Open-access journal article · 2026

Verifying SDG ESG Compliance in Manufacturing Industry Projects by Surveying Sponsors

Kenneth David StrangiD & Narasimha Rao VajjhalaiD

Information, 17(4), Article 311 · Published

Scopus Q1Web of Science ESCI Q2Impact Factor 4.3 (JCR 2025)Open access · CC BY 4.0
DOI: 10.3390/info17040311Full text (PDF)Publisher page

Summary

Strang and Vajjhala (2026) surveyed 2,231 project sponsors and decision-makers in North American goods-manufacturing firms (NAICS 31–33) to develop and validate a survey instrument for measuring Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) compliance at the project level. Principal component analysis, exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modelling reduced a 30-item, six-dimension draft to a seven-item model with two factors, ESG planning and ESG monitoring and controlling. The model showed excellent fit (CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR < 0.035), and the complete survey is shared for replication.

Practical implication. Project offices can use the validated seven-item, two-factor instrument as a standardized, process-based benchmark for project-level ESG compliance in manufacturing projects.

The Problem
ESG frameworks measure firms and the SDGs measure nations, but no validated instrument existed for measuring ESG compliance in the individual projects where sustainability commitments are actually carried out.
The Methodology
Quantitative instrument development and validation with survey data from 2,231 project sponsors and decision-makers in North American manufacturing (NAICS 31–33): principal component analysis, exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modelling.
The Core Finding
A survey of 2,231 North American manufacturing project sponsors produced a validated seven-item, two-factor instrument — ESG planning and ESG monitoring and controlling — with excellent fit (CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR < 0.035). The instrument gives project offices a standardized, process-based benchmark for project-level ESG compliance.
The Citation
Strang, K. D., & Vajjhala, N. R. (2026). Verifying SDG ESG Compliance in Manufacturing Industry Projects by Surveying Sponsors. Information, 17(4), Article 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/info17040311

The summary, key findings, methods, implications and relevance notes on this page are this website’s own description of the paper, written from the published abstract and text. The official abstract and citation details are given further down.

Key findings

  1. Finding 1. The study surveyed 2,231 project sponsors and decision-makers in North American goods-manufacturing firms classified under NAICS codes 31–33.
  2. Finding 2. The authors developed a 30-item survey instrument covering six conceptual dimensions of ESG-aligned project performance.
  3. Finding 3. A sequential PCA → EFA → SEM analysis reduced the 30 items to a parsimonious seven-item, two-factor model with excellent fit: CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR < 0.035.
  4. Finding 4. Factor 1 captures ESG planning during project initiation and planning; Factor 2 captures ESG monitoring and controlling during project execution.
  5. Finding 5. The reduction from six theoretical dimensions to two empirical factors is consistent with lifecycle governance theory: planning-phase governance and execution-phase control are distinct but correlated.
  6. Finding 6. This is presented as the first validated instrument for measuring ESG integration at the project level; the complete survey is shared for replication.

Source: Strang & Vajjhala (2026), Information, 17(4), Article 311. DOI: 10.3390/info17040311

The study in detail

What question does this paper answer?

How can Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) compliance be measured at the level of individual manufacturing projects, where SDG and ESG commitments are actually put into practice?

What did the study find, in detail?

Surveying 2,231 project sponsors and decision-makers in North American goods-manufacturing firms (NAICS 31–33), the authors validated a survey instrument for project-level ESG compliance. A 30-item, six-dimension draft reduced to a seven-item, two-factor model — ESG planning and ESG monitoring and controlling — with excellent fit (CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR < 0.035).

Why does it matter?

The SDGs work at national level and ESG ratings at company level, but until now there was no validated instrument for measuring ESG integration inside projects. The instrument gives project managers, sustainability officers, and policy-makers a standardized benchmark, and the complete survey is shared so it can be replicated in other industries and countries.

This study is part of the evidence overview Can ESG compliance be measured reliably? Evidence from ESG ratings, project-level instruments, machine learning and supply chain records

Methods and data

Research questionCan ESG compliance be measured reliably at project level in manufacturing?
DesignInstrument development and validation; quantitative survey
Sample2,231 project sponsors and decision-makers in North American goods-manufacturing firms (NAICS codes 31–33)
Instrument30-item survey covering six conceptual dimensions of ESG-aligned project performance
MethodsPrincipal component analysis → exploratory factor analysis → structural equation modelling
Main resultTwo-factor model (ESG planning; ESG monitoring and controlling) with CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR < 0.035
ImplicationA standardized, openly shared benchmark for project-level ESG compliance
CitationStrang & Vajjhala (2026) · DOI 10.3390/info17040311

Standards, datasets and methods named in this study

Definitions and key terms

Project-level ESG compliance
The extent to which Environmental, Social, and Governance requirements are planned for and then monitored and controlled within a specific project, as opposed to being reported only at company level. — as used in Strang & Vajjhala (2026)
Project sponsor
The senior person or group who authorizes a project, provides its funding, and is accountable for its business outcome. — as used in Strang & Vajjhala (2026)
Model fit indices
CFI and TLI near 1 and RMSEA and SRMR near 0 indicate that a measurement model reproduces the observed survey data well. — as used in Strang & Vajjhala (2026)

All key terms across the publications →

Abstract

This study addresses a critical gap in the operationalization of sustainability frameworks at the project level by developing and validating an empirically grounded measurement instrument for assessing Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) compliance in manufacturing industry projects. While the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) articulate sustainability aspirations at the national and global level, and ESG frameworks capture organizational-level sustainability performance, no validated instrument exists for measuring ESG integration at the project level where sustainability commitments are ultimately operationalized. Drawing on the theoretical foundations of sustainable project management, stakeholder theory, and the ESG governance literature, the authors developed a 30-item survey instrument capturing six conceptual dimensions of ESG-aligned project performance. Data were collected from 2231 project sponsors and decision-makers in North American goods manufacturing firms classified under NAICS codes 31–33, which collectively encompass the entire manufacturing sector in North America. Through a sequential analytical approach employing principal component analysis (PCA) for initial item reduction, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for dimensionality assessment, and structural equation modelling (SEM) for confirmatory validation, a parsimonious two-factor model emerged with excellent fit indices (CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR < 0.035). The first factor captures ESG planning activities undertaken during project initiation and planning phases, while the second factor represents ESG monitoring and controlling functions during project execution. The reduction from six theoretical dimensions to two empirical factors reflects lifecycle governance theory, where planning-phase governance and execution-phase control emerge as functionally distinct but correlated constructs. The validated instrument offers practical utility for project managers, organizational sustainability officers, and policy-makers seeking standardized benchmarks for ESG compliance at the operational project level. The validated instrument and complete survey are shared for replication and testing across different industries and countries.

Abstract as published in Information under a Creative Commons licence.

Limitations and open questions

  • The sample is drawn from North American goods manufacturing; the authors invite replication in other industries and countries.

Open questions

  • Do scores on the project-level ESG instrument predict independent ESG outcomes such as audit results, emissions reductions or corporate ESG ratings, and does the two-factor structure hold outside North American manufacturing?
  • Can pillar-specific (E, S and G) project-level measures be built, given that the pillars collapsed into process-based factors?

Open questions from the evidence overview ESG and sustainability measurement.

Practical implications

  • Project managers, organizational sustainability officers and policy-makers seeking standardized benchmarks can apply the validated survey instrument to assess ESG compliance at the operational project level.
  • Project managers can use the two factors of the survey instrument to assess ESG planning during project initiation and planning, as well as ESG monitoring and controlling during project execution.
  • Researchers can replicate and test the shared instrument and complete survey in other industries and countries, since the validation sample is drawn from North American goods manufacturing.

Drawn from Strang & Vajjhala (2026), Information, 17(4), Article 311.

When this research may be relevant

This article may be relevant to researchers measuring ESG or SDG compliance at the project level, developing or validating sustainability survey instruments, studying sustainable project management in manufacturing, or looking for psychometrically tested scales (factor structure, CFI, RMSEA, SRMR reported) that can be reused or replicated in other industries and countries.

Research topics addressed: ESG compliance; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); sustainable project management; manufacturing projects; project sponsors; survey instrument; scale validation; structural equation modelling; exploratory factor analysis; stakeholder theory; NAICS 31–33; North America

How to cite

APA 7
Strang, K. D., & Vajjhala, N. R. (2026). Verifying SDG ESG Compliance in Manufacturing Industry Projects by Surveying Sponsors. Information, 17(4), Article 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/info17040311
MLA 9
Strang, Kenneth David, and Narasimha Rao Vajjhala. “Verifying SDG ESG Compliance in Manufacturing Industry Projects by Surveying Sponsors.” Information, vol. 17, no. 4, 2026, article 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/info17040311.
IEEE
K. D. Strang and N. R. Vajjhala, “Verifying SDG ESG Compliance in Manufacturing Industry Projects by Surveying Sponsors,” Information, vol. 17, no. 4, Art. no. 311, Mar. 2026, doi: 10.3390/info17040311.
BibTeX
@article{strang2026esg,
  title = {Verifying SDG ESG Compliance in Manufacturing Industry Projects by Surveying Sponsors},
  author = {Strang, Kenneth David and Vajjhala, Narasimha Rao},
  journal = {Information},
  volume = {17},
  number = {4},
  pages = {311},
  year = {2026},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  doi = {10.3390/info17040311},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/info17040311}
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Verifying SDG ESG Compliance in Manufacturing Industry Projects by Surveying Sponsors
AU  - Strang, Kenneth David
AU  - Vajjhala, Narasimha Rao
JO  - Information
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/03/24
VL  - 17
IS  - 4
SP  - 311
PB  - MDPI
SN  - 2078-2489
DO  - 10.3390/info17040311
UR  - https://www.narasimharao.net/research/esg-compliance-manufacturing-projects-survey-instrument/
LA  - en
ER  -
Download citation:BibTeXRISCSL-JSONMarkdown

Related work

The literature cited by this study documents persistent problems with firm-level ESG ratings: Berg and colleagues attributed 56% of rating divergence across six agencies to measurement differences, 38% to scope and 6% to weights[1]. Connecting SDGs to firm-level ESG factors has been argued to require a double materiality perspective[2], and firms strong on material sustainability issues were found to outperform financially, which underlines industry-specific materiality[3]. In project management, sustainability has broadened the definition of project success[4], yet a review of 770 publications concluded that empirical validation remained limited[5]. The two-factor project instrument is interpreted through lifecycle governance, which holds that sustainability requires governance mechanisms across the project lifecycle[6], and is consistent with evidence that sustainability management relates to project success[7] and that governance and leadership form key sustainability factor clusters[8]. The study relies on self-reported or single-source ratings, so common method bias, as described by Podsakoff and colleagues, is a concern[9].

  1. [1] Berg, F.; Kolbel, J.F.; Rigobon, R. Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. Rev. Financ. 2022, 26, 1315–1344.
  2. [2] Delgado-Ceballos, J.; Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N.; Antolin-Lopez, R.; Montiel, I. Connecting the Sustainable Development Goals to firm-level sustainability and ESG factors: The need for double materiality. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2023, 26, 2–10.
  3. [3] Khan, M.; Serafeim, G.; Yoon, A. Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence on Materiality. Account. Rev. 2016, 91, 1697–1724.
  4. [4] Silvius, A.; Schipper, R.P. Sustainability in project management: A literature review and impact analysis. Soc. Bus. 2014, 4, 63–96.
  5. [5] Sabini, L.; Muzio, D.; Alderman, N. 25 years of ‘sustainable projects’. What we know and what the literature says. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 820–838.
  6. [6] Kivila, J.; Martinsuo, M.; Vuorinen, L. Sustainable project management through project control in infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1167–1183.
  7. [7] Carvalho, M.M.; Rabechini, R. Can project sustainability management impact project success? An empirical study applying a contingent approach. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1120–1132.
  8. [8] Martens, M.L.; Carvalho, M.M. Key factors of sustainability in project management context: A survey exploring the project managers’ perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1084–1102.
  9. [9] Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903.

From the evidence overview Can ESG compliance be measured reliably? Evidence from ESG ratings, project-level instruments, machine learning and supply chain records, which cites only works that appear in the studies’ own reference lists. This is a selection, not the full reference list of Strang & Vajjhala (2026).

Related research

2026
Regulatory Volatility in Digital Supply Chains: An Information Systems Analytics Study of Decision-Maker Risk Perceptions and Sustainability-Related Outcomes
Strang & Vajjhala (2026) · Sustainability · DOI 10.3390/su18189359

Perceived regulatory-volatility risks do not form a single construct (KMO = 0.470), and labor and environmental risks were rated lowest of all (medians 0 and 1 on 0–5 scales) during a period of record forced-labor enforcement.

2024
Evaluating the Anti-Corruption Factor in Environmental, Social, and Governance Indices by Sampling Large Financial Asset Management Firms
Strang & Vajjhala (2024) · Sustainability · DOI 10.3390/su162310240

For 14 asset managers, each with USD 1 trillion or more in assets under management, no ESG score from MSCI, Sustainalytics or CSRhub was significantly correlated with misconduct or arbitration case counts, and MSCI and Sustainalytics scores for the same firms were uncorrelated (r = −0.069).

2026
Machine Learning and Data Science for ESG Compliance Measurement in Financial Software Engineering Projects: A Single-Case Socio-Technical Systems Analysis
Strang & Vajjhala (2026) · Systems · DOI 10.3390/systems14080990

In 207 financial software project records, stakeholder-rated social and governance factors tracked the overall project score almost perfectly (r = +0.995 and +0.966) while the environmental factor was unrelated to it, and machine learning classifiers performed weakly (kNN AUC = 0.497; SVM accuracy 61.8%).

2014
Collaboration strategies for a transition economy: measuring culture in Albania
Vajjhala & Strang (2014) · Cross Cultural Management · DOI 10.1108/CCM-02-2013-0023

A validated five-factor survey of 73 Tirana business professionals produced the first Hofstede-style indexes for Albania (power distance 78.7, individualism 42.7, masculinity 72.9, uncertainty avoidance 64.6, long-term orientation 52.2).

All publication summaries → · All selected publications →