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”.