Next Article in Journal
Review of State Estimation and Remaining Useful Life Prediction Methods for Lithium–Ion Batteries
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Organizational Justice on Employee Satisfaction: Integrating the Exchange and the Value-Based Perspectives
Previous Article in Journal
Does Green Mindfulness Promote Green Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interval-Valued Hesitant Fuzzy DEMATEL-Based Blockchain Technology Adoption Barriers Evaluation Methodology in Agricultural Supply Chain Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15065013
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Do Age and Gender Change the Perception of Workplace Social Sustainability?

by
Chiuhsiang Joe Lin
1,2,* and
Remba Yanuar Efranto
1
1
Department of Industrial Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No. 43, Keelung Road, Section 4, Da’an District, Taipei 106335, Taiwan
2
Artificial Intelligence for Operations Management Research Center, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei 106335, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 5013; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065013
Submission received: 7 December 2022 / Revised: 10 February 2023 / Accepted: 10 March 2023 / Published: 11 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability Management Strategies and Practices)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Social sustainability must be included into the workplace in order to achieve corporate sustainability. Each indicator of the workplace’s social sustainability must consider employee perspectives. In this study, we estimate Indonesia’s employee preferences gap in workplace social sustainability. The dimensions referred to include views on employee well-being and concerns about safety. Workplace comfort and musculoskeletal health are considered dimensions supported by environmental concerns. This research was conducted on 643 current employees and analyzed based on a workplace social sustainability questionnaire. Through online surveys, we measured employee preferences concerning workplace social sustainability diversity and how they differ by gender, industry sector, age, education level, and types of industry. The findings of this research will encourage the company to reconsider its approach to social sustainability improvement in terms of the contributions made by its employees. The study also suggests research into whether and how differences in gender, industry sector and industry type are shaped due to workplace social sustainability. Gender concerns must be considered to achieve social sustainability in the workplace. It contributes significantly to achieving the 5th Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

1. Introduction

Employees in the workplace spend most of their day working in an office, conducting tasks including writing, reading, making phone calls, and holding online meetings with colleagues. Whether they are working at home or in an office, employees should be provided with a safe, clean, and pleasant working environment. Previous research has proven that the relationships between the circumstances on the inside of a building, human health, and well-being are complex [1].
Working conditions refer to the physical and mental aspects of an employee’s working environment and the employee’s relationship with the company’s overall culture [2]. It was crucial role in ensuring employees’ well-being and the businesses’ success. Therefore, the government relies on studies of working conditions to formulate and implement new policies and choices affecting workers. It is no secret that physical hazards in the workplace contribute to an already high rate of injuries sustained in the workplace.
Previous studies have indicated that there is a significant correlation between an encouraging work environment and the development of work environment-oriented behaviors [3]. Determining appropriate workplace strategies requires taking into consideration managerial approaches and the social behaviors of employees because each company has a different unique culture and set of values that have developed over time. Therefore, employees should play an essential role in delivering the company’s vision to reality, especially in achieving corporate sustainability [4]. Employees perform an essential role within the company which tends to promote common practices in social exchanges by trading solutions and technical assistance with one another. They will be more likely to more effectively implement environmental issues in the workplace [5,6]. As a result, the workplace has the potential to serve as a reference indicator in the process of achieving sustainable business practices. Implementing this support leads to the retention of social sustainability in the workplace [7]. For effective implementation, it is necessary to determine the company’s fundamental issues.
Regarding the Sustainable Development Goals 2020, Indonesia is 82nd worldwide [8]. Indonesia has established several regulations to enhance each index. However, the issue with this index remains and is becoming stronger. The government realizes that achieving a sustainable Indonesia requires a strategy that builds economic expansion and addresses social needs such as education, well-being, equality, and work opportunities through integrated SDGs. All participating countries have committed to accelerating the progress process for underdeveloped countries through the commitment not to leave anyone behind.
Issues related to Indonesia’s Sustainability are issues that are very close to the community, including companies. The SDGs provide new challenges for companies through a framework guide published as a company guide to support businesses in mitigating their SDGs challenges as corporate sustainability [9]. Corporate sustainability often describes how an organization approaches long-term added value in the social, environmental, and economic fields while promoting greater responsibility [10]. In other words, corporate sustainability can be interpreted as an effort to pursue sustainable corporate development in the economic, social and environmental fields [11]. These three areas as the triple bottom line, which is used as a reference and has been determined to help the company through cost reductions, better reputation and position in the market, among other aspects [12]. Employees can improve corporate sustainability through their behaviors, who have stated that this is a crucial factor. When evaluating an organization’s social sustainability, it is important to consider the impact on internal stakeholders, i.e., employees in the workplace [13].
There are few studies related to demography and workplace social sustainability. Therefore, it is important to incorporate and apply research results that focus on workers’ contributions to social sustainability. Compared to other industries, manufacturing and service have a relatively limited study on their employees. In particular, the focus is on quantitative analyses of the sustainability context carried out by implementing workplace social sustainability and employee perceptions. Through this study, companies can contribute to realizing the 3rd and 5th SDGs related to good health and well-being: gender equality. Improving health and well-being in the workplace requires getting employees more involved in making decisions and ensuring employees are dedicated to the organization’s objectives [14].
Researchers in organizational behavior have been more interested in supporting the workplace because of its numerous potential benefits on individuals’ long-term health and well-being [15]. According to [16], “human sustainability” refers to management strategies that have a long-term positive impact on workers’ physical and mental health [17]. Employees’ well-being and sustainable performance are becoming essential concerns for the sustainable development of organizations [18,19,20]. Employee well-being is one of the dimensions that support the realization of sustainability [21,22]. In addition, workplace comfort [23,24,25], concerns about safety [26], musculoskeletal health [27], as well as environmental considerations [28] also encourage workplace social sustainability. However, other things that need to be studied further have not been studied.
Researchers have been challenged with the difficulty of organizing identities’ nebulous character. Demographics may characterize the qualities of an individual that are thought or known to correlate with particular outcomes, according to the research. Frequently, these factors may change when a person gains a better awareness of themselves. In some instances, demographics are predictors of interest in and of themselves. In other cases, they serve as crucial control variables that better understand the link between other predictor factors and the dependent variable of interest. Using demographic characteristics allows the researcher to pose and explore investigational inquiries with more specificity [29].
This study aims to identify employee perceptions of workplace social sustainability. Discriminant analysis between dimensions was also performed to further emphasize the future requirements of businesses in the manufacturing and service sectors. In addition, the discussion should take into consideration previous investigations for theoretical purposes. It will strengthen the recommendations that arise from the study by addressing methodological limitations that cannot be examined using data. Each dimension used to determine the social sustainability index can be classified based on the importance of the employee. The present research aims to answer the following questions: How do employees perceive the importance level of workplace social sustainability dimensions? What are the discriminatory indicators of dimensions based on employee perception to classify employee perceived?

2. Literature Review

The study context was characterized as the relationship between corporate sustainability, workplace social sustainability, and the role of demography in sustainable development. This section provides the research’s original concepts, which encourage the researchers to investigate the alignment between corporate sustainability, workplace social sustainability, and demography.

2.1. Corporate Sustainability

Corporate sustainability means fulfilling the company’s and its stakeholders’ requirements while preserving, maintaining, and improving the natural and human resources needed for the future [30]. As a research field, corporate sustainability has attempted to solve this issue by integrating sustainable development research to the corporate level, which considered economic, environmental and social issues [31]. Generally, it is concerned with addressing the requirements of company shareholders and stakeholders from short and long-term perspectives [32] and balancing corporate performance’s economic, environmental, and social dimensions. By carrying out a corporate sustainability practice, the company should use resources effectively, make long-term investments, and pay employees properly.
The three pillars, environmental, economic, and social sustainability [33,34], must be considered to create a successful business sustainability plan. The three pillars of sustainability are typically used to operationalize corporate sustainability. Its strategy is now more widely accepted. Previous studies indicate that a management strategy incorporating three pillars of sustainability can help a company’s path toward sustainable development [31]. Nevertheless, social sustainability is more complicated than environmental and economic sustainability [13,35]. Social sustainability is a dynamic concept that integrates physical and social design and encourages infrastructure to meet social needs and concerns [36]. It means employers who prioritize social sustainability can provide a better workplace for their employees. Therefore, the accomplishment of workplace social sustainability is an important matter that needs further study.

2.2. Workplace Social Sustainability

The accomplishment of corporate sustainability depends significantly on many factors, one of which is the dimension of social sustainability in the workplace. Implementing each indicator that is part of the workplace social sustainability dimension must consider employee perception. The perception of company management and employees must be consistent. Harmony of perspectives between the two parties can help achieve employee satisfaction, which can indirectly benefit the company’s overall performance.
Factor analysis was initiated to identify the latent factors representing workplace social sustainability. Three domains of specialization in ergonomics are used as the basis for developing the framework, namely physical, cognitive, and organizational aspects [37]. The CFA results showed that 17 indicators were valid and reliable. The measurement model was validated, and the absolute fit indices had acceptable values (chi-square = 240.928, normed chi-square = 2.210, GFI = 0.901, RMSEA = 0.070, RMR = 0.045, SRMR = 0.0725, TLI = 0.905, CFI = 0.924, and PNFI = 0.698). The goodness of fit result of the confirmatory factor analysis output was acceptable, indicating that the framework could represent the population. To complement and strengthen the research, construct validity was utilized to verify that the framework was reliable. Based on the ergonomic concept, the five dimensions are supplemented by 17 indicators, as presented in Table 1.
Due to limited resources, not all dimensions of workplace social sustainability can be prioritized and fully met while simultaneously time. Consequently, companies need to consider which aspects may be improved based on employee feedback. Employee satisfaction in contributing to business sustainability can be a valuable asset to the company. According to sustainability, understanding the technological, economic, and social factors of the other’s surroundings to ensure a community’s continued viability is essential [38]. An appropriate social sustainability adoption model was established based on earlier research findings. It is a good business strategy to set up systems that make people want to work for a specific company, help them do their jobs well, and give them a chance to improve their health, reduce stress, or find a good work-life balance [39]. While economic and environmental sustainability is essential, social sustainability prioritizes the well-being of community members [40].

2.3. Demographics

Understanding the demographic characteristics of employees from various fields of work and their impact on the realization of workplace social sustainability is very important because it can encourage companies to understand which demographic characteristics are essential [41]. Demographic foresight requires a more sustainable society path, which means understanding the nature and impact of significant population changes in implementing proactive, forward-looking planning [42]. This planning is carried out to develop sustainable consumption and production patterns and minimize the environmental impact of human activities. Consequently, the capability and willingness of society to achieve sustainability will be critical to reducing the use of resources in production and consumption and to separating economic growth from environmental impact.
Therefore, demographics play a role in sustainable development. It can provide positive feedback in implementation in the field, as well as in the workplace. The company also has employees with different demographic characteristics, for example, age, gender, and educational level. In addition, the types of industries run also have other characteristics. The diversity of employee characters in the company is an interesting thing to study.
It is important to improve work-life because of most countries’ demographic crises. When working life expectancy rises, the importance of a work-life balance grows for people of all ages. Therefore, for communities, governments, businesses, and organizations focused on driving humanity and economic progress, the question of making working life feasible for individuals into old age is of primary importance. Professionals and ergonomists must have a comprehensive strategy that considers physical, psychological, social, organizational, ecological, and other related aspects to ensure a sustainable and healthy life [43]. Organizations and companies may create a sustainable way of work for their elderly workers by using measurements and strategies that increase sustainable employee behaviors [44].
The report cites aging as a key demographic factor in shaping environmental behavior. It addresses the potential interactions between demographic characteristics, including age, gender, and ethnicity, and their effects on environmental attitudes and behaviors. Age discrimination is a serious problem in today’s workplaces and a critical issue for the long-term sustainability of any business. In practice and public opinion, it is often accepted that there is a linkage between a company’s employee age and its quality of their commitment to sustainability [45]. For instance, since people in their twenties and thirties tend to be more concerned about environmental issues, several businesses have started promoting environmental action through recruitment and volunteerism. Managers and organizations might benefit from understanding these impacts and measuring them better to adapt training interventions and programs to a variety of ages. The average age of an organization’s employees might be properly considered while planning environmental activities.
When regarded from an organizational perspective, the influence of age is essentially negligible. Most age groups of individuals have identical environmental attitudes (concerns, values, commitments, and attitudes toward environmental conduct), reasons, or intents or reflect differing degrees of pro-environmental behavior. In terms of the majority of environmental variables, it also recommends that the strengths and deficiencies of older and younger people are similar. Overall, an analysis of the existing literature demonstrates that the company provides invaluable opportunities for achieving social sustainability goals. However, this phenomenon and the current wave of technical innovation do not correspond to social objectives [46].
Regarding gender, [47] investigated the gender equality initiatives that ports have taken as part of their attempts to contribute to sustainable practices. This study focused insight into how some companies have been working to minimize gender disjunction through initiatives promoting compliance, gender equity, and gender equality. Some studies have been conducted to promote gender equality for a framework of sustainable development, which gives a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of how companies may be more active in their path to be more sustainability-focused [48]. The perception study prioritized some sectors that have the most significant negative sustainability consequences, such as agriculture, mining, oil and gas extraction, and manufacturing [49]. It is critical to continue monitoring sustainability attitudes since they keep changing.
A strategy framework may derive from keeping the community which changes into action [50] at the center of sustainable practices, as it has shown tremendous and rapid outcomes worldwide [51]. Sonetti et al. [52] implied that the sustainability shift focused more on human-centric characteristics than on natural resources and energy. By focusing on the human aspect, companies need to direct an approach that leads to a community with a strong commitment by considering the consequences that must be taken [53]. The approach taken is more directed to the gender aspect because this aspect has the potential to provide dominance in several types of companies. Demographic analysis can be a consideration for companies in considering the long-term goals of the company’s sustainability. This study will help the company choose the best course of action. To create a sustainable society, it is critical that all members of society acquire cutting-edge knowledge and skills as well as adopt progressive values and perspectives [54].
Other literature studies explain that consensus among employees is needed through proposed behaviors that can improve some of the most important three pillar variables of sustainability [55]. These findings suggest a scale to evaluate sustainable employee behavior and understand how organizations may assist this behavior might be developed [12]. Moreover, we believe it is more interesting for practitioners to understand which employee behaviors influence which aspects of corporate sustainability. This understanding will allow policies to elevate employee awareness and promote these activities. It will be a future research topic to determine whether these activities improve overall corporate sustainability or only their related variable. Furthermore, research should consider the best approach for companies to enhance sustainable employee behaviors.
Education could be an appropriate approach to achieve sustainable objectives. Therefore, education, economic growth, and renewable technology have important effects on the sustainability policies [56]. Educational background challenges companies that have employees with diverse academic backgrounds. This is one of the most effective and tested approach for sustainable development [57]. In this context, education aims to provide equitable and inclusive quality education as well as opportunities for continuous learning for all, as stated in 4th Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations.
Education was chosen to implement sustainable development because it is powerful and effective for communicating, providing details, increasing awareness, learning, mobilizing the community, and moving society toward a more sustainable future. Based on the demographic aspect, differences in employee perceptions based on the educational level are interesting things to study. This study will make it easier for companies to design campaign programs to realize workplace social sustainability if employees with different levels of education have the same perception.
As part of realizing corporate sustainability, types of industry play an important role according to their characteristics. There are two types of industry, namely manufacturing and services [58]. Both have slightly different operational activities, starting from the use of raw materials to the products they produce. In addition, based on the sector, the industry can also be categorized into several sectors: primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary and quinary [59]. These two demographic aspects certainly cannot be generalized. The preferences for fulfilling indicators of workplace social sustainability differ from an employee’s perspective. It allows for more in-depth analysis so that it will be easier for companies to prioritize which demographic aspects must be considered to support social sustainability in the workplace. Therefore, five demographic aspects can be considered for further analysis. The five demographic aspects include age, gender, educational level, types of industry, and industry sector. Five groups can be considered in this study. The hypotheses tested were:
H0:
The groups are not different from each other.
H1:
There are different groups.

3. Methods

The participants in this study were enrolled Indonesian employees. Purposive sampling was explicitly utilized for manufacturing and service industry employees in Indonesia. It is a suitable sampling approach for specific conditions. For measuring a population that is challenging to access, purposive sampling is the most commonly used method. A questionnaire was developed, and employees with at least one year of experience were allowed to participate via online questionnaires. The participant ranked the importance of each indicator on a five-point Likert scale. This study used a cross-sectional survey approach to obtain data from possible respondents via questionnaires administered simultaneously to one participant type [60]. The discriminate analysis determined the discriminant function among analytical approaches.
All the online surveys we released had informed consent clauses that notified participants that their replies were anonymous and that they may check out at any time. The employee accepted to participate in the study after being assured that the results would be aggregated and kept anonymous. Each participant was provided with a unique link that may be shared with colleagues who consented to do the survey. The online questionnaire contained a subject’s personal statement and a phone number where participants may contact researchers with follow-up inquiries. This study’s participants were not paid for their time. We assume characteristics of the Indonesian working population based on our findings because our sampling method is non-probability sampling. The online survey links made it impossible to determine a sample size before data collection.
A total of 897 participants were included in the survey, whereas a loss rate of 28.3% was predicted. The final survey was carried out, and 643 Indonesian employee participants responded. The main objective of the discriminant analysis was to evaluate the connection between a single non-metric (categorical) dependent variable and a group of independent metric variables in this general form:
Z j k = a + W 1 X 1 k + W 2 X 2 k + … + W n X n k
where
Z j k = discriminant Z score of discriminant function j for object k ;
a = intercept;
W i = discriminant coefficient for independent variable i ;
X i k = independent variable i for object k .
Discriminant analysis is often used when the main objective is to determine the group to which an element, for example, person, movie, or product belongs. In each case, the object’s group membership is determined by independent factors chosen by the researcher.

4. Results and Discussion

This section begins by gathering data to support the relevant social sustainability indicators in the workplace associated with ergonomics from the previous research. All analyses were performed with statistics software. Furthermore, mean item scores and standard deviations were computed for each scale to describe workplace social sustainability. Finally, a multivariate technique was employed to explore demography differences. The design of this study was ideally suited to the type of analysis.
According to the questionnaire distribution, 58% of the participants were male; 61% were between the ages of 25 and 34, 16% were between the ages of 18 and 24, and 17% were between the ages of 35 and 44. After that, 6% said they were between the ages of 45 and 54, and 1% said they were 65 or older (55 years and over). A total of 76% had completed college or above, and 18% had completed graduate school. Regarding the industrial sector, 44% of participants were employed in the quinary, 32% in the secondary, and 12% in the quaternary sectors. The participant profiles are presented in Table 2. The independent or discriminant variables determined various aspects of the demography that were expected to differ, including gender, industry sector, age, education level, and types of industry. A major proportion of the companies were from the manufacturing and service sectors. Table 3 displays the participants’ descriptive data. The output shows the distribution of observations within gender, industry sector, age, education level, and industry type.
Table 4 shows the test of equality of group means. The test compares five group dimensions of each demography. Each demography has a different result of significant group differences. For example, we did see group differences in workplace comfort based on gender. In addition to using the considerations of tests of equality of group means, Box’s M Test is also used as one of the considerations in discriminant analysis. On the gender aspect, the p-value did not meet the statistical procedure assumption, therefore, we would not maintain the null hypothesis that there is no equality of variance-covariance matrices; our assumption was not matched. Meanwhile, Box’s M test results for the industry sector aspect based on p-value were not significant. It is a good thing because it meets the assumption of the statistical procedure. Consequently, we would maintain the null hypothesis that there is equality of variance-covariance matrices, and then our assumption is a match. Table 5 shows the Box’s M test results for all demography aspects.
Regarding the discriminant function’s strength (Table 6), this analysis could be represented by several significant statistics. Based on gender, the eigenvalue (0.042) measures the total variance in the discriminant variables S. Furthermore, the canonical correlation (0.201) is equivalent to Pearson’s correlation r, in that the value represents how closely the discriminant function and the dependent variable are related to one another. According to the test function, there was a significant relationship between our discrimination functions and the grouping variable.
According to the equality test of group means, not all demographic variables were significantly different. When industry sector and types of industry were considered, there were differences in the importance of the dimensions of safety concerns, musculoskeletal health, and environmental concerns. Meanwhile, gender significantly differed in terms of workplace comfort and environmental concerns. Because this function was significant, we would want to name that particular function for gender, industry sector, and types of industry. Due to several considerations, age and education level were not considered in determining the discriminant function. The age aspect dominates, where the correlation value ranged from 0.248 to 0.729. We could not create a name to capture the information associated with the predictor variables. Table 7 shows the correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant functions.
Based on the discriminant analysis, there is a similarity in point of view based on demographic aspects. There are differences in the level of importance based on gender aspects related to workplace comfort. Naming is done based on the dimensions with the most significant correlation. The gender aspect correlates with 0.727 on the dimensions of workplace comfort. Thus, the name of the function is workplace comfort-mindedness. Likewise, for the dimensions of the industry sector and industry type, the two dimensions have the most significant similarity in correlation values, respectively, 0.736 and 0.885, so both dimensions are named safety concerns mindedness functions.
The discriminant analysis results show that gender, industry sector, and type of industry have different preferences based on the survey results in this study. These differences can be analyzed based on the data functions at the group centroid, which are presented in Table 8. The multivariate test results show that from the aspect of gender, the importance of workplace comfort for females is higher than for males. The primary industry and the manufacturing industry are more concerned with safety concerns.
The post-discriminant analysis classification showed that employees were accurately classified by 57.4% for gender and 61.0% for the type of industry (see Table 9). When gender and industry sectors were considered, there were differences in the importance of safety concerns and workplace comfort dimensions. Meanwhile, the industry type was significant in terms of safety concerns.
This study identifies the perceptions of Indonesian employees on the dimensions of workplace social sustainability based on demographic aspects. Based on the study’s results, three of the five demographic aspects had a significant effect. The results show that gender, types of industry, and industry sectors affect the level of employee perceptions of the dimensions of workplace sustainability.
Gender issues are essential in sustainability, interpreted as a role formed by society and behavior embedded through the socialization process. Gender is emerging as the primary social construct that mediates interpersonal relationships [61]. Based on the 5th SDGs, gender equality is the most important aspect of developing a strategy to benefit society [8]. The study’s findings indicate that gender equality is important in workplace social sustainability planning. Differences in preferences are significant in several aspects of social sustainability, particularly workplace comfort and environmental concerns. Other aspects of gender equality that must be considered in sustainable development include employment, health, education, and rights [62]. It is a positive contribution to increasing economic complexity. Based on gender aspect, employee expectations influenced comfort and adaptive behavior positively. Understanding workplace expectations requires cognitive mechanisms, including self-efficacy, attitudes, personal norms, perceived control, and thermal history [63]. The findings could affect how workplaces are designed as they provide options for adaptation to improve social sustainability. By focusing on workplace comfort and environmental concerns, we can help the employees by improving gender equality.
Regarding the analysis in the field of social sustainability, this study enriches the empirical research of the manufacturing and service industries. The study found that various types of industries have different priorities when it comes to sustainable development, particularly regarding workplace social sustainability. The three dimensions of safety concerns, musculoskeletal health, and environmental concerns differ significantly when taken into consideration according to employee preferences. Some researchers examine corporate sustainability management at three levels: normative, strategic, and operational [64]. A successful operational management system enables a company to maintain its dimension according to the types of industry, manufacturing, or services industry. In contrast to companies in manufacturing or production, the service sector is still developing sustainability as an implementation strategy [65], particularly in countries like Indonesia.
Depending on the industry sector, employees also have different preferences regarding safety concerns, musculoskeletal health, and environmental considerations. Safety concerns are an absolute consideration for application in various industry sectors [66]. Safety performance affects employee well-being by ensuring that regulations are followed and improved long-term performance results directly [67]. Meanwhile, when viewed from the types of industry and industry sectors, there are different perceptions regarding the fulfillment of safety aspects in manufacturing or service companies or from the primary to quinary sectors. However, safety concerns remain the top priority for employees. It can be shown by the results of the discriminant equation produced in Table 7, where the dimensions of safety concerns have the most significant correlation when viewed from the types of industry and industry sectors.
According to the industry sector, the investigation of personal characteristics indicated statistically significant correlations between this kind of situation and the occupation of the employees [68]. This finding reinforces previous research where the dimensions of safety concerns are the main considerations that companies must consider. Social sustainability can be achieved by focusing on safety issues in the workplace. However, this aspect’s classification results cannot be considered because the percentage needs to be higher. All employees have the same perception of the demographic aspects of age and education level. Preferences for the five dimensions of social sustainability in the workplace are easier to identify without age, education level, and industry sector consideration.
The employee preferences based on demographics regarding age and educational background have similar results. The point of view on workplace social sustainability is the same. On the other hand, organizations frequently hold stereotypes about age differences in environmental sustainability [69]. It is consistent when compared with previous research. When regarded from an organizational perspective, the influence of age is negligible. The company’s support for realizing corporate sustainability is needed by maintaining good relations between employees and the company by meeting employee expectations. Thus, the company’s social responsibility does not only focus on shareholders but also on all stakeholders, including employees [70]. Social sustainability is more difficult to achieve than environmental and economic sustainability [13,35,71]. Therefore, social sustainability is a unique concept.
This study aimed to understand the social dimension of sustainability by exploring how employees perceive the social dimension of sustainability according to their preferences. In general, gender and types of industry must be considered further, especially when the company deploys its strategic objectives of the company. Even though age and educational level have similar perceptions, these two demographic aspects must still be a concern to meet employee expectations. Identifying the preferences across all genders and types of industries may be relevant in further research. Demographic personal characteristics will influence an organization’s potential to achieve workplace social sustainability. It would be worthwhile to characterize the geographical diversity of the employees surveyed to a greater extent (region, size of the city, etc.) because these factors may affect employee perceptions of the issues surveyed. Future research will take the mentioned limitations into consideration. Finally, the results from our study in Indonesia may differ from those from other countries worldwide.

5. Conclusions

This research provides unique insight on the improvement of workplace social sustainability based on the employee’s preference through discriminant analysis. The research findings supported the hypothesis that employee perceptions based on gender and types of industry sectors were significantly related to social sustainability. Regarding gender, the importance of workplace comfort for females is higher than for males. It is interesting from a social sustainability point of view. Employee comfort and adaptability were positively affected by gender-based expectations. By emphasizing this aspect, companies can contribute to the achievement of the 5th Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It was necessary to use cognitive mechanisms, including self-efficacy, attitudes, personal norms, perceived control, and thermal history to appropriately represent workplace expectations. Based on the types of industry aspect, the manufacturing industry also needs to pay more attention to safety concerns in the workplace. The three insignificant demographic aspects will be easier to manage, including age, education level, and industry sector. Employee perceptions of the three demographic aspects are relatively the same, so companies do not need to give different treatment in realizing workplace social sustainability. More research is needed to understand the conditions under which each method will most effectively support workplace social sustainability. The employees’ geographical diversity can be a consideration in future research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.J.L.; methodology, C.J.L. and R.Y.E.; software, R.Y.E.; validation, R.Y.E.; formal analysis, C.J.L. and R.Y.E.; investigation, C.J.L. and R.Y.E.; resources, C.J.L. and R.Y.E.; data curation, R.Y.E.; writing—original draft preparation, R.Y.E.; writing—review and editing, C.J.L.; visualization, R.Y.E.; supervision, C.J.L.; funding acquisition, C.J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the reason that the proposed research involves no more than minimal risk to participants, and the result does not explain individual identifying information of participants.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ortiz, M.A.; Bluyssen, P.M. Profiling Office Workers Based on Their Self-Reported Preferences of Indoor Environmental Quality and Psychosocial Comfort at Their Workplace during COVID-19. Build. Environ. 2022, 211, 108742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Yassin, A.; Ali, S.; Ali, A.A.; Adan, A.A. Working Conditions and Employees’ Productivity in Manufacturing Companies in Sub-Saharan African Context: Case of Somalia. Educ. Res. Int. 2013, 2, 2307–3713. [Google Scholar]
  3. Peyton, T.; Zigarmi, D. Employee Perceptions of Their Work Environment, Work Passion, and Work Intentions: A Replication Study Using Three Samples. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Süßbauer, E.; Schäfer, M. Corporate Strategies for Greening the Workplace: Findings from Sustainability-Oriented Companies in Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 564–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Paillé, P.; Amara, N.; Halilem, N. Greening the Workplace through Social Sustainability among Co-Workers. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 89, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. O’Rourke, G.A. Workplace Strategy: A New Workplace Model. Asia Pacific J. Hum. Resour. 2021, 59, 554–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hutchins, M.J.; Sutherland, J.W. An Exploration of Measures of Social Sustainability and Their Application to Supply Chain Decisions. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1688–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sachs, J.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Woelm, F. Sustainable Development Report 2022; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; ISBN 9781009210089. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kücükgül, E.; Cerin, P.; Liu, Y. Enhancing the Value of Corporate Sustainability: An Approach for Aligning Multiple SDGs Guides on Reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 333, 130005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ashrafi, M.; Acciaro, M.; Walker, T.R.; Magnan, G.M.; Adams, M. Corporate Sustainability in Canadian and US Maritime Ports. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 386–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Feil, A.A.; Schreiber, D.; Haetinger, C.; Strasburg, V.J.; Barkert, C.L. Sustainability Indicators for Industrial Organizations: Systematic Review of Literature. Sustainability 2019, 11, 854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Ruiz-Pérez, F.; Lleo, A.; Ormazabal, M. Employee Sustainable Behaviors and Their Relationship with Corporate Sustainability: A Delphi Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 329, 129742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Staniškienė, E.; Stankevičiūtė, Ž. Social Sustainability Measurement Framework: The Case of Employee Perspective in a CSR-Committed Organisation. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 708–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cinar, A.B.; Bilodeau, S. Sustainable Workplace Mental Well Being for Sustainable SMEs: How? Sustainability 2022, 14, 5290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Riaz, S.; Xu, Y.; Hussain, S. Role of Relational Ties in the Relationship between Thriving at Work and Innovative Work Behavior: An Empirical Study. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020, 10, 218–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Pfeffer, J. Building Sustainable Organizations: The Human Factor. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2010, 24, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abid, G.; Ahmed, S.; Elahi, N.S.; Ilyas, S. Antecedents and Mechanism of Employee Well-Being for Social Sustainability: A Sequential Mediation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 24, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. DiFabio, A. Positive Healthy Organizations: Promoting Well-Being, Meaningfulness, and Sustainability in Organizations. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Salmanzadeh-Meydani, N.; Ghomi, S.M.T.F.; Haghighi, S.S.; Govindan, K. A Multivariate Quantitative Approach for Sustainability Performance Assessment: An Upstream Oil and Gas Company; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2022; ISBN 0123456789. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kramar, R. Workplace Performance: A Sustainable Approach. Asia Pacific J. Hum. Resour. 2021, 59, 567–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cohen, E.; Taylor, S.; Muller-Camen, M. SHRM Foundation’s Effective Practice Guidelines Series HRM’s Role in Corporate Social and Environmental Sustainability. SHRM Rep. 2012, 1, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  22. Stankevičiute, Ž.; Savanevičiene, A. Raising the Curtain in People Management by Exploring How Sustainable HRM Translates to Practice: The Case of Lithuanian Organizations. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Alessandro, N.; Sandro, M. Postural Comfort inside a Car: Development of an Innovative Model to Evaluate the Discomfort Level. SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars Mech. Syst. 2009, 2, 1065–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fasulo, L.; Naddeo, A.; Cappetti, N. A Study of Classroom Seat (Dis)Comfort: Relationships between Body Movements, Center of Pressure on the Seat, and Lower Limbs’ Sensations. Appl. Ergon. 2019, 74, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hamberg-van Reenen, H.H.; van derBeek, A.J.; Blatter, B.; van derGrinten, M.P.; van Mechelen, W.; Bongers, P.M. Does Musculoskeletal Discomfort at Work Predict Future Musculoskeletal Pain? Ergonomics 2008, 51, 637–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Moatari Kazerouni, A.; Agard, B.; Chinniah, Y. A Guideline for Occupational Health and Safety Considerations in Facilities Planning. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logistics and Supply Chain, Changsha, China, 18–22 July 2012; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karwowski, W. International Encyclopedia Ergonomics and Human Factors, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; ISBN 9780415304306. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sander, E.J.; Caza, A.; Jordan, P.J. Psychological Perceptions Matter: Developing the Reactions to the Physical Work Environment Scale. Build. Environ. 2019, 148, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. McLaughlin, J.E.; McLaughlin, G.W.; McLaughlin, J.S.; White, C.Y. Using Simpson’s Diversity Index to Examine Multidimensional Models of Diversity in Health Professions Education. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2016, 7, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. IISD. Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://www.iisd.org/publications/business-strategy-sustainable-development (accessed on 6 December 2022).
  31. Chang, R.D.; Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Zillante, G.; Gan, X.L.; Soebarto, V. Evolving Theories of Sustainability and Firms: History, Future Directions and Implications for Renewable Energy Research. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lozano, R.; Carpenter, A.; Huisingh, D. A Review of “theories of the Firm” and Their Contributions to Corporate Sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 430–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cohen, M. A Systematic Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Literature. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Glennie, C. Growing Together: Community Coalescence and the Social Dimensions of Urban Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ajmal, M.M.; Khan, M.; Hussain, M.; Helo, P. Conceptualizing and Incorporating Social Sustainability in the Business World. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2018, 25, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sugandha; Freestone, R.; Favaro, P. The Social Sustainability of Smart Cities: A Conceptual Framework. City Cult. Soc. 2022, 29, 100460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gumasing, M.J.J.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Ong, A.K.S.; Nadlifatin, R.; Persada, S.F. Determining Factors Affecting the Perceived Preparedness of Super Typhoon: Three Broad Domains of Ergonomics Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hashemi, S. Sanitation Sustainability Index: A Pilot Approach to Develop a Community-Based Indicator for Evaluating Sustainability of Sanitation Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Davidescu, A.A.M.; Apostu, S.A.; Paul, A.; Casuneanu, I. Work Flexibility, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance among Romanian Employees-Implications for Sustainable Human Resource Management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lee, K.; Jung, H. Dynamic Semantic Network Analysis for Identifying the Concept and Scope of Social Sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1510–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mansi, M.; Pandey, R. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management Impact of Demographic Characteristics of Procurement Professionals on Sustainable Procurement Practices: Evidence from Australia. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2016, 22, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. United Nations. Why Population Growth Matters for Sustainable Development; United Nations: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2022; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nilsson, K. A Sustainable Working Life for All Ages—The SwAge-Model. Appl. Ergon. 2020, 86, 103082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Blomé, M.W.; Borell, J.; Håkansson, C.; Nilsson, K. Attitudes toward Elderly Workers and Perceptions of Integrated Age Management Practices. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2020, 26, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wiernik, B.M.; Ones, D.S.; Dilchert, S. Age and Environmental Sustainability: A Meta-Analysis. J. Manag. Psychol. 2013, 28, 826–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Grybauskas, A.; Stefanini, A.; Ghobakhloo, M. Social Sustainability in the Age of Digitalization: A Systematic Literature Review on the Social Implications of Industry 4.0. Technol. Soc. 2022, 70, 101997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Barreiro-Gen, M.; Lozano, R.; Temel, M.; Carpenter, A. Gender Equality for Sustainability in Ports: Developing a Framework. Mar. Policy 2021, 131, 104593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sahoo, A.K.; Behera, H.C.; Behura, A.K. Philosophy of Sustainable Development: Understanding Public Health. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 12248–12262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Greenland, S.; Saleem, M.; Misra, R.; Mason, J. Sustainable Management Education and an Empirical Five-Pillar Model of Sustainability. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2022, 20, 100658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chang, L.C.; Lin, W.C. Improving Computational Thinking and Teamwork by Applying Balanced Scorecard for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sanchez-Carrillo, J.C.; Cadarso, M.A.; Tobarra, M.A. Embracing Higher Education Leadership in Sustainability: A Systematic Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sonetti, G.; Brown, M.; Naboni, E. About the Triggering of UN Sustainable Development Goals and Regenerative Sustainability in Higher Education. Sustainability 2019, 11, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Rahman, H.U.; Zahid, M.; Muhammad, A. Connecting Integrated Management System with Corporate Sustainability and Firm Performance: From the Malaysian Real Estate and Construction Industry Perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 2387–2411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Aleixo, A.M.; Leal, S.; Azeiteiro, U.M. Higher Education Students’ Perceptions of Sustainable Development in Portugal. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 327, 129429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kramar, R. Sustainable Human Resource Management: Six Defining Characteristics. Asia Pacific J. Hum. Resour. 2022, 60, 146–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mehmood, U. Contribution of Renewable Energy towards Environmental Quality: The Role of Education to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals in G11 Countries. Renew. Energy 2021, 178, 600–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wamsler, C. Education for Sustainability Fostering a More Conscious Society and Transformation towards Sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 112–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Grant, D.; Yeo, B. International Journal of Information Management A Global Perspective on Tech Investment, Fi Nancing, and ICT on Manufacturing and Service Industry Performance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 43, 130–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Marques, T.J. Assessment and Modelling of Quaternary and Quinary HPGR Performance for Iron Ore Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2014; ISBN 9781292021904. [Google Scholar]
  61. Meinzen-Dick, R.; Kovarik, C.; Quisumbing, A.R. Gender and Sustainability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014, 39, 29–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nguyen, C.P. Gender Equality and Economic Complexity. Econ. Syst. 2021, 45, 100921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rissetto, R.; Rambow, R.; Schweiker, M. Assessing Comfort in the Workplace: A Unified Theory of Behavioral and Thermal Expectations. Build. Environ. 2022, 216, 109015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhang, N.; Mei, L. Sustainable Development in the Service Industry: Managerial Learning and Management Improvement of Chinese Retailers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Rajani, R.L.; Heggde, G.S.; Kumar, R.; Chauhan, P. Demand Management Strategies Role in Sustainability of Service Industry and Impacts Performance of Company: Using SEM Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 369, 133311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chen, C.; Reniers, G. Chemical Industry in China: The Current Status, Safety Problems, and Pathways for Future Sustainable Development. Saf. Sci. 2020, 128, 104741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hadi, D.; Tjahjono, B.; Mcilhatton, D.; Yuri, T.; Zagloel, M. The Impacts of Safety on Sustainable Production Performance in the Chemical Industry: A Systematic Review of Literature and Conceptual Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 366, 132876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Castillo-rosa, J.; Suárez-cebador, M.; Rubio-romero, J.C.; Aguado, J.A. Personal Factors and Consequences of Electrical Occupational Accidents in the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sectors. Saf. Sci. 2017, 91, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wiernik, B.M.; Dilchert, S.; Ones, D.S. Age and Employee Green Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Rezapouraghdam, H.; Alipour, H.; Arasli, H. Workplace Spirituality and Organization Sustainability: A Theoretical Perspective on Hospitality Employees’ Sustainable Behavior. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 21, 1583–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. D’Eusanio, M.; Zamagni, A.; Petti, L. Social Sustainability and Supply Chain Management: Methods and Tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Workplace social sustainability.
Table 1. Workplace social sustainability.
Employee Well-being
Rights and Benefits
Career Development
Code of Conduct
Employee Satisfaction Data
Safety Concerns
Personal Protective Clothing
Lifting, Power Tools
Hot/Cold Surfaces
Foot Controls/Hand Tools
Workplace Comfort
Chair Backrest
Adjusted seat height
Visual and any ergonomics requirement
Manual Handling
Work involved lifting, twisting, bending
Large forces
Manual handling occurs
Environmental Concern
Hazards
Accident data per year
Temperature, noise, lighting, vibrations
Table
Table 2. Participant profiles.
Table 2. Participant profiles.
NumberPercentage
Gender
Male37558%
Female26842%
Industry Sector
Tertiary305%
Secondary20532%
Quaternary7912%
Quinary28344%
Primary467%
Age
18–2410316%
25–3438761%
35–4410817%
45–54366%
55–6491%
Education Level
Senior High School41%
Diploma245%
Undergraduate49276%
Master11217%
Doctoral111%
Types of Industry
Manufacturing27242%
Service37158%
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics.
DimensionsDemography
GenderIndustry SectorAgeEducation LevelIndustry Type
MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
Employee Wellbeing4.50860.580984.50860.580984.50860.580984.50860.580984.50860.58098
Safety Concerns3.85850.901823.85850.901823.85850.901823.85850.901823.85850.90182
Workplace Comfort4.13370.730404.13370.730404.13370.730404.13370.730404.13370.73040
Musculoskeletal Health3.49460.792033.49460.792033.49490.792033.49460.792033.49460.79203
Environmental Concerns3.89890.882883.89890.882883.89890.882883.89890.882883.89890.88288
Table
Table 4. Test of quality of group means.
Table 4. Test of quality of group means.
GenderIndustry SectorAgeEducation LevelTypes of Industry
Employee Wellbeing0.1070.7410.0570.6890.109
Safety Concerns0.3260.0000.1190.6360.000
Workplace Comfort0.0000.1470.1820.2790.693
Musculoskeletal Health0.1740.0000.4280.2310.000
Environmental Concerns0.0140.0050.0690.1690.000
Table
Table 5. Box’s M test results.
Table 5. Box’s M test results.
GenderIndustry SectorAgeEducation LevelTypes of Industry
Box’s M35.16873.181131.79581.50727.083
FApprox.2.3241.1771.9981.6291.790
df11560604515
df21.3 × 1065.95 × 1044.6 × 1034.5 × 1031.36 × 106
Sig.0.0030.1640.0000.0050.030
Table
Table 6. Discriminant function of group separation.
Table 6. Discriminant function of group separation.
EigenvalueCanonical CorrelationSig.Number of Function
Gender0.0420.2010.0001
Industry Sector0.0810.2740.0004
Age0.0250.1570.3064
Education Level0.0290.1670.0394
Types of Industry0.1130.3180.0001
Table
Table 7. Construct correlation.
Table 7. Construct correlation.
GenderIndustry SectorAgeEducation LevelTypes of Industry
Employee Wellbeing0.311−0.1690.729−0.0410.189
Safety Concerns−0.1890.7360.6370.5230.885
Workplace Comfort0.727−0.3170.5670.2620.047
Musculoskeletal Health0.2620.6190.248−0.4740.573
Environmental Concerns0.4740.4610.6930.0370.751
Table
Table 8. Function at group centroids.
Table 8. Function at group centroids.
Industry SectorFunction
1234
Primary0.474−0.1420.058−0.219
Secondary0.347−0.016−0.0030.044
Quaternary−0.348−0.1970.1160.029
Quinary−0.272−0.287−0.176−0.014
Tertiary−0.1600.129−0.008−0.014
GenderFunction
1
Male−0.173
Female0.242
Type of IndustryFunction
1
Manufacture0.391
Service−0.287
Table
Table 9. Result of classification.
Table 9. Result of classification.
Percentage Classification
Gender57.4%
Industry Sector27.2%
Age27.1%
Education Level24.6%
Types Industry61.0%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lin, C.J.; Efranto, R.Y. Do Age and Gender Change the Perception of Workplace Social Sustainability? Sustainability 2023, 15, 5013. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065013

AMA Style

Lin CJ, Efranto RY. Do Age and Gender Change the Perception of Workplace Social Sustainability? Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):5013. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065013

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lin, Chiuhsiang Joe, and Remba Yanuar Efranto. 2023. "Do Age and Gender Change the Perception of Workplace Social Sustainability?" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 5013. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065013

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop