In today’s rapidly evolving regulatory, societal, and business landscape, sustainability has moved from the margins to the mainstream. It is no longer a peripheral concern or marketing slogan — it is a strategic imperative. Projects, regardless of sector or scope, are now evaluated not only by timelines and budgets, but also by their long-term environmental impact, social contribution, and ethical governance. According to PMI’s The ESG Imperative report, project professionals are increasingly required to embed sustainability considerations into the DNA of every project phase, from initiation to closure. This includes navigating regulatory changes, aligning with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and ensuring stakeholder accountability. Yet, while the pressure to “go green” is shared, the pathways and expectations are anything but uniform.
Different industries face vastly different sustainability demands — shaped by sector-specific challenges, stakeholder expectations, and operational realities. For example, sustainability in the energy sector may revolve around emissions reporting and transition strategies, while in logistics it might involve fuel efficiency, packaging, or data tracking. These contextual differences mean that the skills needed to effectively lead sustainable projects cannot be standardized. A one-size-fits-all approach to ESG upskilling may seem convenient, but in practice, it often falls short of creating real impact. Instead of enabling professionals to make informed decisions, it risks ignoring the nuances that make sustainability truly meaningful within specific industries. To be effective, sustainability skills must be adaptable, relevant, and rooted in the operational language of each sector. 👉 PMI’s report The ESG Imperative
Data Speaks: Industry-Specific ESG Gaps
Through the SPM² Industry Survey, it becomes evident that sustainability-related competencies differ not just in importance, but in performance — and especially in terms of competency gaps across sectors. Using a Kruskal–Wallis analysis, we identified four competencies in the initiation phase of project management where statistically significant inter-industry differences exist:
- C2 – Assess and document sustainability impacts
- C5 – Align sustainability goals with organizational strategies
- C6 – Evaluate sustainability-driven project needs
- C7 – Embed preliminary sustainability metrics
Among these, C6 – Evaluate sustainability-driven project needs stands out with the strongest sectoral variation (p = 0.009), indicating that industries struggle in different ways when trying to translate sustainability ambition into project design.
For instance:
🏢 Real Estate shows major gaps in C6 — reflecting difficulties in defining project needs within rigid regulatory frameworks and legacy systems.
🛍️ Retail & Consumer Goods lags in C5 — struggling to align sustainability targets with fast-paced operations and market expectations.
🎬 Media & Entertainment falls short in C2 — indicating insufficient processes for assessing environmental and social impact.
🚚 Transport & Logistics faces challenges in C7 — often due to fragmented data and operational complexity.
By contrast, sectors like Energy, Public Administration, and Finance show relatively smaller gaps, likely due to earlier adoption of sustainability frameworks and greater exposure to ESG-related compliance.
👉 For more insights, explore the full findings in the [SPM² Industry Survey Report].
Why These Differences Matter
These insights challenge the assumption that sustainability competencies can be taught or applied uniformly across sectors—or even within a single organization. While there is a shared intent to act sustainably, the routes to implementation vary widely, shaped by operational models, regulatory requirements, stakeholder pressures, and strategic maturity. For instance, a logistics company might prioritize sustainability through real-time emissions tracking and green fleet management, whereas a real estate firm could focus on community consultations and energy-efficient construction standards. But the differences don’t stop at the industry level—they emerge even within departments of the same organization. A procurement unit may need ESG risk assessment tools for supply chain partners, while a project management office (PMO) may require training in sustainable planning frameworks. In highly regulated sectors like pharmaceuticals, sustainability education may revolve around compliance and product lifecycle impact, while in creative industries it might address inclusivity, social engagement, or cultural sustainability. Even the tools and methods differ: some departments rely on quantitative impact metrics, others prioritize qualitative stakeholder mapping or ethical decision-making models. As a result, there is no single training module, framework, or certification that can cover the entire spectrum of ESG competencies needed. Instead, effective sustainable project management requires modular, flexible, and context-aware learning pathways that acknowledge the complex, evolving nature of both sustainability and project environments. Recognizing this diversity is key to designing training that is not only technically sound, but truly relevant and transformative.
This confirms a central truth:
Even when sustainability goals are shared, the skills to achieve them are not.
That’s why the SPM² project advocates for tailored sustainable learning, designed to meet the needs of professionals where they are, rather than expecting them to fit into a generic mold.
Collaboration Is Key: Building Sector-Specific Capacity Together
Bridging ESG competency gaps cannot happen in isolation. As demonstrated through SPM² and similar initiatives, the strongest results emerge when academia and industry co-create training content. Across our partner institutions, we’ve been developing courses, micro-credentials, and learning labs grounded in real sectoral insight — from company needs to project-level pain points.
For universities, this collaboration ensures that students are trained for the future of work, not the past.
For companies, it means having access to a workforce fluent in both project delivery and sustainability thinking.
This mutual exchange not only elevates educational outcomes but also accelerates ESG maturity at the organizational level.
Towards Tailored Sustainability Project Management
Ultimately, the goal isn’t just to close competency gaps — it’s to build the right skills for the right context. That means:
- Designing sector-specific training programs
- Using project phase-specific interventions (e.g., ESG integration during initiation vs execution)
- Creating flexible tools that adapt to each industry’s sustainability reality
Recognizing this complexity — and planning for it — is what turns sustainable project management from theory into practice. It’s not about universal checklists, but about equipping every sector with the capacity to drive sustainability from the inside out.
About the Author
MSc Bojana Savić is a PhD student in Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. She is currently employed as a teaching assistant at the Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, where she is actively involved in EU-funded projects.
