Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of board gender diversity on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) practices within global construction project-based organizations, positioning EDI as a core component of social sustainability. Underpinned by the resource dependence theory and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, this study analyzed data from the top 100 construction firms to assess how female board representation influences EDI outcomes. The findings reveal a positive relationship moderated by cultural traits such as power distance and indulgence. This study highlights the strategic value of gender-diverse leadership and culturally responsive governance in advancing inclusive and socially sustainable practices in male-dominated industries.

Keywords

social sustainability diversity equality construction industry

Introduction

Corporate sustainability requires organizations to integrate social justice within their operational frameworks, particularly in industries with high societal impacts such as construction. For project-based organizations in this sector, focusing on social sustainability as part of the triple bottom-line framework by Elkington (1998) is becoming an essential aspect of corporate responsibility. This framework highlights the need to balance the social, environmental, and economic considerations. However, although environmental and economic aspects have been emphasized, social sustainability, especially involving equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), has often been underexplored in construction (Karakhan et al., 2020).

Social sustainability in project-based organizations involves fostering inclusivity and supporting community welfare through diverse equitable workplace practices (Kordi et al., 2022; McKenzie, 2004). This includes strategies for recruitment, training, and development to create a balanced workforce (Dhanasekar et al., 2023; Ullah et al. 2021). Despite its importance, social sustainability remains the least-studied dimension of sustainability within the construction domain (Hossain et al., 2018). As global awareness increases, frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)—emphasize the need for inclusivity across industries.

Social sustainability refers to broader societal well-being and justice encompassing equitable access to opportunities, community cohesion, and intergenerational equity (McKenzie, 2004; Kordi et al., 2022). EDI, on the other hand, constitutes a key mechanism through which social sustainability is pursued within organizations. By promoting fair representation, inclusive practices, and valuing of diverse identities, EDI initiatives contribute directly to the creation of socially sustainable workplaces and communities. Thus, acknowledging EDI as both an outcome and an enabler of social sustainability clarifies its strategic importance in the construction industry.

Despite this global emphasis, the construction industry remains predominantly male and lacks diversity (Ness, 2012). The Project Management Institute (PMI, 2023) has suggested that addressing this disparity can mitigate skill shortages and enhance performance. Studies show that diverse teams improve problem-solving, adaptability, and organizational competitiveness (Baker et al., 2023; Sang & Powell, 2013). Specifically, gender diversity has been linked to balanced decision-making and market insights, making it a valuable asset for project-based organizations (Baker et al., 2021a). Furthermore, organizations prioritizing gender diversity see positive outcomes in financial performance and team collaboration (Bear et al., 2010; Campbell & Vera, 2010; Wukich et al., 2024. However, the construction workforce remains overwhelmingly male, with 89% of workers identifying as male and 87.3% as white in the United States (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022), highlighting the structural barriers for minority groups (Sang & Powell, 2013).

There is growing interest in diversity within the construction industry (Dhanasekar et al., 2023). Traditional equality approaches, often focused on equal rights regardless of group differences, have faced criticism for enforcing conformity to majority norms rather than addressing the specific needs of diverse groups (Pilcher & Whelehan, 2016; Barnard et al., 2010). For instance, gender equality policies can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes in male-dominated roles by overlooking gender-specific challenges (Dozier, 2017; Heilman et al., 2004). The focus has shifted from equality to diversity, emphasizing the importance of social identities, such as race, ethnicity, and gender, in shaping workforce composition (Bagilhole, 2009; Kossek & Pichler, 2006. However, true inclusivity goes beyond mere representation, creating environments where diverse perspectives are valued and integrated.

In construction, diversity is often limited to gender and race, with little attention being paid to areas such as sexual orientation and disability. Public sector initiatives have taken more proactive steps toward LGBTQ + inclusivity, but research on such inclusivity in construction is limited (Wright, 2013; Dhanasekar et al., 2023). Regional contexts also shape diversity approaches; the Global North frequently focuses on racial diversity, whereas the Global South emphasizes indigenous representation (Budhwar & Debrah, 2013). For instance, in China, the Han majority represents 91.11% of the population, with 55 recognized ethnic minorities (Chinese National Bureau of Statistics, 2021).

Limited research has examined whether and how increased female representation at the leadership level translates into stronger EDI outcomes for construction firms, particularly in different cultural environments. The intersection of internal leadership diversity and external national culture remains underexplored in the context of social sustainability in project-based organizations. To address this knowledge gap, this study develops a theory-driven framework by integrating resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Hillman et al., 2000) and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (Hofstede et al., 2010). This research aims to understand EDI initiatives within the global construction industry. The specific objectives of the research are: (1) to assess diversity disclosure practices, (2) to analyze performance across various diversity dimensions, (3) to investigate how board gender diversity influences EDI outcomes, and (4) to understand the moderating role of national culture on the relationship between women on boards and EDI initiatives of construction organizations.

This study makes several important theoretical and practical contributions. First, it bridges the gap between internal governance factors and the external cultural context by integrating resource-based and cultural perspectives, thereby advancing our understanding of the drivers of social sustainability in project-based sectors. Second, it empirically demonstrates the impact of board gender diversity on tangible EDI outcomes in the global construction context, extending the resource dependence theory to social sustainability performance metrics beyond the financial domain. Third, it introduces a standardized metric for evaluating EDI practices, offering a practical benchmarking tool for organizations, and highlighting the best practices in diversity management. Together, these contributions highlight the strategic importance of diverse leadership coupled with culturally cognizant strategies to foster sustainable and inclusive organizations.

This article is structured as follows. First, the literature review discusses social sustainability and the role of EDI within project-based organizations, highlighting specific diversity dimensions including gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability in the construction industry. The research design section describes the content analysis method employed to assess EDI practices among the top 100 global construction firms. Following this, the results section presents findings on sustainability reporting, general EDI disclosures, and correlations between national culture and diversity scores. Finally, the discussion and conclusion explore the implications of these findings and suggest future research directions.

Literature Review

Social Sustainability and Diversity in Project-Based Operations

Project-based organizations in construction, engineering, and mining significantly influence employment, economic growth, and community welfare (Baker et al., 2023; Bredin, 2008; Crawford et al., 2013). As sustainability frameworks have expanded to embrace social dimensions alongside economic and environmental considerations (Elkington, 1998), organizations face growing expectations to advance social sustainability, defined as the promotion of equitable, inclusive, and just societies (McKenzie, 2004). Within corporate settings, this goal is pursued through EDI initiatives, which collectively aim to dismantle systemic barriers, cultivate diverse workforces, and integrate various perspectives into decision-making processes (Mavi et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2019; Hossain et al., 2018).

Equity refers to the fair allocation of resources and opportunities, ensuring the identification and removal of systemic impediments (Pilcher & Whelehan, 2016). Diversity denotes the representation of different demographic and cognitive attributes, including gender, ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation, as critical enablers of organizational resilience and innovation (Bagilhole, 2009; Kordi et al., 2022). Inclusion involves cultivating an environment in which diverse individuals feel valued, empowered, and able to contribute fully to organizational objectives, thereby enhancing decision quality and stakeholder engagement (Mavi et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2019; Hossain et al., 2018). EDI initiatives can help create supportive cultures, reduce discrimination, encourage the retention of diverse talents, and enhance social outcomes (Mavi et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2019). These initiatives not only improve worker satisfaction but also contribute to broader societal goals, aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 5 on gender equality and Goal 8 on inclusive economic growth (United Nations [UN], 2019, 2023). Loosemore (2020) further emphasizes that increasing female participation in construction supports these SDGs, contributing to a sustainable social impact by promoting gender equality. The construction industry also faces skill shortages that affect productivity (Crawford et al., 2013; PMI, 2023; Baker et al., 2021b). EDI measures can help address these shortages by fostering a more inclusive workforce, thus attracting diverse talent and addressing representation gaps (Dezsö & Ross, 2012; Joecks et al., 2013; Vafaei et al., 2015). A comprehensive approach involving capacity planning, training, supply chain collaboration, and promoting gender equity is crucial for sustainable industrial growth (Loosemore et al., 2020).

Gender diversity has been extensively examined in both professional practice and scholarly literature (for example, Dezsö & Ross, 2012; Joecks et al., 2013; Vafaei et al., 2015); other critical dimensions of diversity, such as sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability, also need consideration given their substantive implications for social sustainability within the construction sector. LGBTQ + professionals frequently encounter exclusionary practices, stigma, and apprehension regarding the disclosure of identity, often resulting in concealment or attrition toward ostensibly more inclusive environments (Barnard et al., 2023; Hansford, 2016, 2017; Rumens, 2013; Ozturk & Tatli, 2016; Wright, 2013). Ethnic minority workers experience systemic discrimination, marginalization from leadership pathways, and linguistic challenges that exacerbate occupational segregation and resource insecurity (Dupree & Boykin, 2021; Ahmed et al., 2022; Berntsen, 2016; Buckley et al., 2016; Dimitriadis, 2023). Individuals with disabilities comprising only 6% to 9% of the construction workforce in jurisdictions, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, confront infrastructural inaccessibility and productivity biases that severely constrain employment opportunities (Build Australia, 2021; Chartered Institute of Building, 2022; Bailey et al., 2022; Loosemore et al., 2020; Clarke et al., 2009; Van Laer et al., 2022).

The Impact of Board Diversity on EDI Initiatives

Diverse leadership significantly influences EDI initiatives, because female leaders are associated with lower discrimination rates and the development of more robust EDI policies (Odusami et al., 2003; Piwowar-Sulej & Iqbal, 2023; Bossler et al., 2020; Gorman & Kmec, 2009). Studies have demonstrated that female supervisors correlate with fewer instances of workplace discrimination, thereby advancing gender equity and fostering more inclusive environments (Lucifora & Vigani, 2022). Furthermore, female managers tend to hire and promote other women, creating a reinforcing cycle of inclusivity within organizations (Bossler et al., 2020; Baker et al., 2023). In the context of Australian construction and engineering, Baker et al. (2021a, 2023) found that boards with greater gender diversity positively influenced human resource practices and work-life balance initiatives, underpinning sustainable diversity outcomes. While these findings emphasize the strategic value of gender-diverse leadership for advancing EDI, there remains a clear research gap in examining how such dynamics manifest across different organizational structures and regional contexts worldwide.

National Culture, Board Diversity, and EDI Initiatives

National culture plays a critical role in shaping the effectiveness of women on boards and the success of EDI initiatives. Cultural dimensions, such as power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation, influence corporate governance structures and the extent to which diverse perspectives are valued in decision-making (Hofstede et al., 2010). In high-power distance cultures, hierarchical structures often limit female directors’ ability to challenge dominant viewpoints and advocate social sustainability initiatives (Weaver, 2001; Okpara, 2014). Similarly, in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, organizations favor rigid decision-making processes and resist change, reducing the ability of female directors to push for progressive sustainability policies (Ringov & Zollo, 2007). These cultural traits can create barriers to inclusive governance and weaken the impact of gender diversity on board effectiveness and stakeholder engagement. Conversely, low power distance and low uncertainty avoidance cultures encourage open dialogue and participatory decision-making, enhancing the influence of female board members in shaping sustainability strategies (Dimitratos et al., 2011).

Cultural attitudes toward individualism and long-term orientation also affect EDI initiatives and the impact of women on boards. High individualism cultures prioritize personal success and internal networks, potentially limiting collective efforts toward inclusion and stakeholder engagement (Westerman et al., 2007; Thanetsunthorn, 2015). In contrast, low-individualism cultures emphasize teamwork and shared responsibility, creating an environment in which female directors can contribute more effectively to corporate decision-making (Griffith et al., 2006; Mitchell et al., 2000). Similarly, in cultures with high long-term orientation, organizations often prioritize financial stability and strategic planning over immediate social sustainability concerns, potentially sidelining gender diversity and inclusion efforts (Ringov & Zollo, 2007; Gallego-Álvarez & Ortas, 2017). Meanwhile, cultures with low long-term orientation, which emphasize flexibility and responsiveness, are more likely to integrate EDI initiatives into governance structures and encourage the active participation of diverse board members (Hofstede et al., 2010; Luo & Tang, 2022). These insights suggest that national culture shapes not only the representation of women on boards, but also the extent to which EDI initiatives are embedded in corporate strategies and governance.

Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis Development

Corporate sustainability is increasingly recognized as an essential component of organizational strategy, particularly in project-based industries such as construction. Within this context, social sustainability, operationalized through EDI initiatives, has emerged as a key determinant of long-term organizational success. However, despite the widespread recognition of the benefits of diversity, the construction sector remains characterized by a lack of gender representation, with persistent structural barriers limiting progress toward inclusivity. This study integrates resource dependence theory and Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory to develop a conceptual framework that explains how board gender diversity influences the EDI initiatives of project-based organizations within the construction industry and how cultural dimensions moderate this relationship.

Building on the theoretical foundations of the resource dependence theory and Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory, the conceptual framework illustrated in Figure 1 postulates that board gender diversity (independent variable) enhances social sustainability performance (dependent variable) by aligning with stakeholder expectations for inclusivity and promoting EDI. However, this relationship is moderated by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions—power distance, motivation to succeed, individualism, and indulgence—which can either increase or weaken the impact of board diversity on social sustainability, depending on the cultural context. Previous studies have linked cultural factors to corporate decision-making through Hofstede’s framework (Gray, 1988; Halkos & Skouloudis, 2017). In this study, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are proposed to moderate the relationship between board gender diversity and their EDI initiatives.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework and relationships.

Resource Dependence Theory

Resource dependence theory asserts that organizations depend significantly on external resources for a sustained competitive advantage (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Within this framework, board composition is pivotal for securing resources, legitimacy, and stakeholder support. Gender-diverse boards offer expanded networks, diverse perspectives, and enhanced stakeholder relationships, which positively impact organizational performance. By fostering diversity, boards demonstrate alignment with stakeholder expectations regarding social responsibility, enhancing legitimacy, and credibility. Previous studies have indicated that diverse leadership significantly contributes to organizational innovation and adaptability, strengthening overall resource acquisition and management capabilities (Hillman et al., 2000).

Resource dependence theory supports the argument that board gender diversity positively influences organizational commitment to social sustainability through proactive advocacy of EDI initiatives. Diverse boards effectively promote inclusivity, thereby enabling broader organizational responsiveness to stakeholders’ demands for equitable representation and social justice. Thus, the foundational hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Board gender diversity positively impacts organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (Hofstede et al., 2010) offers a robust analytical lens for understanding cultural influences on organizational behavior, decision-making processes, and managerial attitudes. Hofstede identified six critical dimensions: power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, motivation towards success, uncertainty avoidance, long-term vs. short term orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint shape societal attitudes toward equity, diversity, and inclusion. These cultural dimensions moderate how board diversity translates into social sustainability outcomes, influencing whether diversity initiatives succeed or encounter resistance.

Cultural contexts significantly impact how organizations perceive and implement diversity policies. In high-power distance cultures, hierarchical structures might limit inclusive decision- making, whereas individualistic societies could encourage leveraging diverse viewpoints for enhanced EDI outcomes. Consequently, this study proposes that each cultural dimension moderates the influence of board gender diversity on social sustainability.

Power Distance

Power distance, reflecting societal acceptance of hierarchical structures and centralized decision-making, strongly influences governance and organizational behavior. In high-power distance contexts, strict hierarchies and centralized authority diminish the contributions of diverse board members, limiting their impact on social sustainability. Studies indicate that such cultures discourage inclusive practices, negatively affecting organizational transparency and stakeholder engagement (Ringov & Zollo, 2007; Luo & Tang, 2022).

Conversely, low-power distance cultures, characterized by flatter structures and participative decision-making, support diverse leadership contributions and effective EDI advocacy. Inclusive governance practices in these settings enhance stakeholder responsiveness and social sustainability outcomes (Okpara, 2014). Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 2A: Power distance negatively impacts organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Hypothesis 2B: Higher power distance negatively moderates the relationship between board gender diversity and organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Individualism versus Collectivism

Individualism pertains to societies emphasizing personal autonomy and individual goals, often affecting organizational collaboration and decision-making. Collaborative decision-making and consensus building are prevalent in collectivist cultures, creating favorable conditions for inclusive governance and stakeholder integration. These settings enhance board members’ ability to positively influence EDI initiatives, leading to stronger social sustainability practices (Mitchell et al., 2000; Griffith et al., 2006).

In contrast, highly individualistic cultures may restrict inclusivity due to fragmented decision-making and prioritization of individuals over collective goals. Consequently, EDI efforts might face diminished organizational support, weakening their effectiveness (Thanetsunthorn, 2015). Based on these considerations, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3A: Individualism positively impacts organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Hypothesis 3B: Higher individualism positively moderates the relationship between board gender diversity and organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Motivation Towards Success

Motivation towards success denotes societal emphasis on competitive achievement and material gains. Highly successful cultures typically prioritize short-term profitability over long-term sustainability objectives, limiting the influence of board members on comprehensive social sustainability efforts. This competitive environment might reduce incentives to invest in EDI initiatives, as managerial incentives remain tightly coupled with financial performance outcomes (Peng et al., 2021).

Conversely, cultures that are less driven by material success prioritize quality of life and societal harmony, supporting more balanced decision-making and stronger commitments to social sustainability. Organizations in such settings demonstrate greater openness to stakeholder demands and proactive sustainability initiatives (Gallego-Álvarez & Ortas, 2017). Hence, we propose:

Hypothesis 4A: Motivation towards success negatively impacts organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Hypothesis 4B: Higher motivation towards success negatively moderates the relationship between board gender diversity and organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance reflects societal preferences for structured environments and predictable outcomes. High uncertainty avoidance cultures typically prefer formalized governance processes and structured policies that could facilitate structured EDI initiatives. Organizations in these environments may embrace clearly defined diversity strategies as mechanisms to reduce ambiguity and stabilize organizational practices (Calza et al., 2016).

Conversely, cultures characterized by lower uncertainty avoidance might resist structured EDI frameworks, viewing them as unnecessary bureaucratic constraints. Nonetheless, they may demonstrate greater flexibility and innovation in informal inclusive practices. Given these dynamics, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 5A: Uncertainty avoidance negatively impacts organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Hypothesis 5B: Higher uncertainty avoidance negatively moderates the relationship between board gender diversity and organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation

Long-term orientation captures societal emphasis on future planning and sustained growth versus immediate outcomes. Societies with a high long-term orientation focus on gradual progress and risk mitigation, potentially delaying immediate responses to evolving stakeholder demands around social sustainability. Such cultures might limit the immediate impact of diverse board perspectives, emphasizing stability over rapid change (Ringov & Zollo, 2007).

In contrast, short-term–oriented societies emphasize quick, visible achievements, potentially favoring the swift implementation of EDI practices. Diverse board perspectives might exert a greater influence under conditions favoring immediate action and visible outcomes (Gallego-Álvarez & Ortas, 2017). Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 6A: Long-term orientation negatively impacts organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Hypothesis 6B: Higher long-term orientation negatively moderates the relationship between board gender diversity and organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Indulgence vs. Restraint

Indulgence characterizes societal openness to pleasure, well-being, and personal freedom. Indulgent societies are typically receptive to diverse perspectives and inclusive governance practices that enhance their social sustainability performance. These cultures foster environments conducive to inclusive decision-making, employee engagement, and stakeholder transparency (Hofstede et al., 2010; Luo & Tang, 2022).

Conversely, societies characterized by restraint prioritize discipline, structure, and control, potentially limiting the effective implementation of comprehensive EDI practices. Such environments may constrain the influence of diverse board members on governance decisions, restricting their advocacy of EDI initiatives (Ringov & Zollo, 2007). Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 7A: Indulgence positively impacts organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Hypothesis 7B: Higher indulgence positively moderates the relationship between board gender diversity and organizations’ EDI initiatives.

Research Design

This study adopts a positivist research philosophy, leveraging quantitative analysis of secondary data to explore relationships among board diversity, cultural dimensions, and EDI outcomes. A cross-sectional design was selected to analyze patterns across the top 100 global construction organizations at a fixed point in time, aligning with resource dependence theory’s emphasis on external contextual factors (Hillman et al., 2000). The approach prioritizes generalizability and hypothesis testing while acknowledging limitations in establishing causality. Downe-Wamboldt (1992) describes content analysis as a systematic and objective method for analyzing written, verbal, or visual communication. This research technique is widely applied in sustainability-related studies (e.g., Afzal et al., 2017; Torelli et al., 2020) to assess published materials. Krippendorf highlighted the significance of content analysis, suggesting that the extent of disclosure can reflect the importance of a particular issue to the reporting organization (Krippendorf, 1980).

Data Collection and Sample Profile

Data were gathered from publicly accessible sources, specifically annual reports, sustainability disclosures, and corporate websites of the top 100 global construction organizations, as listed by Engineering News-Record (ENR). This approach aligns with similar studies (e.g., Afzal et al., 2017) using secondary data to access social sustainability and board diversity. By focusing on these leading organizations, the study leverages a representative sample that offers insights into practices within diverse geographic and cultural contexts, as well as across varying organizational structures.

The top 100 ENR-listed organizations were selected to ensure representation of industry leaders driving EDI practices. This cutoff was chosen to balance data availability and analytical depth, capturing ∼80% of total global construction revenue (Engineering News-Record [ENR], 2023). While the sample reflects market dominance, sensitivity analysis confirmed no significant skewing by region or revenue tier. For each organization, detailed information on board composition and EDI policies were extracted, with specific attention given to gender diversity on the board and the extent of EDI initiatives reported. This methodology aligns with previous approaches to examine social sustainability in project-based organizations (Karakhan et al., 2020; Dhanasekar et al., 2023), allowing for cross-sectional analysis that links organizational structure to EDI performance.

Organizations use corporate social responsibility and ESG reporting to communicate their environmental, financial, and social goals to stakeholders. Although some view these disclosures as indicators of genuine sustainability performance, others argue they primarily serve to shape perceptions (Herbohn et al., 2014). Armache (2012) suggests that transparency in reporting and a strong reputation for diversity attract talent and enhance employee performance when diversity is valued (Choi & Rainey, 2010; Momin & Chong, 2023). Additionally, voluntary diversity disclosures may indicate efforts to address systemic inequalities and improve diversity initiatives (Adediran, 2023; Hossain et al., 2016).

For each organization, both the annual report and any stand-alone sustainability reports from 2022 through 2023 were collected and reviewed to determine whether social responsibility and EDI commitments were included. Additionally, organizational websites were examined for relevant information on EDI initiatives. Data collection was conducted via organizations’ websites in June 2023, and any data released after this period was not included in the study.

The sample was segmented into countries for the purpose of analysis. Table 2 shows all the countries that are represented in the sample. The largest group was China, comprising 40 organizations, followed by the United States and South Korea containing 25 and 10 organizations, respectively. It was noted that some organizations lacked a stand-alone report but maintained prominent website sections dedicated to diversity and inclusion, from which data was extracted. Out of the 100 organizations selected, information from 82 was deemed valid, with the rest being inaccessible. The presence of women on boards was also noted by manually reviewing each organization’s official website or report.

Content Analysis Procedure

A structured coding framework was developed based on prior research in sustainability reporting and diversity management (Afzal et al., 2017; Campbell & Vera, 2010). The coding framework defined EDI disclosure categories, including general diversity policies, gender diversity, ethnic diversity, LGBTQ + inclusivity, and disability inclusion. Each disclosure category was further operationalized into specific indicators such as the presence of gender diversity targets, board diversity composition, and inclusive recruitment policies.

Organizations were evaluated using a three-level scoring system to assess the depth and specificity of EDI disclosures. A score of 0 was assigned when there was no mention of a given diversity category; 1 when diversity was acknowledged as a corporate priority without evidence of concrete policies or initiatives; 2 when there was evidence of specific initiatives or policies addressing diversity dimensions; and 3 when organizations demonstrated a comprehensive EDI strategy with measurable outcomes and regular reporting. The total EDI score for each organization was computed by summing scores across all diversity categories, with a maximum possible score of 17 points.

To ensure reliability, two independent researchers conducted the coding process. A random subset comprising 20% of the sample was double-coded, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Intercoder reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient, achieving a value of 0.85, which indicates strong agreement and coding consistency (Landis & Koch, 1977). Additionally, content extracted from corporate reports was cross verified with data from company websites and third-party sources such as Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) disclosures. The most recent and detailed source was prioritized when discrepancies were identified to enhance accuracy.

Reliability and Validity Assurance

To ensure methodological rigor, several measures were implemented to enhance the reliability and validity of the content analysis. Reliability was strengthened through a pretest conducted on a pilot sample to refine coding definitions and ensure consistency before the full-scale analysis. Periodic coder calibration meetings were held to maintain alignment throughout the data extraction process. The use of standardized coding manuals minimized subjectivity, improving reproducibility.

Validity was ensured through multiple approaches. Construct validity was reinforced by grounding the coding framework in established literature on corporate diversity disclosures (Afzal et al., 2017; Karakhan et al., 2020). Content validity was established through expert review, in which three independent diversity and sustainability researchers evaluated the coding framework prior to its application.

Measures

Dependent Variable

Social sustainability performance is operationalized as the total EDI score, representing each organization’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Following the scoring methods used in studies, such as those by Campbell and Vera (2010) and Afzal et al. (2017), the EDI score aggregates disclosures on various diversity metrics such as gender representation, ethnic diversity, and inclusion initiatives. This score is derived through content analysis of organization reports, with each organization’s disclosures rated based on the depth and breadth of its EDI policies. This scoring provides a quantitative measure of social sustainability performance, aligning with the concept of social sustainability as defined by McKenzie (2004) and further explored by Kordi et al. (2022).

First, general diversity disclosures of each organization were assessed based on the measurement items mentioned in Table 1, with each item scored as 1 for disclosure and 0 for nondisclosure. After that, a three-level score for each diversity category based on information quality and detail was developed. A score of 0 was given to organizations that did not mention or acknowledge a particular diversity dimension. A score of 1 was given to organizations that recognize the importance of a diversity dimension but lack detailed evidence of active policies; a score of 2 was given to organizations that not only acknowledge diversity but also implement specific initiatives targeting that dimension, and a score of 3 was given to organizations that have a specific program/strategy to enhance diversity. The sum of these scores provided a total diversity score for each organization, serving as an indicator of workforce diversity performance. Each organization could get a maximum EDI score of 17 points.

Table 1.

EDI Scoring System

Disclosure Category	Disclosure Item	Score
General Disclosure	Organization recognizes the value of diversity	1
	Organization indicates it is an equal opportunity employer	1
	Diversity is mentioned in its CEO/chairman’s statement	1
	Has a diversity committee/manager	1
	Has a diversity policy/mechanism	1
Diversity initiatives for specific category	Has a diversity category	1
	Shows an example/activity on diversity category	2
	Has a specific program/strategy to enhance diversity category	3

Independent Variables

The primary independent variable is board gender diversity, measured as the proportion of women on the board. Gender diversity has been shown to influence organizational outcomes in several studies (Roberson et al., 2017; Baker et al., 2021b) and is particularly relevant in construction, where representation gaps are prevalent (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022).

Moderating Variables

Six of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, motivation towards success, uncertainty avoidance, long-term vs. short term orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint are included to assess the moderating effects of national culture on the relationship between board gender diversity and social sustainability performance. Power distance reflects the degree to which hierarchical structures are respected, potentially affecting how board diversity impacts EDI policies. Motivation to success and individualism capture cultural attitudes toward competition and collaboration, potentially influencing inclusivity (Hofstede et al., 2010). These cultural dimensions have been shown to shape organizational values and behaviors, particularly concerning inclusivity (Wright, 2013; Pilcher & Whelehan, 2016).

Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

Data analysis was conducted in SPSS using multiple regression to examine the effects of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and board gender diversity on the total EDI score. Data was loaded into SPSS, including variables such as the rate of women on boards, power distance, individualism, motivation towards success, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence, with the total EDI score as the dependent variable.

In Model 1, a standard multiple regression tested the direct impact of these predictors on EDI. SPSS provided R, R², adjusted R², and significance levels, enabling assessment of variance explained and identification of significant factors. Model 2 introduced moderating variables (M1 to M6) to explore if these affected the relationship between primary predictors and EDI scores. The model summary offered additional insights through F Change and Sig. F Change values, which indicated that the moderators did not significantly improve the model’s explanatory power. Significant direct effects in Model 1 were noted for variables such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and indulgence.

The study drew on Hofstede’s well-validated cultural dimensions (The Cultural Factor Group, 2024), ensuring accuracy in capturing cultural characteristics. Interrater reliability checks on EDI scoring, with two independent coders, achieved consensus, following established content analysis practices (Afzal et al., 2017). Additional robustness checks and sensitivity analyses confirmed the consistency and stability of findings across various cultural contexts.

Results

Descriptive Analysis

The analysis of EDI disclosure among the top 100 global construction organizations shows that 40% published their EDI commitments on websites, 19% issued separate sustainability reports, and 18% included EDI initiatives in their annual reports, as illustrated in Figure 2. Notably, only 13% released information through ESG reports, with a concentration on financial reporting among Chinese and U.S. organizations. Some Chinese organizations used CSR-based models for EDI reporting, aligning with findings from previous research on inconsistent sustainability disclosures in construction due to project-based operations (Alnsour et al., 2022; Datta et al., 2023).

Figure 2.

Sustainability disclosure of the sample organizations.

As shown in Table 2, construction organizations in Australia, Portugal, France, and Canada achieved the highest scores, indicating a strong commitment to EDI and measurable progress. For example, Montaengil’s sustainability report notes a 30% increase in women in management roles. In contrast, Chinese organizations reported the lowest scores, with only seven firms publishing sustainability reports for 2022–2023.

Table 2.

EDI Scores of Countries Across Various Categories

Country	Number of Organizations	General EDI Score	Gender	Ethnic	Sexual Orientation	Disability	Total EDI Score
Australia	1	4.00	3.00	3.00	3.00	3.00	16.00
Austria	2	3.50	3.00	2.00	1.00	1.00	10.50
Canada	2	4.50	3.00	3.00	3.00	2.50	16.00
China	25	0.84	0.96	0.68	0.00	0.20	2.68
France	3	4.00	3.00	3.00	2.00	3.00	15.00
Germany	1	3.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	7.00
India	1	3.00	3.00	2.00	1.00	2.00	11.00
Italy	1	3.00	3.00	3.00	1.00	1.00	11.00
Japan	7	3.57	2.43	1.43	1.14	1.71	10.29
Portugal	1	5.00	3.00	3.00	2.00	0.00	13.00
South Korea	9	3.00	2.22	1.44	0.22	1.78	8.67
Spain	5	3.20	3.00	2.60	1.80	2.80	13.40
Sweden	1	4.00	3.00	1.00	3.00	1.00	12.00
United States	24	3.71	2.67	2.50	1.83	1.17	11.88

Table 2 highlights significant variation in gender diversity scores across countries. Australia, Canada, France, Italy, and Spain score around 3.0, reflecting a high level of commitment to gender inclusivity. Conversely, China scores notably low (0.96), showing limited gender diversity efforts. Japan and South Korea show moderate progress, scoring below 3.0, whereas the United States has a mid-range score of 2.67, indicating mixed commitment levels.

Ethnic diversity scores are also lower than gender diversity in many countries. Australia, Canada, France, Portugal, and Spain achieve high scores in this area, whereas Chinese organizations score the lowest (0.68), reflecting minimal focus on ethnic diversity. Terms used for ethnic groups vary; U.S. organizations often refer to “race” and “indigenous groups,” European organizations use “cultural background” and “ethnicity,” and Chinese firms emphasize “foreign employees.”

For sexual orientation diversity, U.S. organizations lead, likely due to more established LGBTQ + workplace equality initiatives. In China, no organizations address sexual orientation, reflecting limited protections for LGBTQ + employees (Badgett et al., 2021).

Disability diversity scores show Australia and France leading (3.0), with Canada and Spain at moderate levels (2.5 and 2.8). In contrast, the United States (1.17), South Korea (1.78), and Japan (1.71) show limited prioritization, and China scores the lowest (0.20), indicating minimal disability inclusion in its construction sector.

Hypotheses Testing

To meet objectives three and four of this study, a regression analysis was conducted to examine the influence of women on boards and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions on organizations’ social sustainability performance measured as overall EDI score. Two regression models were developed: Model 1 to test the direct effects and Model 2 to assess the moderating effects of specific cultural dimensions.

In Model 1, primary predictors, including women on boards, indulgence, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, motivation towards success, long-term orientation, and individualism, accounted for approximately 67.1% of the variance in total EDI score (R² = .671, Adjusted R² = .635), as shown in Table 3. This high R² value indicates that these cultural and diversity-related factors significantly explain EDI outcomes. The model was statistically significant (F = 18.926, p < .001), affirming that the collective influence of these predictors contributes substantially to explaining variations in EDI scores.

Table 3.

Summary of Regression Model

Model	R	R²	Adjusted R²	Standard Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
Model	R	R²	Adjusted R²	Standard Error of the Estimate	R²	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	.819	.671	.635	3.761	.671	18.926	7	65	<.001
2	.847	.717	.655	3.661	.046	1.600	6	59	.163

In Model 2, additional moderators (M1 to M6) were incorporated to explore potential interaction effects. The inclusion of these moderators marginally increased the explained variance to 71.7% (R² = .717, Adjusted R² = .655), reflecting a 4.6% increase in R² compared to Model 1. However, this increment was not statistically significant (F Change = 1.600, p = .163), suggesting that the moderators did not significantly enhance the predictive power of the model beyond the main effects captured in Model 1.

Overall, these findings highlight the robustness of Model 1, where direct effects are notable, whereas the additional interaction terms tested in Model 2 do not add significant explanatory power. This indicates that the primary cultural and gender diversity factors themselves are strong predictors of EDI, with limited moderating impact from the other tested variables.

The results of hypothesis testing are presented in Table 4. Each hypothesis was evaluated based on the significance and direction of the relationships observed in the regression analysis, and the findings are summarized below.

Table 4.

Hypothesis Testing

Model	Hypothesis	Variables	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	Sig.	Inference
Model	Hypothesis	Variables	B	Standard Error	Beta	Sig.	Inference
1		(Constant)	−9.090	7.933		0.256
	H1	Women at board rate	0.612	2.831	0.016	0.000	S
	H2A	Power distance	−0.138	0.063	0.400	0.031	S
	H3A	Individualism	−0.065	0.087	−0.118	0.458	NS
	H4A	Motivation towards success	−0.025	0.034	−0.069	0.461	NS
	H5A	Uncertainty avoidance	0.156	0.030	0.606	0.000	S
	H6A	Long-term orientation	−0.082	0.041	−0.240	0.047	S
	H7A	Indulgence	0.302	0.066	0.917	0.000	S
2		(Constant)	−1.256	12.039		0.917
		Women at board rate	−46.246	73.730	−1.210	0.533
		Power distance	0.135	0.083	0.390	0.110
		Individualism	−0.256	0.157	−0.466	0.108
		Motivation towards success	−0.077	0.050	−0.209	0.132
		Uncertainty avoidance	0.178	0.045	0.693	0.000
		Long-term orientation	−0.086	0.061	−0.249	0.168
		Indulgence	0.430	0.099	1.306	0.000
	H2B	M1	−0.018	0.625	−0.031	0.977	NS
	H3B	M2	1.193	1.302	1.718	0.363	NS
	H4B	M3	0.340	0.284	0.617	0.237	NS
	H5B	M4	−0.143	0.359	−0.234	0.691	NS
	H6B	M5	−0.015	0.272	−0.029	0.955	NS
	H7B	M6	−0.763	0.694	−0.998	0.276	NS

The results supported Hypothesis 1, confirming that increased female board representation positively influences EDI scores (B = 0.612, t = 4.216, p < .001). This finding aligns with existing literature suggesting gender-diverse boards foster inclusivity through broader perspectives and improved resource access. Similarly, Hypothesis 2A was confirmed, revealing a negative relationship between power distance and EDI scores (B = -0.138, t = -2.199, p = .031). This outcome reflects prior research indicating hierarchical cultures often resist diversity efforts due to rigid authority structures. Contrary to expectations, Hypothesis 3A was not supported, with individualism showing a nonsignificant impact on EDI practices (B = -0.065, t = -0.746, p = .458). This suggests individualism may not substantially influence diversity initiatives in the construction sector, differing from its effects noted in other industries. Likewise, Hypothesis 4A, which anticipated a negative effect of motivation towards success, was unsupported (B = -0.025, t = -0.741, p = .461), possibly reflecting the collaborative and team-oriented nature of construction projects. In contrast, Hypothesis 5A received strong support, as uncertainty avoidance positively correlated with EDI scores (B = 0.156, t = 5.128, p < .001), indicating structured, predictable environments better institutionalize diversity policies. Hypothesis 6A, predicting a negative association between long-term orientation and EDI scores, was confirmed (B = -0.082, t = -2.029, p = .047), suggesting short-term cultures prioritize immediate diversity outcomes. Finally, Hypothesis 7A was strongly supported, demonstrating indulgent cultures’ openness to inclusivity (B = 0.302, t = 4.577, p < .001).

As shown in Table 4, while the direct effects of uncertainty avoidance and indulgence remained significant in Model 2, the previously significant effects of women at the board rate and power distance were no longer statistically significant, suggesting that these relationships may be sensitive to additional contextual factors not captured by the moderators tested. Among the moderators (M1 to M6), none reached significance, indicating that these variables did not significantly alter the relationship between the primary predictors and EDI scores. For example, M1 (p = .977), M2 (p = .363), and M6 (p = .276) all had p values well above the conventional threshold of .05, suggesting that their interaction effects were not statistically meaningful. Thus, hypotheses H2B, H3B, H4B, H5B, H6B, and H7B are not supported.

Table 5 presents correlations between the percentage of women on boards and various diversity dimensions. A strong, significant positive correlation was found between the percentage of women on boards and total EDI scores (0.645**), suggesting that organizations with more women on their boards are likely to have stronger EDI practices and outcomes. Moreover, board gender diversity was significantly correlated with gender (0.505**), ethnic (0.645**), sexual orientation (0.617**), and disability diversity (0.411**) EDI components, supporting the link between gender-diverse boards and broader EDI advocacy.

Table 5.

Correlations Among Women on Board, Cultural Dimensions, and EDI Scores

	Gender	Ethnic	Sexual Orientation	Disability	Total EDI Score
Power distance	−0.21	−0.233	−0.22	−0.196	−0.248*
Long-term orientation	−0.286	−.597*	0.048	−0.029	−0.281*
Indulgence	0.349	0.489	0.439	.600*	.584*
Women on board	.505**	.645**	.617**	.411**	.644**

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlations between Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and average diversity scores of various countries are reported in Table 5. It is found that power distance has a small negative significant correlation (-0.248*) with the total EDI score. These negative values suggest that in cultures with high power distance, there is less support for diversity across these categories. This is consistent with hierarchical cultures where inequality in power is accepted, potentially limiting diversity initiatives. The negative correlation between EDI scores and power distance (-0.248*), indicates that higher power distance cultures are less likely to support comprehensive EDI initiatives. For instance, China has the highest score of power distance in the sample and Chinese organizations have the lowest overall EDI score.

Long-term orientation shows negative correlations with most EDI variables, including gender (-0.286) and ethnic diversity (-0.597*), with the latter being statistically significant at the 0.05 level. This suggests that cultures with a long-term orientation may be less focused on immediate diversity improvements, particularly regarding ethnic diversity. The overall EDI score also correlates negatively (-0.281*), implying that long-term–oriented cultures may not prioritize EDI initiatives in the short term.

Indulgence shows positive correlations with all EDI variables with disability (0.600*) being statistically significant at the 0.05 level. This suggests that indulgent cultures, which value personal freedom and gratification, are more supportive of diverse groups, especially regarding disability inclusion. The overall EDI score has a strong positive correlation (0.584*), indicating that indulgent cultures are generally more favorable toward EDI initiatives. This is evident from the sample the Australia and Swedish organizations have scored high in the over EDI score.

Discussion

This study examined the relationship between board gender diversity and EDI practices within a project-based organizations in the global construction industry, highlighting how national cultural dimensions moderate this relationship. Consistent with previous research (Alnsour et al., 2022; Datta et al., 2023), our findings revealed significant regional discrepancies in EDI practices, particularly regarding gender diversity. Organizations with higher female board representation exhibited stronger diversity scores across multiple EDI dimensions, aligning with the literature that associates gender diversity with enhanced social disclosures (Wukich et al., 2024. Additionally, these findings reinforce that leadership composition significantly shapes organizational commitments to EDI (Duppati et al., 2020), suggesting a bidirectional relationship where inclusive cultures promote gender-diverse leadership, which, in turn, reinforces broader inclusivity (Baker et al., 2021a). However, although gender diversity is positively associated with overall EDI scores, dimensions such as ethnicity and sexual orientation remain underrepresented, particularly in regions with more traditional cultural norms (Badgett et al., 2021; Isingizwe et al., 2023).

Our analysis also highlighted the moderating role of national cultural dimensions in influencing the effectiveness of diversity initiatives. Specifically, high power distance negatively impacted EDI scores, indicating that hierarchical cultures may resist inclusive practices, consistent with prior findings (Ahmed et al., 2022; Hofstede, 1984). Conversely, more indulgent societies, such as Australia and Sweden, displayed higher EDI scores, particularly concerning disability inclusion, supporting previous research suggesting indulgent cultures are more receptive to inclusivity (Gallego-Álvarez & Ortas, 2017; Hofstede et al., 2010). Furthermore, uncertainty avoidance positively correlated with EDI scores, indicating structured environments prefer formalized diversity initiatives. Organizations within high uncertainty–avoidance cultures likely perceive structured EDI policies as stabilizing factors, aligning with Hofstede et al.’s (2010) framework, which argues that predictability facilitates institutionalizing diversity.

Theoretical Contributions

This study significantly advances the theoretical understanding of EDI in organizations by integrating resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Hillman et al., 2000) with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework (Hofstede et al., 2010). Our findings support resource dependence theory by demonstrating that diverse boards provide broader perspectives and resources, enhancing organizational capacity to implement inclusive policies. Thus, board gender diversity is positioned as a crucial resource facilitating EDI initiatives, moving beyond the traditional financial focus of resource dependence theory (Meckling & Jensen, 1976). This study extends the literature by illustrating how internal governance structures, specifically diverse leadership, interact with external cultural contexts to shape organizational behaviors and social sustainability performance.

Furthermore, applying Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework provided valuable cross-cultural insights, highlighting the influence of macrolevel cultural attributes on organizational diversity practices. The moderating effects of cultural dimensions, such as power distance, indulgence, and uncertainty avoidance, offer deeper theoretical understanding of why EDI initiatives vary in effectiveness across different national contexts. By integrating cultural dimensions with internal organizational practices, this study offers a nuanced model explaining regional differences in EDI outcomes, thus enriching both resource dependence and cross-cultural management theories.

Practical Implications

The practical implications of this research are substantial for industry leaders and policymakers within the construction sector. Given the positive relationship identified between board gender diversity and enhanced EDI practices, organizations should proactively appoint women to leadership positions to foster inclusive cultures. Multinational construction firms must consider local cultural contexts when developing and implementing EDI policies. For instance, companies operating in hierarchical societies characterized by high power distance should prioritize structured and formalized EDI initiatives to overcome cultural resistance. Conversely, in indulgent societies, emphasizing flexible work arrangements and disability inclusion can effectively leverage the openness to inclusivity characteristics of these cultures (Gallego-Álvarez & Ortas, 2017).

Additionally, this study highlights the importance of incorporating comprehensive EDI metrics into sustainability reporting frameworks. Firms should enhance transparency by integrating detailed EDI disclosures into their ESG reports. Such practices can not only increase organizational accountability for EDI progress but also enhance brand reputation and attractiveness to socially conscious investors, thereby improving market competitiveness. By strategically aligning diversity initiatives with specific cultural contexts, organizations can more effectively address talent shortages and foster socially sustainable and inclusive workplaces.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite these contributions, this study has certain limitations that highlight avenues for future research. The cross-sectional design restricts the ability to draw causal inferences among board diversity, cultural factors, and EDI outcomes. Longitudinal research would be valuable to establish causal relationships and track the temporal dynamics involved. Furthermore, our exclusive focus on gender diversity within leadership does not fully capture the multifaceted nature of diversity. Future studies should broaden the scope to include other dimensions, such as ethnicity, age, and intersectionality, offering a more comprehensive understanding of diversity dynamics within the construction industry.

Additionally, reliance on publicly available data may have overlooked internal organizational nuances regarding EDI practices. In-depth qualitative methodologies, such as case studies or interviews, could provide richer insights into how board diversity influences EDI initiatives across various cultural contexts. Lastly, the study focused on the top 100 global construction organizations, potentially limiting generalizability to smaller firms or specific regional contexts. Future research could examine these relationships in different organizational sizes and regional settings, potentially uncovering unique size-dependent or locality-specific effects. These directions promise to enrich our understanding further and offer practical guidance for enhancing diversity practices within the construction sector.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the literature on social sustainability by demonstrating the critical role of board gender diversity and cultural dimensions in shaping EDI practices within the construction industry. Drawing on resource dependence theory, the findings highlight that organizations with greater female representation at the leadership level exhibit more comprehensive EDI initiatives. This supports the notion that gender diversity within leadership fosters a broader organizational commitment to inclusivity. Moreover, by examining the moderating influence of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and indulgence, this research highlights the cultural specificity of diversity strategies. These insights emphasize that leadership diversity alone may be insufficient to achieve optimal EDI outcomes without alignment with supportive cultural attributes.

Nevertheless, this study has certain limitations. The cross-sectional research design restricts causal inferences, limiting our ability to conclude definitively whether increased gender diversity directly enhances EDI practices or whether inclusive organizations are simply more likely to appoint women to leadership roles. Additionally, this study focuses on selected cultural dimensions and EDI indicators, which, while providing targeted insights, exclude other relevant factors such as age diversity, socioeconomic background, and intersectionality. These dimensions could further explain EDI practices and reveal nuances not captured in this analysis. The industry-specific scope also limits the generalizability of the findings, as the construction sector has unique structural and operational characteristics that may not directly translate to other industries.

Future research should consider longitudinal approaches to more accurately assess the causal relationship between board diversity and EDI practices, providing insights into how diversity influences organizational evolution over time. Expanding the scope to include additional diversity dimensions, such as intersectionality, would enrich the understanding of EDI practices across diverse sectors and cultural contexts. Further exploration into the barriers to EDI in non-Western and high-power distance cultural settings could also offer deeper, culturally contextualized perspectives on effective diversity strategies. Through these avenues, future research can build upon this study’s findings, advancing the development of inclusive organizational practices across diverse global contexts.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Fatima Afzal

Kerui Lyu

Author Biographies

Fatima Afzal is a distinguished academic with over 11 years of experience in student-centric teaching and innovative pedagogies. Currently a senior lecturer at Central Queensland University, she has a robust academic background, including a PhD in sustainability management from UNSW. Fatima has supervised numerous PhD and master’s research students and served as Director of the Master of Project Management program at the University of Sydney. Her research interests focus on sustainability in project-based organizations and online learning engagement. Fatima has received multiple awards for her teaching and research excellence and is an active contributor to academic journals and conferences. She can be contacted at f.afzal@cqu.edu.au

Kerui Lyu is a PhD Candidate at the School of Project Management, Faculty of Engineering, the University of Sydney. He received a bachelor’s degree in management and organizational study honors from the University of Western Ontario and a master’s degree in project management from the University of Sydney. His current research focuses on social value creation and stakeholder engagement of construction projects. He can be contacted at kerui.lyu@sydney.edu.au

References

Adediran

A. O

. (2023). Disclosing corporate diversity. Virginia Law Review, 109, 307.

Afzal

Lim

Prasad

. (2017). An investigation of corporate approaches to sustainability in the construction industry. Procedia Engineering, 180, 202–210.

Ahmed

Leung

M.-y.

Ojo

L. D.

(2022). An exploratory study to identify key stressors of ethnic minority workers in the construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 148(5), 04022014. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002261

Alnsour

M. A.

Zeidan

Quwaider

B. A.

Alkubaisi

Alreqeb

Bader

. (2022). Developing sustainability assessment indicators for measuring contractor’s performance during the construction phase of construction projects in Jordan. Springer Science + Business Media, 24(1), 245–266. 10.1007/s42107-022-00500-5

Armache

. (2012). Diversity in the workplace: Benefits and challenges. Conflict Resolution and Negotiation Journal (1).

Badgett

M. V. L.

Chan

R. C. H.

Suen

Y. T

. (2021). The experiences of sexual and gender minorities in employment: Evidence from a large-scale survey of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people in China. The China Quarterly, 245, 142–164. 10.1017/S0305741020000429

Bagilhole

. (2009). Understanding equal opportunities and diversity: The social differentiations and intersections of inequality. Policy Press.

Bailey

Carnemolla

Loosemore

Darcy

Sankaran

. (2022). A critical scoping review of disability employment research in the construction industry: Driving social innovation through more inclusive pathways to employment opportunity. Buildings, 12(12), 2196. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/12/12/2196

Baker

French

Ali

. (2021a). Insights into ineffectiveness of gender equality and diversity initiatives in project-based organizations. Journal of Management in Engineering, 37(3), 04021013.

10.

Baker

Ali

French

. (2021b). Leadership diversity and its influence on equality initiatives and performance: Insights for construction management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(10), 04021123.

11.

Baker

Ali

French

. (2023). Investigating how women leaders and managers support other women’s entrance and advancement in construction and engineering. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(2), 04022166.

12.

Barnard

Dainty

Lewis

Culora

. (2023). Conceptualising work as a ‘safe space’ for negotiating LGBT identities: Navigating careers in the construction sector. Work, Employment and Society, 37(6), 1565–1582. 10.1177/09500170221090164

13.

Barnard

Powell

Bagilhole

Dainty

. (2010). Researching UK women professionals in SET: A critical review of current approaches. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 2(3).

14.

Bear

Rahman

Post

. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 207–221.

15.

Berntsen

. (2016). Reworking labour practices: On the agency of unorganized mobile migrant construction workers. Work, Employment and Society, 30(3), 472–488.

16.

Bossler

Mosthaf

Schank

. (2020). Are female managers more likely to hire more female managers? Evidence from Germany. ILR Review, 73(3), 676–704.

17.

Bredin

. (2008). People capability of project-based organizations: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 566–576.

18.

Buckley

Zendel

Biggar

Frederiksen

Wells

. (2016). Migrant work and employment in the construction sector. International Labour Organization.

19.

Budhwar

P. S.

Debrah

Y. A

. (Eds.). (2013). Human resource management in developing countries. Routledge.

20.

Build

Australia

. (2021). Opportunity arises for disability employment in construction sector. https://www.buildaustralia.com.au/news_article/opportunity-arises-for-businesses-and-employment-within-construction-industry/

21.

Campbell

Vera

. (2010). Female board appointments and firm valuation: Short and long-term effects. Journal of Management and Governance, 14, 37–59. 10.1007/s10997-009-9092-y

22.

Calza

Cannavale

Tutore

. (2016). The important effects of national culture on the environmental proactivity of firms. Journal of Management Development, 35(8), 1011–1030.

23.

Chartered Institute of Building. (2022). Future of construction: Equality, diversity and inclusion. https://www.ciob.org/industry/policy-research/policy-positions/equality-diversity-inclusion

24.

Chinese National Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Communiqué of the seventh national population census (No. 2). CNBS. https://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/tjgb/rkpcgb/qgrkpcgb/202302/t20230206_1902002.html

25.

Choi

Rainey

H. G

. (2010). Managing diversity in U.S. federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 109–121. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02115.x

26.

Clarke

van der Meer

Bingham

Michielsens

Miller

(2009). Enabling and disabling: Disability in the British and Dutch construction sectors. Construction Management and Economics, 27(6), 555–566.

27.

Crawford

French

Lloyd-Walker

. (2013). From outpost to outback: Project career paths in Australia. International Journal of Project Management, 31(8), 1175–1187.

28.

Datta

S. D.

Tayeh

B. A.

Hakeem

I. Y.

Aisheh

Y. I. A

. (2023). Benefits and barriers of implementing building information modeling techniques for sustainable practices in the construction industry—A comprehensive review. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 15(16), 12466–12466. 10.3390/su151612466

29.

Dezsö

C. L.

Ross

D. G

. (2012). Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1072–1089.

30.

Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313–321.

31.

Dhanasekar

Anandh

K. S.

Szóstak

. (2023). Development of the diversity concept for the construction sector: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 15(21), 15424. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/21/15424

32.

Dimitratos

Petrou

Plakoyiannaki

Johnson

J. E

. (2011). Strategic decision-making processes in internationalization: Does national culture of the focal firm matter? Journal of World Business, 46(2), 194–204.

33.

Dimitriadis

. (2023). Migrants and undeclared employment within the European construction sector: Challenging dichotomous approaches to workers’ agency. Work, Employment and Society, 37(5), 1321–1338. 10.1177/09500170211072777

34.

Dozier

. (2017). Female masculinity at work: Managing stigma on the job. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 197–209. 10.1177/0361684316682956

35.

Duppati

Rao

N. V.

Matlani

Scrimgeour

Patnaik

. (2020). Gender diversity and firm performance: Evidence from India and Singapore. Applied Economics, 52(14), 1553–1565. 10.1080/00036846.2019.1676872

36.

Dupree

C. H.

Boykin

C. M

. (2021). Racial inequality in academia: Systemic origins, modern challenges, and policy recommendations. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(1), 11–18.

37.

Elkington

. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51. 10.1002/tqem.3310080106

38.

Engineering News-Record. (2023). ENR 2022 Top 250 global contractors. https://www.enr.com/toplists/2022-Top-250-Global-Contractors-Preview

39.

Gallego-Álvarez

Ortas

. (2017). Corporate environmental sustainability reporting in the context of national cultures: A quantile regression approach. International Business Review, 26(2), 337–353.

40.

Gorman

E. H.

Kmec

J. A

. (2009). Hierarchical rank and women’s organizational mobility: Glass ceilings in corporate law firms. American Journal of Sociology, 114(5), 1428–1474.

41.

Gray

S. J

. (1988). Towards a theory of cultural influence on the development of accounting systems internationally. Abacus, 24(1), 1–15.

42.

Griffith

D. A.

Zhang

Cavusgil

S. T

. (2006). Attributions of noncooperative incidents and response strategies: The role of national character. Journal of World Business, 41(4), 356–367.

43.

Halkos

Skouloudis

. (2017). Revisiting the relationship between corporate social responsibility and national culture: A quantitative assessment. Management Decision, 55(3), 595–613.

44.

Hansford

(2016). Sustained prejudice. New Civil Engineer. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/business-culture/equality-survey-sustained-prejudice/10014569.article?search=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newcivilengineer.com%2Fsearcharticles%3Fqsearch%3D1%26keywords%3DLGBT+survey

45.

Hansford

(2017). Attitudes to LGBT+ in construction| third annual survey. New Civil Engineer. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/business-culture/attitudes-to-lgbt-in-construction-third-annual-survey/10023110.article

46.

Heilman

M. E.

Wallen

A. S.

Fuchs

Tamkins

M. M

. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427. 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416

47.

Herbohn

Walker

Loo

H. Y. M

. (2014). Corporate social responsibility: The link between sustainability disclosure and sustainability performance. Abacus, 50(4), 422–459.

48.

Hillman

A. J.

Cannella

A. A.

Paetzold

R. L

. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 235–256.

49.

Hofstede

. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). Sage.

50.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

51.

Hossain

Ahmad

N. N. N.

Siraj

S. A

. (2016). Marxist feminist perspective of corporate gender disclosures. Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance, 7, 11–24.

52.

Hossain

M. U.

Poon

C. S.

Dong

Y. H.

I. M.

Cheng

J. C

. (2018). Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23, 1654–1674.

53.

Isingizwe

Eiris

Gheisari

. (2023). Racial disparities in the construction domain: A systematic literature review of the U.S. educational and workforce domain. Sustainability, 15(7), 5646. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5646

54.

Joecks

Pull

Vetter

. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass?” Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 61–72.

55.

Karakhan

A. A.

Gambatese

Simmons

D. R

. (2020). Development of assessment tool for workforce sustainability. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(4), 04020017. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001794

56.

Kordi

N. E.

Belayutham

Ibrahim

C. K. I. C

. (2022). Social sustainability in construction projects: Perception versus reality and the gap-filling strategies [original research]. Frontiers in Built Environment, 8. 10.3389/fbuil.2022.1053144

57.

Kossek

E. E.

Pichler

. (2006). EEO and the management of diversity. Handbook of Human Resource Management, 251–272. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199547029.003.0013

58.

Krippendorf

. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.

59.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G

. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174.

60.

Liu

S. H.

Rahmawati

Zawawi

N. A. W. A

. (2019). Critical success factors of collaborative approach in delivering sustainable construction. EDP Sciences, 270, 05003–05003. 10.1051/matecconf/201927005003

61.

Loosemore

Higgon

Osborne

. (2020). Managing new social procurement imperatives in the Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(10), 3075–3093.

62.

Lucifora

Vigani

. (2022). What if your boss is a woman? Evidence on gender discrimination at the workplace. Review of Economics of the Household, 20(2), 389–417.

63.

Luo

Tang

. (2022). National culture and corporate carbon performance. Australian Journal of Management, 47(3), 503–538.

64.

Mavi

K. R.

Gengatharen

Kiani Mavi

Hughes

Campbell

Yates

. (2021). Sustainability in construction projects: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 13(4), 1932.

65.

McKenzie

(2004). Social sustainability: Towards some definitions [Working paper]. Hawke Research Institute. https://apo.org.au/node/565

66.

Meckling

W. H.

Jensen

M. C

. (1976). Theory of the firm. Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, 3(4), 305–360.

67.

Mitchell

R. K.

Smith

Seawright

K. W.

Morse

E. A

. (2000). Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 974–993.

68.

Momin

Chong

. (2023). An analysis of the use of visual elements in workplace diversity disclosure. Pacific Accounting Review, 35(2), 336–363. 10.1108/PAR-06-2022-0089

69.

Ness

. (2012). Constructing masculinity in the building trades: ‘Most jobs in the construction industry can be done by women.’ Gender, Work and Organization, 19(6), 654–676. 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00551.x

70.

Odusami

K. T.

Iyagba

R. R. O.

Omirin

M. M

. (2003). The relationship between project leadership, team composition and construction project performance in Nigeria. International Journal of Project Management, 21(7), 519–527. 10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00059-5

71.

Okpara

, J. (2014). The effects of national culture on managers’ attitudes toward business ethics: Implications for organizational change. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 10(2), 174–189.

72.

Ozturk

M. B.

Tatli

. (2016). Gender identity inclusion in the workplace: Broadening diversity management research and practice through the case of transgender employees in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(8), 781–802.

73.

Peng

Yang

Shao

. (2021). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility disclosure of multinational corporations. Applied Economics, 53(42), 4884–4898.

74.

Pfeffer

Salancik

. (1978). External control of organizations—Resource dependence perspective. In Organizational Behavior 2 (pp. 355–370). Routledge.

75.

Pilcher

Whelehan

. (2016). Key concepts in gender studies. Sage.

76.

Piwowar-Sulej

Iqbal

. (2023). Leadership styles and sustainable performance: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 382, 134600. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134600

77.

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2023). The state of women in project management. PMI. https://www.pmi.org/ learning/thought-leadership/women-in-projectmanagement-2023

78.

Ringov

Zollo

. (2007). The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 7(4), 476–485.

79.

Roberson

Holmes IV

Perry

J. L

. (2017). Transforming research on diversity and firm performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 189–216.

80.

Rumens

. (2013). Queering men and masculinities in construction: Towards a research agenda. Construction Management and Economics, 31(8), 802–815. 10.1080/01446193.2013.765021

81.

Sang

Powell

. (2013). Equality, diversity, inclusion and work–life balance in construction. In Human resource management in construction (pp. 163–196). Routledge.

82.

Torelli

Balluchi

Furlotti

. (2020). The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 470–484.

83.

Thanetsunthorn

. (2015). The impact of national culture on corporate social responsibility: Evidence from cross-regional comparison. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 35–56.

84.

United Nations (UN). (2019). The Sustainable Development Goals report 2019. United Nations.

85.

United Nations (UN). (2023). The Sustainable Development Goals report 2023: Special edition. United Nations.

86.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022,). Labor force statistics from the current population survey. https://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm

87.

Ullah

Sulaiman

M. A. B. A.

Ali

S. B.

Ahmad

Scholz

Han

. (2021). The effect of work safety on organizational social sustainability improvement in the healthcare sector: The case of a public sector hospital in Pakistan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6672.

88.

Vafaei

Ahmed

Mather

. (2015). Board diversity and financial performance in the top 500 Australian firms. Australian Accounting Review, 25(4), 413–427.

89.

Van Laer

Jammaers

Hoeven

(2022). Disabling organizational spaces: Exploring the processes through which spatial environments disable employees with impairments. Organization, 29(6), 1018–1035. 10.1177/1350508419894698

90.

Weaver

G. R

. (2001). Ethics programs in global businesses: Culture’s role in managing ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 3–15.

91.

Westerman

J. W.

Beekun

R. I.

Stedham

Yamamura

. (2007). Peers versus national culture: An analysis of antecedents to ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 239–252.

92.

Wright

. (2013). Uncovering sexuality and gender: an intersectional examination of women’s experience in UK construction. Construction Management and Economics, 31(8), 832–844. 10.1080/01446193.2013.794297

93.

Wukich

J. J.

Neuman

E. L.

Fogarty

T. J

. (2024). Show me? Inspire me? Make me? An institutional theory exploration of social and environmental reporting practices. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 20(4), 673–701.

Do Women Leaders Promote Social Sustainability? Exploring the Effect of Board Diversity on Equity,Diversity,and Inclusion Practices of Project-Based Organizations

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Social Sustainability and Diversity in Project-Based Operations

The Impact of Board Diversity on EDI Initiatives

National Culture, Board Diversity, and EDI Initiatives

Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis Development

Resource Dependence Theory

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory

Power Distance

Individualism versus Collectivism

Motivation Towards Success

Uncertainty Avoidance

Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation

Indulgence vs. Restraint

Research Design

Data Collection and Sample Profile

Content Analysis Procedure

Reliability and Validity Assurance

Measures

Dependent Variable

Independent Variables

Moderating Variables

Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

Results

Descriptive Analysis

Hypotheses Testing

Discussion

Theoretical Contributions

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References