Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: what standards say

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how various approaches to stakeholder management, as well as sustainable development principles, are included in internationally‐used project management standards; and to consider the demands these approaches and principles place on project stakeholder management.

Design/methodology/approach

An analytical framework was developed based on stakeholder theory within general management, as well as on sustainability research. Desk research was carried out by applying the analytical framework to three project management standards: ICB, PMBOK and PRINCE2.

Findings

The research findings suggest that stakeholder issues are treated superficially in the project management standards, while putting stakeholder management in the context of sustainable development would ask for a paradigm shift in the underpinning values. The current project stakeholder practices represent mainly a management‐of‐stakeholders approach, i.e. making stakeholders comply to project needs, whereas a management‐for‐stakeholders approach may be beneficial.

Research limitations/implications

As the analysis is based on document studies of bodies of knowledge, the authors cannot be sure to what extent the standards represent real‐life practices. However, the standards are developed by practitioners agreeing on common practices. Further, they are used to certify project managers worldwide. Therefore, the authors find it safe to claim that the findings are relevant when discussing project management practices.

Originality/value

The value of this paper lies in the enrichment of the understanding of project stakeholder management by applying concepts from general stakeholder theory and sustainable development research.

Citation

Eskerod, P. and Huemann, M. (2013), "Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: what standards say", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291017