*Completed as part of the requirements for the Certificate of Sustainability

Introduction

The relationship between gender as a social construct and sustainability behaviour is complex and worth exploring. Numerous studies have demonstrated that this link is affected by various psychological concepts, including ideas such as the socialization process of certain traits for certain genders, the connection between certain traits and sustainable behaviour, and biases that are present in the educational system and marketing tactics. These notions suggest that through processes of gender socialization, occurring through product advertising, certain aspects of pedagogy and other media, women have developed traits that make them more likely to care about the environment and engage in sustainable behaviour. Through this paper, I will endeavour to demonstrate that the literature on these topics supports the conclusion that sustainability is women’s work. 

Gender and Altruism

Firstly, it is important to address that there is a connection between the demonstration of altruistic traits and gender. Studies conducted by Croson & Gneezy (2009), Fisman et al. (2014), Eckel et al. (1998), Engel (2011), Boschini et al. (2014), Cappelen et al. (2011) and Carpenter et al. (2008) all found that women were more likely to exhibit generous behaviour than men, or that men were more likely to exhibit individualistic behaviours than women. Most of these articles used the Dictator Game, a known measure of altruistic and sharing behaviour (Edele et al., 2013). Interestingly, Aguiar et al. (2009) and Brañaz-Garza et al. (2018) also found that women were more likely to perform altruistic or generous behaviours than men, but also addressed other parameters of these types of experiments. The former study (Aguiar et al., 2009) found that women expected their female counterparts to be more generous than their male counterparts, while men expected generosity to remain consistent across gender. Conversely, the latter study found that both men and women expected women to be more altruistic than men; this may reflect the difference in time between these studies and rising expectations for women to perform altruistic tasks when it is necessary.

It’s also possible to introduce measures of expense and expectations into these tests. Andreoni & Vesterlund (2001) studied how the cost of being altruistic factored into the gender distinction across these measures: women were more likely to be altruistic while it was expensive to do so, while men were more likely to be altruistic when it became cheap to do so. This suggests that women might be focused on the status and/or appearance of being generous, while men are not willing to be perceived as generous if it requires a larger amount of money or effort. Another study taking expectations of giving and receiving into account (Ridgon & Levine, 2009) found that, “[w]hen expectations of receiving are uniform rather than homegrown, gender differences in price sensitivity disappear: males and females give equal amounts.” This research therefore proposes that gender differences in expectations of what others will give plays an important role in how each gender portrays a sense of altruism.

Gender Socialization

Secondly, it is critical to examine how these traits came to be contrasted between men and women. Is it a biological difference that compels women to be altruistic and giving while encouraging men to be individualistic? Or are individuals socialized from a young age to believe that particular traits, such as ‘helpfulness’, ‘agreeableness’ and ‘generosity’, for girls, will benefit them based on their gender? Evidence from the literature suggests the latter. Until recently, schools still encouraged boys and girls to take different classes to further their education, with boys being pushed to math and science and girls to ‘helpful’ subjects, such as home economics (Lips 2004). Indeed, these interventions in childhood create an environment where young women perceive themselves as more likely to be capable of pursuing career paths in the social sciences (Lips 2004). Even despite the feminist movements that are occurring in more and more schools, Reay argues that, “…attempting to take up powerful positions through articulation with, and investment in, dominant masculinities serves to reinforce rather than transform the gender divide,” (Reay, 2001). 

In Berheide’s 1995 review of Thorne’s 1993 article Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School, she suggests that both children and adults socially construct ideas of gender by methods such as teasing, avoiding certain activities, and forming lines. This conforms to the idea that gender groups are antagonistic groups, separate and opposite in their roles and duties. A 2017 UNICEF report found that this gender socialization occurs in low and middle-income countries as well as in North America (John et al., 2017). From these papers, we can see how boys and girls are socialized to embody and prioritize certain values; for girls, specifically, we can see how they are taught to express themselves as helpful, nurturing and conscientious. It would not be remiss to mention that these qualities can also be seen as maternal (Brown, 2013); society is training women to be mothers.

It can also be said that girls, from an early age of education, have been taught more and are more conscientious about sustainability. Michalos et al. (2011) found that there was a significant correlation between gender and behaviours towards sustainable development in students in Manitoba, while Olsson & Gericke (2017) found that there was a significant difference in Swedish students’ sustainability consciousness. Girls had a much greater degree of knowledge regarding sustainability issues than boys, and this gap only increased as they grew older. Most convincingly, Zelezny et al. (2002) conducted a review of studies over a ten year period and found that, “compared to males, females had higher levels of socialization to be other oriented and socially responsible,” (Zelezny et al., 2002) and that gender as a predictor of pro environmental behaviour was supported across age as well as fourteen countries. As we can see, therefore, those socialized as girls and adolescent women are more likely to embody traits such as helpfulness, conscientiousness, altruism, and sustainability, and they are socialized to prioritize these values from a young age.

Sustainability and Altruism

Now that we have explored the associations between gender and ‘feminine’ traits such as helpfulness, altruism and caring, we can investigate if there are similar correlations between sustainable behaviour and these characteristics. In their 2003 paper, Casimir & Dutilh drew comparisons between the ‘caring’ elements of individuals and femininity, as well as concerns about future generations. Tapia-Fonllem et al. echoed similar findings, concluding that, “individuals that engage in pro-ecological and frugal actions are also likely to practice altruistic and equitable behaviours,” (Tapia-Fonllem et al., 2013). This suggests that, just like the socialization process during female childhood and adolescence encourages helpfulness and altruism, the act of being sustainable promotes a sense of duty not only towards the environment, but also towards other people. These relationships are indicative of the three dimensions of sustainability (Purvis et al., 2019): environmental, social and economic. From this model, it makes sense that someone inclined towards helping the environment would also be motivated to help individuals (as represented by the social and economic spheres).

This finding – that environmentally motivated people are more likely to act for the collective good – has been replicated in many other studies. Kaiser & Byrka (2011) found that this was true even when environmentalists were placed in activities unrelated to sustainability, while Panda et al. (2020) found that the sustainability awareness of consumers positively impacted their altruism. Even more recently, Claessens et al. (2022) found that cooperative traits in individuals predicted their belief in climate change as well as pro-environmental behaviour. From these and the many other studies (Desrochers & Albert, 2019; Jordan & Kristjansson, 2017; Corral-Verdugo et al., 2015; Van Lange, 2000; Gregory, 2000), it is clear that there is a well-studied relationship between sustainable behaviours and the virtues of compassion towards others (altruism and helpfulness). This makes sense, as engaging in these sustainable behaviours often requires a significant amount of financial and personal effort (e.g. riding a bike as opposed to driving a car takes more personal effort, while buying organic produce might result in a higher grocery bill). 

Women and Sustainable Choices

Now that we have established the connections between women and altruistic characteristics as well as sustainability and altruistic characteristics, we can complete this trifecta by examining the relationship between women and sustainability. It is clear from the literature that those who have been socialized as women make more sustainable choices throughout every aspect of their lives than those who have been socialized as men. Firstly, we can consider the workplace. A study examining workplaces in Malaysia (Zahid et al., 2020) found that women demonstrated a, “significant positive association with workplace and social, environmental, and economic dimensions of corporate sustainability,” (Zahid et al., 2020). Slepian & Jones (2013) conducted a similar study on over 900 American companies, and also found that women placed much greater emphasis on sustainability concerns in a corporate context than their male colleagues.

In the same vein, women also place more trust in ecological ventures. Hechavarria (2016) found that female entrepreneurs are more likely to engage in ecologically-related ventures than male entrepreneurs, especially in societies that engage in traditional gender stereotyping. All of these findings are generally supported by the body of literature (Bazel-Shoham et al., 2023; Nadeem et al., 2020; He & Jiang, 2019; Braun, 2010) and indicate having women in senior management positions elevates a company’s sustainable awareness, and that women in these corporate positions prioritize sustainable actions on a corporate level more than men at their level. Given that these findings have been replicated over the past decade as well as across the globe, it is reasonable to judge that this is a reasonable conclusion.

We can also consider the role of women in making environmental decisions that affect the home. Shrestha et al. (2020) found that Nepali women scored much higher on scales of environmental consciousness regarding their home than men, and Waitt et al. (2012) found that in Australian households, women and lower-income populations were doing the most work towards being sustainable. A subsequent study by Waitt and colleagues (Organo et al., 2013) found that women spend the most amount of total time on sustainable activities in the home, and do so more often than men. Kennedy & Kmec (2018) continue on these themes: overall, it is clear to see that women have taken on the majority of sustainability-related decisions, both in corporate and household matters. 

Taken from: https://narishakti.in/responsible/she-leads-green/

Women: Caring About Sustainability

From the preceding paragraphs, the path of logic running through the subsequent arguments is clear. Women are socialized to be altruistic, helpful and cooperative; sustainability in itself is an altruistic, helpful and cooperative movement; women make choices that further sustainable initiatives. This dialectic process makes sense, but we should also consider other potential reasons why women seem more inclined to care about sustainability – and engage in sustainable behaviours – than men.

One of the possible explanations for women’s increased sustainability consciousness may lie in gender-based sustainable advertising. Nelson et al. (2006) found that women in masculine cultures (the United States and Canada were referred to as such in the article, likely due to their individualistic priorities as opposed to Eastern notions of collectivism) responded more to ads promoting altruism, while men responded more strongly to to ads promoting egoism. This may be because there is a cognitive link between femininity and eco-friendly products (Spary, 2018; Brough et al., 2016) and men feel the need to preserve a ‘macho’ or masculine image (Cheryan et al., 2015). Out of the fear of looking feminine or losing a sense of identity due to his masculinity being compromised, a man may choose a less eco-friendly option in order to avoid these phenomena. 

Taking another route, it is also important to explore the ecofeminist considerations in this discussion. Ecofeminism arose over the past few decades as an intersection between the environmental and feminist movements, both campaigns that were driven and undermined by patriarchal systems. Further, women and nature are often connected culturally: the Earth is seen as matriarchal (Griffin, 1980). Therefore, ecofeminism focuses on how this oppressive system treats both women and nature, creating a solidarity between them and potentially providing an explanation for why women seem to be more inclined to pursue sustainability initiatives. As Mir explains in her overview of ecofeminism, the philosophy, “… introspects the gender categories effect so as to highlight the ways in which the social and ideological norms exert unjust dominance and subjugation over women and ecology,” (Mir, 2019). 

Limitations

It is important to note in the context of this paper that women and men are not the only gender identities present. Non-binary, genderfluid, and transgender individuals play an important role in sustainability consciousness as well and it is not the intention of this work to exclude them. These topics would definitely be an interesting topic of discussion to pursue in the future, but they are outside the scope of this paper.

Conclusions

Therefore, as we can see from the extensive literature referenced here, it is clear that in our current society, sustainability is women’s work. Women are socialized from childhood to prioritize and exhibit traits such as helpfulness, cooperation and altruism, while men are taught to embody individualism, egoism and ambition. Sustainability, as a movement, is inherently altruistic and requires helpfulness from its subscribers. As such, it is logical that women are driven to make sustainable choices – and it is clear that they do, both in the workplace and in the household. Of course, there are other reasons that augment the fact that women are inextricably linked to sustainability as a concept: gender-based eco-friendly advertising; the fact that men are driven to pursue a masculine image and reject the idea of being perceived as feminine, which is linked to sustainable behaviour; the ecofeminist argument that women and nature share the oppressive burden of being persecuted by the patriarchal systems that still dominate our society. Overall, no matter what logical reasoning is used, it is supported by the data: sustainability is women’s work. 

By Ashley Abrahart, BSc Honours 2023

References

• Aguiar, Fernando, et al. “Are Women Expected to Be More Generous?” Experimental Economics, vol. 12, no. 1, 2008, pp. 93–98., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-008-9199-z. 
• Andreoni, J., and L. Vesterlund. “Which Is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 116, no. 1, 2001, pp. 293–312., https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301556419. 
• Bazel‐Shoham, Ofra, et al. “Board Gender Diversity, Feminine Culture, and Innovation for Environmental Sustainability.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12672. 
• Berheide, Catherine White. Gender and Society, vol. 9, no. 3, 1995, pp. 385–387., https://doi.org/http://www.jstor.org/stable/190063. 
• Boschini, Anne, et al. “Gender and Economic Preferences in a Large Random and Representative Sample.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2443315. 
• Braun, Patrice. “Going Green: Women Entrepreneurs and the Environment.” International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, vol. 2, no. 3, 2010, pp. 245–259., https://doi.org/10.1108/17566261011079233. 
• Brañas-Garza, Pablo, et al. “Gender Differences in Altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and Actual Behaviour.” Economics Letters, vol. 170, 2018, pp. 19–23., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.022. 
• Brough, Aaron R., et al. “Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? the Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption.” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 43, no. 4, 2016, pp. 567–582., https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044. 
• Brown, Amy. “Maternal Trait Personality and Breastfeeding Duration: The Importance of Confidence and Social Support.” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 70, no. 3, 2013, pp. 587–598., https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12219. 
• Cappelen, Alexander W., et al. “Social Preferences in the Lab: A Comparison of Students and a Representative Population.” The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, vol. 117, no. 4, 2015, pp. 1306–1326., https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12114. 
• Carpenter, Jeffrey, et al. “Altruistic Behavior in a Representative Dictator Experiment.” Experimental Economics, vol. 11, no. 3, 2008, pp. 282–298., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9193-x. 
• Casimir, Gerda, and Chris Dutilh. “Sustainability: A Gender Studies Perspective*.” International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 27, no. 4, 2003, pp. 316–325., https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1470-6431.2003.00323.x. 
• Cheryan, Sapna, et al. “Manning Up.” Social Psychology, vol. 46, no. 4, 2015, pp. 218–227., https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000239. 
• Claessens, Scott, et al. “Cooperative Phenotype Predicts Climate Change Belief and pro-Environmental Behaviour.” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16937-2. 
• Corral-Verdugo, Victor, et al. “On the Relationship between Character Strengths and Sustainable Behavior.” Environment and Behavior, vol. 47, no. 8, 2014, pp. 877–901., https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514530718. 
• Croson, Rachel, and Uri Gneezy. “Gender Differences in Preferences.” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 47, no. 2, 2009, pp. 448–474., https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448. 
• Desrochers, Jessica E., et al. “Does Personality Mediate the Relationship between Sex and Environmentalism?” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 147, 2019, pp. 204–213., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.026. 
• Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. “Are Women Less Selfish than Men?: Evidence from Dictator Experiments.” The Economic Journal, vol. 108, no. 448, 1998, pp. 726–735., https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00311. 
• Engel, Christoph. “Dictator Games: A Meta Study.” Experimental Economics, vol. 14, no. 4, 2011, pp. 583–610., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7. 
• Fisman, Raymond, et al. “The Distributional Preferences of Americans.” National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3386/w20145. 
• Gregory, Maughn. “Care as a Goal of Democratic Education.” Journal of Moral Education, vol. 29, no. 4, 2000, pp. 445–461., https://doi.org/10.1080/713679392. 
• Griffin, Susan. Women and Nature: The Roaring inside Her. Harper Et Row, 1980.
• He, Xiaoping, and Shuo Jiang. “Does Gender Diversity Matter for Green Innovation?” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 28, no. 7, 2019, pp. 1341–1356., https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2319. 
• Hechavarría, Diana M. “Mother Nature’s Son?” International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, vol. 8, no. 2, 2016, pp. 137–172., https://doi.org/10.1108/ijge-10-2015-0038. 
• John, Neetu A, et al. “Gender Socialization during Adolescence in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” Innocenti Discussion Papers, 2017, https://doi.org/10.18356/286de074-en. 
• Jordan, Karen, and Kristján Kristjánsson. “Sustainability, Virtue Ethics, and the Virtue of Harmony with Nature.” Environmental Education Research, vol. 23, no. 9, 2016, pp. 1205–1229., https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1157681. 
• Kaiser, Florian G., and Katarzyna Byrka. “Environmentalism as a Trait: Gauging People’s Prosocial Personality in Terms of Environmental Engagement.” International Journal of Psychology, vol. 46, no. 1, 2011, pp. 71–79., https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2010.516830. 
• Kennedy, Emily Huddart, and Julie Kmec. “Reinterpreting the Gender Gap in Household pro-Environmental Behaviour.” Environmental Sociology, vol. 4, no. 3, 2018, pp. 299–310., https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1436891. 
• Lips, Hilary M. “The Gender Gap in Possible Selves: Divergence of Academic Self-Views among High School and University Students.” Sex Roles, vol. 50, no. 5/6, 2004, pp. 357–371., https://doi.org/10.1023/b:sers.0000018891.88889.c9. 
• Michalos, Alex C., et al. “Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours. Concerning Education for Sustainable Development: Two Exploratory Studies.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 100, no. 3, 2010, pp. 391–413., https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9620-9. 
• Mir, Yawer Ahmad. “Ecofeminisim: A Brief Overview.” Notions, X, no. 1, 2019, pp. 43–51.
• Nadeem, Muhammad, et al. “Are Women Eco‐Friendly? Board Gender Diversity and Environmental Innovation.” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 29, no. 8, 2020, pp. 3146–3161., https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2563. 
• Nelson, Michelle R., et al. “Effects of Culture, Gender, and Moral Obligations on Responses to Charity Advertising across Masculine and Feminine Cultures.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 16, no. 1, 2006, pp. 45–56., https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1601_7. 
• Olsson, Daniel, and Niklas Gericke. “The Effect of Gender on Students’ Sustainability Consciousness: A Nationwide Swedish Study.” The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 48, no. 5, 2017, pp. 357–370., https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1310083. 
• Panda, Tapan Kumar, et al. “Social and Environmental Sustainability Model on Consumers’ Altruism, Green Purchase Intention, Green Brand Loyalty and Evangelism.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 243, 2020, p. 118575., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118575. 
• Purvis, Ben, et al. “Three Pillars of Sustainability: In Search of Conceptual Origins.” Sustainability Science, vol. 14, no. 3, 2018, pp. 681–695., https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5. 
• Reay, Diane. “’Spice Girls’, ‘Nice Girls’, ‘Girlies’, and ‘Tomboys’: Gender Discourses, Girls’ Cultures and Femininities in the Primary Classroom.” Gender and Education, vol. 13, no. 2, 2001, pp. 153–166., https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250120051178. 
• Rigdon, Mary L., and Adam Seth Levine. “The Role of Expectations and Gender in Altruism.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1845989. 
• Salgado, Mauricio. “Gender-Biased Expectations of Altruism in Adolescents.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00484. 
• Shrestha, Bindu, et al. “Gender Differences in Household Energy Decision‐Making and Impacts in Energy Saving to Achieve Sustainability: A Case of Kathmandu.” Sustainable Development, vol. 28, no. 5, 2020, pp. 1049–1062., https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2055. 
• Slepian, Joan L., and Gwen E. Jones. “Gender and Corporate Sustainability: On Values, Vision, and Voice.” Organization Management Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, 2013, pp. 215–226., https://doi.org/10.1080/15416518.2013.859056. 
• Spary, Sara. “Women Care More about the Planet than Men, and Gender Stereotyping in Advertising Might Be to Blame.” HuffPost UK, HuffPost UK, 26 July 2018, https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/women-care-more-about-the-planetthan-men-and-gender-stereotyping-in-advertising-might-be-toblame_uk_5b59ad3de4b0de86f493ea64. 
• Tapia-Fonllem, César, et al. “Assessing Sustainable Behavior and Its Correlates: A Measure of pro-Ecological, Frugal, Altruistic and Equitable Actions.” Sustainability, vol. 5, no. 2, 2013, pp. 711–723., https://doi.org/10.3390/su5020711. 
• Thorne, Barrie. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. Rutgers University Press, 1993.
• Waitt, Gordon, et al. “Sustainable Household Capability: Which Households Are Doing the Work of Environmental Sustainability?” Australian Geographer, vol. 43, no. 1, 2012, pp. 51–74., https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2012.649519. 
• Zahid, Muhammad, et al. “Boardroom Gender Diversity: Implications for Corporate Sustainability Disclosures in Malaysia.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 244, 2020, p. 118683., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118683. 
• Zelezny, Lynnette C., et al. “New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, 2000, pp. 443–457., https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177.