The review, published on 14 August 2026, synthesizes literature on how Strategic Facilities Management (SFM) can translate high-level ESG commitments into concrete, facility-level actions. The authors ground their argument in Stakeholder Theory, the influential framework formalized by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s, which holds that organizations create long-term value only when they balance the legitimate interests of all parties affected by their actions—employees, customers, suppliers, regulators, and local communities. Viewed through this lens, buildings are not merely physical assets to be maintained at minimal cost. They are social environments that shape employee wellbeing, inclusion, productivity, and community outcomes in measurable ways.

The evolution of facilities management itself tells a striking story. Emerging as a distinct management discipline during the 1980s and 1990s, FM was originally aimed at controlling and reducing costs through innovative methods of organizing diverse activities that had previously received minimal management attention. Over the following decades, the field transformed from a narrow, cost-focused operational function into a strategic discipline centered on value creation, sustainability, and stakeholder engagement. The International Organization for Standardization now defines FM as an organizational function that integrates people, place, and process within the built environment to improve quality of life and the productivity of the core business—a definition that signals a fundamental shift from asset maintenance to human-centered value creation.

Central to understanding this strategic potential is the FM Value Map, a framework that traces how facility-level inputs, processes, and outputs translate into outcomes for organizations and their stakeholders. The Value Map identifies three primary routes through which facilities management adds value: exchange value, encompassing cost savings, asset appreciation, and financial efficiency; use value, the benefits experienced by users including satisfaction, productivity, and wellbeing; and relational value, the enhanced relationships with stakeholders reflected in brand reputation, social responsibility, and trust. This structured logic provides the analytical backbone for the review’s proposed conceptual framework, which integrates Stakeholder Theory with SFM practice to guide the identification, implementation, and evaluation of social ESG outcomes.

The empirical evidence linking facility decisions to human outcomes is growing. In the South African context, research by Nurick and Thatcher demonstrated that indoor environmental quality in green-certified office buildings significantly influences the productivity and wellbeing of knowledge workers. Factors such as thermal comfort, lighting, acoustics, and air quality shape the workplace experience in ways that directly affect organizational performance. Other studies synthesized in the review connect healthy workplaces to employee satisfaction, productivity, and cost outcomes, strengthening the business case for social-oriented facilities strategies. Meanwhile, the FM profession’s reach extends well beyond the office: facilities managers translate strategic community plans into operational realities, manage shared amenities, and oversee contracts for cleaning, security, maintenance, catering, and waste management—each an opportunity for local economic inclusion.

Digital transformation is reshaping the governance dimension of this picture. Recent research highlights that SFM increasingly relies on Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the Internet of Things (IoT) to provide the granular data necessary for accurate ESG reporting, enabling facilities managers to transition from static annual reporting to dynamic performance management. But the review also flags a tension at the heart of this technological shift. As Nappi and de Campos Ribeiro caution, the same sensors that optimize workplace environments also create risks of surveillance and re-identification, positioning technology as both an enabler of social value through improved comfort and efficiency and a potential threat to privacy and trust.

The review identifies several major debates that define the field. The first concerns measurement: can social value be quantified with the same precision as environmental metrics? Porter and colleagues argue that the investment community already possesses the analytical tools to assess social performance and that the real obstacle is a lack of organizational commitment. Semet and Mandell counter that the tools themselves are the problem, pointing to the absence of standardized metrics, the subjective nature of social value, and the difficulty of attributing community outcomes to specific corporate actions. The Urban Land Institute similarly notes that no consensus exists on standardized methods for defining and quantifying social value. The stakes are high: if social value is deemed fundamentally unmeasurable, facilities management’s contribution to the social pillar will remain peripheral, whereas frameworks such as Social Return on Investment (SROI) could position SFM as a credible contributor to corporate sustainability reporting.

A second debate concerns the proper scope of facilities management’s social responsibility. Much of the literature focuses on internal stakeholders—employee wellbeing, occupant satisfaction, and productivity gains within the workplace—positioning FM as a support function that enhances human capital for the organization’s benefit. In contrast, other scholars contend that facilities managers have a role in fostering community prosperity, social justice, and local economic development. A third controversy pits standardization against context sensitivity: while some researchers advocate aligning FM operations with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to enable benchmarking and investor communication, others highlight the proliferation of inconsistent global rating systems and argue that sustainability is inherently socio-technical, emerging from local contexts and relationships that cannot be reduced to universal metrics.

The gap between strategic ambition and operational capability emerges as perhaps the field’s most persistent challenge. The review documents that FM departments often struggle to communicate their value in the language of executive leadership, lack the mandate and resources to operate at their full potential, and face inconsistent reporting standards with unclearly defined roles and responsibilities. Litvin emphasizes that technical systems alone are insufficient—what matters is the presence of trained professionals who can drive environmental and social agendas. Without investment in human capital and professional development, the strategic potential of SFM will remain unrealised. The proposed framework addresses this by offering facilities managers, corporate real estate teams, and ESG officers a structured approach spanning stakeholder identification, practice implementation, and outcome evaluation, with indicative metrics ranging from absenteeism rates and indoor environmental quality to procurement spend directed toward small and medium-sized enterprises.

The South African context gives these findings particular urgency. The country’s history of spatial planning created deeply entrenched inequalities in the built environment, with communities deliberately separated and economic opportunities concentrated in urban centers—inequalities that persist today in unequal access to employment, education, healthcare, and public amenities. In this setting, the social dimension of ESG carries a transformative imperative: corporate actors are expected to actively contribute to redressing historical inequities through their operations and investments, supported by robust governance codes and regulatory frameworks that place social outcomes at the center of organizational legitimacy. The authors conclude that SFM is well positioned to bridge the strategy execution gap in corporate ESG and strengthen socially responsive sustainability practices, while acknowledging that their framework remains conceptual and awaits empirical validation through case studies, comparative research across regulatory environments, and the development of robust measurement tools for social outcomes at individual, organizational, and community levels.

Subject of Research: Leveraging strategic facilities management to achieve corporate ESG and sustainability: a literature review

Article Title: Leveraging strategic facilities management to achieve corporate ESG and sustainability: a literature review

Article References: Nephawe, T. E., Nurick, S., & Michell, K. (2026). Leveraging strategic facilities management to achieve corporate ESG and sustainability: a literature review. Frontiers in Environmental Economics, 5, Article 1839120. https://doi.org/10.3389/frevc.2026.1839120

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/frevc.2026.1839120

Keywords: ESG, facilities management, social sustainability, stakeholder theory, built environment, corporate real estate, workplace wellbeing, Sustainable Development Goals, ethical procurement, South Africa, Leveraging, strategic

The study estimates that around 27 million people worldwide are living in conditions of modern slavery embedded in ordinary consumer and business services. Although many governments require companies to publish modern slavery statements, the authors say disclosure mechanisms have not consistently translated into meaningful operational change.

A central finding is that firms often maintain structural distance from vulnerable work. This distance may be geographical (cross-border outsourcing), organisational (layered contracting), or digital (work allocation and monitoring by automated systems). When oversight is indirect, companies rely on proxy indicators—such as documentation quality or audit scores—rather than direct, verifiable worker feedback.

The research highlights a technical governance problem: visibility and traceability degrade as subcontract depth increases. In practice, this creates information asymmetry, where risk signals become noisy and accountability becomes diffuse across tiers of suppliers.

In response, the issue “Modern Slavery and Supply Chain Management” in Supply Chain Management synthesises evidence from multiple sectors, including construction, social care, logistics, and global manufacturing. It draws on interviews with practitioners and workers alongside analysis of corporate reporting and policy frameworks.

Across studies, compliance-centred approaches are portrayed as insufficient. Audits and checklists may detect surface-level nonconformities, but they can miss coercion, wage manipulation, or unsafe conditions that are not captured by routine documentation.

The authors also point to a network-level barrier: competitive pressure and mistrust can prevent collaboration between firms, NGOs, and governments. Without shared targets and genuine information exchange, collective action risks turning into a symbolic “tick-box” exercise rather than risk reduction.

As a practical shift, the research recommends moving from reporting to knowledge-building. Companies are encouraged to invest in deeper supply chain understanding, including systematic engagement with workers to incorporate “upstream voices” into decision-making for anti-slavery measures.

Ultimately, the paper argues that supply chain complexity should not function as an excuse. If distance is produced by design choices, it can be redesigned—changing where oversight sits, how data is generated, and whose experiences inform interventions.

Subject of Research: Modern slavery and supply chain management; governance, reporting, and accountability across supply networks.
Article Title: Modern slavery and supply chain management.
News Publication Date: 7-Jul-2026
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2026-966
References: Published in Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.
Image Credits: Not provided.

Keywords: Modern slavery; supply chain management; corporate governance; labour exploitation; audits; digital oversight; worker engagement; traceability; compliance vs knowledge.