Risk appetite is a crucial component that plays a key role in the decision-making process of project risk management. Despite rising scholarly interest in project risk management, risk appetite has received little attention thus far. A well-defined risk appetite ensures that all decisions taken throughout the course of a project are consistent with an organization’s ultimate strategic aim. This research aims to identify the factors affecting the risk appetite of megaproject selection in the construction sector. The study adds to the knowledge of risk appetite in mega construction project selection and qualitatively examines the factors affecting risk appetite. Exploratory research design is used to identify these factors. The factors are identified using semi-structured interviews of 30 practitioners from the top and middle management working on mega construction projects. Thematic analysis was performed using NVIVO academic software. The most highlighted factors are financial attributes, board of directors’ agility, political factors, project location and demographics. The proposed conceptual framework identifies the factors affecting the risk appetite of mega construction project selection. These factors may be utilized as a starting point by construction project organizations to evaluate the risk appetite of a mega construction project. Risk appetite-based project selection will decrease chances of failures, delays, and cost overruns in mega-projects. These factors can be used by researchers as a rationale for developing predictive or descriptive models of project selection based on risk appetite.

The public–private partnership (PPP) based model for the execution of infrastructure projects originated from Anglo-Saxon countries and was initially used in 1977 by the United Kingdom (U.K). Since then, its popularity has increased worldwide. Earlier studies by researchers and many other professional sectors and departments have introduced PPP contracts into different execution modes like Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT); Build, Own, Operate, and Transfer (BOOT); and Build, Lease, and Transfer (BLT), etc. All definitions of PPP contracts are different but have a few common characteristics and risks. Previously, numerous pieces of literature were available on these common risks for various execution modes of PPP contracts. However, each PPP mode still has unique risks that must be identified to understand and successfully implement the PPP projects properly. This paper fills the gap mentioned above and aims to identify various commonly used PPP execution modes in infrastructure projects and their corresponding risks after placing the different PPP execution modes into four (04) different categories. Identified risks for the corresponding PPP categories were also divided into seven (07) stages of the PPP life cycle. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather information from thirty-four (34) PPP experts worldwide. Accordingly, interviews are transcribed and processed for thematic analysis in academic NVIVO software. These identified risks are further placed in the respective PPP category for the convenience and better understanding of the study’s outcome to the users and for the subsequent prioritization and allocation of these identified risks accordingly to the PPP parties during the finalization of the PPP execution mode.

Brand equity is one of the most significant concepts in branding and marketing, and its model and measurement have interested many academics and practitioners. Most of the research on brand equity has focused on physical goods, with a need for studies on the service sector in general and particularly in the banking sector in developing countries. The need for more research in this area appears contradictory, as branding plays a distinctive role, particularly in the service sector. Most of the research on brand equity has focused on developed countries and yielded good results; thus, it would suggest a regional focus on developing countries. There needs to be more empirical evidence in the service and banking sectors, particularly in developing economies. This study contributes to scholarly attempts to fill the gaps in the brand equity literature regarding the service sector of banks. This study focused on general commercial banks in Pakistan without distinguishing between Islamic and conventional banks. Therefore, future research could carefully distinguish between Islamic and conventional banks and compare brand equity models across them to better understand the differences and similarities.