surveyor 34 34.0%
Engineer 21 21.0%
Project Manager 21 21.0%
Civil Engineer 13 13.0%
Others 11 11.0%
Total 100 100%
Education Level Diploma 12 12.0%
BSc 51 51.0%
MSc 32 32.0%
PhD 5 5.0%
Total 100 100%
Source: Field Data (2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated