Background and context

• The transition to a ‘net-zero’ carbon economy will create demand for green jobs and skills. There is evidence that these jobs are desirable for workers and employers, but are limited by skills shortages.
• However, there is currently a lack of understanding of the terms ‘green jobs’ and ‘green skills’. There is also evidence of a gender gap with women reporting lower understanding of, and less interest in, developing ‘green skills’ compared to men. Women are projected to hold just 25% of green jobs by 2030, impacting gender equality and the UK’s ability to meet labour demand.
• It is likely that women’s underrepresentation in STEM disciplines may intersect with their lower understanding of, and interest in, green jobs and skills, given that many of these jobs and skills are related to STEM fields. This research, therefore, aimed to understand the barriers to participation in the green labour market faced by men and women beyond potential skills differences.
• This research also focused on specific green jobs, to overcome the limitations of previous research that has tended to focus on ‘green jobs’ more broadly and therefore lacks nuanced insights into specific roles and barriers.

Key research questions

• Are there gender differences in awareness of, and interest towards, ‘green jobs’ generally, as well as towards more specific STEM and non-STEM green jobs?
• Is there a difference in the way men and women perceive potential barriers to working in specific STEM and non-STEM green jobs that are relevant to their educational and professional backgrounds?
• To what extent do the perceptions of barriers vary across different green jobs?

What we did

• We conducted a UK-wide survey with 2,385 men and women, spanning a range of educational and professional backgrounds.
• Participants were asked about their awareness of, and interest in, ‘green jobs’ in general, before being assigned to one of six specific green jobs, based on their educational and professional background. For example, participants with a STEM background were assigned to a relevant STEM green job (eg, Renewable Energy Engineer).
• Participants then answered a series of questions in relation to the green job they were assigned to. These questions assessed their awareness of the job’s requirements, overall impressions of the job, as well as perceptions of key job attributes, including salary, competitiveness and availability.

What we found

• Understanding of the term ‘green jobs’ was low across both genders, with women having lower understanding than men. Thus, to improve awareness and understanding of green jobs, it may be more effective to refer to specific, tangible jobs or industries rather than using the broad term ‘green jobs’.
• Among participants with STEM backgrounds, men showed stronger interest in STEM green jobs than women, while amongst participants with non-STEM backgrounds, women were more interested in non-STEM green jobs than men.
• Women perceive themselves as less qualified and suitable for green jobs compared to men. These results are likely not unique to green jobs, but reflect underlying gender differences in self-perception.
• There is a gap between participants' slight to moderate interest in green jobs and their lack of clear intention to apply for specific green jobs. Emphasising job and career benefits such as pay, job security and flexibility, alongside green jobs’ social impact, may help bridge this gap.
• Finally, encouraging individuals to consider new career paths is challenging. One strategy for facilitating a green career transition could involve helping individuals identify green jobs that closely align with their current skill sets and professional experiences. Encouraging early interest in green jobs and incorporating green skills into education could also boost future green workforce participation.

The transition towards a ‘net-zero’ carbon economy will increase demand for new jobs and skills which contribute to reaching climate and environmental goals, commonly referred to as ‘green jobs’ and ‘green skills’ respectively. Areas where this demand is most visible include actively improving energy efficiency in both new and existing buildings, managing recycling and waste, promoting sustainable transport, and producing renewable energy. According to LinkedIn data, green jobs currently make up a third (33%) of job postings in the UK. Creating highly skilled jobs in green industries, and supporting more people to train for these roles can increase the UK’s productivity and is a key part of Nesta’s sustainable future mission.

Although individuals are enthusiastic about their work having a positive impact on the environment, the understanding of the terms ‘green jobs’ and ‘green skills’ is very limited and people often find it challenging to come up with specific examples of ‘green jobs’. This is an issue across all types of workers, but there is also evidence of a gender gap. For instance, a recent WorldSkills UK survey found that 72% of young women were unfamiliar with the term ‘green skills’, compared with 53% of young men. Other research uncovered that even though women’s overall perceptions of green roles were positive once they were introduced to the concept, many had not previously heard of the term ‘green jobs’.

Beyond awareness and understanding of green jobs and skills, recent research by Nesta and the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) found that women were also significantly less interested in developing ‘green skills’ than men. This is despite evidence that women act more pro-environmentally and are more concerned about sustainability than men. Without action, the gender gap observed in traditional technology and energy jobs is likely to replicate in the green economy. Boston Consulting Group’s projections estimate that by 2030, women will hold only 25% of global green jobs. This is not only an issue of gender equity in the green economy, but also of the UK's ability to meet demand for these roles.

The lower levels of understanding and interest among women towards ‘green jobs’ and ‘green skills’ might be linked to their underrepresentation in STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) disciplines, especially since many green jobs are based or expected to be created in STEM industries and people may thus spontaneously equate ‘green jobs’ and ‘green skills’ with ‘STEM jobs’ and ‘STEM skills’. However, recent qualitative research indicates that the issue extends beyond mere STEM capabilities; even women with STEM backgrounds often feel that they lack the right experience or qualifications to get a job in a green industry. This suggests that addressing the gender gap in the green economy is likely to involve more than simply encouraging women into STEM.

In essence, previous research examining ‘green jobs’ and ‘green skills’ in broad terms has been limited by a general lack of specificity, with many people unable to pinpoint what these terms entail. Consequently, this approach does not adequately capture the nuanced perceptions and decisions individuals make regarding employment in the green economy. For example, the reasons why someone chooses not to become a Heat Pump Installer may be significantly different to why someone chooses against becoming an Environmental Consultant. This underscores the need for a more targeted investigation into how individuals feel about specific green jobs, particularly those closely related to their educational and professional background.

In this project, we set out to understand a wide range of possible barriers to participation in the green labour market and how these barriers differ between men and women. Unlike previous studies that only addressed ‘green jobs’ and ‘green skills’, we investigated not only how people feel about the broad category of ‘green jobs’ but also how they feel about specific STEM and non-STEM roles within this category. Importantly, this project moved beyond the conventional narrative of ‘skill gaps’, especially in discussions about gender differences in STEM careers. By focusing on participants who already have relevant educational qualifications and professional experience, we aimed to identify whether men and women face different barriers that go beyond just differences in skills. This approach offers more nuanced insights into why fewer women might be pursuing green jobs, even when qualified for them. Our ultimate goal is to identify solutions that can most effectively narrow the gender gap in the green economy, contributing to a more inclusive and sustainable future of the sector.

The project ran a UK-wide survey that set out to answer the following questions:

• To what extent are individuals aware of, and interested in, ‘green jobs’? Does the level of awareness and interest differ between men and women? While this question has been addressed in previous research, this project is well positioned to compare gender differences in interest towards ‘green jobs’ at a broad level with gender differences in interest towards specific STEM and non-STEM green jobs. This could help us understand whether the appeal of ‘green jobs’ as a whole extends to individual green jobs this category encompasses.
• Is there a difference in the way men and women perceive potential barriers to entry in the green labour market, specifically in relation to STEM and non-STEM green jobs?
• To what extent do the perceptions of barriers vary across different green jobs?

While the survey touched upon participants’ awareness of, and interest in, ‘green jobs’ more broadly, it primarily focused on their perceptions and understanding of six specific green jobs, closely related to participants’ educational and professional backgrounds. These jobs were selected to cover a range of sectors and due to their expected increase in demand. The survey ultimately included four STEM and two non-STEM roles. The STEM green jobs were chosen from the most carbon-intensive industries (energy and construction) to highlight areas anticipated to undergo a significant green transition. In contrast, the two non-STEM green jobs were selected based on insights from opinion pieces discussing growing opportunities in non-STEM green careers. All green jobs included in the survey are listed in Figure 1, alongside the number of participants assigned to each.

Please note that while the survey initially aimed for an even gender distribution among participants in six green jobs, recruitment challenges led to a higher proportion of men assigned to STEM green jobs. Despite this imbalance, the final sample size still ensured that the survey was sufficiently powered to identify meaningful gender differences in both STEM and non-STEM domains.

A total of 2,385 participants completed the full survey, comprising 57.7% men and 42.3% women with an age range of 18-80 years (median age 39) [1]. Among those assigned to STEM green jobs, the majority reported expertise in Computer Science (25.6%), Engineering (22.9%), Mathematics (12.6%), and Building and Construction (11.5%). For those in non-STEM green jobs, dominant areas of expertise were Business (25.6%), Hospitality and Retail (17.4%), Management (13.2%) and Finance (9.2%).

The process for assigning participants to green jobs and the full survey procedure are illustrated in Figure 2.

In Step 1, potential participants reported on their qualification level, subject expertise and self-identification with STEM. In Step 2, only those with pre-specified educational and professional backgrounds were allowed to continue with the survey and were matched with a green job that aligned closely with their expertise. This approach ensured that all participants had the necessary knowledge for meaningful survey participation.

Below, we outline which participants were assigned to two green jobs, while full requirements for assigning participants to all green jobs are detailed in the Appendix.

• For instance, to be assigned to a STEM job ‘Renewable Energy Engineer’, a participant had to hold at least an undergraduate degree or equivalent qualification and have expertise in one of the relevant fields: Engineering, Earth, Environment and Climate Sciences, Physics, Materials Science, Mathematics or Computer Science. Additionally, they needed to self-identify their primary area of expertise as belonging to a STEM discipline, thus ensuring that their background aligned with the STEM nature of the role.
• A non-STEM job, ‘Environmental Consultant’, demanded an undergraduate degree or equivalent and expertise in Earth, Environment and Climate Sciences, Economics, Law, Management, Business, Finance, Psychology, Geography, Agriculture or Horticulture. Additionally, a participant needed to self-identify their primary area of expertise as belonging to a non-STEM discipline.
• When a participant was eligible for multiple green jobs, they were assigned to one based on pre-specified probabilities. For example, a participant who had an undergraduate degree in Engineering and identified their area of expertise as STEM-related had a 75% probability of being assigned to a ‘Renewable Energy Engineer’ job and 25% probability of being assigned to an ‘Environmental Design Specialist’ job. These probabilities varied depending on how closely each set of qualifications matched each job’s requirements.

All participants who passed Step 2 reported on their awareness of, and interest in, ‘green jobs’ in Step 3 (see Section 3 of this report). In Step 4, participants finally learnt about the green job they had been assigned to. At this stage, 312 individuals reported already working in the assigned green job. They were excluded from the survey in order to concentrate on those who might consider transitioning into these roles.

In Step 5, participants responded to a series of survey questions which delved into various aspects of their specific green job (see Sections 4 and 5 of this report). Specifically, these questions explored participants’ awareness of the job’s requirements, overall impressions of the job, as well as perceptions of key job attributes, including salary, competitiveness and availability.

Finally, while individual participants provided responses to a single STEM or non-STEM green job, most of the analyses included in this report do not focus on job-level responses. Instead, they combine responses across all green jobs within the STEM and non-STEM domains to examine participants’ views at the broader category level. This approach allows us to identify trends, common barriers and areas of interest that are likely relevant to a wider range of professionals who could consider moving into green jobs, rather than confining insights to particular job titles. Nevertheless, detailed statistics for individual green jobs, along with additional data visualisations and information about the survey methodology and statistical analyses, can be found in the Appendix.

In Step 3 of the survey (Figure 2), participants were asked whether they knew the term ‘green jobs’ before being provided with a definition: “A green job is any job that contributes to preserving or restoring the environment and our planet”. The survey then assessed participants’ interest in working in a ‘green job’ using a five-point scale. In Step 5 of the survey, participants responded to a series of questions on similar scales. Two of these asked about participants’ interest in working in the assigned green job, and their likelihood of applying for such a job in the future.

Graphs in this report show the average responses of men and women to the five-point questions. For breakdowns showing the percentage of men and women who responded with each of the five options, please consult the Appendix. Finally, given the number of questions participants responded to, we do not include graphs to visualise every result. For results with no corresponding graphs, we include means and p-values in the text.

Awareness of the term ‘green jobs’

More men reported having heard of the term ‘green jobs’ than women (Figure 3). This aligns with the previously mentioned research which identified a similar gender gap in the understanding of a closely related term ‘green skills’.

While the survey showed a notable gender difference in awareness of ‘green jobs’, the general understanding of the term among both groups was relatively limited. For example, many participants – in both previous and current research – were only able to vaguely guess that green jobs “have something to do with the environment”. This suggests that the term may not be very effective or engaging when used in communications with the public. Instead, it may be more effective to refer to specific, tangible jobs or industries to support awareness and understanding.

Interest in working in green jobs

Men and women did not differ in how interested they were in working in a ‘green job’ generally (Figure 4A). This finding diverges from prior research which showed a lower interest among women compared to men in acquiring ‘green skills’. A potential explanation for this inconsistency lies in the definition of ‘green jobs’ provided to participants in this research, which highlighted the social and environmental impact of such positions. Previous research has shown that social impact is a significant motivational factor for women when considering career options. Therefore, the explicit focus on the societal benefits of ‘green jobs’ in the survey may have narrowed the gender gap in the general interest in pursuing these jobs. Another potential explanation for the discrepancy could be that the term green ‘skills’ used in previous research evokes thoughts of technical abilities, therefore widening the gender gap compared to the term green ‘jobs’ used in current research.

A gender gap did become evident when participants were asked about their interest in working in a specific green job. On average, men with a STEM background expressed significantly stronger interest in STEM green jobs included in the survey in comparison to women with a STEM background (Figure 4B). Conversely, for non-STEM green jobs, women with a non-STEM background reported higher levels of interest than men with a non-STEM background (Figure 4C). These findings underscore the importance of distinguishing between perceptions of ‘green jobs’ as a general category versus perceptions of specific green roles. They also suggest that previously documented gender differences in interest in ‘green jobs’ and ‘green skills’ may primarily be gender differences in interest in STEM green jobs and skills. Finally, comparing responses to STEM and non-STEM green jobs, STEM participants were more interested in STEM green jobs (M = 3.59) than non-STEM participants were interested in non-STEM green jobs (M = 3.29, p < .001).

Note. The bars depicted on all graphs illustrate the 95% confidence intervals. To contextualise average values, five-point response options were the following: 1 = “very uninterested”, 2 = “somewhat uninterested”, 3 = “indifferent”, 4 = “somewhat interested”, 5 = “very interested”.

Likelihood of applying for green jobs

Men and women did not differ in their likelihood to apply for the assigned green jobs, whether the role was STEM or non-STEM (Figure 5). The slight to moderate interest in the assigned green job expressed in previous survey questions did not translate into application intentions, with both men and women on average reporting they were “unsure” about whether they would apply for the assigned green job. This uncertainty may stem from insufficient information about the surveyed green jobs or from practical considerations, such as one’s career stage or job circumstances, which likely supersede broader interest when considering applying for a green role.

Finally, STEM participants reported being significantly more likely to apply for STEM green jobs (M = 3.17) than non-STEM participants reported being likely to apply for non-STEM green jobs (M = 2.73, p < .001). This is likely due to lower awareness and understanding of non-STEM green jobs included in the survey. As is described in Section 5, non-STEM participants were significantly less optimistic about the availability of non-STEM green jobs and reported lower knowledge of the qualifications necessary for these jobs than did STEM participants considering STEM green jobs. Increasing awareness and understanding of non-STEM green jobs could, therefore, encourage a wider pool of candidates to take up these roles. However, these findings are based on only two non-STEM job examples and might not fully represent the general perception of all non-STEM green jobs.

Note. Five-point response options: 1 = “definitely not”, 2 = “probably not”, 3 = “unsure”, 4 = “probably yes”, 5 = “definitely yes”.

In Step 5 (Figure 2), the survey explored participants’ perceptions of various barriers to participating in the green labour market. The areas of investigation included:

• Perceptions of the supply of green jobs. For example, how competitive they thought the green job would be and how easy or difficult it would be to find relevant job openings.
• Perceptions of the salary offered by green jobs.
• Knowledge of the green jobs’ skill and qualification requirements.
• Assessment of ability to undertake green jobs. For example, how suitable they thought they would be for the green job based on their skills and qualifications.

In this section, we summarise the results related to the first two areas of investigation, whereas Section 6 addresses the latter two areas.

Perceptions of the supply of green jobs

Men and women did not differ in how competitive they thought it would be to secure their green job, whether in STEM (M(Men) = 3.81, M(Women) = 3.83 [2], p = .570) or non-STEM fields (M(Men) = 3.75, M(Women) = 3.84, p = .053; average responses closest to “somewhat competitive”). Similarly, men and women did not differ in how easy or difficult they thought it would be to find an opening for their STEM job (M(Men) = 2.80, M(Women) = 2.74, p = .74; average responses closest to “neither distinctly difficult nor particularly easy”) or non-STEM green job (M(Men) = 2.49, M(Women) = 2.41, p = .177, average responses closest to “somewhat difficult”).

Furthermore, when assessing future availability of green jobs, both genders displayed similar expectations for STEM green jobs (M(Men) = 3.49, M(Women) = 3.40, p = .656, average responses between “unchanged availability” and “somewhat easier to find in the future than now”). For non-STEM green jobs, women (M = 3.55) were marginally more optimistic about future availability than men (M = 3.47, p = .033), with a stronger tendency to believe these jobs would be “somewhat easier to find in the future than now”. Finally, women perceived green jobs as significantly less available in their local area than men (Figure 6). Prior to answering this question, participants were asked to select their local area from a list, which aimed to mitigate diverse subjective interpretations of the term. However, this methodological feature might not have fully eliminated potential differences in how men and women conceptualise their local areas, which could affect their perceptions of green jobs’ availability.

Overall, STEM green jobs were seen as equally competitive (M = 3.82) as non-STEM green jobs (M = 3.80, p = .410), but openings for STEM green jobs were seen as easier to find (M = 2.78) than openings for non-STEM green jobs (M = 2.45, p < .001). Furthermore, STEM participants’ predictions of STEM green jobs’ future availability (M = 3.46) did not differ significantly from non-STEM participants’ predictions of non-STEM green jobs’ future availability (M = 3.51, p = .299). Finally, STEM participants perceived STEM green jobs as significantly more available in their region of residence (M = 2.76) than non-STEM participants perceived non-STEM green jobs (M = 2.44, p < .001). The differences in the perceived availability of STEM and non-STEM green jobs may stem from the surveyed STEM green jobs being more concrete and searchable compared to their non-STEM counterparts.

Note. Five-point response options: 1 = “this job is completely unavailable in my region of residence”, 2 = “this job is only sporadically available in my region of residence and is thus hard to find”, 3 = “this job is available to some extent in my region of residence and can be found with some effort”, 4 = “this job is regularly available in my region of residence and is thus reasonably easy to find”, 5 = “this job is abundant in my region of residence and is thus very easy to find”.

Perceptions of the salary offered by green jobs

Men and women did not differ in how well they thought they would be paid in STEM (M(Men) = 3.74, M(Women) = 3.71, p = .858) and non-STEM green jobs (M(Men) = 3.39, M(Women) = 3.44, p = .255). Regardless of their gender, participants on average saw STEM jobs as “somewhat well paid” (M = 3.73) and non-STEM jobs as only “fairly paid” (M = 3.41, p < .001).

Knowledge of green jobs’ requirements

Men and women did not differ in how they rated their knowledge about which skills and qualifications are needed for STEM green jobs. In the non-STEM domain, women reported lower knowledge than men (Figure 7). No objective measures of knowledge were used to verify these self-assessments. Finally, STEM participants, irrespective of their gender, reported higher knowledge of the skills and qualifications necessary for STEM green jobs (M = 2.97) in comparison to self-assessed knowledge of those not involved in STEM, concerning the requirements of non-STEM green jobs (M = 2.36, p < .001). As previously suggested, the two surveyed non-STEM green jobs are likely less concrete and clear in terms of their requirements in comparison to the four STEM green jobs. Therefore, these findings might not fully represent differences in perception of all STEM and non-STEM green jobs.

Note. Five-point response options: 1 = “very low knowledge - I do not know which skills/qualifications are required for this job”, 2 = “low knowledge”, 3 = “moderate knowledge”, 4 = high knowledge”, 5 = “very high knowledge - I have an in-depth knowledge of which skills and qualifications are required for this job”.

Assessment of ability to undertake green jobs

Participants who reported having at least “low knowledge” of the green job’s requirements were then asked to evaluate their own skills and qualifications in relation to this job. This naturally led to a decreased sample size for this particular analysis, with 92% of STEM participants and 78% of non-STEM participants responding to this question [3]. In terms of results, men rated their skills and qualifications for pursuing both STEM and non-STEM green jobs significantly higher than women did (Figure 8). Moreover, STEM participants, regardless of their gender, rated their skills and qualifications for STEM green jobs more favourably (M = 2.61) compared to the evaluations of non-STEM participants for non-STEM green jobs (M = 2.18, p < .001).

Similarly, women thought they needed more additional training to secure green jobs than men, regardless of whether jobs were STEM or non-STEM (Figure 9). While no objective assessments were used to verify these self-evaluations, these findings suggest that regardless of their professional and educational background, women might be less likely than men to believe they have the required skills and qualifications. When comparing responses to STEM and non-STEM jobs, STEM green jobs were seen as needing an equal amount of additional training (M = 3.62) as non-STEM green jobs (M = 3.71, p = .374).

Finally, women thought they would be perceived as less suitable by potential employers for both STEM and non-STEM green jobs than men did (Figure 10). This reflects the broader literature on gender differences in self-perception. Previous research by BIT found that women perceived their overall suitability for jobs as lower than men, and consequently, were less willing to apply for roles than similarly qualified men. This is particularly relevant in gendered domains, such as STEM, as evidence suggests that women are more likely to underestimate their capabilities in stereotypically masculine contexts. As with the gender gap in interest in STEM, this suggests that gender differences in perceived suitability for green jobs may be driven by underlying gender differences in self-perception which are also seen in other domains.

Comparing perceptions of suitability across STEM and non-STEM green jobs, STEM participants thought they would be seen as more suitable candidates for STEM green jobs (M = 3.07) in comparison to how non-STEM participants thought they would be perceived for non-STEM green jobs (M = 2.57, p < .001). As mentioned above, this finding may reflect a lack of awareness and understanding of non-STEM green jobs, or a lack of clarity regarding the specific non-STEM green jobs included in the survey.

Note. Five-point response options: 1 = “I would be rated as very unsuitable”, 2 = “I would be rated as somewhat unsuitable”, 3 = “I would be rated as neither distinctly unsuitable nor particularly suitable”, 4 = “I would be rated as somewhat suitable”, 5 = “I would be rated as very suitable”.

To provide additional exploratory data, the survey also included two open-ended questions asking participants to identify factors that either deter or motivate them to pursue a green job like the one presented to them. Below, we use word clouds to visualise the key terms used by participants (Figure 11). While no robust conclusions can be drawn from this exploratory exercise, some insights that emerge include:

• The main reasons participants would not pursue a green job like the one they were assigned to in the survey were to do with the perceived “lack” of “training”, “knowledge”, “qualifications”, “skills” and “experience”, but also “interest”.
• The main reasons participants would pursue a green job like the one they were assigned to in the survey were to do with the job’s perceived social impact, with terms such as “good”, “help”, “environment”, “future”, “planet”, and “society” being prominently mentioned. Other frequently featured terms included “interesting” and “pay”, with “pay” ranking among the top ten most used words, particularly in relation to STEM green jobs. This aligns with the previously described finding that STEM green jobs were perceived as better paid than non-STEM green jobs. Notably, the presence of terms “nothing” and “none” suggests that a segment of the participants did not feel drawn to a green job like the one they were presented with in the survey.

These reasons appear to be largely similar across STEM and non-STEM green jobs.

Note. Words marked in green and purple represent the ten most frequently used words across all participants’ responses.

This project examined general understanding of, and interest in, ‘green jobs’. It also delved into perceptions of specific green jobs among men and women. This approach overcomes the limitations of previous research which lacked insights into individual roles and barriers associated with them. Recognising that women’s underrepresentation in STEM likely intersects with their lower understanding of, and interest in, green skills, we sought to understand barriers to participation in the green labour market that extend beyond potential skill gaps. To this end, we recruited participants who were qualified for specific STEM and non-STEM green jobs.

Understanding of ‘green jobs’ is low, especially among women

Consistent with previous research, we found that men are more familiar with the term ‘green jobs’ than women, though understanding is limited for both genders. Thus, the term may not be very effective when used in communications. Referring to specific, tangible jobs or industries might better support awareness and understanding.

Among STEM participants, men have stronger interest in STEM green jobs, while among non-STEM participants, women have stronger interest in non-STEM green jobs

At first glance, the gender differences in interest in STEM and non-STEM green jobs mirror the broader gender segregation seen across STEM and non-STEM fields in the UK. However, given that participants were assigned to green jobs which matched their skills and experience, the gender gap found in this project suggests that even women with STEM qualifications may not be drawn to STEM green jobs as much as men. Evidence suggests that men and women segregate even within STEM and non-STEM sectors. For example, while women are generally well-represented in healthcare-related STEM positions, they are underrepresented in computer science and engineering occupations. Importantly, previous research also showed that only 38% of women (compared to 53% of men) with computer science degrees and 24% of women (compared to 30% of men) with engineering degrees actually pursue careers in their respective fields. Similarly, LinkedIn data indicates that one year after graduating with a STEM degree, only 28% of women are employed in STEM fields, compared to 39% of men. Encouraging women with STEM qualifications to pursue STEM green jobs could involve revising job descriptions to avoid masculine language and highlighting job characteristics and benefits known to attract women (eg, flexible working).

Women perceive themselves as less suitable for green jobs

Women rated their skills and qualifications for both STEM and non-STEM green jobs lower than men, felt they needed more additional training to secure these jobs, and believed they would be perceived as less suitable by potential employers. These results are likely not unique to green jobs, but reflect broader gender differences in self-perception. Previous research found that while women rate themselves higher than men in meeting individual job requirements, they rate themselves lower in meeting overall job requirements. Therefore, prompting women to consider job requirements individually rather than collectively may help reduce the gender difference in suitability evaluations.

There is a gap between interest in, and intention to apply for, green jobs

This project identified a gap between interest in, and intention to apply for, specific green jobs. Previous research has noted that “purpose often comes below working conditions” in career priorities. Consequently, emphasising the career benefits of green jobs, such as pay, job security or flexibility, could narrow this interest-application gap. This has proven effective in previous research aimed at encouraging candidates to apply to the US police force. Furthermore, another study focusing on the tech industry found that highlighting the versatility of tech skills in terms of enabling people to switch between various sectors, including those which women tend to have more interest in (eg, education, healthcare), was particularly effective in reducing the gap between male and female students’ intent to take up tech courses and careers. Therefore, messages that highlight career benefits could similarly encourage candidates, particularly women, to apply for green jobs.

There is more limited awareness of non-STEM green jobs

STEM participants were more optimistic about the availability of suitable green jobs and reported higher knowledge of the necessary skills and requirements than non-STEM participants considering non-STEM green jobs. This suggests a need to increase awareness and knowledge about non-STEM green jobs to correct misperceptions regarding their availability and to attract a more diverse group of candidates to the green economy. However, a limitation of this research is that it focuses on only four STEM and two non-STEM green jobs, which restricts the applicability of the findings to a broader spectrum of STEM and non-STEM green jobs and professionals.

Encouraging people to consider new careers is challenging

A notable segment of both STEM (8.7%) and non-STEM participants (12.8%) responded that “nothing” would motivate them to consider a green job like the one they saw in the survey. Jobs often become integral to individuals’ identities, making it difficult to shift their career perspectives. Even those just beginning their careers already have strong ideas about their career paths, shaped by what they were exposed to at a young age. For example, research aimed at encouraging recent graduates into tech careers found that no messages were more effective than a control message in changing their career intentions. Qualitative research found that helping individuals think of green jobs similar to the job they have made them more likely to engage with the idea of working in the green economy. Therefore, working to make existing jobs more green or helping individuals understand the green jobs closely related to their current work may increase understanding of, and participation in, the green economy. Future research should thus focus on identifying jobs in greenhouse gas and carbon-emitting industries, matching them with corresponding green roles, and exploring successful interventions that encourage employees to transition from the former to the latter industry. Finally, fostering an early interest in green jobs and integrating green skills into education from a young age could also be an effective way of increasing future participation in the green workforce.