GPM® Position Statement
Clarifying the Record
on the P5™ Standard
We appreciate that the recent IPMA publication acknowledges the role the P5™ Standard has played in shaping how projects measure and manage sustainability. For fifteen years, P5 has been freely available and continuously refined through practitioner feedback, research, and thousands of real-world applications. The book correctly highlights many of its strengths, but also includes several statements that do not accurately reflect the intent or current evolution of the standard.
Because readers were not offered GPM’s perspective before publication — nor were we notified of its inclusion — we believe it is important to clarify a few points so that the profession has a complete understanding of what P5 represents today.
Points We Agree With
Points That Need Clarification
“Provides an extensive checklist” — Incorrect
P5 is extensive, but it is not a checklist. It is a dynamic assessment framework containing 49 elements across five lenses, yielding 245 ways to analyze and manage project impacts. Each element interacts with others, producing a multi-dimensional view of performance. Checklists confirm completion; P5 enables measurement, insight, and improvement.
“The assessment is complex” — Context matters
Every credible sustainability assurance process is complex. Meaningful impact evaluation cannot be reduced to a few boxes to tick. ESG disclosures, integrated reporting, and sustainability assurance all require depth, data, and context. P5’s structure allows teams to tailor indicators while maintaining methodological integrity. Its depth is what allows accuracy and comparability. The assessment is bespoke and scalable, not complicated for complexity’s sake. Our model is the basis for actual sustainability reporting, not academic exercises.
“Drifts away from its initial goals as a PSIA method” — False
P5 was conceived to make sustainability measurable throughout the project life cycle — and that goal remains unchanged. What has evolved is the integration of assessment with planning, governance, and reporting through the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP). The method has matured from an isolated impact analysis into a comprehensive management approach. That is advancement, not drift.
“Has a very normative character, less open for tailoring” — Clarification
Normative frameworks are what make professional practice reliable. Without defined principles and expectations, there is no assurance of quality or comparability. At the same time, P5 is explicitly flexible: the Applications section and free templates show how indicators can be tailored by industry, scale, and context. Normativity provides the foundation; tailoring builds on it. They are not opposites — they are complementary.
Respecting the Publication’s Rights
We acknowledge the positive comments made about P5 and appreciate the recognition of its contributions. Out of respect for the book’s disclaimer that no portion may be reproduced, we have refrained from quoting its text directly. Readers who wish to review the original commentary can purchase the 54-euro volume.
For those who want to see the source material, the P5™ Standard can be read at no cost on our website and downloaded — together with its accompanying templates — for free. It is also available through PMI’s website as part of our collaboration to embed sustainability into project management education.
Our Position
For more than fifteen years, P5 has helped practitioners bring accountability and transparency to project delivery. It continues to evolve through feedback from thousands of professionals worldwide and is now accelerating further through collaboration with PMI.
Ours remains free, open, and field-tested. Readers can decide for themselves which approach truly advances the profession.
