4.7 Article

'Walking the talk': Exploring heterogeneity in gender diversity performance in mining

期刊

RESOURCES POLICY
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102771

关键词

Gender diversity; Diversity initiatives; Institutional theory; Resource-based view; Diversity management; Mining industry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gender diversity has become an important criterion for investors, but the mining sector has struggled with this due to its traditional emphasis on masculine identity. A qualitative study of 24 major mining companies in eight regions reveals that stronger gender diversity performance is linked to a higher degree of coherence between diversity aspirations and initiatives. Lack of coherence reflects a superficial approach to diversity management that hinders progress.
Although gender diversity has been an increasingly important criterion for investors screening for environmental, social and governance metrics, it has long been a challenge for the mining sector, given its strong legacy and reverence for masculine identity. Mining has consistently continued to significantly lag other industries and cutting across all levels of employment. Moreover, there is reported evidence of notable variations amongst different regions in the matter of gender diversity adoption. We investigate these issues through a qualitative empirical study of self-reported narratives of the 24 largest mining companies spread across eight regions. We find that stronger gender diversity performance is invariably evidenced in a higher degree of coherence between articulated diversity aspirations and specific diversity initiatives. While this interlinkage is more likely symptomatic than causal, we argue that a commitment to stated position drives strategic action and in turn stronger performance. On the contrary, lack of coherence between aspirations and action is likely reflective of a superficial approach to diversity management that in turn tends to derail the diversity agenda.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据