Can Wearable Exoskeletons Reduce Gender and Disability Gaps in the Construction Industry?

The share of construction trade jobs held by women and people with disabilities has remained stubbornly low in the face of chronic shortages of skilled labor. This study explores the potential of wearable assistive technologies to reduce these disparities. We use U.S. worker-level data to estimate employment and wage differences by gender and by mobility/strength impairments in construction and non-construction jobs. We also use occupational-level data to examine variations in workforce composition, physical skill requirements, and earnings across detailed construction occupations. Regression estimates indicate that being a woman and having strength and mobility impairments are associated with substantial employment and pay gaps in construction compared to non-construction jobs. Further analysis shows a high negative correlation between the representation of women and the ability levels required in those occupations. Finally, we discuss several wearable exoskeletons under development for people with upper-body and lower-body impairments, focusing on how these innovations could be integrated into construction jobs. These findings suggest that wearable exoskeletons that enhance manual dexterity, balance, and strength may improve the representation of women and people with disabilities in some of the higher-paying occupations in construction.

💡 Research Summary

The paper investigates whether wearable exoskeletons can help close gender and disability gaps in the U.S. construction industry. Using two complementary data sources, the authors first analyze the 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to estimate how gender and mobility/strength impairments affect employment probability and hourly wages in construction versus non‑construction occupations. A linear probability model shows that being a woman reduces the probability of working in construction by 24.9 percentage points, far larger than the 7.9‑point gap observed in non‑construction jobs. Mobility and strength limitations (e.g., difficulty climbing stairs, lifting ten pounds, or reaching overhead) also depress both employment and earnings, with effects generally larger in construction. A Heckman selection model confirms that, after correcting for labor‑force participation bias, women and workers with impairments earn significantly less in construction than comparable peers in other sectors.

The second part merges the American Community Survey (ACS, 2018‑2022) with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ ONET database, allowing a detailed occupational analysis at the six‑digit SOC level. ONET provides 52 ability ratings for each occupation; the authors focus on nine physical dimensions (stamina, dynamic/static flexibility, gross body coordination, equilibrium, dynamic/explosive/static strength, and trunk strength). They compute average ability scores for each construction occupation and correlate these with the share of women employed. The correlation is strongly negative (≈‑0.68), indicating that occupations requiring higher physical ability have markedly lower female representation. Production‑oriented jobs such as concrete forming, rebar tying, and framing—those with the highest ability scores—show women’s share below 5 %, whereas clerical and support roles have near‑gender parity.

Having documented the structural barriers, the authors turn to wearable exoskeleton technology as a potential equalizer. They review recent engineering studies on back‑assist, knee‑assist, upper‑body, and lower‑body exoskeletons, summarizing biomechanical benefits: reductions of up to 50 % in neck muscle strain, 24 % in hip extensor activity, and 39 % in knee muscle activation; decreases in joint loading and perceived exertion during lifting, overhead work, and kneeling. By supplying torque at targeted joints, exoskeletons lower the minimum strength threshold required to perform a task within ergonomic limits. Consequently, workers who are in lower percentiles of the strength distribution—often women and individuals with mobility or strength impairments—could sustain demanding postures longer, handle moderate loads safely, and experience fewer musculoskeletal injuries.

The paper argues that widespread, affordable deployment of such devices could shrink the employment and wage gaps identified earlier. If exoskeletons are designed to accommodate diverse anthropometrics and are integrated into apprenticeship programs, they may enable women and disabled workers to enter higher‑paying, physically intensive trades that are currently inaccessible. The authors acknowledge several limitations: the SIPP sample of construction workers is modest, preventing occupation‑fixed‑effects estimation; the impairment indicators are coarse and do not map cleanly onto specific job tasks; and the analysis does not incorporate cost, acceptance, or regulatory barriers to exoskeleton adoption. Nonetheless, the study provides a compelling empirical foundation for policymakers and industry leaders to consider assistive robotics not as a replacement for labor but as a tool for inclusion. Future research should conduct large‑scale field trials to measure actual productivity gains, injury reductions, and labor market outcomes, and perform cost‑benefit analyses to guide investment decisions.