Anna Rzepczynski, founder of We Build Too, outlines the action the construction industry must take to address gender inequality and create a fairer, more inclusive future for the entire workforce.
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
The more women I spoke to, from apprentices to experienced women in construction, the more the same experiences surfaced. Different sites, different roles, but very similar experiences. The investigation grew into conversations with more than 100 women, educators, employers and industry bodies – and continues to grow. Over time, it became clear this wasn’t a series of isolated experiences, it was how the system was operating.
Entry into construction wasn’t always the biggest barrier, but staying, progressing and being respected were.
With my background in design and strategy, I knew it wasn’t enough to build a matching platform or a directory, especially in the north-east, where representation is even lower. That wouldn’t solve the root issue. The gap I saw was deeper: we lack visibility on what’s really happening to women across the career lifecycle, and we don’t design workplaces and programmes of work with that insight in mind.
We Build Too was founded to change the conditions, not just the numbers, to understand what drives attrition, where talent is being lost, and how to create environments where women can genuinely thrive. When that happens, the whole industry benefits.
How would you describe the current state of gender representation in construction in 2026?
If I’m honest, women are still largely invisible in many parts of the industry. In hands-on, site-based trade roles, women still make up around 2% of the workforce – and across all roles it’s 15%. We talk about percentages, but in practical terms, that often means being the only woman on a site, or not seeing anyone like you in certain roles at all.
Beyond the headline figures, we still don’t have clear, joined-up visibility of where women are concentrated, where they’re progressing, or where they’re quietly leaving.
You can’t fix what you can’t see, and you can’t be what you can’t see either.
There are positive signals. We are seeing more women enter training routes, apprenticeships and alternative pathways. That’s encouraging, but entry doesn’t equal retention.
When women leave mid-career, it’s not just a personal loss, it’s a wasted investment in training, experience and productivity. At a time when the industry is facing significant skills shortages, that’s something we can’t afford.
The data gaps are part of the problem, but so is the lack of meaningful qualitative insight. Knowing how many only gets us so far. Understanding why is what enables change.
Is the industry moving beyond tokenism, or do you still see performative commitments around International Women’s Day?
There is definitely more awareness now, and that shouldn’t be dismissed. Many organisations are trying, and policies have improved. Conversations that would have been brushed aside 20 years ago are now on the agenda.
However, the limited data we have shows representation has largely flatlined over the last three decades. So, whatever we’re doing, it isn’t yet shifting the dial in a sustained way.
International Women’s Day posts are not the issue in themselves. The problem is when visibility doesn’t translate into everyday experience.
Culture isn’t shaped by a campaign. It’s shaped by what happens during a morning on site, how language is handled, who gets opportunities, who gets heard in meetings, how mistakes are treated, who gets a bathroom.
Moving beyond tokenism means moving from celebration to accountability. It means asking: what is actually changing for the women working here, not just what are we saying publicly?
That’s a harder conversation, but it’s one that matters.
What does a genuinely inclusive company look like in practical terms?
It starts with a willingness to reflect honestly. I often hear: “It’s much better now,” or “We treat everyone the same”, or “We’ve got a woman and she’s doing well”. That mindset usually comes from good intentions, but inclusion isn’t about treating everyone the same.
If “the same” means long hours, presenteeism, unchallenged banter, limited flexibility, and poor welfare and hygiene conditions, then that environment isn’t necessarily working brilliantly for men either. The industry’s mental health statistics make that clear.
A genuinely inclusive company understands that equity sometimes means doing things differently. So it invests in:
- clear progression pathways;
- properly fitting PPE and facilities;
- managers trained to handle behaviour consistently;
- structured support at key transition points.
Crucially, it creates space for people to share their experiences safely and then acts on what it hears.
It also recognises that leaders won’t have all the answers. Even with the best intentions, bias exists. The willingness to listen, adjust and learn is what sets inclusive firms apart.
This isn’t about optics: it’s about creating conditions where more people can do their best work.
How can men in senior roles become active allies rather than passive supporters?
Allyship shows up in actions, not statements. Senior men shape culture whether they intend to or not. The way they respond to inappropriate comments, who they sponsor for opportunities, how they talk about flexible working, what they prioritise in performance reviews, all of that sends signals.
Beyond that, there is another layer – active allies recognise that they don’t fully see what others experience.
That means investing in understanding, through structured listening, better data, external insight, and being open to the fact that interpretation may be biased by their own perspective.
It also means looking beyond one project or one firm. This won’t shift through isolated effort. Industry-wide collaboration matters because culture is shared across sites, supply chains and professions.
The upside is significant. Research consistently shows that diverse teams in inclusive cultures outperform, they’re more innovative, make better decisions and operate more safely. Firms that genuinely get this right won’t just feel better to work in, they’ll be more competitive and arguably profitable.
If an employer wanted to make one meaningful change tomorrow, what would you advise?
I’d suggest starting with curiosity rather than assumption. Instead of launching a new initiative, ask:
- Where are we losing people?
- What are we hearing just before they leave?
- Are we mistaking silence for satisfaction?
Even small firms can look at exit conversations, promotion patterns, or hold a structured listening session.
Then pick one pain point – for example, early career isolation, return from parental leave, or first-time line managers – and improve that deliberately.
Progress tends to come from focused, practical adjustments rather than sweeping programmes.
Looking ahead five years, what would meaningful, measurable progress look like?
For me, meaningful progress would be visible. It would mean walking past a building site and seeing women regularly, not as a novelty, but as part of the everyday workforce. It would mean young girls and boys growing up seeing construction as a career open to them.
Inside organisations, it would mean fewer quiet exits. More women would be progressing, whether that’s within on-the-tools roles, or into specialist, commercial and leadership roles.
Yes, we need better workforce data, but more importantly, we need to elevate that data so it becomes actionable. Combining quantitative trends with lived experience to identify exactly where change is needed.
That’s where We Build Too sits, building the evidence base the sector currently lacks, and translating lived experience into practical, measurable change employers can act on.
Our focus is on turning insight into practical, industry-relevant action, helping employers understand what’s happening beneath the surface and equipping them to respond in ways that strengthen retention, culture and performance.
If in five years, we’re no longer asking how women can succeed despite the system, but how the system supports people to succeed within it. That will signal meaningful change.
