EDI in construction: local solutions for a global challenge

Tell us about the research you have been working on.

The new research questions the way we understand and implement EDI frameworks in an international construction industry context. It argues that the conventional approach to EDI might be counterproductive.

Construction firms the world over are keen to promote the notion that they are seriously embracing EDI initiatives.

There is a global drive to implement EDI targets and policies to improve, among other things, female participation rates and career progression in the construction industry.

However, there is little evidence to indicate that the largely Western-derived EDI frameworks work in large swathes of patriarchal countries and societies such as India, the Middle East and South East Asia.

[My] student Karuna Singh [and I] conducted an analysis to compare the EDI practices of construction firms in India, the UK and Sweden.

We were interested in investigating the effects of EDI policies in various cultural and organisational contexts to understand how socio-cultural norms influence EDI practices.

What is new about this research?

The research offers insights into the differences and nuances of what EDI means, how it is prioritised and measured in different countries that are underpinned by distinctive socio-cultural norms.

We looked at publicly accessible corporate annual reports and LinkedIn profiles of 30 large construction companies by annual revenue, with 10 companies from each country.

India has the most extreme gender gap, both in the overall workforce and in leadership positions, reflecting deep-rooted socio-cultural norms that limit women’s professional opportunities.

In the UK, there is a somewhat fair distribution of the workforce. But, similar to India, women have challenges in attaining board and senior management roles.

Sweden, known for its commitment to gender equality, presents a paradox: where the women are well-represented in lower-level jobs, their presence significantly decreases in top leadership positions.

This indicates that corporate structures still lack complete integration of policies promoting gender equality.

The results also indicated that although different regulations and cultural changes may enhance female representation in the workforce, these advancements do not automatically result in an increase in leadership participation.

Although all companies are working towards enhancing diversity and inclusion, their areas of emphasis differ.

Indian corporations prioritise sexual harassment prevention, whereas UK and Swedish companies use more inclusive measures that encompass gender, race and LGBTQ+ inclusion.

Swedish companies are notable for their cultural change initiatives and well-organised leadership development programmes specifically designed for women.

UK companies have greater emphasis on setting specific objectives for the participation of women and minorities, whereas Indian organisations are progressively enhancing workplace safety above all else.

Out of 10 organisations examined in India, only one has implemented diversity objectives, highlighting the absence of institutional commitments to gender equality.

On the other hand, Sweden and UK demonstrate a greater dedication to diversity targets, suggesting that the Indian construction industry is falling behind in establishing diversity settings that are appealing to and able to retain women.

India has a prominent gender difference in leadership positions, with women notably underrepresented in top management and board posts.

The Indian construction sector lags substantially behind other countries – women are mostly found in lower-level roles and have limited career advancement.

How can construction companies in different regions apply your research?

The results show that a one-size-fits-all framework for tracking and measuring EDI progress and success has limitations.

It is clear that the EDI practices and policies that companies choose to adopt are tied to the socio-cultural landscapes of different countries.

This divergence in EDI practices is intuitively acknowledged. But it is rarely openly recognised when it comes to measuring EDI outcomes because the standard key performance indicators (KPIs) inherent in conventional EDI frameworks do not always account for these differences.

The main takeaway of this research is that construction companies should be less concerned about being seen to adopt standard EDI targets that are prescriptively developed without considering the EDI ‘maturity’ levels of different regions and countries.

Instead, the research argues that a more meaningful approach would be for companies to consider aspects of EDI that are valued and relevant at a local level.

This understanding can then be used to develop a context-specific EDI approach of which companies can have ownership.

What outcomes could be achieved across the industry?

Many construction companies keen to embrace EDI tend to adopt conventional EDI frameworks and this often leads to disappointingly poor performance based on standard KPIs.

To break this cycle, the benchmarking of EDI progress and outcomes has to be tailored to suit companies’ particular EDI journey and regional/local contexts.

Regional companies can start by proactively sharing EDI best practices and experiences. They should also set EDI targets that reflect regional socio-cultural norms and are more conducive to achieving true gender equality at an institutional level. 

When enough companies are involved, a ‘community of practice’ can be established to share, learn and advance EDI practices and resources across the industry.