The research examined the effect of a culture standard in improving construction industry performance in the areas aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3, 5, and 8. This was in response to identified challenges in the Australian construction industry pertaining to poor worker health, long and antisocial work hours and low levels of gender diversity.
Survey and interview data were collected from workers at five case study construction projects that trialled the culture standard in the Australian construction industry. Data analysis was based on responses from 438 survey participants and 319 interviews. Case study projects were in New South Wales and Victoria and included horizontal (civil engineering) and vertical (building) projects procured under a variety of different mechanisms, including design and construct and collaborative contracting models. Surveys and interviews explored blue- and white-collar workers' experiences of working under the culture standard.
Working time changes increased time with family, friends and time spent in active leisure and increased opportunity for rest and recovery. Workers with high mental well-being perceived their workplaces as being more supportive of family life, fairer and more respectful. Workers with high mental well-being also reported more positive work–life balance and less exposure to inappropriate humour in the workplace. Women were well-represented in the case study projects and reported feeling well supported.
Initiatives designed to change the construction industry's culture have the potential to help the industry to address these UN SDGs. A coordinated effort by key stakeholders in the construction industry is required because the industry is a system comprising of many interrelated levels.
The draft culture standard was a first-of-its -kind for the industry. The findings provide new insights into ways in which collaborative initiatives implemented by clients and contracting organisations can effect meaningful change that supports the attainment of the UN SDGs in construction.
1. Introduction
In 2015 United Nations (UN) Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which incorporates 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) focused on “delivering peace and prosperity for people and the planet.” The 17 SDGs reflect the understanding that the creation of a sustainable future requires strategies that reduce inequality, promote good health and stimulate economic growth, while also addressing critical challenges facing the planet's fragile ecology, such as the effects of climate change and degradation of the natural habitat (United Nations, 2024).
The construction industry significantly shapes economic, environmental and social outcomes and therefore has a role to play in the pursuit of the 17 SDGs (Opoku et al., 2022). Watts (2024) argues by virtue of the number of people employed in the construction industry, the sector can have a significant impact on Gender equality (SDG 5) and Decent work and economic growth (SDG 8).
Fei et al. (2021) identify the top 10 SDGs of relevance to the operation of the construction industry, which include:
SDG 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
SDG 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, and
SDG 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.
It is argued that these SDGs should be embedded into the establishment of project objectives and business case from the earliest stages of a construction project, such that they are incorporated into project specifications, success criteria and performance evaluation frameworks (Fei et al., 2021). Ofori (2023) similarly argues that SDGs should be considered and embedded in the policies and practices of construction organisations, as well as in government policy settings pertaining to the procurement and delivery of infrastructure.
However, despite the potential contribution that construction can make to attaining the SDGs, research highlights that industry participants are not typically willing to collaborate (particularly with competitors) to drive improved performance (Watts, 2024). Russell et al. (2018) similarly note that a lack of trust in supply networks and structural tension associated with competitive tendering and an emphasis on cost minimisation discourages organisations from implementing initiatives focused on addressing the social and environmental aspects of sustainability and create barriers to the establishment of shared values and commitments to improving performance.
It is widely acknowledged that the UN's SDGs are inter-related and, therefore, carefully designed initiatives can produce improvements in more than one SDG target area simultaneously (Allen et al., 2019). However, despite the construction industry's poor performance in areas of workers' safety, health and well-being, gender diversity and the provision of inclusive employment and decent work, previous industry interventions target these challenges independently of one another. This paper seeks to address this gap by describing a unique collaborative effort to address these issues in an integrated way through the development, trialling and evaluation of a culture standard. Specific objectives of the study were as follows:
to examine the extent to which the implementation of the culture standard produced positive outcomes in the case study projects in relation to SDGs 3, 5 and 8 and
to explore the interrelationships between the construction industry's performance in these three SDGs.
2. Literature review
2.1 The Australian construction industry's performance in the three SDG areas
The poor health of construction workers is widely reported. Construction workers are a high-risk group for work-related illness (Stocks et al., 2011; Kamardeen, 2022) and poor mental health (Boschman et al., 2013; Dodanwala et al., 2022). In Australia, Pirzadeh et al. (2022) found that low job security and perceived unfairness of effort and reward significantly predict mental ill-health in blue-collar construction workers irrespective of their age, while job demand, complexity and intensity also significantly predicted mental ill-health among mid-age and older workers. Poor mental health has also been linked to the prevalence of bodily pain among Australian construction workers (Turner and Lingard, 2020). Ranasinghe et al. (2023) describe how older construction workers' experience of hearing loss, muscle pain, respiratory issues and other health conditions is linked to prolonged work exposures to occupational health risks. Construction workers are also reported to have a higher prevalence of health risk behaviours, including smoking, smokeless tobacco use, binge drinking and no leisure-time physical activity, compared to the general population (Boal et al., 2020). These lifestyle factors have proven difficult to change in the context of jobs characterised by high demands and low levels of control (Lingard and Turner, 2017).
The construction industry also performs poorly in the area of gender equality. In Australia, women make up 15% of the industry's workforce but only 3% of trades-based workers in the industry are women (Master Builders Australia, 2024). Women's participation in the construction industry is adversely impacted by many factors, including long and inflexible work hours and unsupportive workplace cultures (Galea et al., 2016). The Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) report 50% of construction employers have a total remuneration gender pay gap above 25.8% compared to a mid-point gender pay gap of 9.1% for all private sector employers (WGEA, 2024). A recent study by the National Association of Women in Construction also found that 88% of women in construction report experiencing microaggressions in the workplace (TDC Global/NAWIC, 2024). These are small acts that make people feel less welcome, less valued or less safe. Women in all roles (including office- and site-based roles) reported experiencing microaggressions which, in turn, negatively affected professional confidence and well-being.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) defines decent work as “productive work for women and men in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity” (ILO, 2024). Decent work is widely understood to include health, safety and well-being and the ability to balance the demands of work with personal life and leisure time (Dobbins et al., 2024). The construction industry notoriously requires long and inflexible hours of work, which are associated with a lack of work–life balance in the construction workforce (Lingard and Francis, 2005; Adah et al., 2023). It is also standard for Australian construction workers to work a six-day week including Saturday work. Research suggests non-standard hours, including weekend work, place more strain on families and impact well-being to a greater extent than working standard hours (Davis et al., 2008). Poor work–life balance is widely reported to contribute to the prevalence of mental ill-health and burnout among construction workers (Kotera et al., 2020; Lingard and Francis, 2005). Dong (2005) also reports that when construction workers work >40 h a week, the risk of sustaining a work-related injury increases slightly, but when working 50 h a week the injury risk almost doubles. Moreover, Pega et al. (2021) report that exposure to long working hours (≥55 h/week) contributed to 745,194 attributable work-related deaths and 23.3 million disability-adjusted life years from ischemic heart disease and stroke in 2016.
Together these issues were recognised as presenting a significant cost to the construction industry. For example, a report undertaken by BIS Oxford Economics found that workplace injuries, mental illness, suicide, long work hours and a lack of diversity cost the Australian construction industry AU$8 billion annually (Crook and Tessler, 2021). Importantly, long hours, poor mental health and low workforce diversity are linked to structural factors, such as the establishment of unrealistic project timelines, competitive tendering practices and labour market characteristics, highlighting the need for a whole-of-industry collaborative approach to dealing with these issues (Lingard and Turner, 2022).
Despite the compelling evidence that these challenges are all significant in the Australian construction industry, there is less research conducted into how these issues might be addressed, and, in particular, whether addressing them in an integrated way can potentially produce greater benefit than focusing on each issue individually. The present research addresses this practical knowledge gap.
2.2 The culture standard initiative
In 2018 a Construction Industry Culture Taskforce (CICT) was established comprising of the Australian Constructors Association and the State Governments of New South Wales and Victoria. Thus, CICT membership includes some of the largest construction contracting organisations and representatives of public sector client organisations. This public-private sector collaboration sought to address aspects of the construction industry culture believed to be holding back the industry's productivity and performance. To achieve this, a culture standard was developed establishing requirements for construction companies to implement in the delivery of projects. These requirements addressed workers' health and well-being, gender diversity and inclusion and time for life (therefore directly addressing SDGs 3, 5 and 8). The culture standard was trialled on five construction projects over a two-year period between 2022 and 2024. Table 1 provides a summary of the requirements contained in the culture standard.
Draft culture standard requirements (CICT, 2024)
| Element | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Health and well-being | 1.1 Organisations will support the mental health of their workforce by: (a) having programs in place (such as suicide awareness and prevention programs, resilience training, leadership development etc.) to identify and prevent mental health illnesses and support good mental health in a stigma-free space, (b) scheduling these programs to enable effective workforce participation, (c) ensuring Mental Health First Aiders are available to workers on the project 1.2 When assessing health risks on the project, organisations will include risk controls that reflect current leading practice 1.3 Organisations will develop the project schedule to support the health of their people by: (a) considering health risk mitigations when setting the project schedule (b) effectively managing workload pressures through the project schedule (c) ensuring sufficient recovery opportunities through the project schedule Organisations will demonstrate the above for consideration by the client as part of tender documentation |
| Time for life | 2.1 Organisations will program their project to: (a) target that all workers work 50 h or less per week, and (b) ensure that no workers work over 55 h per week, and (c) operate the site from Monday to Friday or, where this is not viable (such as projects requiring occupancy or continuous plant activity), demonstrate why and ensure all workers are working a five day per week program 2.2 Organisations will develop and provide a flexibility plan outlining how it will support and promote flexibility for the project (including office and site-based roles). This plan will be drafted at tender stage and finalised 30 days after contract execution. Organisations will report performance against this plan as a standard item in client meetings and organisational leadership meetings |
| Gender diversity and inclusion | 3.1 Organisations will provide workplaces that enable inclusive participation by a diverse workforce, especially women, through self-assessing their current practices and developing a plan for achieving improvement on the project. Organisations will be required to show evidence to support their results 3.2 Organisations will provide workplaces that enable inclusive participation by the workforce through ensuring there is no pornography or offensive material in the workplace 3.3 Organisations will provide workplaces that enable inclusive participation of a diverse workforce, particularly women, through ensuring appropriate amenities and personal protective equipment (PPE) are provided on the project 3.4 Organisations will target the appointment of women across critical workforce segments and strategic decision-making roles and develop a plan for the project to achieve these targets 3.5 Organisations will target the appointment of women on their leadership and governing bodies/advisory boards and demonstrate commitment to this 3.6 Organisations are to: 1. Identify and disclose gender pay gaps across job roles. 2. Develop and implement a plan to reduce gender pay gaps 3.7 Organisations are to create and implement professional standards for the interviewing, shortlisting and selection of people |
3. Research methods
3.1 Approach
The research utilised a sequential mixed methods approach within a multi-year case study design. Five iterative waves comprising of qualitative and quantitative data collection were undertaken at five case study construction projects implementing the culture standard over a two-year period (Kroll and Neri, 2009). Waves one, two and three comprised of interviews at all five projects; wave four comprised of interviews at four projects; and wave five comprised of surveys at all five projects. Many participants were interviewed in multiple waves of the research. However, because survey participants were anonymous, it was not possible to ascertain if people completed the survey more than once. Therefore, to ensure independence of responses, the survey results presented in this paper are the combined results from the final wave of surveys conducted at each of the case study projects. This research design combined quantitative investigation of the experiences of workers at the case study construction projects with qualitative exploration of contextual factors influencing the implementation of the culture standard.
The five case study projects included a mix of building (hospital and school) and civil engineering (road and rail) construction projects. The case study projects were also procured using a variety of procurement methods, including collaborative (alliancing) as well as design-and-construct approaches. Three of the projects were in the Australian state of New South Wales and two were in the Australian state of Victoria.
3.2 Data collection
Data were collected at all five projects using a combination of surveys and interviews, which were conducted multiple times at each project between November 2022 to May 2024. On all these projects, data collection started at the early stage of the construction phase. The research was approved by the RMIT University Human Research Ethics Committee (reference number 2021–24730-15134). Participation in the study was voluntary and consent was implied in survey completion.
The survey instrument collected demographic data from participants and asked about work hours and work schedule preferences. Data were also captured relating to participants' experiences of working at the case study projects drawing from previously validated psychometric scales. Managerial support for balancing work and family life was measured using items drawn from Behson (2005), work–life balance was measured using three items developed by Haar (2013), organisational fairness related to gender was measured using items drawn from Mor Barak et al. (1998), respect in the workplace was measured using items drawn from Walsh et al. (2012), and mental well-being was measured using the seven-item short-form Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) (Stewart-Brown et al., 2009). An overall mental well-being score was calculated by adding up the scores of all the items and transforming the score according to the procedure specified by Ng Fat et al. (2017). Two questions measuring exposure to inappropriate banter at the workplace were also included. A full set of survey scales, items, and response options is outlined in Lingard et al. (2023).
Interview participants were recruited with the assistance of principal contractors delivering each project in response to a sampling frame developed by the research team to include men and women, waged and salaried workers and people in different age groups and family structures. Interviews were semi-structured and open-ended. Interviews explored participants' experience of working at each of the projects and, in the fourth and fifth wave of interviews, participants were also asked to share their opinions about whether the culture standard should be adopted more broadly. Interviews lasted between 7 and 67 min with a mean duration of 31 min and a standard deviation of 11 min. Interview duration varied as some participants who were interviewed in multiple waves indicated that little had changed since the previous wave, resulting in a shorter interview.
3.3 Data analysis
The fifth wave of survey data collected at the five case study projects were combined into one dataset and used in the present analysis. The reason for combining the data in this way was to ensure that the results presented captured survey participants' reflections after they had been able to spend some time experiencing work under the culture standard.
Descriptive statistics were generated to explore participants' work hours and work schedule preferences and experiences of working at the case study projects (i.e. managerial support for family life, work–life balance, experience of organisational fairness, respect and inappropriate banter). Since different scales were used to measure the work experience variables, mean scores were normalised and presented as percentages to enable comparisons. Independent samples t-tests were used to explore if there was a significant difference in mean scores between genders in relation to the variables relating to the workplace culture as it affects gender diversity and inclusion. This test is demonstrated to be robust for use in ordinal scaled data (Heeren and D'Agostino, 1987).
Participants were divided into three mental well-being groups based upon whether they reported low, medium or high well-being drawing upon the application of population norm scores (see Ng Fat et al., 2017). The SWEMWBS has a mean of 23.5 and a standard deviation of 3.9 in general population samples. This means that 15% of the population can be expected to have a score >27.4. Consequently, the threshold for high well-being was set at 27.5. Conversely, 15% of the population can be expected to have a score <19.6, so a threshold point of 19.5 was established below which participants were deemed to have low well-being. Analysis of variance was used to explore if there was a significant difference in mean scores for work experience between participants reporting high, medium and low mental well-being. This test is demonstrated to be robust for use in ordinal scaled data (Norman, 2010).
Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were thematically analysed and the coding process involved a mix of inductive and deductive approaches. The deductive coding process was guided by the key areas of the culture standard, i.e. high-level codes reflected experiences in relation to the three pillars of the culture standard (time for life, well-being, and gender diversity). Additional themes were identified under these areas using an inductive approach which involved: (1) familiarisation with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, (6) producing the report (Braun and Clarke, 2006). To ensure reliability and trustworthiness during the coding process, the research team, including those who did the interviews, met on a regular basis to discuss codes (Nowell et al., 2017). Where there was any disagreement, the team discussed until consensus was reached.
4. Results
4.1 Sample
Of the 438 survey participants who participated in the last wave of data collection, 23% were salaried workers, 74% were waged workers and 3% did not indicate whether they were salaried or waged. Around 84% of the sample were men, 10% were women, and 6% indicated “other” or did not specify their gender. The 319 interview participants was made up of salaried and waged workers in different family structures and age groups. Interviewees also included workers identifying as men or women.
4.2 Time for life
Figure 1 shows weekly work hours reported by participants. The majority of participants indicated that they were working within the schedule requirements of the culture standard. Around 73% of participants indicated they were working no more than 50 h each week. Ten per cent of participants indicated they were still working more than 55 h a week.
The horizontal axis is labeled “Weekly work hours”, and contains eight categories labeled from left to right as “Less than 37 hours”, “37 to 40 hours”, “41 to 45 hours”, “46 to 50 hours”, “51 to 55 hours”, “56 to 60 hours”, “61 to 65 hours”, “66 to 70 hours”, and “70 plus hours”. The vertical axis is labeled “Percentage of respondents”, and ranges from 0 percent to 25 percent in increments of 5 units. The graph shows nine bars indicating the percentage of respondents within each weekly work hour group. The data for the bars is as follows: Less than 37 hours: 9.8 percent. 37 to 40 hours: 21.2 percent. 41 to 45 hours: 18.7 percent. 46 to 50 hours: 23.7 percent. 51 to 55 hours: 14.2 percent. 56 to 60 hours: 7.3 percent. 61 to 65 hours: 1.4 percent. 66 to 70 hours: 0.5 percent. 70 plus hours: 1.1 percent.Weekly work hours. Source: Authors' own work
The horizontal axis is labeled “Weekly work hours”, and contains eight categories labeled from left to right as “Less than 37 hours”, “37 to 40 hours”, “41 to 45 hours”, “46 to 50 hours”, “51 to 55 hours”, “56 to 60 hours”, “61 to 65 hours”, “66 to 70 hours”, and “70 plus hours”. The vertical axis is labeled “Percentage of respondents”, and ranges from 0 percent to 25 percent in increments of 5 units. The graph shows nine bars indicating the percentage of respondents within each weekly work hour group. The data for the bars is as follows: Less than 37 hours: 9.8 percent. 37 to 40 hours: 21.2 percent. 41 to 45 hours: 18.7 percent. 46 to 50 hours: 23.7 percent. 51 to 55 hours: 14.2 percent. 56 to 60 hours: 7.3 percent. 61 to 65 hours: 1.4 percent. 66 to 70 hours: 0.5 percent. 70 plus hours: 1.1 percent.Weekly work hours. Source: Authors' own work
Figure 2 shows participants' responses to a question asking whether they would prefer to work the same number of hours as they were working under the culture standard or whether they would prefer to work more or fewer hours each week. Just under half (47%) of participants indicated a preference to work the same number of hours as they were under the culture standard. Around 25% of participants indicated a preference to work fewer hours and 27% of participants indicated a preference to work more hours.
The horizontal axis is labeled “Respondents’ preferred work hours in comparison to their current weekly work hours”, and contains three categories labeled from left to right as “Fewer hours”, “About the same hours”, and “More hours”. The vertical axis is labeled “Percentage of respondents”, and ranges from 0 percent to 50 percent in increments of 10 units. The graph shows three bars indicating the percentage of respondents within each preference group: Fewer hours: 24.7 percent. About the same hours: 47.0 percent. More hours: 26.7 percent.Preferred work hours. Source: Authors' own work
The horizontal axis is labeled “Respondents’ preferred work hours in comparison to their current weekly work hours”, and contains three categories labeled from left to right as “Fewer hours”, “About the same hours”, and “More hours”. The vertical axis is labeled “Percentage of respondents”, and ranges from 0 percent to 50 percent in increments of 10 units. The graph shows three bars indicating the percentage of respondents within each preference group: Fewer hours: 24.7 percent. About the same hours: 47.0 percent. More hours: 26.7 percent.Preferred work hours. Source: Authors' own work
Figure 3 shows participants' responses to a question about their preferred work schedule. The majority of participants (64%) indicated a preference to work a 5-day week and have weekends free. A further 11% indicated a preference to work a maximum of five in every seven days. Around 20% of participants preferred to work a 6-day week, which is standard for project-based workers in the Australian construction industry. Participants also reported positive experiences in relation to managerial support for family (mean 3.93, SD = 1.28) and work–life balance (mean 3.29, SD = 0.84).
The horizontal axis is labeled “Respondents' preferred work schedule”, and contains four categories labeled from left to right as “5-day week, and have weekends free”, “6-day week and only have Sunday free”, “Work a maximum of 5 in every 7 days”, and “7-day week”. The vertical axis is labeled “Percentage of respondents”, and ranges from 0 percent to 75 percent in increments of 15 units. The graph shows four bars indicating the percentage of respondents within each work schedule category. The data for the bars is as follows: 5-day week, and have weekends free: 63.9 percent. 6-day week, and only have Sunday free: 19.6 percent. Work a maximum of 5 in every 7 days: 11.0 percent. 7-day week: 3.2 percent.Preferred work schedule. Source: Authors' own work
The horizontal axis is labeled “Respondents' preferred work schedule”, and contains four categories labeled from left to right as “5-day week, and have weekends free”, “6-day week and only have Sunday free”, “Work a maximum of 5 in every 7 days”, and “7-day week”. The vertical axis is labeled “Percentage of respondents”, and ranges from 0 percent to 75 percent in increments of 15 units. The graph shows four bars indicating the percentage of respondents within each work schedule category. The data for the bars is as follows: 5-day week, and have weekends free: 63.9 percent. 6-day week, and only have Sunday free: 19.6 percent. Work a maximum of 5 in every 7 days: 11.0 percent. 7-day week: 3.2 percent.Preferred work schedule. Source: Authors' own work
Themes emerging from the interview data analysis relating to participants' experiences of the time for life elements of the culture standard are shown in Table 2. Illustrative quotations are provided for each theme.
Themes relating to time for life
| Theme | Illustrative quotation |
|---|---|
| Able to spend time with family and friends | “Your Friday afternoon, you get your whole Saturday, your Saturday night, and you get your Sunday. You can achieve so much in those days, too. I take the kids to the playground every Saturday. My daughter wakes up and, generally, first I ask, ‘What do you want for breakfast?’ She wants pancakes, yeah, we'll make pancakes, no dramas. I think that helps with trying to build core memories with the kids as well and having that time rather than … ‘Dad's at work” |
| Able to manage life activities/household chores | “It's good that I can get that [work around the house] out of the way [on Saturday] and have at least one day a week to myself with my wife and go for a drive down the coast, whatever you want to do. It's good psychologically” |
| Opportunity to rest and recover | “I love it, because when you work six days a week, on Sunday you don't turn off. You still think about, so we work in your mind on Sunday as well. So when you have two days, you just turn off Friday, when I leave work. I stop thinking about work. And then I want to enjoy my weekend, I can hang out with friends, go out for a coffee so I can turn off. You have a better life, a better quality of life” |
| Concern about going back to “normal” schedule | “I've worked on maybe four different jobs previously, and all of them have been five days. But for a couple of years there I was working 60-h weeks, just in five days. … I would never do six days again; I would just find a different job. My reflection is that it’s necessary for me, and that it’s a really positive thing, that you need to enjoy work, you need time, like enough time away” |
| Impact on earnings minimal and “worth it” | “[on previous jobs] we used to finish up at 5 o'clock and now we're finishing up at 6. You usually did 6 h on a Saturday, so really you're actually gaining 5 h Monday to Friday from the 6 h that you've lost for Saturday, so you're dropping an hour. If I left here at 5 o'clock every day I'll drop $225 per week because the majority of it is tax. So for me the 225 doesn't matter for the quality of life that I will have” |
| Flexible work options can be role- dependent | It's quite dependent on your role in the project and how much your workload really requests from you. So like some people do work from home a couple of days a week, some people come in late, some people go early, and I think some of the roles support that quite easily and they've all had great success with [working flexibly]. There are other roles that I think it doesn't work” |
| Positive impact on productivity | “Reduce that fatigue, so less stress. Just more time to recover from the week and more time to enjoy things outside of work would probably be the main ones … you'd be more refreshed and you probably perform better in your role if you had more time off and more time to yourself” |
| Positive impact on recruitment | “I just previously come off of another major project and where I was supervisor, and I was just worked into the ground. So, when it came to moving on … I basically had four options. And this one appealed to me the most because I would have time back for myself. Instead of working 70, 80, 90 h a week, they were saying it would be capped at 55 a week. I'd have my weekends, my rostered days off. Basically, a life again. So, that did entice me to this project” |
The interview data analysis was consistent with the survey results in confirming the majority of participants' preferences for working a 5-day week. The interview data analysis also provides insights into the reasons for this preference.
Participants described benefits as being able to spend time with their family and friends engaging in social or leisure activities. They also described how having only one day off is insufficient to rest and recover from a week of work because the first day off is typically spent undertaking chores and that leaves only one day to rest which was often spent ruminating on the week of work to come. Having two consecutive days off work was identified as being beneficial to rest and recovery. This was also linked to participants' perception that they were more productive following two days away from work because they returned to work to begin the new week with higher energy levels. Participants also suggested they joined the projects trialling the culture standard specifically because of the work schedule focused on providing time for life. Other participants indicated that they would rather leave the construction industry than return to work on a project working a 6-day week with uncapped hours. Waged workers, whose income is linked to hours spent at work, indicated that the way work hours were distributed over the working week under the culture standard meant a small decrease in their earnings was inevitable. However, most of the waged workers who participated in the interviews indicated that this “cost” was acceptable to them because it is outweighed by the benefits to their quality of life. Flexible work practices were implemented at all the case study projects. These flexible work arrangements typically involved allowing office-based workers to work at home on agreed days or allowing people to nominate days at which they would leave work early or arrive late. It was observed that flexible work is challenging for workers in some (i.e. site-based operational) roles.
4.3 Gender diversity and inclusion
Data collected from principal contractor organisations delivering the five case study projects indicated that, with the exception of one project, the proportion of women employed at the projects was higher than that of the parent contracting organisations. On average 32% of staff employed in the case study projects were women compared to 24% in the principal contractors' general workforces.
Figure 4 shows the responses of men and women participants in relation to the three variables relating to the workplace culture as it affects gender diversity and inclusion. Normalised mean scores for organisational fairness and respect at work were generally positive for both men and women. However, independent samples t-tests indicated that men and women differed significantly in their perceptions of organisational fairness and banter, with women reporting significantly lower levels of organisational fairness (t = −3.106, p = 0.002) and more frequent exposure to inappropriate banter (t = 4.428, p=<0.001) in their workplaces than men.
The vertical axis is labeled “Normalised mean score”, and ranges from 0 percent to 80 percent in increments of 10 units. The horizontal axis contains three categories labeled from left to right as “Organisational fairness”, “Inappropriate banter”, and “Respect at work”. Each category contains two vertical bars for “Men” and “Women”. The data for the bars is as follows: Organisational fairness: Men: 72 percent, Women: 60 percent. Inappropriate banter: Men: 31 percent, Women: 48 percent. Respect at work: Men: 74 percent, Women: 71 percent.Experience of men and women in relation to variables related to gender diversity and inclusion. Source: Authors' own work
The vertical axis is labeled “Normalised mean score”, and ranges from 0 percent to 80 percent in increments of 10 units. The horizontal axis contains three categories labeled from left to right as “Organisational fairness”, “Inappropriate banter”, and “Respect at work”. Each category contains two vertical bars for “Men” and “Women”. The data for the bars is as follows: Organisational fairness: Men: 72 percent, Women: 60 percent. Inappropriate banter: Men: 31 percent, Women: 48 percent. Respect at work: Men: 74 percent, Women: 71 percent.Experience of men and women in relation to variables related to gender diversity and inclusion. Source: Authors' own work
Themes emerging from the interview data analysis relating to participants' perceptions of the gender diversity and inclusion elements of the culture standard are shown in Table 3. Illustrative quotations are provided for each theme.
Themes relating to gender diversity and inclusion
| Theme | Illustrative quotation |
|---|---|
| Women well represented in professional roles | “Just having female engineers in this team for me has made a phenomenal difference … It's just nice to feel supported by your fellow females. That's definitely a big difference for me” |
| Hard to recruit women in trades | “We typically don't have many females in our trades … But there's definitely discussions around it and how to improve it … at the end of the day we can request as many females as possible, but the reality is there's just not many out there in our service trades right now anyway” |
| Inclusion initiatives | We have just changed all of our [role names from] foremen to site supervisors” |
| Industry culture makes it hard for women with dependent children | “It's still very difficult for mothers to work in site roles I think. It's doable, but at what cost? And then, it [the draft Culture Standard] definitely helps, but I still think it's a pretty cutthroat, pretty consuming industry” |
| Inappropriate comments | “… one of the guys onsite said, ‘you look really good in those pants today. They make you look really good’ … The same guy, he used to always ask me questions about me and my partner? How is our relationship? Do you think it's going to last between us? … I said, ‘that's none of your business'” |
| Reluctance to report | So I'm never comfortable going to HR [Human Resources] with complaints because I feel like they're going to go, she's a troublemaker, get rid of her, we won't keep her for another project, she's a troublemaker. So, you put a target on your back if you complain, that's the way it feels everywhere you go” |
The interview data analysis revealed that the case study projects did have good representation of women (by industry standards) among the professional workforce. This was experienced positively by women at the case study projects who developed support networks with other women in the workplace. However, it was acknowledged by interview participants that it is difficult to recruit women into trade-based roles. This was identified as an industry problem arising as a result of women not choosing construction trades as a career. The case study projects reported a variety of initiatives they implemented in order to increase the gender diversity of the workforce and create an inclusive work environment. These included encouraging the use of inclusive language and incorporating respect at work requirements into subcontract agreements. Participants also described how the culture of the construction industry, specifically the requirement to work long hours, acts as a barrier to women's workforce participation, particularly for women with dependent children. Participants also acknowledged that the culture standard could help to address this industry-wide challenge. Consistent with the survey results, women who participated in the interviews observed that inappropriate comments are experienced by women, particularly in site-based roles. Women also indicated that they dealt with this by having a “thick skin” and were unlikely to report such behaviours as they did not want to be seen to be causing trouble.
4.4 Health and well-being
Figure 5 shows the normalised mean scores for work environment variables for participants who reported low, medium and high levels of mental well-being. One way analysis of variance was conducted to ascertain whether these differences were significant. Significant differences were found for managerial support for family (F = 3.620, p = 0.028), work–life-balance (F = 23.843, p=<0.001), organisational fairness (F = 15.457, p=<0.001), inappropriate banter (F = 6.388, p = 0.002) and respect at work (F = 20.587, p=<0.001). The Bonferroni post-hoc tests indicated that participants in the high mental well-being group had significantly greater managerial support for family and work–life balance than those in the medium or low mental well-being groups. Those in the high mental well-being groups also experienced higher levels of respect at work and organisational fairness and lower levels of inappropriate banter than those in the medium or low mental well-being groups.
The horizontal axis contains five categories labeled from left to right as “Managerial support for family”, “Work-life balance”, “Organisational fairness”, “Inappropriate banter”, and “Respect at work”. The vertical axis is labeled “Normalised mean score”, and ranges from 0 percent to 100 percent in increments of 10 units. Each category contains three bars for “Low”, “Medium”, and “High”. The data for the bars is as follows: Managerial support for family: Low: 69 percent, Medium: 75 percent, High: 86 percent. Work-life balance: Low: 49 percent, Medium: 59 percent, High: 77 percent. Organisational fairness: Low: 59 percent, Medium: 73 percent, High: 78 percent. Inappropriate banter: Low: 36 percent, Medium: 32 percent, High: 18 percent. Respect at work: Low: 64 percent, Medium: 76 percent, High: 89 percent.Experience of work environment for people in low, medium and high well-being groups. Source: Authors' own work
The horizontal axis contains five categories labeled from left to right as “Managerial support for family”, “Work-life balance”, “Organisational fairness”, “Inappropriate banter”, and “Respect at work”. The vertical axis is labeled “Normalised mean score”, and ranges from 0 percent to 100 percent in increments of 10 units. Each category contains three bars for “Low”, “Medium”, and “High”. The data for the bars is as follows: Managerial support for family: Low: 69 percent, Medium: 75 percent, High: 86 percent. Work-life balance: Low: 49 percent, Medium: 59 percent, High: 77 percent. Organisational fairness: Low: 59 percent, Medium: 73 percent, High: 78 percent. Inappropriate banter: Low: 36 percent, Medium: 32 percent, High: 18 percent. Respect at work: Low: 64 percent, Medium: 76 percent, High: 89 percent.Experience of work environment for people in low, medium and high well-being groups. Source: Authors' own work
This finding suggests a strong interrelationship between the three pillars of the culture standard in that people who experience time for life and a fair and inclusive work environment are more likely to report high levels of mental well-being. Interview participants also frequently observed that being able to have adequate rest and recovery, spend time with family and friends and engage in leisure activities during days off were restorative and have a positive impact on their mental health. For example, one participant explained: “I have more time to see my parents in that they live in the North, so it's a bit of a drive. So now I usually go and see them on a Friday night, just stay the night, whereas I wouldn't have that option if I had to work the six days. I think it has had an impact on my health and wellbeing in the fact that I have more time for my family, which is really important for me.”
The analysis of interview data revealed a variety of mental health promotion initiatives were implemented at the case study projects. Interview participants also described positive leadership and workplace culture in which they felt supported and able to seek help if needed as being an important factor contributing to their mental well-being. One participant explained: “We've got a management here that, they're good communicators. So, basically, if they see that you're struggling at any time with anything, they'll pull you aside and say “How you going? What's up?” So, they have that mentality which is really good and that's why I like working with the crew I'm with at the moment”.
5. Discussion
The results suggest that the culture standard can help the construction industry to achieve UN's SDGs 3, 5 and 8, in which performance is currently poor. The Australian construction industry is facing a significant shortage of workers and an ageing workforce. The percentage of workers aged 50 years and over grew from 17.5% in 1997 to 23.6% in 2018, while the percentage of the construction workforce under the age of 30 only increased by 0.6% during this time (Artibus Innovation, 2018). As older workers retire, a significant skill replacement gap has emerged as new entrants are not replacing those leaving the industry at an equivalent rate (Artibus Innovation, 2018). One solution to addressing the skills shortage is to encourage more young people to enter construction (Gerrard, 2023). However, there are signs that the industry is not performing well in its ability to attract young workers. The numbers of young workers commencing apprenticeships in Australia and those currently in training are the lowest for a decade (Australian Industry Group, 2016), and the completion rate of construction industry apprenticeships remained low in Australia between the years 2017 (52.1%) and 2019 (53.9%) (NCVER, 2024). Completion rates for women in construction trade apprenticeships are 12% lower than for men, indicating women are more likely to drop out of construction trade apprentices than their male counterparts (CSQ, 2018).
There is also evidence to suggest that young workers do not find the industry attractive as a career choice which is attributed to the expectation that the industry is characterised by poor working conditions, job insecurity, long working hours, and exposure to health and safety risks (Yng Ling et al., 2016; Lingard et al., 2025) and it is widely reported that Gen Z workers actively seek employment in jobs that offer a positive work–life balance, good conditions of work and a diverse and inclusive work environment (Fodor and Jaeckel, 2018). These issues are directly addressed by the culture standard and our results, therefore, provide critical evidence that the implementation of initiatives required by the culture standard can potentially have a positive impact in areas of direct concern to young people considering a long-term career in construction.
Evidence from the culture standard trials has already led to the adoption of the culture standard by the Australian Capital Territory Government into the ACT's Procurement Framework for infrastructure. The ACT Chief Minister commented: “Everyone deserves to feel safe, respected and valued at work. By implementing this standard, we're improving the culture for those delivering infrastructure in the ACT and addressing barriers to attract and retain the skilled workforce needed for future projects” (ACT Government, 2025). The New South Wales Government is also reported to have adopted a five-day work week across 36 Health Infrastructure projects worth AU$2.5 billion. The translation of the culture standard research into industry policy was enabled through the engagement of the Construction Industry Culture Taskforce with policy entrepreneurs (leading national business journalists, key industry employer groups and trade unions) and engagement directly with key policy decision-makers (De Marchi et al., 2025). It is anticipated that the positive impacts associated with implementing the culture standard will, continue to influence the attitudes of public policy makers and decision-makers whose actions shape the way that construction projects are procured and managed, particularly as the additional costs to projects associated with implementing the culture standard is reported to be minimal (Bleby, 2025).
The research also has relevance to educators and researchers in highlighting the inter-relationships between the UN SDGs 3, 5 and 8, and the opportunities to achieve improvements in all three of these areas simultaneously. While previous research tends to focus on these issues individually, the present research suggests that greater positive benefit may be gained by developing strategies that simultaneously target more than one SDG. The findings indicate that, by providing work that permits time for life, the health and well-being of the construction workforce is also positively impacted, and the industry is likely to improve its performance in gender equality and diversity. It is recommended that future research further explores the interactions between workers' experiences in relation to the three SDGs considered in this research.
The research also highlights the need to adopt a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach to addressing the UN SDGs 3, 5 and 8 in the construction industry because the experience of work, workers' health and well-being and gender equality are all impacted by structural features of the industry, e.g. government procurement practices, competitive tendering and labour market characteristics. Previous research has highlighted the challenges inherent in achieving industry collaboration in relation to addressing the UN's SDGs (Watts, 2024) and the extent to which mistrust and competition in supply networks prevent the development of shared commitment in driving sector-level change (Russell et al., 2018). The present research highlights the value of multi-stakeholder collaboration, involving both public and private sector organisations, clients and contractors, working together to improve the construction industry's performance in areas critical to its long term social and economic sustainability. Given the size and significance of the Australian construction industry, this is also likely to produce considerable social and economic benefit (see also Bleby, 2025).
6. Conclusion
The evaluation of the culture standard at the five case study projects revealed important opportunities to improve the Australian construction industry's performance in relation to three of the UN SDGs, namely SDGs 3, 5 and 8. The research highlighted that developing and implementing an industry-based standard directly focused on changing deeply entrenched work practices (e.g. long and rigid work hours) and workplace cultures pertaining to workplace gender diversity and the creation of a positive, supportive and respectful work environment can help the industry to improve its performance in relation to SDGs 3, 5 and 8. In doing this, the research highlights how globally established goals that seek to improve the lives and prospects for people, can be operationalised and translated into meaningful action though a collective industry effort. Importantly, the research supports theoretical statements that the SDGs are interconnected by providing empirical evidence supporting this claim.
The present research show that change is possible. However, changing long-standing work practices and cultural characteristics of the industry is not likely to be achievable by a single organisation, as these practices and characteristics are perpetuated by structural characteristics of the industry. Consequently, collaboration between clients and contractors is critical to the effectiveness of any change initiatives in areas relevant to SDGs 3, 5 and 8.
Importantly, the adoption of the culture standard has the potential to create a “level playing field” in which companies that implement policies to protect the health, well-being and work–life balance of their workers and promote gender equality and fairness are not uncompetitive in the short term, when other organisations may not adopt such measures. The initiative is only likely to be successful if adopted by client organisations that require contractors to deliver projects in accordance with the requirements of the culture standard. If this is the case, the findings of the present research suggest that the culture standard initiative can make a substantial contribution to the economic and social sustainability of the Australian construction industry.
7. Limitations and further research
Data were collected from the building and the civil engineering sectors of the Australian construction industry, therefore results cannot be generalised to other sectors of the industry such as residential. Furthermore, large construction contracting organisations were involved in managing the case study projects, therefore it is not known how the findings might be applicable to small and mid-size construction contracting organisations. As the study took place in an Australian context, the findings may not be applicable to other country contexts. Future research may address some of these limitations by expanding the implementation and evaluation of the culture standard into other sectors within the industry and with small and mid-size construction contracting organisations. Notwithstanding these limitations, the results of the study are encouraging and illustrate how the Australian construction industry can implement an approach to meet the requirements of the SDGs.
