It is important for society to know the actions implemented by companies in the construction sector to reduce the environmental pollution generated by this industry and to contribute to the solution of economic and social problems in their environment; however, the variables that allow identifying their contributions and impacts are not known. Based on this problem, the study focuses on identifying the factors that influence sustainability management within the construction sector in Colombia. The research presents a predictive approach and uses a quantitative methodology, applying statistical modeling techniques. The sample corresponds to 84 Colombian companies. As a result, a system of equations of the form y=mx+b is presented to describe the deviation of the environmental, economic, social, compensation measures, management, indicators and sustainability reports. The analysis of the intersections constitutes a projective tool to evaluate the relationships and balance points between the dimensions analyzed, helping to identify strengths and opportunities for improvement.

1. Acevedo, J. P., Piñeros, R. A. (2019). Evolution of Sustainability Reporting in Latin America under GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) guidelines. Signs: Research in management systems, 11(2), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.15332/24631140.5082
2. Atmanspacher, H., Bezzola Lambert, L., Folkers, G., Schubiger, P. A. (2014). Relevance relations for the concept of reproducibility. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11(94), 20131030. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.1030
3. Bausela, E. (2005). SPSS: A quantitative data analysis tool. Revista Informática Educativa y de Medios Audiovisuales, 2(4), 62–69.
4. Beske, F., Haustein, E. Lorson, P. C. (2020). Materiality analysis in sustainability and integrated reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(1), 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2018-0343
5. Bland, M., Altman, D.G. (1995). Statistics notes: Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 1—correlation within subjects. BMJ, 310, 446. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6977.446
6. Carroll, A. B., Brown, J. A. (2018). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Current Concepts, Research, and Issues. Corporate Social Responsibility, 360(2), 39–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2514-175920180000002002
7. Clark, M., Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6), 064016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5
8. Garay, R., Pfenniger, F., Castillo, M., Fritz, C. (2021). Quality and Sustainability Indicators of the Prefabricated Wood Housing Industry—A Chilean Case Study. Sustainability, 13(15), 8523. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158523
9. Gomez, C. (2023). Challenges and strategies in sampling informal sectors in emerging markets. Journal of Business Research, 126, 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.12.034
10. Gull, A. A., Hussain, N., Khan, S. A., et al. (2023). Governing corporate social responsibility decoupling: The effect of the governance committee on corporate social responsibility decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(2), 349–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05181-3
11. Hahn, R., Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
12. Hernández, J., Sanabria, D., Ramírez, C., Aros, L. (2020). Assurance as a value tool: analysis based on corporate responsibility management practices in ESALs. CAFI - Contabilidade, Atuária, Finanças & Informação, 3(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.23925/cafi.v3i2.49546
13. Huerta, P., Gaete, H. (2017). University social responsibility through the sustainability reports of the Global Reporting Initiative: experience of a public university. Iberoamerican Journal of Higher Education, 8(23), 120–137.
14. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2021). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820930195
15. Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Phillips, R. A., Fadlallah, H., et al. (2022). What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders. Business & Society, 61(5), 1083–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211053005
16. Lee, A. (2022). Advanced statistical modeling techniques in predictive analytics. The American Statistician, 76(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2021.1877299
17. Lima, L., Trindade, E., Alencar, L., et al. (2021). Sustainability in the construction industry: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 125730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125730
18. Manterola, C., Grande, L., Otzen, T., et al. (2018). Reliability, precision or reproducibility of measurements. Assessment methods, usefulness and applications in clinical practice. Chilean Journal of Infectious Diseases, 35(6), 680–688. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0716-10182018000600680
19. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22(3), 276–282.
20. Menichini, T., Salierno, G. (2023). Using Materiality Analysis to Determine Actual and Potential Company Impacts on Sustainable Development. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 12(2), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2023.v12n2p90
21. Mio, C., Fasan, M., Costantini, A. (2020). Materiality in integrated and sustainability reporting: a paradigm shift? Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2390
22. Moneva, J. M., y Hernández, J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting in SMEs. International Journal of Small and Medium Enterprises, 1(2), 23–41.
23. Murtagh, N., Scott, L., Fan, J. (2020). Sustainable and resilient construction: Current status and future challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268, 122264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122264
24. Nishant, R., Kennedy, M., Corbett, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence for sustainability: Challenges, opportunities, and a research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 53, 102104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102104
25. Quero, M. (2010). Reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. Telos Journal, 12(2), 248–252.
26. Rodríguez, E. (2010). Statistics: measurement, description and inference. Psychological Perspectives, 6–7, 172–178.
27. Rubio Rodríguez, G. A., Gutiérrez Gamboa, H. Y., de Almeida Santos, F. (2021). The intrinsic principles of love. A practice of corporate social responsibility. University Corporation Minute of God -UNIMINUTO.
28. Runkler, T. A. (2020). Data analytics. Wiesbaden. 3a Edition: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
29. Smith, J. A. (2022). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Journal of Psychological Methods, 27(4), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000375
30. Teodorovicz, T. (2014). The Dynamics of Environmental and Economic Systems-Innovation, Environmental Policy and Competitiveness. Brazilian Journal of Innovation, 13(2), 459–462.
31. Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Khosla, R., Bernhardt, R., et al. (2020). Advances toward a net-zero global building sector. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 45, 227–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-045843
32. Vargas, A. (2015). Sustainability indicators, 2005–2014. WPS Review international on sustainable housing and urban renewal: RI-SHUR, (1), 38–65.
33. Walton, D. M., Wideman, T. H., Sullivan, M. J. (2013). A Rasch analysis of the pain catastrophizing scale supports its use as an interval-level measure. The Clinical journal of pain, 29(6), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e318269569c
34. Willekes, E. J., Wagensveld, K., Jonker, J. (2022). How to use management control systems to embed sustainability in the corporate culture? [Whitepaper]. The Hague University of Applied Sciences / Radboud University Nijmegen. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12768.97286
35. Zigler, C. K., Lin, L., McFatrich, M., et al. (2023). Validation of the observer-reported communication ability (ORCA) measure for individuals with Angelman syndrome. American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities, 128(3), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-128.3.204