Quantitative analysis uncovers gender barriers in Malaysia's transport sector, suggesting policy improvements for equity.
Purpose This study examines gender inequality within Malaysia's transport and logistics (T&L) sector, applying the theoretical lenses of Equity Theory and Labor Market Discrimination Theory to identify significant contributing factors and their implications for industry dynamics. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative research design was employed, involving a survey of 355 employees in the T&L sector. This study employed the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze the data, and to further investigate relationships between gender, job satisfaction (JS), welfare benefit, wage equity, managerial support and job performance (JP) within the sector. Findings Results revealed significant structural barriers that perpetuate gender inequality, impacting both individual and organizational outcomes. Specifically, JP partially mediates the relationship between employee benefits and JS. The findings also show that gender moderates and supports the relationship between welfare benefits and managerial support with JS, but it does not support the relationship between wage equity and JS. Research limitations/implications The findings contribute to the existing theory and practical guidance for policymakers and industry leaders working to build a more inclusive workplace. The research identifies key factors associated with gender inequality, providing an evidence-based foundation for targeted interventions. Stakeholders can use these findings to develop policies that promote inclusive labor market practices and more equitable working environments. Originality/value This study is original in its focus on gender inequality within Malaysia's T&L sector, which has received limited attention in previous research. Applying the Equity Theory and Labor Market Discrimination Theory provides a unique framework for understanding gender dynamics in this industry and offers novel insights into how to address gender inequalities effectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kafi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: