*3.2. Theme 2: Stigma or Attitudinal Barriers*

The literature in this theme includes research that explores or reports on stigma or attitudinal barriers to the employment of people with disability in the context of the hiring process and includes studies that explain the reasons behind the underemployment of people with disability. These barriers include the perceptions, assumptions, attitudes or beliefs that people with disability cannot work long hours, increase the cost of supervision and have health needs that will impact on productivity and absenteeism. Loosemore et al. [8,42] conducted research with Australian construction subcontractors, and reported that the main barriers to building a diverse and inclusive workforce include the perception of employers that marginalized groups (including people with disability) are a risk, not able to fit-in and not able to work effectively in the construction industry. People with disability suffered the third highest barriers of the six groups compared (women, refugees and migrants, Indigenous people, ex-offenders and disengaged youth) and a unique set of barriers which were different to the other groups, suggesting targeted employment strategies were necessary. This study also supported previous research which shows that many perceived barriers (such as higher costs) to employment are unfounded. For example, one study in Brazil compared the levels of absenteeism of people with disability to those without disability on construction worksites and concluded that the assumption or belief that people with disability have higher rates of absenteeism was not established [54]. Ref. [55]'s research into employment in the construction sector discussed the prejudice and discrimination experienced by people with disability in the UK. Clarke et al.'s [25] study explored the enablers and barriers to disability employment in the UK and Dutch construction sectors. The UK applies a capabilities approach that focuses on the individual's capability and

the Dutch approach applies a social model of disability that views disability as socially constructed and, hence, focuses on the abilities of applicants.

Gewurtz et al.'s [29] review identified literature with a different focus, including strategies to reduce stigma like education and sharing success stories. Those authors cited research that found employers who had successfully employed a person with disability had a greater likelihood of employing other people with disability [56]. This finding is consistent with one construction study in the UK which concluded that UK contractors (among the top 100) were likely to continue to employ people who had acquired disability when employed [25], although this reflects the emphasize in construction research on people acquiring a disability by being injured in work. See for example, Clarke et al. [2] who reported regulatory initiatives in Britain and Holland for re-integrating injured employees into the construction workforce because of the high rate of injury and disability among that workforce.

#### *3.3. Theme 3: Disclosure*

The literature in this theme explores the person's experience or practice regarding the timing of disclosing disability when writing to apply for a job, during the interview or after employment. In contrast to Gewurtz et al.'s [29] review there were no construction studies regarding employee disclosure experiences or practices in the recruitment context. However, three studies discussed access to disclosed information [9,13,43] and three studies focused on the employment by construction companies of people with disability to meet employment quota obligations [52–54]. Briscoe [43] used UK Labour Force Survey data collected from people with and without disability to analyze the job/workforce share of people with disability (and other minority groups) working in the UK construction sector. There were insufficient statistics to provide an accurate understanding of the number of people with disability who work in construction because od low levels of disclosure and no information on workers who chose not to disclose their disability.

In contrast, the broader field of mainstream disability employment research provides insights into disclosure strategies of potential employees and the attitudes of employers in response [1,30]. Some of those studies reported potential employees resisting disclosure, the employee's choice or decision not to disclose invisible disability [57,58], the employer's response to disclosure in a cover letter [59,60] and the employer's negative response to late disclosure including disclosure at the end of the interview [58,61,62]. This is a gap for future construction disability employment research to address.

#### *3.4. Theme 4: Reasonable Accommodations*

The literature in this theme analyses the legal requirement and practices to offer and implement reasonable accommodations in the workplace, including during the hiring process [48]. Reasonable accommodations are referred to as reasonable adjustments under the law in some countries (like Australia) and some governments provide financial assistance for employers to make reasonable accommodations or adjustments to equipment or the work environment. Our scoping review highlighted a significant proportion of studies in this area. For example, a recent study by McCall and Simmons [17] explored the opportunities brought by new technologies to support more inclusive and productive workplaces in construction. A group of Brazilian studies investigated adaption and accommodation types for people with different disabilities to support them performing a range of construction labour roles on site [52–54]. Clarke and Gribling's [12] case study of Terminal 5 construction at Heathrow Airport documents the role of accommodations to retain workers on one of the largest construction sites in Europe while Newton and Ormerod [24] found that contractors in the UK construction sector were more likely to make the required adjustments to adapt workplaces for employees who acquired a disability if already employed.

In contrast to the construction literature, the mainstream disability employment literature reported by Gewurtz et al [29] notes the frequent lack of knowledge of employers of the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations and their lack of knowledge that

accommodations are frequently nil or low cost [29]. The research also identified the belief of some employers that providing accommodations for the hiring process or the workplace creates financial and legal risks [29].

#### *3.5. Theme 5: Relationship Building and Use of Disability Organisations*

This theme includes studies that explore building relationships between employers and disability organizations that specialize in placing people with disability into jobs. We mapped three of the included articles to this theme [8,12,25]. However, we did not find the topic was prominent in the construction literature other than in relation to the recent emergence of social procurement as an approach to increase workforce diversity through new cross-sector collaborations between construction organizations and disability support organizations [9]. Interestingly, these collaborations were reported as immature and problematic due to different institutional drivers and constraints. This contrasts with Gewurtz et al.'s [29] review which revealed considerable emphasis in this area of research, leading to their conclusion that conclusion that "building relationships between community employers and disability organizations that specialize in placing people with disability into a job is critical to the hiring process" (p. 141). Indeed, Gewurtz et al. [29] identified that the relationship between the employer and these organizations was a factor associated with the likelihood of employment and appropriate supports in the workplace; and prospective employers could ask these organizations about disability and the employer's legal obligations to make accommodations. However, there were also concerns that some disability organizations do not provide a person-centered employment service, only help people with particular supports and not all disabilities, or give priority to the employers' interests [63]. This was seen as an important area of future research.

### *3.6. Theme 6: Information and Support to Employers*

Research included in this theme reported on the provision of information and support for employers to improve their hiring practices and employment opportunities for people with disability. Loosemore et al. [8] reported on an innovative project-based intermediary in Australia which has been developed by a major contractor to reduce information asymmetries between the construction industry and the organizations which specialize in providing employment support for people with disability. It did this by providing important practical training, information and support to both job seekers and employers in the construction supply chain about the employment of marginalized groups like people with a disability. Collaboration between construction contractors and disability employment service providers was key to this support, reducing complexity and perceived risks for employers previously reluctant to employ people with disability. This research built on the collaborative theme of earlier research by [64]'s who reported on the opportunity for employers in the construction industry to employ and use the knowledge and expertise of people with disability across all aspects of the construction process including the design and planning stages of architectural projects. However, it should be noted that the intermediary analyzed by Loosemore et al. [8] was a unique single case study and the only one that could be found internationally by the authors. Innovation in this area therefore appears to be scant and Gewurtz et al. [29] also acknowledged the needs of employing organizations can best be met when the needs of the employer are understood based on a larger number of studies.
