Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social network analysis of stakeholder governance landscapes in infrastructure mega projects: a case of the Delhi–Mumbai Industrial Corridor project

  • Case Study
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Infrastructure mega projects are characterized by a large number of stakeholders, their complexity and many interrelated components, interfaces, and diverse stakeholder objectives. The issue of megaproject stakeholder management has gained considerable interest in recent decades due to their consistent history of underperformance. Social network analysis is a potent tool to analyze and explore stakeholder network formations of megaprojects. The present study has explored the stakeholder governance landscape of the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor megaproject using interpretive policy analysis and social network analysis and captured various network level aspects namely connectedness and power structure, and assessed the actor level attributes like authority, coordination ability, power and information accessibility of various key stakeholders. The study is exploratory in nature and utilizes publicly available data and grey literature to explore various megaproject coordination issues through network theory. The preliminary findings suggest that megaprojects of the scale of industrial/economic corridors tend to show low network density. Density is observed to be equivalent to coordination complexity in megaproject stakeholder networks. The focal organizations namely the nodal agencies or the project specific special purpose vehicles (SPV) play an important role in overall governance efficacy of well-connected stakeholder landscapes. From the network perspective, eigenvector centrality is a better representative of a focal organization's coordination effectiveness in regional subnetworks where the central SPVs or nodal agencies are not considered. For overall networks, closeness centrality was observed to be a better predictor of ease of information retrieval. Degree centrality is observed to be analogous to power of the focal organization. Finally, it was observed that states like Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh show lower information asymmetry in stakeholder governance due to the high focal organization centralities and high overall network density. The paper emphasizes on the potential of applying a novel and robust analytical tool like Social Network Analysis in the context of megaproject stakeholder management and paves way for future researchers to conduct similar studies in different geographic and socio-political contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

(Source: NICDC)

Fig. 5

(Source: Compiled by Author)

Fig. 6

(Source: NICDC)

Fig. 7

(Source: Author)

Fig. 8

(Source: Author)

Fig. 9

(Source: Author)

Fig. 10
Fig. 11

(Source: Author)

Fig. 12

(Source: Author)

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All the relevant data used in the study are included in the article. However, other secondary data, if necessary, can be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W (2003) Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Winch G (2017) Megaproject stakeholder management. In: Flyvbjerg B (ed) The Oxford handbook of megaproject management, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 339–361

    Google Scholar 

  3. Woetzel J, Garemo N, Mischke J et al (2016) Bridging global infrastrucutre gaps

  4. Flyvbjerg B (2014) What you should know about mega projects and why. Proj Manag J 45:6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hu Y, Chan APC, Le Y, Jin R (2015) From construction megaproject management to complex project management: bibliographic analysis. J Manag Eng 31:4014052. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams NL, Ferdinand N, Pasian B (2016) Online stakeholder interactions in the early stage of a megaproject. Proj Manag J 46:92–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Amoatey C, Hayibor MVK (2017) Critical success factors for local government project stakeholder management. Built Environ Proj Asset Manag 7:143–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-07-2016-0030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mok KY, Shen GQ, Yang RJ, Li CZ (2017) Investigating key challenges in major public engineering projects by a network-theory based analysis of stakeholder concerns: a case study. Int J Proj Manag 35:78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rowley TJ (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Acad Manag Rev 22:887–910. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Gellert PK, Lynch BD (2003) Mega-projects as displacements. Int Soc Sci J 55:1–1. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.5501009_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Crosby P (2017) Shaping complex mega-projects: practical steps for success. Aust J Civ Eng 15:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14488353.2017.1362806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Van MA, Clegg SR, Pitsis TS, Veenswijk M (2008) Managing public—private megaprojects: paradoxes, complexity, and project design. Int J Proj Manag 26:591–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Flyvbjerg B (2017) Introdcution: The iron law of megaproject management. In: Flyvbjerg B (ed) The Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 568

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Biesenthal C, Clegg S, Mahalingam A, Sankaran S (2018) Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. Int J Proj Manag 36:43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang Z, Zhang Y, Zheng K et al (2023) A review of mega-project management research from an organization science perspective: CURRENT status and future directions. Dev Built Environ 16:100254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mahalingam A (2022) How institutional intermediaries handle institutional complexity in vanguard megaproject settings. Int J Proj Manag 40:320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wu H, Xue X, Zhao Z et al (2019) Major knowledge diffusion paths of megaproject management: a citation-based analysis. Proj Manag J 51:242–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819850232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lu Y, Li Y, Pang D, Zhang Y (2015) Organizational network evolution and governance strategies in megaprojects. Constr Econ Build 15:19–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhai Z, Ahola T, Le Y, Xie J (2017) Governmental governance of megaprojects: the case of EXPO 2010 Shanghai. Proj Manag J 48:37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Derakhshan R, Turner R, Mancini M (2019) Project governance and stakeholders: a literature review. Int J Proj Manag 37:98–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Xue J, Shen GQ, Deng X et al (2023) Evolution modeling of stakeholder performance on relationship management in the dynamic and complex environments of megaprojects. Eng Constr Archit Manag 30:1536–1557. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-06-2021-0504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Aaltonen K, Kujala J, Lehtonen P, Ruuska I (2010) A stakeholder network perspective on unexpected events and their management in international projects. Int J Manag Proj Bus 3:564–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371011076055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu K, Liu Y, Kou Y et al (2023) Formation mechanism for collaborative behaviour among stakeholders in megaprojects based on the theory of planned behaviour. Build Res Inf 51:667–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2023.2188444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang T, Owusu EK, He Q et al (2022) Empirical assessments of the determinants of construction megaprojects’ success: evidence from China. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bourne L, Walker DHT (2005) Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Manag Decis 43:649–660. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510597680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. PMI (2017) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 6th edn. Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania

  29. Olander S, Landin A (2005) Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. Int J Proj Manag 23:321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Clarkson ME (2011) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20:92–117. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McElroy MW (2000) Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organizational learning. J Knowl Manag 4:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270010377652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience : defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Newcombe R (2003) From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach. Constr Manag Econ 21:841–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000072137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mainardes EW, Alves H, Raposo M (2012) A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Manag Decis 50:1861–1879. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211279648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang T, Chan APC, He Q, Xu J (2022) Identifying the gaps in construction megaproject management research: a bibliographic analysis. Int J Constr Manag 22:1585–1596. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1735610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mashali A, Elbeltagi E, Motawa I, Elshikh M (2023) Stakeholder management challenges in mega construction projects: critical success factors. J Eng Des Technol 21:358–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-09-2021-0483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Park H, Kim K, Kim Y-W, Kim H (2017) Stakeholder management in long-term complex megaconstruction projects: the Saemangeum project. J Manag Eng 33:05017002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bhangale K, Joshi K, Gupta R, Gardas B (2024) Assessing project complexity factors for railway megaprojects: a Delphi-BWM approach. J Eng Des Technol. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-07-2022-0398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Xia N, Zou PXW, Griffin MA et al (2018) Towards integrating construction risk management and stakeholder management: a systematic literature review and future research agendas. Int J Proj Manag 36:701–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shi Q, Chen X, Xiao C, Han Y (2022) Network perspective in megaproject management: a systematic review. J Constr Eng Manag 148:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Xue J, Shen GQ, Yang RJ et al (2020) Mapping the knowledge domain of stakeholder perspective studies in construction projects: a bibliometric approach. Int J Proj Manag 38:313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yang J, Shen Q, Ho M (2009) An overview of previous studies in stakeholder management and its implications for the construction industry. J Facil Manag 7:159–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960910952532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mok KY, Shen GQ, Yang J (2015) Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: a review and future directions. Int J Proj Manag 33:446–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lee C-Y, Chong H-Y, Liao P-C, Wang X (2018) Critical review of social network analysis applications in complex project management. J Manag Eng 34:04017061. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nohria N, Eccles RG (1994) Networks and organizations: structure, form and action, 1st edn. Harvard Business School Press

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pryke SD (2007) Towards a social network theory of project governance. Constr Manag Econ 23(9):927–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500184196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ruan X, Ochieng EG, Price ADF, Egbu CO (2012) Knowledge integration process in construction projects: a social network analysis approach to compare competitive and collaborative working. Constr Manag Econ 30:5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.654127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ding R, Liu F (2011) A social network theory of stakeholders in China’s project governance. iBusiness 3:114–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Helms R, Ignacio R, Brinkkemper S, Zonneveld A (2010) Limitations of network analysis for studying efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge sharing. Electron J Knowl Manag 8:53–68

    Google Scholar 

  50. Loosemore M (1998) Social network analysis: using a quantitative tool within an interpretative context to explore the management of construction crises. Eng Constr Archit Manag 5:315–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Chinowsky P, Diekmann J, Galotti V (2008) Social network model of construction. J Constr Eng Manag 134:804–812. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:10(804)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Corazza L, Cottafava D, Torchia D, Dhir A (2023) Interpreting stakeholder ecosystems through relational stakeholder theory: The case of a highly contested megaproject. Bus Strateg Environ. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 22:501–518. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315748771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lienert J, Schnetzer F, Ingold K (2013) Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. J Environ Manag 125:134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gan X, Chang R, Wen T (2018) Overcoming barriers to off-site construction through engaging stakeholders: a two-mode social network analysis. J Clean Prod 201:735–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Dadpour M, Shakeri E, Nazari A (2019) Analysis of stakeholder concerns at different times of construction projects using social network analysis (SNA). Int J Civ Eng 17:1715–1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00450-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Yang RJ, Zou PXW (2014) Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: a social network model. Build Environ 73:208–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wang D, Wang X, Liu M et al (2021) Managing public–private partnerships: a transmission pattern of underlying dynamics determining project performance. Eng Constr Archit Manag 28:1038–1059. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2020-0034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Mok KY, Shen GQ, Yang RJ (2017) A network theory-based analysis of stakeholder issues and their interrelationships in large construction projects: a case study. Int J Constr Manag 17:210–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1187246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wu G, Qiang G, Zuo J et al (2018) What are the key indicators of mega sustainable construction projects?—A stakeholder-network perspective. Sustainability 10:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082939

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Boutilier RG, Zdziarski M (2017) Managing stakeholder networks for a social license to build. Constr Manag Econ 35:498–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1289229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pryke S, Badi S, Almadhoob H et al (2018) Self-organizing networks in complex infrastructure projects. Proj Manag J 49:18–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281804900202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pryke SD (2004) Analysing construction project coalitions: exploring the application of social network analysis. Constr Manag Econ 22:787–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000206533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Nangoli S, Ahimbisibwe A, Namagembe S, Bashir H (2013) Social networks: a strategy for enhancing project-stakeholder commitment. J Strateg Manag 6:399–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-02-2013-0012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hossain L (2009) Communications and coordination in construction projects. Constr Manag Econ 27:25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802558923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Hossain L (2009) Effect of organisational position and network centrality on project coordination. Int J Proj Manag 27:680–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Hossain L, Wu A (2009) Communications network centrality correlates to organisational coordination. Int J Proj Manag 27:795–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lee Y-S, Kim J-J, Lee TS (2016) Topological competiveness based on social relationships in the Korean Construction-Management Industry. J Constr Eng Manag 142:05016014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40:35. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Freeman LC (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1:215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Provan KG, Fish A, Sydow J (2007) Interorganizational networks at the network level: a review of the empirical literature on whole networks. J Manag 33:479–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Yang J, Shen PQ, Bourne L et al (2011) A typology of operational approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement. Constr Manag Econ 29:145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2010.521759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Akgul BK, Ozorhon B, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT (2017) Social network analysis of construction companies operating in international markets: case of Turkish contractors. J Civ Eng Manag 23:327–337. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1073617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Uddin S (2017) Social network analysis in project management—A case study of analysing stakeholder networks. J Mod Proj Manag 5:106–113

    Google Scholar 

  75. DeFillippi R, Sydow J (2016) Project networks: governance choices and paradoxical tensions. Proj Manag J 47:6–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Xie L, Han T, Skitmore M (2019) Governance of relationship risks in megaprojects: a social network analysis. Adv Civ Eng 2019:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1426139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Fernando S, Jha P (2021) Exploring the impacts of economic corridors on South Asian countries. India Q 77:404–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/09749284211027145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Roberts M, Melecky M, Bougna T, Xu Y (2020) Transport corridors and their wider economic benefits: a quantitative review of the literature. J Reg Sci 60:207–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Xu C, Yu D, Yang H, Yu S (2021) 20 years of economic corridors development: a bibliometric analysis. J Appl Econ 24:173–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2021.1880246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Zafar I, Shen GQ, Zahoor H et al (2020) Dynamic stakeholder salience mapping framework for highway route alignment decisions: China-Pakistan economic corridor as a case study. Can J Civ Eng 47:1129–1309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Zafar I, Wuni IY, Shen GQ et al (2020) A decision support framework for sustainable highway alignment embracing variant preferences of stakeholders: case of China Pakistan economic corridor. J Environ Plan Manag 63:1550–1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1672524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Farooq M, Rao ZR, Shoaib M (2023) Analyzing the determinants of sustainability of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects: an interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:12385–12401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22813-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Sulzenko A, Koch K (2020) Governance options for a Canadian Northern Corridor. Sch Public Policy Publ 13:27

    Google Scholar 

  84. Luthuli N, Houghton J (2019) Implementing regional economic development : exploring stakeholder engagements and project governance in the formation of the Durban Aerotropolis. J Public Adm 54:677–692

    Google Scholar 

  85. Orr GL (2014) Understanding multi-state, stakeholder directed, corridor coalition building: an interstate-81 case study. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

  86. Holt AR, Moug P, Lerner DN (2012) The network Governance of urban river corridors. Ecol Soc 17:22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Husnain G (2022) Governance of cross border regions and SEZs: the case of Gwadar under China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Politecnico Milano

  88. Carrai MA (2021) Adaptive governance along Chinese-financed BRI railroad megaprojects in East Africa. World Dev 141:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Anand S, Sami N (2016) Scaling up, scaling down-states rescaling along the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor. Econ Polit Wkly L1:50–58

    Google Scholar 

  90. Jain M, Jehling M (2020) Analysing transport corridor policies: an integrative approach to spatial and social disparities in India. J Transp Geogr 86:102781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Garg A, Kapshe M, Shukla PR, Ghosh D (2002) Large point source (LPS) emissions from India: regional and sectoral analysis. Atmos Environ 36:213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00439-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Sircar A, Shah M, Sahajpal S et al (2015) Geothermal exploration in Gujarat: case study from Dholera. Geotherm Energy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-015-0041-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Mittal J, Kashyap A (2015) Real estate market led land development strategies for regional economic corridors—A tale of two mega projects. Habitat Int 47:205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.01.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Singh A (2016) An exploratory study of DMIC water uses. IRA Int J Manag Soc Sci (ISSN 2455-2267) 3:486–498

    Google Scholar 

  95. Mukhopadhyay C (2018) Is the Delhi Mumbai industrial corridor (DMIC) an emerging ‘Megaregion’ in India? Plan Theory Pract 19:305–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2017.1392136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Schindler S, Sharma S (2017) Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor: economic and environmental consequences. Econ Polit Wkly 52:12–16

    Google Scholar 

  97. Yin RK (2003) Case study research design and method, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, California

    Google Scholar 

  98. Adams RJ, Smart P, Huff AS (2017) Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. Int J Manag Rev 19:432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. van Zanten JA, van Tulder R (2021) Analyzing companies’ interactions with the Sustainable Development Goals through network analysis: four corporate sustainability imperatives. Bus Strateg Environ 30:2396–2420. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Castañer X, Oliveira N (2020) Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. J Manag 46:965–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Rowley TJ (2017) The power of and in stakeholder networks. In: Wasieleski DM, Weber J (eds) Stakeholder management, 1st edn. Emerald Publishing Ltd., Bingley, pp 101–122

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  102. De P, Iyengar K (2014) Developing economic corridors in South Asia, 1st edn. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City

    Google Scholar 

  103. Ruan X, Ochieng EG, Price ADF (2011) The evaluation of social network analysis application’s in the UK construction industry. In: 27th annual conference of the association of researchers in construction management, ARCOM 2011. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Bristol, pp 423–432

  104. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet 6 for windows: software for social network analysis

  105. Doloi H (2012) Assessing stakeholders’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects. Facilities 30:531–550. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771211252351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Jackson ET, Gariba S (2002) Complexity in local stakeholder coordination: decentralization and community water management in Northern Ghana. Public Adm Dev 22:135–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Sainati T, Brookes N, Locatelli G (2017) Special purpose entities in megaprojects: empty boxes or real companies? Proj Manag J 48:55–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800205

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the valuable inputs provided by Late Prof. K Chandrashekhar Iyer, PhD while conceptualizing the study.

Funding

The author received no funding/grant to conduct the present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Construction, NICMAR University, Pune, NICMAR University Campus, 25/1, NIA Post Office, Pune, Maharashtra, 411045, India

    Aritra Halder

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, 110016, India

    Aritra Halder

Authors
  1. Aritra Halder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The corresponding author, being the sole author of the paper, had conceptualized the study, collected relevant data, conducted literature review, performed the case analysis, developed the graphics and written the original draft of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aritra Halder.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any study with human participants or animals performed by the author.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Halder, A. Social network analysis of stakeholder governance landscapes in infrastructure mega projects: a case of the Delhi–Mumbai Industrial Corridor project. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 9, 209 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01521-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01521-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation