Construction projects are inherently not sustainable if they don't meet client project briefs. These briefs are prone to change during projects. For decades, construction industry reform agendas have downplayed this issue. This research will adopt institutional work as a framework to attempt an understanding of how competing logics co-exist. Data will be collected by collaborating with a construction client over a period of years to explore the reasons behind changing briefs. The intention is then to look beyond the case study client to attempt an understanding of why the dominant logic behind construction improvement, which underpins construction industry reform agendas, has not faced more of a challenge from clients.