Understanding gender diversity and inclusion in multinational companies: a power-laden model

Numerous international organisations (e.g. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations) have launched gender diversity and inclusion (GDI) initiatives to promote macro-institutional responses globally. It is acknowledged that multinational companies (MNCs) can play a vital role in achieving gender equality because of their tremendous influence on international relations; their substantial revenue and market capitalisation and the large number of people they employ (Sharma, 2015). As Global Finance (2024) reported, the top 10 largest MNCs in the 2024 Fortune Global 500 list have employed over 7.9 million employees and generated more than USD4.6 trillion in revenue annually. These financial and human capital resources have enabled MNCs to have considerable global influence in contributing to GDI (Fitzsimmons et al., 2023). Compared with their non-MNC counterparts, MNCs face different challenges relating to promoting GDI. This is at least in part because MNCs operate in multiple countries, and each host country has unique gender values and norms; gender equality conditions and institutional contexts that affect gender equality (Bader et al., 2022; Eden and Gupta, 2017). These differences could complicate the process of cross-national transfer of GDI practices, making GDI practices in MNCs differ from those in non-MNCs (Ferner et al., 2005).

In the international human resource management (HRM) domain, there is a growing body of literature investigating the crucial role of GDI practices in MNCs as having important implications for employees, management, local companies and global society (Koveshnikov et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2022). These studies usually employ three important perspectives to theorise the foundations of GDI: business case, social justice and institutional. First, some studies adopt a business-case perspective to account for the positive influence of GDI practices on MNCs' organisational performance, underlining their financial and economic interests (Siegel et al., 2011). Second, some studies employ a social-justice perspective to highlight the moral principles of GDI practices in relation to the idea that MNCs have a social responsibility to improve workplace inclusion and equality (McGauran, 2001). Third, other studies deploy an institutional perspective to identify the lingering effect of diverse societal and institutional forces on GDI (Ferner et al., 2005).

However, knowledge about the power dynamics throughout the GDI processes remains scant. As Fitzsimmons et al. (2023) claimed, few studies have adopted a power-dynamics perspective to explain the resistance to and pushback against equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in MNCs. This constitutes a considerable gap in knowledge because MNCs are confronted with multiple forms and dimensions of power when attempting to establish a more diverse and inclusive workplace in their global operations. Power relations are ubiquitous in workplaces, subsidiaries, headquarters, host and home countries. A small proportion of prior studies revealed that it is not uncommon for subsidiary managers to deploy power and tactics to criticise, resist or backlash the transfer of GDI practices from headquarters (e.g. Ferner et al., 2005). Even within MNC headquarters, members of majority groups are likely to resist or reject GDI practices that they consider unfavourable to them personally (Shuman et al., 2023). Despite the potential intertwinement between GDI and power dynamics in the international HRM landscape, these two areas have been examined as separate research streams. To address this research lacuna, our study systematically reviews the extant literature on GDI in MNCs through the lens of power. Drawing on Hardy's (1996) power perspective and Foucault's (1977) “power/knowledge” framework, we establish a power-laden model to shed light on the power relations (e.g. domination, conflicts, cooperation, hegemony and manipulation) between GDI, HRM practices and a wide range of actors within and outside MNCs. Specifically, according to Hardy (1996), power manifests itself in three dimensions: “power of resources”, “power of processes” and “power of meaning”. Previous literature has touched on the factor of power as it relates to GDI (Fitzsimmons et al., 2023), but it has not captured how different dimensions of power play out in the relationship between GDI and HRM practices. Thus, this review adopts Hardy's (1996) power perspective to account for how GDI interacts continuously and exclusively with distinct HRM practices, depending on different dimensions of power. In addition, Foucault's (1977) power/knowledge framework identifies power relations among powerful and powerless actors across social systems. Although a handful of past studies briefly mentioned the multistakeholder lens of GDI (Zhu et al., 2022), they did not dedicate a great deal of attention to the complicated power relations among different stakeholders. To address this gap in knowledge, this study considers MNCs as contested terrains where multiple internal and external stakeholders who possess different levels of power compete or cooperate with each other for GDI resources. Foucault (1977) also suggested the fact that power could not only work oppressively, by inhibiting and restraining other actors' behaviours, but can also operate productively, by producing and reproducing discourses, meanings and systems of knowledge. This theoretical argument supports and complements Hardy's (1996) work on different dimensions of power. Combining Hardy's (1996) power perspective and Foucault's (1977) power/knowledge framework, we argue that GDI practices must not be treated as a static entity taken for granted. Rather, we consider that there is a dynamic interplay among GDI, HRM practices and diverse MNCs' stakeholders that have different dimensions of power.

Several prior reviews have provided an inspiring evaluation of the extant literature on EDI with gender diversity as an integral part of this (e.g. Fitzsimmons et al., 2023; Hutchings, 2022; Post et al., 2021), and GDI specifically (e.g. Zhu et al., 2022). For example, the review of Fitzsimmons et al. (2023) compared the previous conceptualisations and theorisations of EDI within and outside of the international business field. These researchers adopted a morality-oriented and power-dynamics perspective to discuss a broad series of EDI issues (e.g. gender, race, sexuality and ethnicity). However, their seminal review did not concentrate on the specific gender facet of EDI in the context of MNCs, nor did it identify the power relations among GDI practices, HRM systems and a variety of stakeholders within and outside MNCs. In addition, Zhu et al.’s (2022) review examined the progress and gaps of research on GDI in the Chinese context but did not identify or analyse the crucial role MNCs could play in improving GDI in the global context.

This study builds on and expands prior reviews in the following ways. First, based on a review of 149 academic articles, we identify the unique power and capabilities of MNCs to advance GDI while considering the various contextual challenges they must overcome. By doing so, we are responding to the recent call for greater research attention to be paid to the crucial role of international HRM and MNCs in achieving the GDI (Bader et al., 2022). Second, we challenge the traditional GDI perspectives that have downplayed the power relations between HRM and GDI practices. We use Hardy's (1996) power perspective combined with Foucault's (1977) power/knowledge framework to establish a power-laden model of GDI practices in MNCs. In doing so, we aim to uncover the core role of GDI practices in the HRM system and identify or analyse the strategic role of GDI practices in responding to the socio-politico-economic demands from home and host countries. Third, our power-laden model highlights three key dimensions of power that are deeply embedded in GDI practices and delineates the power relations between GDI and various stakeholders within and outside MNCs. We reveal that the process of cross-national transfer of GDI practices could be complex because of the contested internal and external contexts in which MNCs operate. In cross-level contexts, a multitude of internal and external stakeholders with distinct interests and resources may engage with each other, deploying different dimensions of power to shape GDI practices.

In Fitzsimmons et al.’s (2023) recent review article, EDI is theorised as a collective concept that represents “different but interconnected approaches to incorporating excluded social identity groups” (p. 1404) such as “race, gender, class, ethnicity and sexuality” (p. 1403). Following Zhu et al. (2022), we are concerned with the gender facet of EDI in MNCs, namely GDI.

This study focuses specifically on GDI rather than general EDI, because gender inequality and discrimination are theoretically distinct and pervasive across cultures and nations. Distinct from general EDI, gender involves unique barriers (i.e. gendered norms, institutional constraints and the glass ceiling) that warrant further investigation (Bader et al., 2022). A gender-specific focus thus enhances conceptual clarity and contributes to SDG 5, which specifically targets gender equality.

Some scholars differentiate between gender diversity, equality and inclusion to highlight their relevance to different streams of literature. For example, gender equality refers to “women and men, girls and boys [having] equal conditions, treatment and opportunities for realising their full potential, human rights and dignity, and for contributing to (and benefitting from) economic, social, cultural and political development” (United Nations Children's Fund [UNICEF], 2017: p. 3). Gender inclusion primarily refers to the degree to which female employees “feel fully accepted and included in the workplace” (Fitzsimmons et al., 2023, p. 1404), whereas gender diversity reflects the gender heterogeneity and composition of an organisation (Roberson, 2006). Nevertheless, we consider diversity, inclusion and equality as distinct but interrelated constructs, as substantiated in prior literature (e.g. Farndale et al., 2015; Fitzsimmons et al., 2023). For example, Zhu et al. (2022) did not differentiate between gender diversity, equality and inclusion when explaining how these factors are addressed in the workplace but employed them as a collective term. Addressing these three constructs simultaneously can help us develop a more nuanced understanding of how they support and complement each other (Farndale et al., 2015).

Most GDI studies are conducted as part of diversity in general management research. Some studies on gender equality/diversity have been conducted from the corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability perspective and often make only fleeting mention of GDI issues, rather than conducting a focused study on GDI. Most GDI studies do not focus on examining GDI in MNCs but include MNCs in the sample (Chawla and Sharma, 2016). Such studies cover a range of themes concerning gender diversity/inequality in MNCs, such as the underrepresentation of women in managerial positions, women's career progression, gender pay gaps, gender discrimination in hiring and gender differences in expatriate adjustment. In these studies, GDI is most discussed in relation to its practices being effective methods of dealing with these intractable problems (e.g. Farndale et al., 2015; Festing et al., 2015).

We argue that the disjointed connection between GDI practices and HRM needs to be addressed. In the recent literature, GDI practice is conceptualised and operationalised as a broad term that covers a comprehensive spectrum of policies and initiatives, such as female mentoring programmes; gender-related recruiting and promotion; equal employment opportunity and work–life balance policies, all of which are integral aspects of HRM (Bader et al., 2022). However, the power interplay between GDI and HRM practices (e.g. conflicts and supplements) is under-researched. It is important to develop a fine-grained understanding of whether and how GDI practices can strategically bridge different dimensions of HRM and be used to manage conflicts between MNCs' HRM practices and their organisational mission. The neglect of the strategic positioning of GDI practices in the MNC structure may reduce their effectiveness or even yield unintended outcomes when GDI practices are inconsistent or compete with other HRM practices (Zhu et al., 2022).

Overall, our study challenges the traditional view (i.e. the business-case, social-justice and institutional perspectives) of GDI practices, which consider these practices as isolated from the HRM system. Strategic HRM system research argues that multiple HRM practices are interrelated, all of which are integral components of an HRM system that contributes to the strategic missions of an organisation (Cooke et al., 2021). Consistent with the strategic HRM perspective, we theorise GDI practices as an integral element of an HRM system and develop a strategic understanding of GDI practices by (a) identifying the dynamic interdependence between GDI practices and many other HRM practices, and (b) situating GDI practices as MNCs' strategic response to the institutional demands from both the host environment and the home country. As part of achieving this aim, we establish a power-laden model to elucidate the strategic understanding of GDI practices as an important part of gender-focused HRM.

This study builds on Hardy's (1996) power perspective, which emphasises three core dimensions of power in a business and management context. The first dimension is the “power of resources”, which refers to the control of scant resources (e.g. hiring, rewards and punishments) that help agents influence workplace behaviours. The second dimension is the “power of processes”, which identifies that dominant actors incorporate multiple political schedules and routines into managerial decision-making processes to defeat resistance and opposition from marginalised groups. The third dimension is the “power of meaning”, which refers to powerful actors legitimising their own interests and needs and delegitimising those of subordinates through symbols, rituals and discourse (e.g. diversity discourse; Ferner et al., 2012). We suggest that these dimensions of power are deeply embedded in GDI practices and are ubiquitous in the dynamic relationships between GDI, HRM practices and various stakeholders within and outside MNCs.

In addition, we deploy Foucault's (1977) power/knowledge framework to support and complement Hardy's (1996) power perspective. We draw on Foucault's (1977) arguments about power and knowledge to uncover the asymmetrical relationship between a wide range of powerful and powerless actors across institutional fields. As Foucault (1977) eloquently argued, wherever there is power, there should also be diverse types of opposition or resistance. Hence, MNCs must be viewed as contestations between different superior and/or inferior stakeholders within and outside MNCs (e.g. the power imbalance between headquarters and subsidiaries, and between management and employees) rather than being considered a static entity taken for granted. In the context of MNCs, diverse internal and external stakeholders are able to employ different dimensions of power to compete or cooperate for GDI interests and resources. They may reinforce favourable GDI practices and reject and resist unfavourable ones, either overtly or covertly.

Furthermore, Foucault (1977) noted that power may not work only oppressively, by inhibiting, denying or restraining other actors' behaviours, but may also work productively, by establishing, producing and framing other actors' language, discourses, meanings and systems of knowledge. This theoretical logic is in concert with Hardy's (1996) work on different dimensions of power. In MNCs, different power relations, such as domination, conflicts, cooperation and manipulation, could be formulated through GDI discourses, knowledge or language.

Taken together, the underlying theory of this study is the integration of Hardy's (1996) power perspective and Foucault's (1977) power/knowledge treatise. We argue that GDI practices should not be considered only in relation to their static functions in the business realm but should be incorporated into a power-laden model to highlight the power relations within and outside MNCs. In the discussion section, we will account for the process through which power is continuously and exclusively produced and reproduced in the relationship between GDI, HRM practices and various internal and external MNC stakeholders.

This review is derived from a larger project on GDI within the HRM domain. We followed a structured, transparent and rigorous research protocol (Tranfield et al., 2003) to conduct this systematic review and synthesize existing research on GDI in MNCs. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flow diagram outlining the study selection and review processes.

Following previous review studies (e.g. Zhu et al., 2022), we utilised two major academic databases, namely Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, to ensure a comprehensive and interdisciplinary coverage of the literature. Only articles indexed in either WoS or Scopus were included.

Considering the fact that the term “GDI” has been examined in an idiosyncratic manner (Zhu et al., 2022), we used a wide range of search strings relating to gender diversity, equity, inclusion and equal opportunities (see Table 1). Our search strings were broader than those used in prior literature to ensure our search results were more inclusive and comprehensive. We included only articles with these search strings in the title, keyword and abstract. Following prior review studies (e.g. Heninis et al., 2021; Héliot et al., 2020), we included only articles written in English to ensure they are accessible to and understandable by international readers. To ensure that there were no relevant studies missing from our final dataset, we did not specify a start date. We included peer-reviewed academic articles available on or before December 2024. Our searches resulted in 226 relevant articles that were across diverse disciplines, for example, international business, HRM, organisational behaviour, sociology and political sciences.

We established the selection criteria ( Appendix) to screen the title, keywords, abstract and publication outlets of initial samples for relevance. We included only peer-reviewed journal articles that published in journals listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) or Science Citation Index (SCI). This criterion ensured that our sample articles were of high quality. We removed 53 non-SSCI/SCI-listed journal articles, book chapters, conference papers and dissertations.

We further reviewed and screened the full texts of the remaining articles against our inclusion and exclusion criteria. For instance, we included articles that explicitly addressed GDI issues, while excluding those focusing primarily on general EDI topics. This criterion led to the exclusion of 17 articles. In addition, we only retained articles that focused on MNCs, cross-national or international management contexts to capture the unique characteristics of multinational firms. Consequently, seven articles examining GDI in state-owned or private enterprises, or GDI within general management settings, were excluded. Overall, 149 articles were included in the final sample after the screening process.

To be fully consistent with prior review studies (Cooke et al., 2021; Pisani et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2022), we extracted key information from these 149 articles based on a standardised data coding form (e.g. year of publication, main topics examined, theoretical framework, methods, HRM practices examined, antecedents, mediators, moderators and outcomes). For example, we categorised studies based on their methods, such as theoretical/conceptual/review studies and quantitative/qualitative/mixed methods. We also coded the antecedents investigated in these studies based on the multi-level drivers that trigger or influence the development of GDI (practices) in MNCs.

During the data coding period, we categorised these articles by their core research findings and study focus and developed a power-laden model to frame the structure of this review. Each article was carefully coded by the lead author and then double-checked by the author team to ensure accuracy. The research team held multiple formal meetings to discuss coding discrepancies. During these meetings, we conducted a full-text analysis of relevant articles with coding differences and addressed these discrepancies based on our selection criteria. A consensus was finally reached after extensive discussion among the research team.

This section presents the thematic findings from the sample studies, which were coded based on the “antecedents–mediators–moderators–consequences” logic (Figure 2). Previous review studies have widely deployed this logic to summarise qualitative and quantitative studies (e.g. Pisani et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2022). Following prior reviews, we included qualitative studies on influencing factors in the antecedents category and qualitative studies relating to GDI outcomes in the consequences category. We did not include qualitative studies in the categories of mediators and moderators to be consistent with prior literature (Zhu et al., 2022).

The present section reviews and presents the status quo of the extant studies on GDI in MNCs to gain a comprehensive understanding of knowledge in this area to date. We then critically discuss the limitations of the existing literature from the power lens.

Prior studies have employed several psychological theories, including the social identity theory, social exchange theory and social categorisation theory, to examine individual-level factors such as managerial discretion (Noon and Ogbonna, 2021) and employee demographic characteristics (Vokić et al., 2017). Individual-level tactics or coping mechanisms play a key role in facilitating women's career success and addressing gender discrimination in the workplace. However, individual efforts alone cannot address and repair the gender inequality embedded in a set of larger sociocultural contexts and institutional fields in which power imbalances exist. The implementations of GDI practices are driven, if not determined by, the power resources that employees and/or managers are able to leverage. We found only one study treating GDI as a result of individuals' political manoeuvres and power capabilities. Ferner et al. (2005) revealed that management within MNC subsidiaries tends to mobilise a multiplicity of power resources (e.g. bargaining resources and rhetorical repertoires) to challenge and resist the full transfer of GDI practices to subsidiaries. Thus, GDI practices may serve the interests of powerful actors in MNCs. Therefore, we call for more research to develop a power-laden model to consider power-related individual antecedents, such as the role of the power differential between labour and management, the attribute of managerial power and the empowerment of underrepresented employees.

Based on a range of theoretical perspectives, including the resource-based view, upper echelons theory, strategic HRM framework and diversity management perspective, extant research has investigated several organisational-level factors that influence subsidiaries' GDI practices (including the focus and implementation of GDI practices), including organisational processes (Hennekam et al., 2017), environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework (Marquez-Cardenas et al., 2022) and organisational size (Suess and Kleiner, 2007). Marquez-Cardenas et al. (2022), for instance, highlighted diversity governance and the ESG framework, documenting that, to meet stakeholders' growing demands for ESG accountability, MNCs need to enhance board gender diversity as a sustainable and socially responsible corporate governance practice.

It is important to note that GDI in the organisational context is a complex phenomenon intersecting with class and ethnicity (Acker, 2012). The dynamic reproduction of inequalities might originate from the complicated interweaving of diverse forms of social and political stratification; for example, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, migration, marital status, class and nationality (Berrey, 2014; Choo and Ferree, 2010). This makes the effective management of GDI issues in the MNC context more critical and challenging, due to the compounded causes and effects of intersectionality. For instance, class hierarchies may be reproduced and reinforced as a result of MNCs' GDI policies that target only certain social groups such as white and Aboriginal women (Mills, 2011), high-status women and people of colour (Berrey, 2014), instead of all social groups that may be disadvantaged and need to achieve genuine inclusion and equality.

Furthermore, most studies focus on the subsidiary level, and, perhaps due to access constraints, they largely neglect analysis of the important role of other levels within the MNC (e.g. headquarters and regional headquarters) and their power relationships in shaping the cross-national transfer of GDI practices. Indeed, MNC subsidiaries are frequently exposed to conflicting institutional demands from both corporate headquarters and host countries. This institutional duality creates challenges for maintaining organisational effectiveness and legitimacy, which requires MNC subsidiaries to adapt headquarters' GDI policies to align with local institutional rules and norms (Bader et al., 2022). Ferner et al.’s (2012) also observed that the dynamic pow er relations between headquarters and subsidiaries may influence the cross-national transfer of GDI practices. This is an important contribution to understanding because MNC subsidiaries are not considered as passive recipients in their analysis, but as agentic subjects that could actively interact with their host institutional settings, foreign headquarters or regional headquarters to reject/resist unfavourable GDI practices and reinforce favourable ones, covertly or overtly. As Ferner et al. (2012) suggested, subsidiary actors can influence the transfer of GDI practices through their power capabilities and resources both at the macro level of host environments and at the micro level of the MNC.

In relation to the sociocultural-level contextual factors of power, much of the literature has emphasised a complex set of external/macro-level antecedents/contextual factors of home and host countries (Kemper et al., 2019). Based on the institutional theory and Hofstede's cultural dimension framework, MNCs and their GDI practices are understood to be socially embedded in the wider sociocultural, economic and political environments (Hennekam and Tahssain-Gay, 2015). These external/macro-level contextual factors include formal (institutional) pressures, such as local legal and regulatory standards, labour market systems and demands of trade unions in the host countries (McGauran, 2001). External contexts may consist of cultural factors, such as dominant customs (Lawler, 1996) and local historical backgrounds (Özbilgin et al., 2012). For example, Sippola and Smale (2007) emphasised the global integration process whereby diversity management practices are demographically, culturally and institutionally embedded in Anglo–Saxon contexts. Their study provided novel insights into the dynamic nature of interactions of multiple influencing/contextual factors throughout the global diversity management integration process.

Most research has drawn on (comparative) institutional analysis to examine whether MNCs' GDI practices are in line with the dominant cultural and institutional requirements in their home or host countries, or whether these practices comply with other global demands. A major supposition such studies explicitly or implicitly make is that the global transfer of GDI practices may inevitably generate many problems because of the institutional tensions between the home and host countries (Özbilgin et al., 2012). However, political volatility, cultural tensions and institutional differences within the host country are rarely explored. This is a major limitation in the current body of research on GDI, particularly in relation to MNCs located in countries with diverse cultural traditions, economies, political regimes and ideological values. Where an MNC has more than one branch office or subsidiary in the same country, its GDI practices may differ and be implemented in different ways.

Extant studies have mainly deployed two prominent perspectives to investigate the consequences of GDI practices, considering individual outcomes from a morality-based perspective and organisational outcomes from a performance-based perspective.

First, some studies mobilise the morality-based (or social-justice) perspective to elucidate the individual outcomes of GDI practices, such as work–life balance for women (Roberts, 2005). Most of these studies adopt sophisticated quantitative methods to examine the cross-level interactions between organisational GDI practices and desirable employee-related outcomes. Such studies tend to support the idea that MNCs should implement GDI practices because this is the morally appropriate course of action and can generate wellbeing benefits for employees. The key assumption underlying these studies is that GDI practices will foster positive employee attitudes, health and wellbeing, while reducing gender pay inequity. Notably, most of these studies are decontextualized: they focus on the psychological micro-foundations of GDI practices but neglect institutional, political and cultural factors. To address these gaps, future research could adopt qualitative methods to emphasise these context-sensitive factors.

Second, a sizable body of literature examines the positive effect of GDI practices on MNC performance, considering factors such as organisational profitability and productivity (Siegel et al., 2011), and innovative climate (van der Vegt et al., 2005). These studies primarily adopt a business-case or the performance-based perspective to theorise GDI practices as a valuable resource for enhancing internationalisation process benefits and to underline the value of GDI for MNCs' financial and economic interests, rather than only to achieve social justice such as women's rights (Fitzsimmons et al., 2023). More specifically, such studies focus on the business-driven agenda of the MNCs, while largely ignoring the moral and societal effects of GDI practices on marginalised communities and societies. GDI practices are typically considered a valuable resource for enhancing internationalisation process benefits (Fitzsimmons et al., 2023). Although some studies focus on corporate social performance (Figueroa-Domecq et al., 2020), most studies mainly consider these social constructs as a means to improving organisational performance rather than an end in their own right, again implicitly seeking financial justification for adopting GDI practices.

Third, few studies employ an institutional perspective to empirically test the societal or institutional effects of GDI practices. This represents an important gap in knowledge because MNCs, as efficient and agile institutional actors, are disposed towards social and global engagement and proactively address critical grand challenges (Fitzsimmons et al., 2023). As Sharma (2015) eloquently argued, unlike governmental agencies that focus primarily on local and domestic affairs, MNCs tend to deal with global and societal challenges from environmental sustainability to gender inequality. Without a fine-grained view of the social and institutional outcomes of GDI initiatives, the extant body of research will remain deficient in deriving social and policy implications.

Fourth, we did not find any empirical papers explicitly using “power” as the guiding lens to examine the power-related or resistance outcomes of GDI practices in MNCs. As Soltani et al. (2012) noted, marginalised and low-power workers in traditional countries are likely to be taken advantage of by organisations in the name of gender equality and diversity. Hence, it is of vital importance to create a power-laden model to assess disadvantaged and marginalised stakeholders' responses to GDI practices implemented by MNCs, for example, the resistance to or backlash of these stakeholders against Western-oriented GDI discourses and systems of knowledge. These resistance outcomes may bring marginalised stakeholders (e.g. frontline employees in subsidiaries in countries that are socially or economically underdeveloped) into conflict with dominant stakeholders (e.g. senior management in headquarters in a country with a developed economy) who benefit from GDI practices. These conflicts will produce and reproduce the power imbalance in MNCs.

Existing studies have captured the potential boundary conditions for the antecedent–GDI relationship or the GDI–outcome relationship. For the first-stage effect (the relationship between antecedents and GDI), current research has evaluated the moderating role of organisational characteristics; the coverage of GDI in the media (Suess and Kleiner, 2007); the number and balance of identity-based subgroups (Carton and Cummings, 2013) and the host country's institutional development (i.e. labour freedom and property rights protection; van der Straaten et al., 2020). The evaluation of these contextual moderators responds to a recent call to contextualise workplace gender equality/diversity (Zhu et al., 2022).

For the second-stage effect (the relationship between GDI and outcomes), current research has investigated a series of cross-level moderators. Macro-level moderators drawing on socioeconomic contexts have gained the most attention, for example, national power distance (van der Vegt et al., 2005); cultural background (Farndale et al., 2015) and the degree of economic globalisation (Lee and Shin, 2019). However, meso-level and individual-level moderators remain less explored. An exception is Stahl et al.’s (2010) study, which revealed that task complexity can augment the influence of cultural diversity (gender diversity is a surface-level cultural diversity).

Given the complexity of GDI and outcomes, assessing whether and how cross-level contextual variables play a moderating role is of particular importance. To fill the knowledge gap, we can develop a more dynamic understanding of whether and how GDI practices have different effects across contexts by testing a broader range of boundary conditions, particularly power-related moderators. For example, the power capabilities of subsidiaries may moderate the outcomes of GDI transfer from headquarters to the subsidiary in the sense that subsidiary employees' justification efforts make their resistance against GDI initiatives more powerful (Fernando, 2021).

Extant studies employing quantitative methods have paid limited attention to the mediators in the association between antecedents and GDI or the relationship between GDI practices and consequences. For the first-stage mediating process (antecedent–mediator–GDI), we did not find any empirical study evaluating how antecedents foster or hinder GDI in MNCs. We propose a top–down mediating mechanism, that is, the socio-politico-economic environments may influence organisational settings, which further shape GDI practices. For example, a radical transformation of the legislative or political regimes in host countries may inevitably lead to a significant change in the organisational structure and power capabilities of subsidiaries, which will ultimately influence the efficiency of GDI practices. Different dimensions and levels of power may play a core role in this mechanism.

For the second-stage mediating process (GDI–mediator–outcomes), Inegbedion et al. (2020) observed that diversity management could affect firm efficiency through employees' perceptions of marginalisation. In a similar vein, organisational climate (Ngo et al., 2009) may also mediate the relationship between GDI practices and their associated outcomes.

So far, we have identified several areas of progress and gaps in existing research. Here, we present some theoretical implications of our study by presenting a power-laden model to uncover the power dynamics between GDI practices, HRM practices and various stakeholders within and outside MNCs (Figure 3). To achieve this, we not only investigate GDI practices in MNCs, but we also explain the complicated mechanism through which power is continuously and exclusively produced and reproduced when different internal and external stakeholders engage with each other. We focus on three core HRM practices (pay and benefits practices, expatriate management and career development/leadership practices) that are particularly relevant to GDI in the current literature.

To analyse the power imbalance between GDI and HRM practices, we develop a more strategic understanding of GDI practices within the HRM system. We argue that GDI practices should not be considered a single and isolated entity in MNCs, but instead, should be considered an integral part of the HRM system within which the GDI practices interconnect continuously and exclusively with various HRM practices. Thus, MNCs can be seen as arenas in which there are dynamics of domination, conflict and cooperation, and where GDI practices have different levels of power depending on their strategic or marginalised position in MNCs. When MNCs are required to establish a more inclusive workplace, GDI practices should be framed in a prominent and strategic position, serving as the important foundation for the development of internal HRM practices and organisational missions.

Furthermore, GDI practices ought to be formulated as MNCs' strategic response to increasing pressures from the internal and external ecosystem where a multitude of intertwined stakeholders are deeply embedded. The internal ecosystem comprises key actors within MNCs, such as management and female/male employees in headquarters and subsidiaries. In contrast, the external ecosystem consists of diverse stakeholders in host and home countries, such as governmental agencies, social media and international agencies. These external stakeholders interact with each other and have direct or indirect effects on the cross-national transfer of GDI practices. Both internal and external actors are interconnected, competing or cooperating with each other for GDI resources and interests (Table 2). The interdependent nature of diverse stakeholders requires GDI practices to achieve desired outcomes for all stakeholders.

There is a body of literature focusing on the gender pay gap as a key indicator of gender diversity or equality in MNCs. Pay and benefits practices, as an important aspect of HRM, convey a message to employees about their value and importance to the organisation. Larger gender pay gaps indicate greater gender inequality, while smaller pay gaps may demonstrate a higher level of gender equality. Some studies have observed that women receive less remuneration and benefits than males, despite pay equality being strictly stipulated in their MNC documents (Formánková and Křížková, 2015). This indicates that GDI practices are simply window dressing in some MNCs, and that GDI practices have not been well incorporated into their HRM system. According to a power-imbalance view, pay and benefits practices are central in HRM systems, and therefore hold higher levels of power than GDI practices that are often included in peripheral areas of the HRM system. Some MNCs strategically position GDI practices as part of core HRM practices (e.g. gender-balanced recruitment and female quotas in senior management) and embed them into their strategic missions. By contrast, some MNCs position GDI practices as peripheral, such as standalone policies or initiatives (e.g. annual GDI seminars or sessions) that are merely theoretical and disconnected from key organisational strategies.

The cross-national transfer of GDI practices may fail when GDI practices contradict a subsidiary's pay and benefits practices. In fact, pay and benefits practices can derive the power of resources from the subsidiary because they are capable of contributing to the economic activities of the subsidiary, thus improving performance and generating resources (e.g. human capital resources and scarce expertise), which will then enhance the subsidiary's competitive advantage. In contrast, GDI practices might not necessarily help achieve these competitive advantages (Yanadori et al., 2021). According to Hardy's (1996) power perspective, pay and benefits practices, as dominant HRM practices, tend to wield resource power (e.g. financial resources, rewards and sanctions) to suppress subordinate practices (e.g. GDI practices with limited resource power) when encountering resistance, thereby affecting the cross-national transfer of GDI practices. Hence, we propose that the cross-national transfer of GDI practices is a power-laden process because of the power dynamics between GDI and pay and benefits practices depending on their strategic positions in the HRM system and their different levels of power resources.

Other studies have compared gender pay gaps between MNCs and non-MNCs (e.g. domestic firms; van der Straaten et al., 2020). For example, van der Straaten et al. (2020) found that in developed economies, the gender pay gap is smaller in MNCs compared with domestic companies, but there is a larger pay gap between MNCs and domestic companies in developing economies. Again, this suggests that the gender pay gap and its associated gender inequality problems are embedded in wider socio-politico-economic settings where different external stakeholders (e.g. trade unions, governmental agencies, suppliers and professional associations in the host and home countries) are engaged. Pay and benefits can be treated as scarce and key resources in MNCs. The power imbalance between male and female workers is likely to be produced and reproduced by the gender pay gap at the individual level, inequitable resource allocations at the firm level, and the power relations between headquarters and subsidiaries at the global level. Although as powerful rule-makers, headquarters may transfer GDI-related pay and benefits practices to subsidiaries, subsidiaries are not passive transmission belts for these headquarter-initiated practices (Ferner et al., 2012). Subsidiaries are likely to mobilise their power of resources to adapt or even reject unfavourable GDI-related pay and benefits practices. Subsidiaries' power of resources may stem from their firm-level competent performance, such as their strategic position in the MNCs' value chain and financial profits (Ferner et al., 2012). For example, when subsidiaries occupy a core position in the MNC's value chain, possess technical expertise and have access to important markets, they tend to gain the power to negotiate with headquarters about the cross-national transfer of GDI-related pay and benefits practices.

Furthermore, subsidiaries' power of resources may be anchored in the host country's institutional contexts (e.g. religion, racial/ethnic identity and traditional cultures that are interwoven and permeate all layers of society; Özbilgin et al., 2012; O'Sullivan, 2017). In host countries with a high level of traditional masculine values, subsidiaries might receive supportive resources from external stakeholders to reject the full transfer of gender pay equity practices, claiming that the new GDI practices are incompatible with the host institutional framework and might be culturally unacceptable. Accordingly, we propose the following proposition.

In the era of globalisation, the rapid expansion of MNCs has witnessed a substantial increase in the number of expatriates assigned to foreign subsidiaries, and it is well-documented that gender discrimination is not uncommon throughout the expatriate process (Bastida and Moscoso, 2015). Drawing on Hardy's (1996) work on the power of processes, we argue that MNC managers tend to integrate external family factors and gender norms into expatriate decision-making processes to preclude women from full participation in international assignments. In other words, expatriate decision-making processes are not only embedded in the politicized landscape within MNCs, but also inextricably intertwined with the broader political and institutional regimes beyond MNC boundaries.

Previous studies have demonstrated that many talented women are excluded from international assignments, partly due to personal and family issues or the gender norms embedded in the host country (Hutchings, 2022). For example, Bastida and Moscoso (2015) concluded that organisations may not send women abroad for temporary assignments because of the family care responsibilities that women have. These external norms and family needs are partly a reflection of the power relations between the work and family domains.

Specifically, from a power relations perspective, the relationship between family factors and expatriate management cannot be treated as a one-way pathway through which merely the work domain (expatriate management) dominates or manipulates the family domain (e.g. female expatriates' work–life balance). We conceptualise female expatriate management as a social integration system (not a within-MNC business practice) that will be initiated and affected by a two-way process. That is, family members may be the principal actors in women's career ecosystem because a significant number of women place family needs, responsibilities and interests ahead of their career fulfilment (Zhu et al., 2022). In such a situation, family members outside MNCs might be an indirect but potent driving force for the adjustment and effectiveness of expatriate management. Examples of measurable indicators to evaluate the bidirectional influence include financial or material resources (e.g. funding and equipment) and emotional or intangible support (e.g. feedback, encouragement and accompaniment) provided by family members. Specifically, the family-to-work process occurs when family actors provide material resources and emotional support for female employees to facilitate, modify or reject MNCs' expatriate decisions and mitigate the constraining influence of expatriate management. As Hutchings et al. (2008) argued, support from external social networks in the non-market environment is required to help female expatriates overcome various challenges relating to international assignments.

In contrast, there is a work-to-family process through which MNCs exert pressure on the family domain because expatriate management typically requires (female) expatriate employees to prioritise their careers over their family responsibilities (Hutchings, 2022). Where there are family interests in conflict with MNCs, expatriate management tends to have undesirable and unintended outcomes for MNCs and expatriate employees. In short, gender-specific expatriate management in the work setting has profound and clear implications for the family domain and vice versa. Thus, we propose that.

GDI (practices) should also be placed at the centre of women's career development and promotion opportunities. Although an increasing number of women are now appointed to managerial teams, particularly top managerial positions such as corporate boards, the female workforce still faces the “glass ceiling”, and even if women are promoted to top management level, they are generally placed “in non-strategic areas and their movement towards more strategic areas within the organisation is difficult” (Madaan and Pradhan, 2017, p. 133). Career barriers may be directly traced not only to discriminatory career development practices within the MNC but also to real-life institutional arrangements and domestic roles (Berrey, 2014). For example, traditional cultural discourses about females' domestic roles could impede their promotion to senior management (Cho et al., 2019). These gender discrimination discourses act as the power of meaning (Hardy, 1996) to delegitimise or discredit women's career development and promotion opportunities through the mechanisms of languages, symbols and knowledge (Ferner et al., 2012), which may ultimately influence organisational performance.

We propose that GDI power and dominance are not necessarily an exclusive possession of senior management within MNCs. Rather, appropriate normative and legitimatising discourses/knowledge could be wielded by a wide variety of actors outside MNCs in their everyday lives. That is, external stakeholders are involved in adopting symbols, rituals and languages to rationalise the cross-country transfer of gender-friendly career development/leadership policies. Moreover, dominant stakeholders from the home country and headquarters could establish a legitimate discourse that their career development/leadership policies have more efficacy, offering a key motive for cross-country transfer. In this way, the transfer processes are imbued with meaning and values as legitimate, beneficial, reasonable or failing that, unavoidable (Hardy, 1996).

For example, the local community and media in the host country may break down gender stereotypes and disseminate GDI languages in advertising media to informally motivate MNCs to overcome career barriers of female employees. Where local communities operate as supportive and powerful agents of GDI-related career development practices, vigorous media campaigns might reconcile the potential or real conflicts between global GDI ideals and local adaptations and promote the transfer of GDI practices (Ferner et al., 2012). Echoing Ferner et al. (2012), we suggest that the different power capabilities of external actors relative to the headquarters and the homogeneity of needs and interests within the subsidiaries could predict the success or failure of gender-friendly career development practices. When the GDI languages created by powerful external actors are collectively shared by a subsidiary's management and employees, the transfer of gender-friendly career development policies from the headquarter to the subsidiaries may be more effective. Thus, we propose that MNCs' gender-friendly career development practices may not reach their intended goals in the absence of external support from international agencies, national-state actors and local communities. Therefore, we propose that.

Drawing on Hardy's (1996) power perspective and Foucault's (1977) power/knowledge framework, we argue that multiple stakeholders with divergent interests, cultural values and normative beliefs tend to possess distinct forms and levels of power. Accordingly, these disparate forms of power may interact and jointly shape the transfer of gender-friendly career development policies.

For instance, numerous international agencies (e.g. the International Women's Development Agency and the International Alliance of Women) tend to wield diverse forms of resource power (e.g. funding and facilities) to support GDI at both local and global scales. Furthermore, these agencies have established institutional alliances to advance the gender development agenda and consolidate their positional power against right-wing political parties that espouse conservative ideologies and fail to fully endorse progressive gender development discourses (e.g. women's leadership empowerment; power of meaning).

Furthermore, as some international business scholars have noted, the return of state interventionism with monopoly power has a fundamental effect on the operation of MNCs (Beugelsdijk and Luo, 2024). National-state actors, as evolving political regimes, are often “institutional entrepreneurship”, rather than a research background or a constant. Specifically, the government agencies in the host country are able to enact diverse industrial policies, labour laws and compulsory rules (e.g. power of resources) to produce and promote GDI discourses and systems of knowledge (e.g. power of meaning) that require subsidiaries to increase the number of women on boards.

Our study has several managerial implications. First, MNCs are one of, if not the most important, driving forces for achieving the gender diversity and equality goals (Sharma, 2015) proposed by the United Nations. Decision-makers and managers in MNCs should be aware of the global demands for gender equality and attempt to reduce gender pay gaps. For example, MNCs may increase the number of female employees appointed to important organisational roles and include a minimum of one female employee sitting on key committees (e.g. the remuneration committee, employee benefits committee and acquisition committee). These structural changes could balance power dynamics between GDI and pay and benefits practices and promote CSR as an essential pathway towards making MNCs more diverse and inclusive (Yanadori et al., 2021).

Second, given that MNCs (e.g. headquarters, regional headquarters and subsidiaries) operate in different regional areas and are confronted with growing cultural, institutional, ideological and political clashes internationally and domestically, they must address moral tensions between global and local gender norms. Thus, MNCs should work closely with different global and local stakeholders to manage these challenges and reduce unintended outcomes of GDI practices. For example, future studies may examine how MNCs maintain good relationships with local communities and regional offices of international organisations to overcome local taboos relating to GDI and further GDI practices in subsidiaries.

Third, MNCs are subject to increasing pressure from various external stakeholders (e.g. clients, suppliers, government and unions) in the global value chain. Therefore, they should try to tackle the divergence of GDI interests or needs among different stakeholders. When managers are not capable of balancing the needs of all stakeholders at the same time, they need to ensure they can prioritise some stakeholder groups without harming others. For example, in some countries where regulators oppose GDI, subsidiary managers must not completely surrender to the regulatory pressures in the host country. Instead, they should adjust their GDI practices to demonstrate adherence to the minimum requirements made by the regulators. In doing so, managers can promote their GDI practices (at least to some extent) to protect women's rights and simultaneously meet the minimum needs of regulators.

We must acknowledge that this study has some limitations. First, although we followed a rigorous literature search process, we may have omitted some relevant articles by including only English-language academic papers. Future review studies could include publications in other languages to compare how GDI (research) varies across contexts. Second, we included only peer-reviewed articles in academic journals, excluding book chapters, conference papers and industry and market reports. Future work may include different sources of literature to offer a more comprehensive picture of GDI practices. Third, our study is a systematic literature review and conceptual paper. Accordingly, we did not employ any quantitative methods. Future studies are encouraged to conduct a meta-analysis or use quantitative methods to tease out the effectiveness of GDI practices in MNCs, including their impacts on employees, MNCs and society at large.

Based on a systematic review of 149 English articles published in peer-reviewed journals on or before December 2024, this study aims to examine the power dynamics throughout GDI processes in MNCs. First, responding to the increasing call to recognize the pivotal role of MNCs in promoting GDI (Bader et al., 2022), we delineate their unique power and capabilities and elucidate the diverse contextual challenges they face. Second, drawing on Hardy's (1996) power perspective combined with Foucault's (1977) power/knowledge framework, we establish a power-laden model that situates GDI practices within the strategic HRM system, thereby identifying the dynamic interplay (e.g. complementarity and conflicts) between GDI and HRM practices. Third, our model identifies three core dimensions of power embedded in the relations among GDI practices and multiple actors, both within and outside MNCs. Various internal and external stakeholders, possessing distinct interests and resources, interact by deploying these different dimensions of power to shape GDI practices.