IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i16p6808-d1452634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mitigation Measures for Information Asymmetry between Participants in Construction Projects: The Impact of Trust

Author

Listed:
  • Ivona Ivić

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Anita Cerić

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

Abstract

Sustainability requirements pose complex challenges for the construction industry, requiring adaptation strategies, innovative solutions, and collaboration between stakeholders to build resilient structures for the future. Nevertheless, effective collaboration between stakeholders is hindered by information asymmetry, which can produce disputes, endanger honest communication between the participants, and in the long term, negatively affect industrial productivity. To improve the sustainability of construction businesses and construction projects, there is a need for the implementation of mitigation measures for information asymmetry risks. This study presents possible mitigation measures for information asymmetry between clients and contractors in the construction industry. Mitigation measures were identified through a literature review and semi-structured interviews with industry professionals. Furthermore, a questionnaire was designed and employed to prioritize mitigation measures and explore their utility for mitigating three types of risks: adverse selection, moral hazard, and hold-up. The results of this study indicate that building trust, regular supervision and monitoring of work, thorough verification of bidders, and fair distribution of risks between the client and the contractor have the most utility in mitigating information asymmetry in construction projects. The practical contribution of this research includes defining the most useful measures to mitigate risks caused by information asymmetry. Project managers can apply the results of this research for more successful achievement of their project goals. Implementing effective risk management strategies, such as building trust between stakeholders, can help mitigate the impacts of unforeseen events and build resilience in construction projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivona Ivić & Anita Cerić, 2024. "Mitigation Measures for Information Asymmetry between Participants in Construction Projects: The Impact of Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-27, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6808-:d:1452634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6808/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6808/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Feng Xue & Guangyu Chen & Shanming Huang & Huan Xie, 2022. "Design of Social Responsibility Incentive Contracts for Stakeholders of Megaprojects under Information Asymmetry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Yanchao Du & Hengyu Zhou & Yongbo Yuan & Hong Xue, 2019. "Exploring the Moral Hazard Evolutionary Mechanism for BIM Implementation in an Integrated Project Team," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-28, October.
    3. Chen-Yu Chang & Graham Ive, 2007. "Reversal of bargaining power in construction projects: meaning, existence and implications," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(8), pages 845-855.
    4. Peiyang Su & Ying Peng & Qidan Hu & Ruwen Tan, 2020. "Incentive Mechanism and Subsidy Design for Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling under Information Asymmetry with Reciprocal Behaviors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-26, June.
    5. Goran Petrović & Jelena Mihajlović & Danijel Marković & Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Miloš Madić, 2023. "Comparison of Aggregation Operators in the Group Decision-Making Process: A Real Case Study of Location Selection Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    6. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    7. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    8. Gonzalez-Diaz, Manuel & Arrunada, Benito & Fernandez, Alberto, 2000. "Causes of subcontracting: evidence from panel data on construction firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 167-187, June.
    9. Haikun Han & Juqin Shen & Bo Liu & Han Han, 2022. "Dynamic Incentive Mechanism for Large-scale Projects Based on the Reputation Effects," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, October.
    10. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    11. B. Ahn & S. Choi, 2012. "Aggregation of ordinal data using ordered weighted averaging operator weights," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 1-16, December.
    12. Graham Ive & Chen-Yu Chang, 2007. "The principle of inconsistent trinity in the selection of procurement systems," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 677-690.
    13. Missbauer, Hubert & Hauber, Wolfgang, 2006. "Bid calculation for construction projects: Regulations and incentive effects of unit price contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(3), pages 1005-1019, June.
    14. Shi, Shasha & Yin, Yafeng & An, Qingxian & Chen, Ke, 2021. "Optimal build-operate-transfer road contracts under information asymmetry and uncertainty," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 65-86.
    15. Lampel, Joseph & Miller, Roger & Floricel, Serghei, 1996. "Impact of owner involvement on innovation in large projects: Lessons from power plants construction," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 5(6), pages 561-578, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ivona Ivić & Anita Cerić, 2023. "Risks Caused by Information Asymmetry in Construction Projects: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-25, June.
    2. Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Andreas Schiessl & Richard Müller & Rebekka Volk & Konrad Zimmer & Patrick Breun & Frank Schultmann, 2020. "Integrating site-specific environmental impact assessment in supplier selection: exemplary application to steel procurement," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(9), pages 1409-1457, November.
    4. Munim, Ziaul Haque & Duru, Okan & Ng, Adolf K.Y., 2022. "Transhipment port's competitiveness forecasting using analytic network process modelling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 70-82.
    5. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    6. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    7. Brunnhofer, Magdalena & Gabriella, Natasha & Schöggl, Josef-Peter & Stern, Tobias & Posch, Alfred, 2020. "The biorefinery transition in the European pulp and paper industry – A three-phase Delphi study including a SWOT-AHP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    9. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Can microalgae biodiesel contribute to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030? A comparison between first, second and third generation biofuels though a range-," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1032-1046.
    10. Betul Yagmahan & Hilal Yılmaz, 2023. "An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 96-121, January.
    11. Haddad, Brahim & Díaz-Cuevas, Pilar & Ferreira, Paula & Djebli, Ahmed & Pérez, Juan Pedro, 2021. "Mapping concentrated solar power site suitability in Algeria," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 838-853.
    12. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    13. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    14. Syed Hammad Mian & Abdulrahman Al-Ahmari, 2019. "Comparative analysis of different digitization systems and selection of best alternative," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 2039-2067, June.
    15. Brunelli, Matteo, 2019. "A study on the anonymity of pairwise comparisons in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(2), pages 502-510.
    16. Diane Coyle & Marianne Sensier, 2020. "The imperial treasury: appraisal methodology and regional economic performance in the UK," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 283-295, March.
    17. Schreiner, Lena & Madlener, Reinhard, 2022. "Investing in power grid infrastructure as a flexibility option: A DSGE assessment for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    18. Alexander Budzier & Bent Flyvbjerg & Andi Garavaglia & Andreas Leed, 2019. "Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis of Nuclear Waste Storage," Papers 1901.11123, arXiv.org.
    19. Michal Gluszak & Remigiusz Gawlik & Malgorzata Zieba, 2019. "Smart and Green Buildings Features in the Decision-Making Hierarchy of Office Space Tenants: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Study," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-16, July.
    20. Francesco Di Maddaloni & Roya Derakhshan, 2019. "A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6808-:d:1452634. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.