Introduction

In recent years, the construction industry’s growing emphasis on sustainability has driven contractors to develop and enhance their capabilities to balance the tensions between low-carbon construction goals and other project performance objectives. This effort is crucial for gaining a competitive advantage and building a favorable reputation in an increasingly competitive market environment1,2,3. Many construction firms worldwide have integrated low-carbon principles into their construction planning. Compared with traditional construction projects, low-carbon construction involves more constraints, such as the coordination between carbon reduction goals and project schedule or cost objectives, the certification, procurement, and on-site storage of low-carbon materials, the maintenance of energy-efficient equipment, site entry and exit logistics, and the need for cross-organizational communication to foster a consistent low-carbon “mindfulness” during implementation4,5,6,7. Conflicts are likely to arise in low-carbon construction collaborations due to lack of coordination, inadequate planning, or disagreements over management approaches8,9,10,11,12. Conflicts among contractors regarding low-carbon construction can lead to serious consequences, including the decoupling of capability investment and return, deterioration of relationships, failure to meet expected low-carbon objectives, and significant obstacles to corporate sustainability13. Such conflicts may result in losses equivalent to 3–5% of the total project investment, or even more severe impacts8. To mitigate conflicts in low-carbon construction, it is essential to identify potential conflicting goals among contractors throughout the construction process4,14,15. Moreover, establishing appropriate conflict governance mechanisms from the contractor’s perspective can improve the effectiveness of low-carbon construction practices16.

Existing studies generally follow a prevailing assumption: that appropriate capability configurations are the best means to prevent and resolve conflicts—for example, through sufficient financial investment, well-designed construction plans, and effective project scheduling17. However, these studies appear to overlook the specific link between contractor capabilities and collaborative conflicts in low-carbon construction settings5,18,19. As a result, there is still a lack of consensus on conflict governance in low-carbon construction and its essential components8. According to Zheng, contractor capability is typically defined as the ability of a contractor to integrate diverse resources to meet operational demands17. Driven by strategic assets, such capabilities can offer contractors a sustainable competitive advantage, particularly in environmentally friendly construction processes20. The ability of contractors to deploy resources to eliminate, mitigate, or transfer the negative impacts of adverse events is referred to as capability21,22,23, encompassing various aspects of contractor resources24,25,26. In this context, the term “capability” is defined as the contractor’s ability to bundle internal and external resources to effectively manage collaborative conflicts arising in low-carbon construction. Without explicitly addressing the relationship between contractor capabilities and conflicts, it is difficult to explain governance practices in low-carbon construction projects27,28. Moreover, the absence of integrated capabilities may result in inadequate assessments of conflicts within low-carbon construction processes29,30,31.

While existing studies have demonstrated the importance of contractor capabilities in mitigating conflicts, the configurational relationship between specific capabilities and types of conflict remains underexplored32. One study has suggested that conflict governance and trade-offs should also consider a wide range of factors—such as sustainability, economic, social, and environmental dimensions—that influence capabilities in complex project contexts33. Another study has emphasized that capabilities are closely related to the assessment of conflict severity and accuracy, and that building appropriate capabilities contributes to the sustainable development of contractors34. This raises two critical questions: Can the relationship between contractor capabilities and conflicts be systematically established? And, given the diverse capabilities that contractors may possess, can we identify distinct configurations through which these capabilities influence conflicts in low-carbon construction? The diversity of disciplinary perspectives may lead to fragmented and sometimes conflicting understandings of conflict governance when explaining the same phenomenon35. Therefore, this study aims to determine the key indicators of contractor capabilities and examine their relationship with conflicts in low-carbon construction. It further seeks to identify the capability configurations that influence conflict outcomes, thereby contributing to the development of a more coherent knowledge base in this domain.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: First, a review of the existing literature is presented to contextualize the current state of research. Second, the theoretical link between contractor capabilities and low-carbon construction is established through an anomaly-seeking approach. Third, the research methodology and survey design are introduced, followed by an analysis of the survey data and presentation of the empirical results. Finally, the findings are thoroughly compared with existing studies, key insights are discussed, and the conclusions of the research are drawn.

Literature review

To address the research gap concerning the “capability–conflict” relationship in low-carbon construction, this study proposes a conceptual framework. The framework is developed by structurally incorporating existing governance theories into a new structure36, aiming to establish the link between contractor capabilities and conflicts in low-carbon construction. Adopting an anomaly-seeking approach, the study builds upon previous research to analyze exceptional cases within low-carbon construction and explore how contractor capabilities relate to emerging conflicts. Anomalies are understood as exceptions to prevailing general principles—cases in which existing theories fail to provide accurate predictions. The anomaly-seeking method has been widely applied in studies on contractor resource allocation and sustainability strategies20,30, serving to reevaluate existing theoretical foundations and inspire the development of new theoretical frameworks in the governance of low-carbon construction20. In this context, the construction of new theoretical frameworks generally involves two iterative stages: (1) categorizing conflict phenomena based on the unique characteristics of low-carbon construction; (2) simplifying governance models through classification schemes to reveal governance patterns and their variations. Accordingly, this study aims to uncover the relationship between contractor capabilities and conflicts in low-carbon construction by observing a broader set of phenomena, examining “phenomena within phenomena”, and classifying theoretical assumptions through interdisciplinary perspectives.

Observing a broad range of phenomena

Current research on governance in low-carbon construction has shifted from a narrow focus on individual performance indicators to a broader emphasis on interactions among contractors37. In recent years, construction projects have become one of the sectors most susceptible to environmental fraud, largely due to their complex web of agency relationships and informal collaborations38. Within such agency relationships, contractors are responsible not only for safeguarding the interests of developers and themselves, but also for ensuring that construction processes meet environmental requirements. Given the heterogeneous nature of their construction tasks, contractors often seek to allocate resources in a way that balances their own interests with the project’s low-carbon goals. In informal collaboration settings, contractors tend to align their workflows with existing low-carbon standards, codes, or norms developed through long-term partnerships. This helps reduce collaboration-related conflicts arising from information asymmetries39. In fact, conflicts are widespread in low-carbon construction due to the differing interests of contractors and their unequal capacities to process project-related information. Consequently, project managers often provide technical knowledge and conduct project evaluations to support conflict resolution40. Most conflict governance strategies in low-carbon construction refer to a common standard to integrate the diverse management systems of different contractors, thereby reconciling tensions between overall project performance objectives and individual stakeholder interests. This typically enables project participants to achieve optimal benefits in low-carbon engineering projects41. Contractors also rely on their construction and marketing experience to maintain sound formal and informal collaborative relationships. By identifying and addressing shortcomings in their existing construction management practices, they can enhance their low-carbon governance capabilities8,12,42. As a result, they are better positioned to reach consensus quickly when conflicts arise between personal interests and project-level institutional requirements—although this remains significantly more challenging than assessing constantly evolving low-carbon construction processes40.

In low-carbon construction, contractors often rely on past experiences to guide their progress, even when the project is no longer capable of responding effectively to potential contingencies43. If the evaluation focuses on the contractor’s internal resources, collaborative relationships, and prior successes or failures in low-carbon practices, then the resulting assessment can be highly valuable for conflict governance. From this perspective, the ideal approach to evaluating contractor capabilities in low-carbon construction is to examine whether the contractor can strike a balance between organizational objectives and project performance goals44. This implies that if a contractor possesses the ability to identify and capitalize on opportunities in low-carbon construction—or to effectively align internal operations with project-level institutional requirements while facilitating the implementation of relevant policies—then such capabilities become instrumental to conflict governance efforts. In essence, capabilities drive this process: they enable contractors to assess and integrate project resources, mitigate the effects of adverse events, and ultimately foster the resolution of potential conflicts in collaborative settings20.

Studying the phenomena within the phenomena

To better establish the relationship between contractor capabilities and conflict in low-carbon construction, this study adopts a nested research design that emphasizes inter-contractor interactions and their resulting impacts. The cross-level, second-order interactions within the nested design enable the identification of more anomalous phenomena in low-carbon construction, thereby advancing the understanding of how contractor capabilities relate to conflict governance. For example, one study found that in order to achieve better performance in low-carbon construction, contractors often adjust project management processes and practices to manage tensions between sustainability objectives and vested interests16. In pursuit of environmental, social, and economic goals, contractors tend to enhance their technical, marketing, and financial capabilities to cope with the increased complexity and risks introduced by low-carbon construction requirements4. Another study demonstrated that conflict phenomena can emerge across various vulnerable phases of the low-carbon construction process during contractor collaboration45. Proper configuration of capabilities has been shown to foster effective contractor interactions26. Moreover, the availability and constraints of physical resources in low-carbon construction limit contractors’ abilities to identify, assess, and mitigate risks.

Looking for anomalies through the lens of other disciplines

Table 1 summarizes common collaborative conflicts encountered in low-carbon construction. Currently, research on “low-carbon” governance in construction projects has expanded from a narrow focus on the traditional project iron triangle to measuring interactions among stakeholders37. In the context of numerous contractual relationships during construction, agency theory46 has been employed to study contractor behaviors. Contractors are expected not only to fulfill contractual obligations correctly but also to safeguard their own interests alongside sustainable development requirements. Due to task heterogeneity and contractors’ pursuit of their respective interests, goal conflicts arise within agency relationships in low-carbon construction, where contractors seek to maximize access to useful information to mitigate potential project risks47. Agency theory posits that disagreements among contractors and imbalanced capabilities are among the causes of conflicts in low-carbon construction40. Formal agency relationships focus on constraints between principals and agents, aiming to cultivate sufficient contractor capabilities to prevent conflicts47. The fundamental assumption of agency theory is that, through appropriate incentives and governance mechanisms, contractors can effectively resolve conflicts arising from imbalanced interests in low-carbon construction47. Transaction cost economics also assists contractors in making optimal cost decisions48. Similar to agency theory, based on assumptions of bounded rationality and opportunism, transaction cost economics holds that a contractor’s lack of resource assessment and environmental awareness complicates monitoring of agent behavior. This suggests that governance capabilities are often rooted in contractors’ backgrounds, cultures, and past experiences49, and exhibit dynamic and idiosyncratic characteristics50. Building on this perspective, resource dependence theory investigates the relationship between conflict governance and resource dependencies in construction47. It offers a resource bundling capability viewpoint22, whereby contractors suppress conflict potential and create favorable environments through resource integration and coalition formation51. Stakeholder theory further complements insights from resource dependence and agency theories regarding the linkage between capabilities and conflicts in low-carbon construction. Along with transaction cost economics, it emphasizes that contractors must possess certain capabilities to establish and sustain cooperative relationships48. Consequently, the stakeholder theory paradigm has gained wide recognition in elucidating the relationship between capabilities and conflicts. Throughout the low-carbon construction process, contractors’ governance capabilities facilitate balancing mutual interests and risks, thereby addressing the occurrence of various conflicts.

Table 1 Constructs of conflicts in low-carbon construction.
Full size table

A review through the lens of other disciplines reveals that supervision and control mechanisms within agency relationships provide a fundamental basis for constructing governance capabilities in this study. Transaction cost economics advocates for the evaluation and allocation of response capabilities, while resource dependence theory offers further explanation regarding the relationship between resources and governance capabilities. Similar to these, stakeholder theory assists low-carbon construction in balancing project objectives and stakeholder interests from the perspective of “capabilities”. These governance theories, viewed as interdisciplinary lenses, collectively articulate the assumptions underlying contractor capabilities and conflict governance in low-carbon construction. Such a reexamination of governance theories can effectively promote the practice of conflict governance in low-carbon construction and offer guidance on how contractors should configure their capabilities.

Constructing the conceptual framework

By observing a wide range of governance phenomena, meta-phenomena, and through the lens of governance theories, this study examines the responsiveness of capabilities in low-carbon construction governance. Theoretical insights suggest that accurately identifying contractors’ capabilities in low-carbon construction can help mitigate conflicts. Governance capabilities across financial management, human resources, organizational management, project management, business operations, marketing, learning and innovation, and procurement constitute the variables representing contractor capabilities in low-carbon construction. Capability measurement is based on an established scale developed in a related study focused on construction project capabilities17, with measurement indicators presented in Table 2. To investigate the relationship between contractor capabilities and conflicts in low-carbon construction, this study developed the “Capability–Conflict” framework.Figure  1 illustrates the main structure of the conceptual framework. The specific hypothesis of this framework is that combinations of contractors’ governance capabilities can reduce conflict occurrences in low-carbon construction.

Table 2 Constructs of contractors’ governance capabilities.
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual framework of the contractors’ governance capability.

Full size image

Research design and methodology

An in-depth literature review provides the theoretical foundation for this study. The technical roadmap of the research is illustrated in Fig. 2. To overcome the subjectivity of evaluation and avoid the potential loss of important relationships among variables when relying on a single method, this study adopts both Partial Least Squares (PLS) and game theory models to identify patterns in the data. By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, the study aims to reduce or eliminate the limitations inherent in each method while leveraging their respective strengths. This combination enhances the reliability of conflict assessment in low-carbon construction.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Technology roadmap.

Full size image

The conceptual framework of this study was validated through the distribution and collection of a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed in three sections. Section A gathered general information about the respondents and their companies. Section B focused on the respondents’ practices in conflict governance within their organizations. Section C assessed the capabilities of the companies. A five-point Likert scale was employed in this survey, where 1 indicated “strongly disagree”, 2 “disagree”, 3 “neutral”, 4 “agree” and 5 “strongly agree”. The specific contents of the questionnaire are shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5.

Table 3 Basic information investigation.
Full size table
Table 4 Investigation on capabilities for low-carbon construction.
Full size table
Table 5 Investigation on conflicts in low-carbon construction.
Full size table

The questionnaire employed a triangulation approach, distributing the survey link to managers from project management offices, supervision teams, general contractors, and subcontractors involved in low-carbon construction projects of different types, scales, and regions. By integrating data from multiple sources, the reliability of the research findings was enhanced. The entire survey was conducted with the consent of the company executives, who distributed the questionnaire link uniformly and requested that it be completed within the specified timeframe.

The participating construction contractors and respondents were required to meet the following criteria: (1) the contractor must be engaged in international construction projects; (2) the contractor must have more than ten years of construction experience; (3) the contractor must have experience with low-carbon construction projects; and (4) the respondent must hold a managerial position. The questionnaire survey was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Science and Technology Ethics Committee of Northeast Forestry University and was approved by the School of Civil Engineering and Transportation of Northeast Forestry University. All participants provided informed consent for the survey and subsequent research. A total of 1220 questionnaires were distributed to senior managers from 58 construction companies in China, and 577 valid responses were collected, yielding a response rate of 47.3%. To ensure consistency in data collection, all respondents were surveyed using the same questionnaire. In the construction industry, this response rate is considered sufficient for analysis52. Table 6 presents the demographic and organizational characteristics of the respondents. All respondents had experience in low-carbon construction and held senior management positions. Therefore, they were qualified to make informed judgments regarding contractors’ governance capabilities and conflict management.

Table 6 Demographic information of interviewees.
Full size table

Analysis and results

PLS-SEM modelingand analysis

This study employed SmartPLS version 4.0 to model the relationship between contractor capabilities and conflicts in low-carbon construction. SmartPLS 4.0 enables the evaluation of both measurement and structural models, as well as the assessment of path relationships. It is particularly useful for theory development and prediction of latent constructs53.

(1) Specifying the path model and examining data

Based on the previously established conceptual framework, this study proposed path hypotheses for the model. As illustrated in Fig. 3, the model visually reflects the hypothesized relationships between contractor capabilities and conflicts in low-carbon construction. The various components of capability serve as exogenous latent variables in the path model, while the components of conflict in low-carbon construction act as endogenous latent variables.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The structural model with hypothetical paths.

Full size image

In addition, except for the skewness of Cap-Bus_1 (1.069) and the kurtosis of Cap-Bus_3 (− 1.040), the skewness and kurtosis values for all other variables fall within the acceptable range of ± 1. Although the calculated skewness and kurtosis suggest slight non-normality in the data collected for analysis, this deviation is not considered problematic. In light of this, the data in this study are deemed to meet the requirements of the PLS algorithm regarding the distributional characteristics of the dataset.

(2) Evaluation of reflective and formative measurement models

Figure 4 presents the results of the outer loadings, path coefficients, and R2 values for the endogenous variables in the model. Taking Con-Culr as an example, the outer loadings of the measurement model are 0.897, 0.799, and 0.870, respectively, with an R2 value of 0.589. This indicates that the exogenous variables Cap-KI, Cap-PM, and Cap-Cnstr collectively explain 58.9% of the variance in Con-Culr. Moreover, these variables exert varying degrees of influence on Con-Culr, with path coefficients of − 0.599, − 0.148, and − 0.131, respectively. Governance capability is modeled as a formative measurement construct, while conflict in low-carbon construction is modeled reflectively. In order to compare the theoretically established model with the empirical model represented by the sample data, it is necessary to estimate the measurement model.

Fig. 4
figure 4

The validated structural model.

Full size image

Internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity were used to assess the accuracy of the reflective measurement model. For the 10 endogenous latent variables in the reflective model, the composite reliability values were as follows: 0.845 (Con-Cm), 0.913 (Con-Cnstr), 0.836 (Con-Culr), 0.909 (Con-EP), 0.895 (Con-ES), 0.931 (Con-KT), 0.941 (Con-LO), 0.880 (Con-Log), 0.949 (Con-OS), and 0.908 (Con-Sply). These values range from 0.836 to 0.949. Correspondingly, the Cronbach’s alpha values for these constructs were 0.845, 0.901, 0.818, 0.905, 0.894, 0.925, 0.941, 0.874, 0.945, and 0.895, respectively. These two sets of values represent the upper and lower bounds of the true reliability for each construct. A construct reliability between 0.7 and 0.9 is considered acceptable54. To evaluate convergent validity, outer loadings and the average variance extracted (AVE) were examined. A commonly accepted rule of thumb is that outer loadings should exceed 0.708, and AVE values should be greater than 50%. In this study, the minimum outer loading was 0.729, and the AVE values for the constructs ranged from 0.698 to 0.895. Both indicators exceed the recommended thresholds, suggesting that the item reliability is adequate and that all 10 constructs exhibit strong convergent validity55. Discriminant validity was assessed using established empirical criteria. The cross-loadings approach requires that the outer loading of each indicator on its associated construct be higher than its loadings on any other constructs. The Fornell-Larcker criterion states that the square root of each construct’s AVE should be greater than its highest correlation with any other construct56. In this study, the results for discriminant validity assessment of the reflective measurement model were satisfactory, indicating that each construct is distinct from others and that the reflective measurement model meets the required evaluation standards.

The evaluation criteria for formative measurement models should focus on establishing content validity. In this regard, assessing the formative measurement model through convergent validity, collinearity, and the significance and relevance of the formative indicators is considered appropriate. A path coefficient exceeding 0.8 from the redundancy analysis of each construct is generally regarded as an indicator of sufficient convergent validity. In this study, the path coefficients resulting from the global item-level redundancy analysis of endogenous single-item constructs were as follows: 0.966 (Cap-PR), 0.896 (Cap-HR), 0.911 (Cap-OM), 0.931 (Cap-Fin), 0.924 (Cap-Bus), 0.916 (Cap-KI), 0.944 (Cap-Mkg), 0.956 (Cap-Cnstr), 0.948 (Cap-PM), and 0.879 (Cap-Proc). All values exceeded the recommended threshold, indicating that the formative measurement model possesses adequate convergent validity. Moreover, high collinearity among formative indicators can affect weight estimation and their statistical significance. Collinearity issues are reflected through the variance inflation factor (VIF). In this study, the VIF values of all formative indicators were below the recommended threshold of 5, meeting the criteria for collinearity, and suggesting that collinearity is not a concern in the path model. Another important criterion for evaluating the contribution and relevance of formative indicators is the assessment of their outer weights. This assessment was performed through a bootstrapping procedure to test the significance of the outer weights in the formative measurement model. Based on the significance levels (*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01), the outer weights of Cap-Cnstr_3, Cap-HR_3, Cap-HR_7, Cap-KI_2, Cap-KI_3, Cap-PM_4, and Cap-Proc_4 were found to be statistically insignificant. However, as their outer loadings exceeded the threshold of 0.5, these indicators are considered to possess absolute importance and should be retained55. Accordingly, the formative measurement model meets the analytical requirements.

(3) Evaluation of the structural model

Subsequently, the predictive power of the structural model and the relationships among constructs were examined using Bootstrapping, Blindfolding, and the PLS algorithm.

First, collinearity was assessed using the same method applied in the evaluation of the formative measurement model through variance inflation factor (VIF) analysis. According to the results obtained via the PLS algorithm, all VIF values within the conflict-related inner model were below the threshold of 5, indicating that collinearity was not a concern in the structural model. Second, Fig. 4 presents the results of the structural model’s path coefficients, derived using the Bootstrapping procedure. The retained paths were statistically significant at various levels of significance (*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01). Furthermore, the coefficient of determination (R2), a commonly used metric to evaluate the structural model, indicates the overall explanatory power of governance capabilities on conflicts in low-carbon construction. In this study, the R2 values for the structural model were as follows: 0.44 (Con-Cm), 0.466 (Con-Cnstr), 0.589 (Con-Culr), 0.618 (Con-EP), 0.576 (Con-ES), 0.589 (Con-KT), 0.592 (Con-LO), 0.63 (Con-Log), 0.59 (Con-OS), and 0.793 (Con-Sply). According to established benchmarks, an R2 value greater than 0.25 indicates that exogenous variables have a meaningful influence on the endogenous variable55. These results suggest that governance capabilities sufficiently explain conflicts in low-carbon construction. Subsequently, predictive relevance was assessed using the Blindfolding procedure with an omission distance of D = 7. All Q2 values were greater than 0, demonstrating that the structural model possesses predictive relevance. Finally, since the effect sizes (f2) and predictive relevance (q2) of the model were all greater than or equal to 0.02, the governance capability constructs exhibited varying degrees of influence and predictive relevance. This further confirms the explanatory contribution of the exogenous constructs to the endogenous ones. Therefore, the R2 values in this study demonstrate that governance capabilities can effectively predict potential conflicts in low-carbon construction.

Configurational analysis based on fsQCA

By identifying specific outcomes and their causal conditions, fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) can assess whether certain combinations of conditions are necessary for the occurrence of an endogenous variable57. Building on the results of the PLS-SEM analysis, fsQCA is employed to further clarify the combinations of contractor capabilities that lead to conflicts in low-carbon construction. As a configurational comparative method, fsQCA treats cases as configurations of conditions and evaluates how different combinations contribute to a given outcome58. By uncovering specific causal relationships, fsQCA determines whether certain condition sets are essential for achieving the expected outcome57. This study adopts fsQCA to explore the configurational pathways through which contractor governance capabilities influence conflicts in low-carbon construction.

(1) Calibration

Before conducting fsQCA analysis, the variables must be calibrated59. The data were calibrated into fuzzy sets ranging from 0 to 1. Using the direct method of calibration, the variables were transformed into membership scores. Based on the probability density function, three anchors were defined: full membership (fuzzy score = 0.95), full non-membership (fuzzy score = 0.05), and the crossover point (fuzzy score = 0.5). The calibration values for the contractor capability variables are presented in Table 7.

Table 7 Data calibration result.
Full size table

(2) Necessity analysis

Necessity analysis aims to identify relevant antecedent conditions that are required for the occurrence of a desired outcome 60. In this study, it is used to examine whether any specific contractor capability serves as a necessary condition for conflicts in low-carbon construction. Each contractor capability was analyzed in relation to conflict outcomes using necessity analysis, and the results are presented in Appendix Tables S1–S11. A necessary condition is defined as an essential prerequisite for the occurrence of the outcome61. Following established thresholds, a causal condition is considered necessary if its consistency exceeds 0.90 and its coverage is greater than 0.5057,61,62,63. The results of the necessity analysis indicate that, across all combinations of contractor capabilities and conflict types in low-carbon construction, none of the conditions reached the 0.90 consistency threshold. This suggests that no single capability serves as a necessary condition for conflict outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of considering the interplay among multiple capabilities when addressing conflicts in low-carbon construction.

(3) Sufficiency analysis results

The analysis of sufficient conditions aims to identify specific combinations of conditions that lead to the outcome of interest61,64. This analysis begins with the construction of a truth table, which is a critical step in the fsQCA process. The truth table contains all possible configurations and serves as the foundation for subsequent analyses59. The refinement of the truth table is based on two fundamental criteria: the minimum number of cases required for statistical significance and the threshold for configuration consistency. Following the recommendations of Fiss65 and Alshehri59, a consistency threshold of 0.8 was adopted in this study. Configurations with consistency values below this threshold were excluded from further analysis. The results of the sufficiency analysis yield three types of solutions: complex, intermediate, and parsimonious61,66. In line with prior research and established practices, this study focuses primarily on the intermediate and parsimonious solutions. Conditions that appear in both the intermediate and parsimonious solutions are considered core conditions, while those appearing only in the intermediate solution are classified as peripheral conditions61. The quality of fsQCA solutions is evaluated based on two criteria: consistency and coverage. Consistency reflects the strength of the explanatory power of a given solution61, which, in this study, corresponds to how well combinations of contractor capabilities explain conflicts in low-carbon construction. Both overall solution consistency and the consistency of individual configurations should exceed 0.8057,61,66. Coverage indicates the proportion of the outcome that is explained by a specific configuration67, and the overall solution coverage should be greater than 0.5061.

As shown in Table 8, five configurations of capability deficiencies lead to conflicts among contractors’ tasks in low-carbon construction. Each configuration contains unique core absent conditions, highlighting the critical role that capability gaps play in triggering conflicts in low-carbon construction. The consistency of each configuration exceeds 0.80, indicating high explanatory power. Based on the core absent conditions, these configurations can be further categorized into two types: single capability deficiencies and combined capability deficiencies. The single capability deficiency patterns include M1, M4, and M5. These patterns emphasize the independent triggering effect of specific key capability “shortcomings” within organizations on conflicts between owners and regulators in low-carbon construction. For example, in M1, the absence of Cap-MKG is a core condition, indicating that if contractors fail to accurately capture the concerns of other stakeholders through market research and lack the involvement of specialized personnel, conflicts are likely to arise during low-carbon construction. The combined capability deficiency patterns include M2 and M3. These pathways reflect the synergistic absence of multiple capabilities, resulting in systemic conflict risks. For instance, in M2, the absence of physical resources (Cap-PR) and performance management capability (Cap-PM) are core missing conditions. The lack of these capabilities ultimately prevents project stakeholders from accurately controlling project progress and assessing construction performance, leading to disagreements over performance evaluation, process scheduling, and ultimately conflict occurrence. It is especially noteworthy that Cap-PR consistently appears as a core absent condition in the combined capability deficiency patterns, underscoring its critical role in low-carbon construction.

Table 8 Sufficient configurations for ConOS.
Full size table

Table 9 presents ten configurations of capability deficiencies and their impacts on environmental protection conflicts in low-carbon construction. Each configuration exhibits a consistency exceeding 0.80, indicating strong explanatory power. Among all patterns, M8 shows the highest consistency, suggesting that this pathway is the most representative in explaining the mechanisms underlying conflict occurrence. M8 demonstrates an accumulative effect of capability deficiencies, where the simultaneous absence of multiple capabilities amplifies their impact on environmental protection conflicts, highlighting the interaction effects among capabilities. Notably, the capability Cap-PR does not appear as a core absent condition in any of the configurations, indicating that the lack of Cap-PR has a relatively minor influence on conflicts related to environmental protection in low-carbon construction. Instead, environmental protection conflicts are more likely to originate from deficiencies in human resources, organizational management, and other related capabilities rather than from the absence of physical resources.

Table 9 Sufficient configurations for ConEP.
Full size table

As shown in Table 10, configurations M1 and M3 exhibit consistency levels below the cutoff value of 0.80, indicating that they do not sufficiently explain the impact of capability deficiencies on Con-Cnstr (construction conflicts). In configuration M2, Cap-PM (performance management capability) is identified as a core absent condition, highlighting its critical role in reducing construction conflicts during low-carbon construction. The effective enhancement of performance management capability helps optimize resource allocation, clarify work responsibilities, and control project schedules, thereby lowering the likelihood of conflicts in low-carbon construction scenarios characterized by multi-contractor collaboration and intensive process overlaps. The raw coverage of M2 is 0.771, indicating that it explains a substantial proportion of cases. These findings further underscore the importance of improving performance management capability to mitigate construction conflicts during low-carbon construction, while reliance on organizational management capability (Cap-OM) or procurement capability (Cap-PROC) alone is insufficient to establish an effective governance mechanism.

Table 10 Sufficient configurations for ConCNSTR.
Full size table

As shown in Table 11, configurations M1, M2, and M4 have consistency levels below the 0.80 threshold, indicating that they do not sufficiently explain the occurrence of commercial conflicts in low-carbon construction. The remaining solution patterns can be categorized into two modes: the Cap-HR–driven mode and the Cap-CNSTR–driven mode. In the Cap-HR–driven mode, Cap-HR (human resource capability) appears as a core absent condition, underscoring its critical role in either mitigating or exacerbating commercial conflicts. This mode highlights the significant impact of internal human resource allocation, management practices, and professional competency on addressing business-related disputes. In the Cap-CNSTR–driven mode, Cap-CNSTR (low-carbon construction capability) is identified as a core missing condition. This pattern reflects that deficiencies in contractors’ low-carbon construction capabilities or technical shortcomings may trigger friction with collaborators, ultimately leading to commercial conflicts during low-carbon construction projects.

Table 11 Sufficient configurations for ConCM.
Full size table

As shown in Tables 12, 13 and 14, during low-carbon construction processes, supply conflicts (ConSPLY), logistics conflicts (ConLOG), and labor-related conflicts (ConLO) exhibit a common pattern: in each configuration associated with these conflict types, all capabilities appear as core absent conditions. This indicates that such conflicts are highly dependent on the systemic and synergistic coordination of multiple capabilities. In the case of supply conflicts, physical resource capability (CapPR), business capability (CapBUS), and procurement capability (CapPROC) emerge as core absent conditions. This suggests that resource allocation, commercial negotiation, and procurement decision-making within the low-carbon supply chain are critical to the stability of the system—any deficiency in these capabilities may trigger supply-related risks. For logistics conflicts (ConLOG), performance management capability (CapPM), business capability (CapBUS), and physical resource capability (CapPR) are identified as core absent conditions. This highlights the sensitivity of on-site logistics operations to performance objectives and their reliance on adequate resource support and business strategies. In labor-related conflicts (ConLO), human resource capability (CapHR), physical resource capability (CapPR), and marketing capability (CapMKG) are recognized as core absent conditions. This finding indicates that labor organization in low-carbon construction is constrained not only by internal resource availability but also by external market factors. For instance, issues such as personnel scheduling efficiency, workforce training, and the influence of brand reputation on worker attraction can all contribute to the emergence of labor conflicts. Across all three conflict types, the configurations demonstrate a “full-core absence” pattern, underscoring the high complexity of conflict generation mechanisms in low-carbon construction. These findings emphasize the foundational role of systemic capability integration in conflict prevention and governance.

Table 12 Sufficient configurations for ConSPLY.
Full size table
Table 13 Sufficient configurations for ConLOG.
Full size table
Table 14 Sufficient configurations for ConLO.
Full size table

As shown in Table 15, in the configurational analysis of cultural conflict (ConCULR) in low-carbon construction, configuration M1 has a consistency level of only 0.774, falling below the commonly accepted threshold of 0.80, indicating insufficient explanatory power. In contrast, configuration M2 has a consistency level of 0.820, demonstrating stronger explanatory capacity and more effectively revealing the mechanism by which capability absence contributes to cultural conflict. In configuration M2, knowledge integration capability (CapKI) appears as a core absent condition, suggesting that when project organizations fail to achieve effective knowledge integration—including technical communication, resource sharing, experience accumulation, and internal learning—cultural conflict is more likely to arise. These issues align closely with typical manifestations of cultural conflict in low-carbon construction, such as divergent understandings of low-carbon practices, differences in perception of project content, and conflicting operational norms rooted in varying cultural or conceptual frameworks. This reinforces the fundamental role of knowledge integration capability in shaping a shared low-carbon construction culture. It is noteworthy that construction capability (CapCNSTR) does not appear as a core absent condition in any configuration. This implies that although technical capabilities—such as the execution of low-carbon construction techniques, equipment maintenance, and practical experience—are essential for project success, their absence is not a primary driver of cultural conflict. This may indicate that cultural conflict is more deeply rooted in issues of cognition, communication, and knowledge exchange, rather than in purely technical aspects.

Table 15 Sufficient configurations for ConCULR.
Full size table

As shown in Table 16, for conflicts in knowledge transformation in low-carbon construction, all configurations exhibit consistency levels above 0.80, indicating strong explanatory power. Based on the core absent conditions, the configurations can be categorized into three types. Configuration M1 focuses on the resource dimension. In this configuration, physical resource capability (CapPR) appears as a core absent condition, indicating that in the absence of specialized construction equipment, communication infrastructure, mature technologies, and commercial platforms, knowledge cannot be effectively accessed, expressed, or transformed. This may stem from the low level of informatization on construction sites, where on-site knowledge cannot be structurally articulated, leading to inefficiencies in knowledge transfer. Configurations M2 to M4 emphasize the role of internal organizational systems, institutional frameworks, and market relations in supporting knowledge articulation and management. These configurations reveal that the simultaneous absence of organizational management capability (CapOM) and marketing capability (CapMKG) creates significant barriers to knowledge transformation. A lack of communication, reporting mechanisms, and formal procedures undermines internal knowledge conversion processes, while insufficient market research and stakeholder awareness weaken the organization’s ability to identify and integrate knowledge. Configuration M5 reflects a business-oriented perspective on knowledge transformation conflict. In this configuration, business capability serves as the core absent condition, suggesting that an organization’s lack of strategic insight and external relational networks impedes knowledge transformation. This results in knowledge conversion barriers characterized by the absence of relational capital and brand capital, which are essential for leveraging external knowledge channels.

Table 16 Sufficient configurations for ConKT.
Full size table

Discussions

By incorporating contractors’ governance capabilities into the assessment of conflicts in low-carbon construction, this study advances project governance practices in the construction industry. Through the combined application of PLS-SEM and fsQCA, it reveals both the structural and configurational relationships between contractor capabilities and various types of conflicts arising in low-carbon construction.

This study demonstrates the practical application of anomaly-seeking approaches in the governance of conflicts in low-carbon construction. Although prior studies have highlighted common goal conflicts in green building projects4, including tensions between cost, schedule, and environmental objectives, the systemic role of contractor governance capabilities in resolving such conflicts remains underexplored. Through an in-depth literature review, this study identifies contractor governance capability as an anomalous yet critical factor in conflict governance. Recognizing project governance as a strategic implementation tool, and adopting a resource-based perspective that links resource availability to capability output, the study integrates stakeholder theory, resource dependence theory, and agency theory to construct a comprehensive capability framework for conflict governance in low-carbon construction projects. This framework promotes a reevaluation of the relationship between contractors and stakeholders, offering a thorough identification of relevant stakeholders and the root causes of conflict in low-carbon construction. By examining governance capabilities through a resource lens, the study encourages contractors to manage conflicts more holistically and effectively. Reflective practices and contextualized theorization in conflict governance are emphasized as valuable tools for identifying, measuring, and mitigating the severity of conflicts. Unlike previous studies that treated contractor capabilities as external or abstract variables5, this research operationalizes governance capabilities into measurable dimensions—such as performance management, procurement, marketing, and knowledge integration—and analyzes how their configurational deficiencies lead to different types of conflicts. In doing so, the study enhances the practical applicability of governance capability theory in the context of low-carbon construction.

The PLS-SEM structural equation modeling results indicate that different types of governance capabilities play differentiated roles in mitigating various types of conflicts. For example, deficiencies in performance management and organizational management capabilities have significant impacts on construction-related conflicts. The fsQCA analysis further uncovers multiple configurational pathways linking the absence of contractor capabilities to conflicts in low-carbon construction.The necessity analysis of fsQCA indicates that no single capability serves as a “necessary condition” across all types of conflicts, suggesting that conflicts in low-carbon construction are not driven by a single factor. The sufficiency analysis of fsQCA shows that different combinations of capabilities can achieve the same governance objectives of low-carbon construction through multiple pathways. This finding further supports the theory of “configurational equivalence”, namely that different capability configurations can achieve the same governance goals via multiple pathways57. The configurations identified through fsQCA show that in conflict types such as supply conflicts (ConSPLY) and labor conflicts (ConLO)—which are highly dependent on resource coordination and organizational collaboration—there is a pronounced pattern of systemic coupling. These types of conflicts are often intensified by the simultaneous absence of multiple capabilities, aligning with the findings of He et al. regarding the amplification mechanisms of conflicts in large-scale engineering projects9. This suggests that in low-carbon construction projects—characterized by inter-organizational collaboration and high coordination density—isolated improvements in individual capabilities are insufficient. Instead, robust conflict management mechanisms require the integration and synergy of multiple governance capabilities. Conversely, in conflicts such as cultural clashes and knowledge transformation issues, capabilities related to knowledge integration, communication mechanisms, and shared value alignment emerge as critical, underscoring the importance of soft power. This finding aligns with the research of Heaton, Das, and others on soft governance capabilities and dynamic governance mechanisms23,32. The differentiated effects of these capability types on conflict governance offer practical guidance for organizations in allocating resources and adjusting organizational structures based on distinct governance contexts.

The conclusions drawn from both PLS-SEM and fsQCA analyses hold practical significance for advancing contractor capabilities and strengthening project resilience. The PLS-SEM analysis helps identify key capability combinations, enabling more effective resource allocation to address specific conflicts in low-carbon construction. For example, in the case of business conflicts, greater emphasis should be placed on improving human resource capability, business capability, knowledge integration capability, market capability, and construction capability. While these insights are useful, they remain somewhat broad. The fsQCA analysis refines these findings by identifying concrete solution pathways. As shown in Table 14, multiple combinations of capability improvements can help resolve business conflicts in low-carbon construction, such as simultaneously enhancing market and construction capabilities, or improving human resource capability. These findings are operationally valuable, as they enable project managers to develop targeted capability enhancement plans to address conflicts in low-carbon construction and thereby strengthen project resilience in the face of uncertainties. At the same time, the results also provide implications for policymakers to design more comprehensive low-carbon construction standards, such as incorporating contractor capability assessments into industry regulations.

Conclusion

This study centers on the governance of multiple types of conflicts in the context of low-carbon construction, constructing a “capability–conflict” analytical framework from the perspective of contractor governance capabilities. It explores the mechanisms and configurational pathways through which deficiencies in various contractor capabilities contribute to conflict processes during low-carbon construction. By integrating Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), the study not only verifies the statistical associations between governance capabilities and conflict but also reveals the heterogeneous causal configurations through which combinations of capability deficiencies lead to conflict. These findings offer both theoretical insights and practical guidance for conflict management in low-carbon construction projects.

The findings indicate that conflicts in low-carbon construction are not driven by single factors, but rather emerge from the interplay of multiple capability deficiencies or imbalances. Core governance capabilities—such as performance management, human resource management, knowledge integration, and procurement—repeatedly appear as core absent conditions in the fsQCA configurations, underscoring their critical roles in both the emergence and governance of conflicts. Moreover, notable differences exist between conflict types and capability combinations, suggesting that tailored capability development strategies are essential for contractors. Such differentiated approaches can help avoid uniform governance interventions, enhance resource allocation efficiency, and improve governance effectiveness. Theoretically, this study develops a governance capability framework grounded in multiple theoretical perspectives, thereby expanding the research paradigm of conflict governance. Practically, it provides specific tools and guidance for contractors to conduct capability audits, anticipate conflict risks, and optimize governance mechanisms during low-carbon construction. These contributions support improved overall governance performance and organizational outcomes in low-carbon construction projects.