Construction Economics and Building Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 2023 © 2023 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. Citation: Domínguez-Herrera, M. M., González-Morales, O., González-Díaz, E. 2023. Social Responsibility of Construction Company as Strategy for Sustainability in Island Territories. Construction Economics and Building, 23:1/2, 31–55. https://doi.org/10.5130/ AJCEB.v23i1/2.8163 ISSN 2204-9029 | Published by UTS ePRESS | https://epress. lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index. php/AJCEB RESEARCH ARTICLE Social Responsibility of Construction Company as Strategy for Sustainability in Island Territories Marta Mª Domínguez-Herrera1, Olga González-Morales2,*, Eduardo González-Díaz3 1 Department of Techniques and Projects in Engineering and Architecture, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain, mdguez@ull.edu.es, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0986-4791 2 Department of Applied Economics and Quantitative Methods, Member of ISTUR, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain, olgonzal@ull.edu.es, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3754-2300 3 Department of Techniques and Projects in Engineering and Architecture, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain, egonza@ull.edu.es, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3682-6114 Corresponding author: Marta Mª Domínguez-Herrera, Department of Techniques and Projects in Engineering and Architecture, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain, mdguez@ull.edu.es DOI: https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v23i1/2.8163 Article History: Received 17/04/2022; Revised 14/03/2023; Accepted 27/03/2023; Published 31/07/2023 Abstract The increase in urbanization and the volume of construction has accelerated. This situation requires systematizing the use of limited resources, especially in island territories. The construction sector contributes to the depletion of these resources and has a significant impact on society, which is why it is necessary to change its strategy and decision-making. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) may be the strategy to develop a socio-environmentally responsible production model that replaces the traditional one. A socially responsible construction company optimizes use construction materials, gives value to waste generated, minimizes the impact that buildings have on the environment, makes responsible use of energy and water, uses innovations to improve the process and adequately manages its human resources. The aim of this work is to analyse the socially responsible behaviour of companies in the construction sector in a limited and fragmented territory as is the province of Santa Cruz de Tenerife and to compare the importance that companies give to their actions, using for the first time 99 indicators grouped into DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTEREST The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. FUNDING The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 31 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v23i1/2.8163 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v23i1/2.8163 https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB mailto:mdguez@ull.edu.es https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0986-4791 mailto:olgonzal@ull.edu.es https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3754-2300 mailto:egonza@ull.edu.es https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3682-6114 mailto:mdguez@ull.edu.es https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v23i1/2.8163 three factors: environmental, social and economic, thus also highlighting the contribution of CSR to sustainability. The companies surveyed indicate whether they have implemented or plan to implement them in the future. The results indicate that aspects related to environmental sensitivity and social contribution contribute most to the implementation of a CSR strategy, while economic aspects have a negative influence. In the case of companies planning to implement a CSR strategy in the future, the social contribution aspect is the most influential. Keywords Corporate Social Responsibility; Construction Sector; Sustainability; Quantitative Analysis Introduction Research on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the construction sector is relatively recent and markedly increased in the second decade of the 21st century (Loosemore, et al., 2018). The analyses of the socially responsible behaviour of these companies provide data to assess the way in which they understand business management and its effects on the environment (Loosemore and Lim, 2017; United Nations, 2009; 2012). According to Watts, Dainty and Fernie (2015) and Zhang, Oo and Lim (2019), companies in the construction sector are increasingly concerned about the impact of their activity on society, and they do this motivated by environmental factors, and by factors related to finding ways to protect their legitimacy and image in line with social expectations. Daily practices are associated more with the environmental dimension than with the social dimension. Specifically, they undertake actions in the field of energy efficiency and management of construction and demolition waste from the projects they execute (Ogunmakinde, Egbelakin and Sher, 2022). Some companies publish their mission and vision statements, but do not comply with a formal CSR commitment (Lim and Loosemore, 2017). Agents in the construction sector are beginning to think that it is necessary to make commitments regarding social rights and environmental impacts (Domínguez-Herrera, 2017). Burón-Maestro (2007) understands that one way to promote the change towards a CSR strategy is to create CSR indices to assess the goodness of each constructive solution through an indicator of its sustainability (Opoku, 2019). Given the importance of this sector in the development of communities and in the fulfillment of the sustainable development objectives, the objective of this work focuses on analysing the socially responsible behaviour of companies in the construction sector to verify what practices lead to carried out by these companies and the weight of their contribution to the economic, social and environmental dimensions. Given the importance of this sector in the development of communities and in the fulfillment of the sustainable development objectives, the aim of this work is focused on analysing the socially responsible behaviour of companies in the construction sector to verify what practices carried out by these companies and the weight of their contribution to the economic, social and environmental dimensions, comparing the importance that companies place on CSR actions depending on whether they have been implemented or there are plans to implement them in the future. The second section then develops the theoretical framework focused on CSR and sustainability in the construction sector. The third section describes the hypotheses and the methodology used. The fourth section presents the quantitative results. Finally, the discussion and the conclusions of the study are summarized, as well as the limitations and future lines of work. Theoretical framework: CSR and sustainability in the construction sector After several decades of research, three questions related to CSR remain to be answered. The first is that there is no single definition, but in the context of this research the definition of the European Commission Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202332 (2001; 2011) is assumed because it is the most complete (Diagram 1), subsequently defining the strategy for the sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and their companies (European Commission, 2012). The second issue is that the empirical relationship between company profitability and CSR has not been resolved. Zeng (2016) sees a direct correlation between the company’s market value and the company’s position in the CSR rankings, while Cherian, et al. (2019) suggest that certain CSR actions increase the value of the company more than others. The third issue concerns the debate on whether CSR should be voluntary or mandatory. In any case, there are reasons to be optimistic, since the trend in the business sector points towards more responsible behaviour, with the support of governments playing an important role in meeting the objectives (Abbas, 2020). − Human resources management − Health and safety in the workplace, voluntary advocacy − Adaptation to change − Environmental impact and natural resources management − Integration in local communities − Collaboration with business partners, suppliers and consumers − Human rights, adoption of codes of conduct − Global environmental issues, collaboration in their resolution Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). INTERNAL DIMENSION EXTERNAL DIMENSION Diagram 1. Dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility. Source: González Morales (2008, p.97) CSR is a strategic axis of business management which has a clear impact on decision-making, so it should not be exclusively assimilated as an ethical practice of companies (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Croker, 2013; Dahlsrud, 2008). The concept has evolved considerably in recent years from the personal responsibilities of the employer to social responsibility in a broader sense (Carroll and Shabana, 2010). The European Commission (2011) encouraged companies to adopt long-term socio-environmentally responsible strategic approaches. Respect for the applicable legislation and collective agreements between the social partners was set out as a prerequisite. Companies should integrate social, environmental and ethical concerns, respect for human rights and consumer concerns to maximize the creation of shared value for all parties involved, and identify, prevent and mitigate its possible adverse consequences. This way of understanding CSR considers the impact of the company on society and integrates those actions that the company performs voluntarily, once its legal obligations are complied with (Gowri, 2004). Progress is being made in the measurement and application of CSR. The UNE-ISO 26000:2012 standard is considered a CSR milestone, the result of a global consensus. The use of this standard allows a systematic, objective and independent process to be conducted to determine how the activity of the company satisfies the established requirements. The CSR audit can be used as a control tool (Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación, 2012). Adopting the ISO 26000 standard is relatively straightforward in Europe because, in the past, it spearheaded the adoption of the ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 standards to good effect (Prado- Roman et al., 2018). There are a growing number of standards and certifications that overlap with ISO Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202333 26000 and, in a sense, compete with each other (Balzarova and Castka, 2018; Castka and Corbett, 2016; Castka, Searcy and Mohr, 2020). Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a review of the standards and certifications to coordinate and/or reduce them, thus preventing confusion in companies. Many companies focus CSR primarily on occupational health and safety, as well as ethical business practices and environmental management, yet they neglect the external dimension. Companies in the construction sector can contribute positively to the development of communities and respond to social changes, as well as identifying the degree of involvement with their stakeholders (Vallina, 2020). Despite the fact that CSR is being put into practice in the construction sector, to a large extent, informally and is in its early stages of development, the results of Lim and Loosemore (2017) show that, as companies grow, they tend to seek a strategic approach to create public value, take care of their socially responsible image and improve their competitiveness. Darko, et al. (2019) reviewed the practices adopted by the stakeholders of construction companies in countries such as the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, India and China, and confirmed that, at the end of the 20th century, the construction sector took CSR into account and, as the socio- environmentally responsible vision spreads, the interest of the agents involved in the construction process and of the researchers in the sector grows. Xia, et al. (2018) say that the development of actions in the social dimension is predominant. Furthermore, Zhang and Chan (2017) identify indicators, such as MIVES, LEED, Green, among others, which aim to improve the understanding of what they call “Green Building”, and which serve to encourage more responsible building. The commitment to CSR also depends on the education and training of entrepreneurs (Sarhan and Fox, 2013), as well as on other factors that can act as a barrier or facilitate its development such as: cultural barriers, lack of technology and ecological techniques, quality of specifications, stakeholder participation, guidance and benchmarking systems ( Jamil and Fathi, 2016). Sustainability in construction is the process by which all the stakeholders involved —owners, designers, building companies, management teams, suppliers of materials and construction products and administration— integrate functional, economic, environmental and quality considerations to produce and renovate buildings, their surroundings and their impact on the said surroundings (IHOBE, 2010). In the case of the Spanish construction sector, there is no generalized CSR strategy, but rather extensive legislation focused on contributing to the sustainability of structures. If the project establishes requirements related to social, environmental and economic criteria, the execution must be consistent with these requirements (Ministerio de Presidencia, 2008; Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana, 2021). Although the use of sustainability assessment tools is necessary in all phases of the construction process, it is essential in the design stage, since most of the decisions affecting the entire useful life of the building are made at this stage. For this paradigm shift to take place, we must evolve towards a way of building with a more fluid interaction between the built heritage and the natural environment, and CSR contributes to this, without forgetting the other dimensions of sustainability, taking into account the principles of the circular economy (Kurniawati and Mujiyati, 2023; Opoku, 2019). Sustainability, sustainable development, is currently articulated through the United Nations 2030 Agenda (United Nations, 2015; 2020). From its approval in 2015 to the present day, its prominence has been increasing. Several of these goals must be considered to the construction sector for their achievement, so once again it becomes clear that CSR is the perfect strategy to achieve sustainability in the construction sector and its companies (Burón-Maestro, 2007; Lu and Zhang, 2016; Opoku, 2019; Ye, et al., 2019; Zhang, Oo and Lim, 2022). At present, environmental product declarations only calculate the impacts of materials in the product phase, they do not report on the rest of the life cycle stages. Nor is there a known way of accurately assessing the contribution of materials to the sustainability of the building. Other tools for assessing the Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202334 sustainability of the building provide information on the global behaviour of the building, for example, the life cycle analysis of the construction products or materials used in buildings. These and other approaches are incomplete, and it would be a useful exercise to review them, as this sector necessarily manages large amounts of data, a good option is to use methodologies based on building information modelling (BIM). One can speak of more sustainable construction materials or products in cases where all the information, the environment and the complete life cycle are integrated (Domínguez-Herrera, González-Morales and González-Díaz, 2018; Rezaei, Bulle and Lesage, 2019). Definitely, a paradigm shift is required to solve ecological and social problems that are structural, not temporary (European Commission, 2020a; 2020b; Schneider, 2020). The empirical analysis for this work has been carried out on four islands of Santa Cruz de Tenerife province (Canary Islands, Spain), an outermost region of the European Union located in the Atlantic and economically characterized by its high dependence on tourism associated with a growing construction sector, dedicated to renovations and new buildings. In island tourist destinations, the need to establish a viable balance between economic, sociocultural and environmental impacts of tourism is more evident (Graci and Doods, 2010). In this scenario, the environmental impacts derived from construction activity, such as increased pressure on land use or waste generation in limited spaces, require specific management so that, in the long term, it does not end up destroying landscape. In this sense, public authorities play a fundamental role, since they are responsible for developing construction planning and monitoring strategies, this being a highly regulated sector (e.g., Structural Concrete Instruction). There is an intricate interconnection between government entities and the private sector, and it is necessary to establish joint action aimed at achieving long-term sustainability goals. Hypothesis and Methodology Based on the theoretical framework developed in the previous section, the following hypotheses are proposed, in which the perception of good CSR practices, their sensitivity towards the three dimensions of sustainability and whether the environmental dimension is given more importance are studied in the case of companies in the construction sector in the province of Santa Cruz de Tenerife for the first time. HYPOTHESIS H1. There are differences between the valuations of the shares in terms of CSR depending on whether the company in the construction sector has or does not have a CSR strategy. H2. Companies in the construction sector that have a CSR strategy value all the aspects that CSR encompasses (environmental, economic and social contribution) to the same extend. H3. Environmental sensitivity is the most influential factor for companies in the construction sector to assess the possibility of implementing a CSR strategy in the future. Table 1 shows the relationship between the research questions, the hypotheses, the dimensions of sustainability to which CSR contributes and the research results for each group of companies investigated. POPULATION AND SAMPLE SIZE The population under study is companies in the construction sector that perform their activity in the province of Santa Cruz de Tenerife. This business fabric includes delegations of large national companies that coexist with other construction companies of various sizes, as set out by the European Union in its Directive 2013/34/EU (European Union, 2013), as well as developers, manufacturers of construction products and materials, contractors and builders. Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202335 Table 1. Methodological framework. Three questions related to CSR remain after several decades of research. Research questions Theoretical framework: CSR and sustainability in the construction sector References Hypothesis/ sustainability dimension Results table 1st There is no single definition of CSR – In the context of this research the definition is the European Commission one. – The concept has evolved considerably in recent years from the personal responsibilities of the employer to social responsibility in a broader sense. – Aguinis and Glavas (2012) – Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (2012) – Balzarova and Castka (2018) – Carroll and Shabana (2010) – Castka and Corbett (2016) – Castka, Searcy and Mohr (2020) – Croker (2013) – Dahlsrud (2008) – European Commission (2001; 2011; 2012) – Gowri (2004) – H1 – Factor 2. Economic aspects Table II 2nd The empirical relationship between company profitability and CSR has not been resolved – Companies in the construction sector can contribute positively to the development of communities and respond to social changes, as well as identifying the degree of involvement with their stakeholders. – The commitment to CSR also depends on the education and training of entrepreneurs. – Jamil and Fathi (2016) – Sarhan and Fox (2013) – Cherian, et al. (2019) – Darko, Zhang and Chan (2017) – Darko, et al. (2019) – Lim and Loosemore (2017) – Vallina (2020) – Xia, et al. (2018) – Zeng (2016) – H2 – Factor 3. Aspects on social contribution Table III Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202336 Table 1. continued Three questions related to CSR remain after several decades of research. Research questions Theoretical framework: CSR and sustainability in the construction sector References Hypothesis/ sustainability dimension Results table 3rd CSR should be voluntary or mandatory? – In the case of the Spanish construction sector, there is no generalized CSR strategy, but rather extensive legislation focused on contributing to the sustainability of structures. – CSR is the perfect strategy to achieve sustainability in the construction sector and its companies. – Environmental product declarations only calculate the impacts of materials in the product phase, they do not report on the rest of the life cycle stages – Abbas (2020) – Cascajero (2022) – Domínguez- Herrera, González-Morales and González-Díaz (2018) – European Commission (2020a; 2020b) – Graci and Doods (2010) – IHOBE (2010) – Kurniawati and Mujiyati (2023) – Ministerio de Presidencia (2008) – Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana (2021) – Opoku (2019) – Ogunmakinde, Egbelakin and Sher (2022) – Rezaei, Bulle and Lesage (2019) – Moneva-Abadía, Gallardo-Vázquez y Sánchez- Hernández (2019) – Schneider (2020) – United Nations (2015; 2020) – Ye, et al. (2019) – Zhang, Oo and Lim (2022) – H3 – Factor 1. Aspects on environmental sensitivity Table I Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202337 The population data were obtained from the statistics on companies registered in social security in the construction sector, prepared by the Canary Institute of Statistics. Table 2 shows the technical data sheet. Representativeness by business size was taken into account to calculate population heterogeneity. The sample size (n) was calculated according to: σ σ = + n z N e N z 2 2 2 2 2 (1) z = % desired reliability for the mean e = maximum permissible error for the sample mean σ = variance N = population size Table 2. Technical data sheet Population 2.137 (2015) Area Santa Cruz de Tenerife province Information collection method In-person survey, via Google Drive and by phone Sample unit Head of the company Sample size 221 Surveys completed 73 Sample error ±9.02% Confidence level 95% para z=1.96 y p= .8 q= .2 Data collection period Year 2017 DATA COLLECTION TOOLS A questionnaire was prepared whose questions were grouped into three groups: aspects of environmental sensitivity, economic aspects and aspects of social contribution, presented on a Likert (de 1 a 5) scale. They were regrouped into dichotomous variables to perform the descriptive analysis. In addition, two dichotomous questions were included for use as dependent variables. The questions of the questionnaire can be consulted in Tables I, II y III. QUANTITATIVE TOOLS Various descriptive and multivariate statistical techniques were applied using the SPSS 21 program. Firstly, the sample was divided into two groups: companies that have a CSR strategy in place (group 1) and companies that plan to implement one in the future (group 2). Contingency tables were then prepared depending on whether the company had or had not applied the corresponding action. The chi-square test was applied to check whether there were significant differences between these variables. Secondly, the variables that were significant were used to perform two multiple linear regression (MLR) analyses, one for group 1 companies and the other for group 2 companies. The objective was to analyse the relationship between the dependent variable (Y ), quantitative (criterion), and independent quantitative and/ or dummy variables (predictor variables). A linear combination of all or some of the predictor/explanatory variables (Xi) that maximally correlated with the dependent variable (Y ) was sought. Both models are summarized in the equation below: Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202338 Y = b0 + b1 X1 + b2 X2 +…+ bp Xp + ε (2) Y = dependent variable scores Xi = explanatory independent variables scores (i = 1,…, p) b0 = constant bi = estimated regression coefficients using the least squares method with n observations that measure the influence of the independent variables on the dependent variable (i = 1,…,p) ε = error The backward stepwise regression method was used to build an MLR model with a dependent variable of independent variables with a strong significant relationship. This method introduces all the predictor variables at the beginning of the analysis and, in each step, eliminates the variable whose Fisher’s F is not significant, testing the null hypothesis. The process ends when all the p-values are significant, that is, less than .05. Given that two groups of companies are proposed, an MLR model is built for each group, which will be called hereinafter model 1 and model 2, respectively (Table 3). Table 3. Variables used in the MLR D e p e n d e n t va ri a b le Models 1 and 2 Y1 = The company has a CSR strategy in place Y2 = The company is thinking of putting a CSR strategy in place Dichotomous variables In d e p e n d e n t va ri a b le s Factor 1. Aspects of environmental sensitivity KMO .643 Bartlett sig. .000 Factor 2. Economic aspects KMO .611 Bartlett sig. .000 Factor 3. Aspects about social contribution KMO .743 Bartlett sig. .000 The items of the questionnaire required a transformation of the responses so that they could be used in the MLR in the form of factors that measure an overall result of each group of responses. This transformation was performed through an exploratory factor analysis for each group of aspects of the questionnaire, verifying their validity using the Bartlett’s test of sphericity test and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (KMO). Bartlett’s test of sphericity tests the null hypothesis of non-correlation of the variables in the population under study. If a high value is obtained, it means that there is a correlation between the factors and the null hypothesis is rejected; in this case it is possible to continue with the analysis as its values are suitable. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test confirms the validity as the KMO index values are between .5 and 1.0 in all cases. Results DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS This section describes the results obtained from the two groups under study: Group 1: affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions carried out in the past and Group 2: affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions planned to be carried out in the future. Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202339 As regards the aspects related to environmental sensitivity (Annex Table I), of the 42 items, nine were simultaneously significant for both groups (shaded in grey in Annex Table I). These nine common actions are related to the use of renewable energy sources, environmental impact, the frequency with which certain key actions are carried out in the management and use of natural resources, and the design of facilities that use energy and water efficiently. In general, the percentages are higher in companies that already have a CSR strategy in place (group 1). As an example of these differences, it is worth mentioning that 64% of group 1 companies know and apply, as criteria for choosing construction products, the environmental product declarations or the life cycle analysis, a percentage that is higher than the responses of group 2 companies that plan to implement the CSR strategy in the future (42.3%); in addition, 92% of the companies in group 1 reuse rainwater in the buildings they build, compared to 78.8% in group 2. With respect to actions that are not common to both groups, in the case of group 1, there are the assessment of the environmental footprint of the building after its demolition (68%), the adoption of measures for the reuse of rainwater (68%), the choice of materials and construction processes that respect the environment (52%) and the research and development of new, more efficient construction techniques (60%). In group 2, the use of renewable energy sources is noteworthy (75%) and 99.9% do not believe that sustainability strategies only include water saving, comfort, life cycle analysis and the environmental footprint after demolition but that there are some social and economic aspects, in addition to the environmental aspect. Regarding the economic aspects (Annex Table II), of the 21 items, only five (shaded in grey in Annex Table II) were significant and none were common between both groups. In group 1 companies, the importance they attach to building with socio-environmentally responsible criteria is noteworthy because maintenance costs of the building are reduced (96%). Likewise, it is worth mentioning that 100% of these companies consider that life cycle cost studies should be carried out in the early stages of the project because this provides greater opportunities to evaluate alternatives. In the group 2 responses, it is notable, on the one hand, that 67.4% think it is advisable to create a public web page for each work to inform the public of the characteristics, execution deadlines and economic data of the work; on the other hand, a negative finding is that 57% of those who do not plan to implement a CSR strategy in the future think that socio- environmentally respectful strategies do not have a favourable impact on the final price of the property. Finally, with regard to the aspects of social contribution (Annex Table III), of the 36 items, eleven were simultaneously significant for both groups (shaded in grey in Annex Table III). As with the aspects of environmental sensitivity, the percentages are higher in group 1 companies. It is especially noteworthy that this facilitates the involvement of all interested parties in decision-making, and that the building’s water quality is defined or that criteria are drawn up to quantify indicators for later comparison, among other actions. In addition, it should be noted that 92% of the companies that have a CSR strategy apply innovative methods that are the result of Research, Development and Innovation (R&D&i) conducted in the previous three years, compared to 71.2% of the companies that plan to implement it in the future. If the analysis is done by group of companies, in group 1 it is worth mentioning that 100% have put in place voluntary health and safety actions that contribute to the employees’ quality of life and think that their business activity affects the next generation. In group 2, 69.2% study the ability of people with specific needs to access certain services in the building and evaluate the visual comfort and the spatial characteristics of the building. MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION MODELS (MLR) a. Model 1: A CSR model is in place. Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202340 The dependent variable of this model reflects whether the company already has or does not have a CSR strategy in place. When the MLR is performed, a model is obtained in which all the independent variables introduced are significant (Table 4). An ANOVA analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the significance of the regression model, which resulted in p= .000. Therefore, the null hypothesis that the variability observed in the response is explanatory by chance is rejected and an association between the dependent variable and the independent variables is admitted. Y1 = 1.342 + .185*Factor1 - .141*Factor2 + .160*Factor3 (3) Table 4. Coefficients of the first model where the dependent variable (Y1 in equation [3]) is that the company is thinking of implementing a CSR strategy Model1 Non standardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. B standard error Beta Constant 1.342 .048 27.756 .000 Factor 1 .185 .068 .387 2.719 .008 Factor 2 -.141 .063 -.295 -2.305 .024 Factor 3 .160 .057 .335 2.794 .007 Equation (3) represents a measure of the set of CSR actions carried out by companies in the construction sector that have a CSR strategy in place. This model shows that one more point in the assessment of the effect of environmental sensitivity aspects (Factor 1) favours an increase of .185 points in the implementation of CSR actions. This factor is the most influential. Regarding the economic aspects (Factor 2), the relationship is negative, it indicates that, as the valuation of the negative aspects increases one more point, the adoption of CSR actions decreases -.141 points. Finally, CSR actions in social contribution (Factor 3) increased by .160 for each unit. b. Model 2: The company is thinking about putting a CSR strategy in place The dependent variable of this model reflects whether or not the company plans to implement a CSR strategy in the future. When the MLR is performed with the backward stepwise regression method, three models are obtained (Table 5). In the first, only Factor 3 is significant. In the second model, Factor 2 is eliminated, although only Factor 3 is still significant. Model 3 eliminates Factor 1; therefore, Factor 3 is the one that is really having a significant impact on whether the company is considering implementing a CSR strategy in the future. The resulting equation is: Y2 = 1.712 + .171*Factor3 (4) These two models show the differences between a socio-environmentally responsible company and one that is seriously thinking about integrating CSR strategies in the future. In the first case, the factors that have a positive influence are the environmental sensitivity aspects and the social contribution aspects, with the economic aspects having a negative influence. In the second case, the only factor with influence is the one that includes the social contribution aspects. Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202341 Discussion The objective of this work is focused on analysing the socially responsible behaviour of companies in the construction sector in a limited and fragmented territory as is the province of Santa Cruz de Tenerife and comparing the importance they place on CSR action depending on whether the company has it in place or plans to implement it in the future. The methodology employed in this research has also been used by Zhang, Oo and Lim (2022), who identify and classify the practices and perceived benefits of CSR in construction companies using an online questionnaire and subsequently analyses the perception of CSR through the social networks of these companies. The quantitative and qualitative methodology used in this research was carried out through an in-depth study of the practices of these companies. The total number of companies analysed is in line with the work of this author. Their findings and those of Lu and Zhang (2016) are aligned in indicating that the skewed development of corporate sustainability in the construction sector, where much attention has been given to environmental issues at the project level, but the social dimension, such as stakeholders and social governance, is severely lacking and needs to be prioritized. Regarding the hypotheses raised, the first hypothesis is fulfilled given that there are differences between the valuations of the actions in terms of CSR, depending on whether the company in the construction sector has or does not have a CSR strategy in place. The second hypothesis is partially fulfilled, since it has been proven that aspects related to environmental sensitivity and social contribution contribute to a large extent to the implementation of a CSR strategy, while economic aspects have a negative influence. These results are partly in line with the conclusions of Watts, Dainty and Fernie (2015) and Zhang, Oo and Lim (2019), who suggest that environmental actions prevail over other types of actions, although without losing sight of the positive image projected by social actions. Likewise, in the case of companies that plan to implement a CSR strategy in the future, it is observed that the aspect related to social contribution really has the most influence, meaning that hypothesis 3 is Table 5. Coefficients of the second model where the dependent variable (Y2 in equation [4]) is that the company is thinking about putting a CSR strategy in place. M o d e l Variables Non standardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. B standard error Beta 1 Constant 1.712 .050 34.329 .000 Factor 1 .089 .070 .195 1.265 .210 Factor 2 -.061 .063 -.134 -.971 .335 Factor 3 .145 .059 .317 2.445 .017 2 Constant 1.712 .050 34.343 .000 Factor 1 .052 .059 .114 .882 .381 Factor 3 .144 .059 .316 2.432 .018 3 Constant 1.712 .050 34.397 .000 Factor 3 .171 .050 .376 3.419 .001 Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202342 not being fulfilled as environmental aspects were the most influential. In the same vein, Xia, et al. (2018), say that, in recent years, the social dimension has predominated in line with environmental aspects, with economic aspects being less important. The originality of this research lies in using the indicators in Annex 13 of the Structural Concrete Instruction (Ministerio de Presidencia, 2008) as independent variables, whose relationship with the construction sector is direct. Furthermore, the analysis distinguishes between companies that have a CSR strategy in place from those that plan to implement it in the future. The information contained in this work makes it possible to evaluate the CSR strategy of the participating companies to make decisions that reinforce and/or complement existing actions, as well as reflect on which actions are most valued, which ones would be necessary to include, and which ones would be necessary to enhance in a future strategy. After the dates on which this research was carried out, the new Structural Code (Ministerio de Transportes, 2021; Cascajero, 2022) was published, replacing the Structural Concrete Instruction (Ministerio de Presidencia, 2008). It should be noted that the annex used during this research became part of the articles in the current Code. To this we should add the work of Ye et al. (2019), whose review of CSR reports of international companies highlights the lack of work in this field in Spain. All of this makes this research even more valuable. Conclusions The aim of this work was focused on analysing the socially responsible behaviour of companies in the construction sector to verify what practices carried out by these companies and the weight of their contribution to the economic, social and environmental dimensions, comparing the importance that companies place on CSR actions depending on whether they have been implemented or there are plans to implement them in the future. At present, the limitation of the study may be due to its possible lack of generalization because it has been applied to a Spanish province with a construction sector that is depends largely on a tourism sector with a lot of weight in the provincial business structure. In this case it is concluded that it is necessary to contribute to raising awareness and disseminating good CSR practices in both groups studied. In particular, to integrate sustainability into CSR objectives. To raise awareness that the management of a building’s energy resources is part of one of the dimensions of CSR: environmental sensitivity. In the same sense, to improve knowledge of the impact of CSR on the economic performance of companies and to carry out further studies in this respect. There is still a long way to go. It is necessary to inform and train those responsible for making business decisions to make them understand the importance of the effects of their activity on the environment and that, if well managed, and by applying a CSR strategy, could be a source of opportunity. Another point to bear in mind is the public health situation caused by COVID-19; but, at the same time, this situation becomes an opportunity for the construction sector, which can contribute to the improvement of other economic sectors. As an example, the hotel sector, which requires a renovation the existing hotel stock or new construction that takes the new panorama into account, which demands that the construction sector be more creative, innovative and more sustainable, putting the bases in place to start a CSR strategy. Future research will be aimed at increasing awareness and dissemination of good CSR practices. A panel of indicators is expected to be developed to monitor the contribution of CSR to the construction process, which would provide a choice of the most sustainable solutions, with the aim of collaborating in the management of environmental, economic, social and environmental impacts. During the period under review for the publication of this article, the new Structural Code has entered into force, now it will be possible to see whether the proposed model meets the needs to promote a socially responsible vision. Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202343 References Abbas, J., 2020. Impact of total quality management on corporate green performance through the mediating role of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242(1), p.118458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.118458 Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A., 2012. What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), pp.932-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079 Balzarova, M. and Castka, P., 2018. Social responsibility: Experts’ viewpoints on adoption of the ISO 26000 standard. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25, pp.819–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1497 Sarhan, S., and Fox, A. 2013. Barriers to Implementing Lean Construction in the UK Construction Industry. The Built & Human Environment Review, 6, pp 1-17. Burón-Maestro, M. 2007. La sostenibilidad de las construcciones de hormigón. Cemento y Hormigón, ISSN 0008- 8919, Nº. 897, 2007, págs. 58-65 (https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2224256) Carroll, A. and Shabana, K., 2010. The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Review, 12, pp.85-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2370.2009.00275.x Cascajero, J.M., 2022. El nuevo Código Estructural es una herramienta básica para alcanzar la descarbonzación. Cemento y Hormigón, 1009. Castka, P. and Corbett, C., 2016. Adoption and dissemination of environmental and social standards: The effect of rigor, governance and media coverage. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 36(11), pp.1504-29. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2015-0037 Castka, P., Searcy, C. and Mohr, J., 2020. Technology-enhanced auditing: Improving veracity and timeliness in social and environmental audits of supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, p.120773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.120773 Cherian, J., Umar, M., Ang Thu, P., Nguyen-Thoi, T., Safdar Sial, M. and Khuong, N.V., 2019. Does corporate social responsibility affect the financial performance of the manufacturing sector? Evidence from an emerging economy. Sustainability, 11(4), p.1182. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041182 Croker, N., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and the Hong Kong construction industry. PhD. University of Newcastle, Australia. Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), pp.1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132 Darko, A., Chan, A.P., Huo, X. and Owusu-Manu, D.G., 2019. A scientometric analysis and visualization of global green building research. Building and Environment, 149, pp.501-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.059 Darko, A., Zhang, C. and Chan, A., 2017. Drivers for green building: A review of empirical studies. Habitat International, 60, pp.34-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.12.007 Domínguez-Herrera, M.M, González-Morales, O. and González-Díaz, E., 2018. Corporate Social Responsibility of the Construction Sector in Spain. In: Charles Richard Baker, ed., Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Practices, Issues and Global Perspectives. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 215-68. Domínguez-Herrera, M.M., 2017. Social responsibility of companies in the building sector. Analysis of sustainability in the case of construction companies in the province of Santa Cruz de Tenerife. PhD. University of La Laguna, Spain. Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202344 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118458 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118458 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079 https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1497 https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2224256 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2015-0037 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120773 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120773 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041182 https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.059 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.12.007 European Commission, 2001. GREEN PAPER: Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility [pdf ] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/doc_01_9/DOC_01_9_EN.pdf. European Commission, 2011. A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility [pdf ] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:en:PDF. European Commission, 2012. Strategy for the sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and its enterprises [pdf ] Available at: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/strategy-sustainable- competitiven. European Commission, 2020a. A Renovation Wave for Europe - greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives [pdf ] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0662. European Commission, 2020b. A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe [pdf ] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9903b325-6388-11ea-b735-01aa…. European Union, 2013. Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, 26 June 2013, on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC. 29.6.2013, L 182. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0034. González Morales, O., 2008. Iniciativa empresarial: Nuevos escenarios y nuevos retos para un desarrollo sostenible. Valencia, Spain: Editorial Tirant lo Blanch. Gowri, A., 2004. When responsibility can’t do it. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(1), pp.33-50. https://doi.org/10.1023/ B:BUSI.0000043497.23400.00 Graci, S. and Doods, R., 2010. Sustainable tourism in island destinations. London: Earthscan. IHOBE, 2010. Green Building Rating Systems: How to evaluate sustainability in buildings? País Vasco: IHOBE: Elhuyar. Jamil, A.H.A and Fathi, S.M., 2016. The integration of lean construction and sustainable construction: a stakeholder perspective in analyzing sustainable lean construction strategies in Malaysia. Procedia Computer Science, 100, pp.634-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.205 Kurniawati, L. and Mujiyati, M., 2023. Analysis of Factors Affecting The Implementation of Social and Environmental Responsibility Disclosure in Property, Real Estate, and Construction Companies Listed on The Indonesia Stock Exchange 2015-2020. Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 7(2), pp.251-61. https://doi.org/10.23917/reaksi. v7i2.20040 Lim, B.T. and Loosemore, M., 2017. How socially responsible is construction business in Australia and New Zealand? Procedia Engineering, 180, pp.531-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.212 Loosemore, M. and Lim, B., 2017. Linking corporate social responsibility and organizational performance in the construction industry. Construction Management Economics, 35(3), pp.95-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2016.1 242762 Loosemore, M., Lim, B.T.H., Ling, F.Y.Y. and Zeng, H.Y., 2018. A comparison of corporate social responsibility practices in the Singapore, Australia and New Zealand construction industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, pp.149-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.157 Lu, Y. and Zhang, X., 2016. Corporate sustainability for architecture engineering and construction (AEC) organizations: Framework, transition and implication strategies. Ecological Indicators, 61, pp.911–22. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.046 Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202345 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/doc_01_9/DOC_01_9_EN.pdf https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:en:PDF https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/strategy-sustainable-competitiven https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/strategy-sustainable-competitiven https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0662 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9903b325-6388-11ea-b735-01aa… https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0034 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000043497.23400.00 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000043497.23400.00 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.205 https://doi.org/10.23917/reaksi.v7i2.20040 https://doi.org/10.23917/reaksi.v7i2.20040 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.212 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2016.1242762 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2016.1242762 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.157 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.046 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.046 Moneva-Abadía, J.M., Gallardo-Vázquez, D. y Sánchez-Hernández, M.I., 2019. La responsabilidad social empresarial como oportunidad estratégica para las pequeñas empresas durante las crisis económicas. Revista de gestión de pequeñas empresas 57, pp172-99. Ministerio de Presidencia, 2008. Royal Decree 1247/2008, of July 18, which approves the Structural Concrete Instruction (EHE-08). Official State Gazette, 203, pp.35176-78. Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana, 2021. Código estructural. Real Decreto y Articulado ( Volumen I). Madrid: Centro de Publicaciones de la Secretaría General Técnica. Ogunmakinde, O.E., Egbelakin, T. and Sher, W., 2022. Contributions of the circular economy to the UN sustainable development goals through sustainable construction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, [e-journal] 178. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106023 Opoku, A., 2019. Biodiversity and the built environment: Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, pp.1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.011 Prado-Roman, C., Del Castillo-Peces, C., Mercado-Idoeta, C. and Del Castillo-Peces, J., 2018. The effects of implementing ISO 9001 in the Spanish construction industry. Cuadernos de Gestión, 18(1), pp.149-71. https://doi. org/10.5295/cdg.140507cd Rezaei, F., Bulle, C. and Lesage, P., 2019. Integrating building information modeling and life cycle assessment in the early and detailed building design stages. Building and Environment, 153, pp.158-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. buildenv.2019.01.034 Sarhan, S. and Fox, A., 2013. Barriers to Implementing Lean Construction in the UK. The Human and Built Environment Review, 6, pp.1-17. Schneider, A., 2020. Bound to fail? exploring the systemic pathologies of CSR and their implications for CSR research. Business and Society, 59(7), pp.1303-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319856616 Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR), 2012. Guía de Responsabilidad Social. UNE-ISO 26000: 2012. Madrid: AENOR. United Nations, 2009. Common Carbon Metric for Measuring Energy Use and Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Building Operations [pdf ] Available at: https://c2e2.unepdtu.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/09/unep-sbci- common-carbon-metric.pdf [Accessed 16 April 2022]. United Nations, 2012. The future we want. In: Outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–22 June. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ documents/733FutureWeWant.pdf [Accessed 16 April 2022]. United Nations, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/70/1. [online] Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda. United Nations, 2020. Sustainable Development Goals Report. [pdf ] Available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/ The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2020_Spanish.pdf. Vallina, D., 2020. III Study on CSR in the cement sector. Cemento Hormigón, (177), p.9. Watts, G., Dainty, A. and Fernie, S., 2015. Making sense of CSR in construction: do contractor and client perceptions align? In: Raiden, A., Aboagye-Nimo, E. eds. Proceedings 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015. UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Lincoln, pp.197-206. Xia, B., Olanipekun, A., Chen, Q., Xie, L. and Liu, Y., 2018. Conceptualising the state of the art of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction industry and its nexus to sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, pp.340-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.157 Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202346 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.011 https://doi.org/10.5295/cdg.140507cd https://doi.org/10.5295/cdg.140507cd https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.01.034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.01.034 https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319856616 https://c2e2.unepdtu.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/09/unep-sbci-common-carbon-metric.pdf https://c2e2.unepdtu.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/09/unep-sbci-common-carbon-metric.pdf https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733FutureWeWant.pdf https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733FutureWeWant.pdf https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2020_Spanish.pdf https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2020_Spanish.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.157 Ye, M., Lu, W., Flanagan, R. and Chau, K.W., 2019. Corporate social responsibility “glocalisation”: Evidence from the international construction business. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), pp.655-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1831 Zeng, T., 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility, tax aggressiveness, and firm market value. Accounting Perspectives, 15(1), pp.7-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12090 Zhang, Q., Oo, B.L. and Lim, B.T.H., 2019. Drivers, motivations, and barriers to the implementation of corporate social responsibility practices by construction enterprises: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, pp.563-84. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.050 Zhang, Q., Oo, B.L. and Lim, B.T.H., 2022. Linking corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and organizational performance in the construction industry: A resource collaboration network. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 179, pp.106113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106113 Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202347 https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1831 https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12090 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106113 Annex Table I. Valuations of actions related to environmental sensitivity, by group (%) Factor 1. Aspects on environmental sensitivity Group 1: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions carried out in the past Group 2: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions planned to be carried out in the future C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y P.1. In the design / execution of a building, what importance do you assign to the following aspects? 1.1. Rehabilitation of an existing building as an alternative to the construction of another new plant. 89.6 96.0 85.7 94.2 1.2. Choice of location based on the revitalization of underused or abandoned land. 83.3 92.0 90.5 84.7 1.3. Connectivity or proximity of public transport to its final location. 87.4 92.0 81.0 92.3 1.4. Variation of the natural water cycle. 72.9 88.0 61.9 84.6 1.5. Control and reuse of rainwater. 85.5 92.0 76.2 92.3 1.6. Selection of vegetation in landscaped spaces that requires less irrigation water. 95.9 96.0 95.2 96.2 1.7. Choice of suppliers or manufacturers of construction products and materials that are responsible with the environment. 87.5 92.0 85.8 90.3 1.8. Taking care of the quality of living spaces. 95.8 100.0 95.2 98.1 P.2. Do you or do you not carry out the following actions on the buildings you run? 2.1. Uses or proposes the use of renewable energy sources. 64.6 72.0 47.6 75.0 2.2. It is important to know the distance between the supplier and the work when choosing it. 64.6 88.0 61.9 76.9 2.3. Knows and applies the Environmental Declarations or the Life Cycle Analysis as criteria for choosing construction products. 20.8 64.0 19.0 42.3 2.4. Assesses the environmental footprint of the building after its demolition. 35.4 68.0 33.3 51.9 2.5. It takes into account the reuse of rainwater. 64.6 92.0 61.9 78.8 2.6. Choose lower consumption sanitary appliances. 81.3 84.0 81.0 82.7 2.7. Adopt measures for the reuse of grey water. 14.6 68.0 23.8 36.5 2.8. Manages construction and demolition waste (RCD’s). 77.1 84.0 71.4 82.7 Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202348 Factor 1. Aspects on environmental sensitivity Group 1: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions carried out in the past Group 2: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions planned to be carried out in the future C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y P.3. In the case of buildings, what is the degree of importance that you give to the environmental impact in each of the following phases and stages? 3.1. Extraction and processing of raw materials. 93.8 96.0 90.4 96.1 3.2. Transportation of raw materials to the producer. 79.1 88.0 66.7 88.4 3.3. Construction product manufacturing. 85.5 92.0 81.0 90.4 3.4. Transportation of construction products to the construction site. 83.4 88.0 71.4 90.4 3.5. Preliminary draft. 75.0 84.0 71.4 80.8 3.6. Building project. 79.2 92.0 76.1 86.6 3.7. Building construction process. 91.6 92.0 90.4 92.3 3.8. Consumption of water and energy during the period of use of the building. 93.7 100.0 95.3 96.2 3.9. Cost of maintenance, repair, replacement and renovation of construction elements during the period of use of the building. 93.7 100.0 95.2 96.2 3.10. Use of the building when all services and facilities are working. 97.9 96.0 100.0 96.2 3.11. Demolition of the building at the end of its useful life. 60.5 84.0 57.1 73.1 3.12. Management of construction and demolition waste (RCD’s), processing, transport and final deposit. 95.9 100.0 100.0 96.1 P.4. Indicate the importance that you assign in the design / execution of a building to the following aspects 4.1. The Public Administration must intervene in urban planning by creating environmental assessment instruments. 93.8 92.0 90.6 94.2 4.2. It is necessary to make changes in the land law that makes energy rehabilitation viable. 91.7 88.0 80.9 94.2 4.3. Construction materials and products that are manufactured using waste from other materials or processes as raw materials should preferably be used. 95.9 96.0 95.2 96.2 4.4. The Public Administration should draw up stricter regulations regarding limit temperatures in the air conditioning of spaces for public use. 91.7 82.0 85.8 90.3 Table I. continued Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202349 Factor 1. Aspects on environmental sensitivity Group 1: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions carried out in the past Group 2: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions planned to be carried out in the future C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y 4.5. The concept of Sustainability in Construction and Energy Efficiency in Buildings are equivalent. 56.3 56.0 57.1 55.8 P.5. Please indicate your degree of agreement with the following statements 5.1. Sustainability is related only to environmental criteria. 79.2 92.0 80.9 84.7 5.2. In sustainable strategies, the social and economic aspect must be considered, in addition to the environmental one, this has not been adequately developed in the building sector. 93.8 96.0 90.6 96.2 5.3. Sustainability strategies in construction include only: saving water, comfort, life cycle analysis and the environmental footprint after demolition. 79.2 80.0 99.9 71.2 P.6. Please, indicate how often you carry out the following actions. 6.1. Choice of materials and construction processes taking into account environmentally responsible extraction and production. 10.4 52.0 19 26.9 6.2. Choice of construction materials and products that have undergone a Life Cycle Analysis, from cradle to grave or cradle to cradle. 10.4 20.0 19 11.5 6.3. Management and reuse of the natural resources of the environment that it transforms with the building. 22.9 56.0 9.5 44.2 6.4. Design of facilities that make efficient and rational use of energy and water. 41.7 72.0 33.3 59.6 6.5. Forecast of changes in the use of buildings in order to increase their useful life and / or reduce the impact of their use. 22.9 52.0 14.3 40.4 6.6. Research and development of new, more efficient construction techniques. 27.1 60.0 33.3 40.4 Table I. continued Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202350 Table II. Valuations of actions related to economic aspects, by Group (%) Factor 2. Economic aspects Group 1: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions carried out in the past Group 2: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions planned to be carried out in the future C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y P.7. How important is the following to you? 7.1. It is appropriate to penalize high consumers of water and electricity who do not demonstrate efficient use of their facilities. 91.6 76.0 90.5 84.6 7.2. Mandatory energy audits must be carried out and those responsible for non-compliance punished. 91.7 80.0 80.9 90.4 7.3. Socio-environmentally friendly strategies have a favourable impact on the final price of the property. 45.8 40.0 57.0 38.5 7.4. Indicators should be established that allow deciding whether the actions are adequate from the economic point of view. 98.0 96.0 100.0 96.1 7.5. The levels of production and development of clean technologies must be improved. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 7.6. It is advisable to develop a public web page for each work to inform the citizen of the characteristics, execution deadlines and financial data. 60.4 64.0 47.6 67.4 P.8. Please indicate your degree of agreement with the following statements 8.1. Socio-environmentally responsible construction brings economic advantages. 72.9 92.0 71.4 82.7 8.2. The existence of incentives on the part of the Public Administration is necessary in the form of reduction of taxes linked to real estate executed by socio-environmentally responsible companies. 93.8 100.0 95.3 96.2 8.3. Building maintenance costs are lower if it is built with socio- environmentally responsible criteria than with traditional methods. 79.1 96.0 76.2 88.4 8.4. The final price of a home or building built with socio- environmentally responsible criteria is lower compared to other buildings that do not include these criteria. 75.0 80.0 76.1 77.0 8.5. Incentives should be created for the certification of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of properties. 95.9 92.0 90.5 96.1 Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202351 Factor 2. Economic aspects Group 1: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions carried out in the past Group 2: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions planned to be carried out in the future C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y P.9. How important is the following statements? 9.1. 80% of the costs of operation, maintenance and repair of a building are set early in the design process, which is why it is so important to establish strategies in that phase. 91.7 80.0 90.5 86.6 9.2. The life cycle cost study should be done in the early stages of the project to provide greater opportunities to evaluate alternatives. 91.6 100.0 85.8 91.1 9.3. The material execution budget is the ideal tool for evaluating financial aspects. 68.7 64.0 66.7 67.3 9.4. It is interesting to propose other indices in the Project phase that are transparent and verifiable to assess the economic aspects. 97.9 96.0 95.3 98.1 9.5. It is convenient to assign sustainability indicators to concrete and other construction products through specifications, characteristics and performance. 98.0 84.0 95.2 92.3 P.10 Indicate the degree of impact on the cost of the building of the following actions 10.1. The final price of a building designed to suit people with specific needs is higher. 45.8 56.0 47.6 50.0 10.2. The economic viability of a project that foresees changes in the use of a building throughout its useful life is lower. 64.5 80.0 71.4 69.2 10.3. It is not profitable to apply modifications or improvements that are not required by current regulations. 81.3 76.0 80.9 78.9 10.4. Providing all stakeholders with the path to get involved in decision making increases profitability. 89.7 92.0 90.4 90.4 10.5. By improving the working conditions of employees, you improve productivity. 93.8 96.0 95.2 94.2 Table II. continued Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202352 Table III. Valuations of shares related to their social contribution, by Group (%) Factor 3. Aspects on social contribution Group 1: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions carried out in the past Group 2: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions planned to be carried out in the future C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y P.11 Indicate the frequency with which you carry out actions related to the health and comfort of the users of the building 11.1. Study the ability of people with specific needs to access certain services in the building. 56.3 68.0 38.1 69.2 11.2. Make a forecast of the capacity of the building to adapt to the requirements of the residents and to changes in those requirements throughout its useful life. 41.7 52.0 33.3 50.0 11.3. Study the acoustic conditions of the building. 45.8 64.0 33.3 59.6 11.4. Analyse the indoor air quality of the building. 27.1 52.0 14.3 44.2 11.5. Evaluate the visual comfort and spatial characteristics of the building. 50.0 60.0 28.6 63.5 11.6. Defines the quality of the building’s water. 14.6 68.0 14.3 40.4 11.7. Assess the electromagnetic characteristics of the building. 6.3 28.0 4.8 17.3 11.8. Assess the thermal comfort of the building. 43.8 60.0 23.8 59.6 11.9 It takes into account the access to private open spaces from the dwellings 47.9 56.0 28.6 59.6 11.10. Look for solutions to protect the interior of the houses from the views from the outside. 54.2 48.0 47.8 53.8 11.11. Designs mechanisms to control the lighting system in non- residential areas of occupation. 45.8 60.0 38.1 55.8 11.12. Provides for the control of heating, cooling and ventilation systems in non-residential areas of occupation. 37.5 64.0 33.3 51.9 P.12 Indicate the frequency with which you carry out actions related to the load of the building 12.1. Design mechanisms to reduce noise. 37.5 64.0 23.8 55.8 12.2. Look for solutions to control emissions to outdoor air, soil and water. 47.9 60.0 42.9 55.8 12.3. He designs elements to attenuate the glare and over-sunlight that could be generated in the surrounding buildings. 18.8 44.0 14.3 32.7 Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202353 Factor 3. Aspects on social contribution Group 1: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions carried out in the past Group 2: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions planned to be carried out in the future C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y 12.4. It indicates how to reduce impacts and vibrations during all phases of the building process. 31.3 52.0 23.8 44.2 12.5. Develop and implement a Maintenance Management Plan. 33.3 60.0 19.0 51.9 12.6. It establishes the maintenance operations including those carried out by the user himself. 39.6 60.0 28.6 53.8 P.13 Indicate the frequency with which you carry out actions related to the security of the building 13.1. Designs strategies in relation to resistance to climate change: rain, wind, snow, floods, solar radiation, temperature. 20.8 56.0 23.8 36.5 13.2. Calculate resistance to accidental situations: earthquakes, explosions, fire, traffic impacts. 35.4 60.0 23.8 51.9 13.3. Design security elements against vandalism and intruders. 39.6 56.0 33.3 50.0 13.4. Establishes security mechanisms against supply interruptions. 33.3 60.0 42.9 42.3 P.14 Indicate the frequency with which you carry out CSR actions 14.1. It is responsible for the traceability of the products and services it provides. 56.3 72.0 52.4 65.4 14.2. It facilitates the possibility for all interested parties to get involved in decision-making. 43.8 76.0 38.1 66.5 14.3. Establishes criteria to quantify indicators for later comparison. 16.7 64.0 9.5 42.3 14.4. When it is not possible to quantify them, it establishes qualitative criteria and verifies those using checklists. 16.7 52.0 23.8 30.8 14.5. For each work, it prepares a free access web page to inform the citizen, including characteristics, execution deadlines, economic and social implications. 6.3 4.0 4.8 5.8 Table III. continued Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202354 Factor 3. Aspects on social contribution Group 1: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions carried out in the past Group 2: Affirmative responses (%) to each indicator on actions planned to be carried out in the future C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it ho ut a C S R st ra te g y C o m p a n y in t h e c o n st ru ct io n se ct o r w it h a C S R s tr a te g y P.15 Indicate the importance you attach to the following statements 15.1. Society demands that construction companies improve the service, for this it is convenient to establish indicators that allow evaluating social actions. 87.5 88.0 85.7 88.5 15.2. To contribute to the quality of life of employees, voluntary health and safety measures will be adopted in addition to the mandatory ones. 85.5 100.0 85.7 92.3 15.3. At least 30% of the personnel working in the execution of the structure have had specific training courses in technical, quality or environmental aspects. 81.2 84.0 80.9 82.8 15.4. It should be ensured that the building maintains a good relationship with the urban environment with involvement in its development, it is essential. 95.9 100.0 95.2 98.1 15.5. It proposes possible changes in the use of the buildings it builds in order to increase its useful life 85.5 88.0 85.7 86.5 15.6. It considers that it has responsibility in the way of creating built- up spaces. 87.5 84.0 76.2 90.4 15.7. It applies innovative methods that are the results of R&D&i projects carried out in the last 3 years. 50.0 92.0 47.5 71.2 15.8. Your business activity has an impact on the next generation. 87.5 100.0 90.5 92.3 15.9. Awareness campaigns should be promoted to publicize socio- environmentally responsible construction. 97.9 96.0 95.3 98.0 Table III. continued Domínguez-Herrera, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 23, No. 1/2 July 202355