This chapter combines data on the attitudes and behaviours of adults and young people in OECD countries to consider their readiness to support the green transition in the workplace and in their daily lives. Results reveal most adults in OECD countries consider climate change a “major threat”. Educational attainment, gender and sectors in which individuals work are strong predictors of climate change perceptions. At the same time, on average across OECD countries, only around one in three students, by age 15, achieve at least foundational levels of science proficiency in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA); are aware of climate change and global warming; care for the environment; have high levels of environmental self-efficacy; and engage in behaviours to promote environmental sustainability.
OECD Skills Outlook 2023
2. From awareness to action: The role of attitudes and dispositions for mobilising environmental sustainability skills
Abstract
Key messages
The success of the green transition hinges on implementing significant changes in individual behaviours and consumption choices alongside the reorganisation and regulation of production processes. To successfully implement these changes, as well as broader climate change mitigation policies, it is crucial to foster a strong awareness and willingness among populations to promote environmental sustainability. This chapter maps climate change perceptions among adult populations and young people’s environmental sustainability competence – the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that are critical to promoting environmental sustainability.
Key findings include:
Across OECD countries, 68% of adults perceive climate change as a threat. This percentage varies across countries, however. For example, in Italy and Mexico, nearly 90% of adults perceive climate change as a threat, whereas in the Czech Republic, 44% do.
Educational attainment and gender are strong predictors of climate change perceptions. For example, 73% of individuals with a tertiary qualification but 63% without secondary qualifications perceive climate change as a threat, and women are eight percentage points more likely to perceive climate change as a threat than men.
Individuals facing different levels of economic vulnerability and working in different sectors express different attitudes towards climate change. For example, on average, 31% of individuals working in the least carbon dioxide (CO2)-emitting industries indicate being very or extremely worried about climate change compared to 27% working in the most CO2-emitting industries. Similarly, the higher the CO2 emissions in a sector, the lower the support for a range of policies promoting environmental sustainability among workers in such sectors.
On average, across OECD countries, 31% of 15-year-old students achieved foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence, meaning they had mastered the areas of environmental sustainability competence, which are: reaching at least foundational levels of scientific literacy (achieving at least proficiency Level 2 in the PISA science test); having an awareness of climate change and global warming; caring for the environment; self‑efficacy about explaining environmental phenomena; and behaviour to promote environmental sustainability. However, only 13% achieved advanced levels of environmental sustainability competence, meaning they had advanced levels in scientific literacy (achieving at least proficiency Level 4 in the PISA science test); and were aware of climate change and global warming; reported that looking after the environment was important to them; had environmental self-efficacy; and engaged in pro-environmental behaviours.
Large disparities exist in the extent to which education systems and societies equip children with environmental sustainability competence. In particular, 21% of socio-economically disadvantaged youths, but 46% of their more advantaged peers, had mastered the foundational skills and mindsets they will need to act for environmental sustainability.
Individuals’ attitudes and dispositions are more powerful drivers of engagement in environmentally sustainable behaviours than their knowledge and skills. For instance, on average, across OECD countries, students who agreed or strongly agreed that looking after the global environment was important to them were 16 percentage points more likely to save energy for environmental reasons. Similarly, students with different levels of science achievement were equally likely to engage in energy-saving behaviours.
Within families, values, attitudes and behaviours may be passed on, resulting in an alignment of attitudes, values and behaviours between generations.
Combining strong environmental sustainability competence with solid digital skills is key to the profound rethinking and retooling necessary to adapt the energy, urban, transport, housing, agriculture and clothing industries so that they reach climate change goals.
2.1. Introduction
Transitioning to low-carbon economies will require significant changes in how individuals act as consumers, as well as structural reforms in how production is organised. The success of the green transition requires drastic changes in how individuals behave in their daily lives and in their consumption decisions (voluntary bottom-up changes), as well as drastic changes in how production is organised and regulated (policy‑driven top-down changes). Both changes – voluntary behavioural changes and changes that stem from modifications made in regulations and public policies, including local economic development policies – rest on a strong awareness and willingness of populations to promote environmental sustainability. Lack of awareness of the economic and social consequences associated with climate change reduces individuals’ willingness to take action. Similarly, a lack of understanding of the threat posed by climate change and environmental degradation reduces support for structural transformations needed to protect the environment in the long term.
Developing an awareness of the threats posed by climate change and environmental degradation, a sense of urgency and agency about the importance of acting for environmental sustainability, and the willingness and capacity to act for sustainability are critical components of the green transition. Skills policies can play a key role in this respect, ensuring that adults and children alike have both the skills and the will to act for environmental sustainability. An extensive review of the literature on environmental attitudes and dispositions among adults and young people, as well as detailed descriptions of the data used in the analyses presented in this chapter, are available in the following technical working papers, which were developed to support the preparation of this chapter: Asai, Borgonovi and Wildi (2022[1]); Borgonovi et al. (2022[2]); and Borgonovi et al. (2022[3]). Readers interested in the extensive set of analyses and indicators on the role of education systems in developing environmental sustainability competence and on the determinants of environmental attitudes and dispositions among adults can consult these.
Promoting the shift towards a green economy depends on developing new technologies and infrastructures that will facilitate reducing the environmental footprint of human activities. The development of such technologies will rest on scientists and entrepreneurs to see the protection of the environment as a key goal of their activities, and this, in turn, depends on their attitudes towards environmental protection. Similarly, the rapid development of such technologies at scale will depend on public investments, which, in turn, depend on public support for prioritising environmental protection. Finally, behavioural change at the level of individuals and households will be critical for the widespread adoption of such technologies and their use in ways that are most aligned with environmental goals.
In the early 2020s, the coronavirus (COVID‑19) pandemic and then the Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine led to economic instability, disruption of supply chains and steep increases in energy and food prices. On the one hand, geopolitical instability and economic concerns may divert attention from the climate emergency towards economic concerns. On the other hand, they amplify the need for modern economies to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, invest in renewable energy sources and protect the environment as a way to reduce the risk of geopolitical unrest in the coming years.
The chapter identifies the role of education and training systems in building the capacity and willingness of current and future generations to act in ways that protect the environment. This, in turn, is seen as a key goal of skills policies more generally to ensure that in the future, both consumption and production are better aligned with the achievement of environmental sustainability. Analyses presented in this chapter map climate change perceptions among adult populations as well as young people’s environmental sustainability competence. Environmental attitudes can influence consumption behaviours, policy support, voting behaviour, labour market decisions, and the willingness of individuals to develop and use their skills in ways that reduce the environmental impact of production processes.
Given this context, it is crucial to understand adults’ attitudes towards climate change and the environment more generally because they influence consumption, policy, and labour market decisions. Similarly, it is critical to understand if young people have acquired the skills and the will to act for environmental sustainability. Climate change and the policies needed to mitigate it are key variables that will affect the labour market and career decisions available to individuals. In particular, the economic and lifestyle changes needed to address climate change will profoundly impact the distribution of industries, occupations, jobs and, ultimately, the demand for skills (Vona et al., 2018[4]).
2.2. Many adults perceive climate change as a threat
Recent data suggest that most adults in OECD countries consider climate change a “major threat” (Figure 2.1). On average, 68% of adults across OECD countries report that they perceive climate change as a threat, though threat perception varies significantly across countries.1 In Mexico and Italy, for instance, nearly 90% of adults regard climate change as a major threat, but only around 44% of adults report the same in the Czech Republic. The considerable country variation in climate threat perceptions can partly be explained by a country’s experience with natural disasters. Research suggests that the more familiarity and experience individuals have with extreme weather, the less psychological distance they have from the threat of climate change (Spence, Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2011[5]). According to the World Bank, Mexico is “highly vulnerable”, and Italy is “particularly vulnerable” to the adverse impacts of climate change (World Bank Group, 2021[6]; 2021[7]). In addition, they both experienced significantly more natural hazards between 1980 and 2020 than the Czech Republic, which comparatively is considered “vulnerable” (World Bank Group, 2021[8]; 2021[7]; 2021[6]). The fact that Mexico and Italy have experienced more extreme weather can, therefore, help explain why the threat perception among adults in these two countries is much higher than the threat perception in the Czech Republic, a country that has had comparably few extreme climate events in the same period.
Figure 2.1. Percentage of adults who perceive climate change as a major threat in OECD countries, 2020
Note: Countries are ranked in descending order based on the percentage of the population aged 16 years or older who reported that they believe climate change is a major threat with the question item “Threat of Climate Change/Global Warming to People”. Grey spikes in the figure indicate the 95% confidence interval.
Source: Calculations based on Wellcome (2020[9]), Wellcome Global Monitor 2020: COVID-19 (dataset), https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor-covid-19/2020#downloads-6b45.
2.2.1. Women are more likely than men to consider climate change a threat
Women are more likely to consider climate change a major threat than men (Figure 2.2). On average, across OECD countries, women are 8 percentage points more likely than men to perceive climate change as a major threat, but gender differences are as large as 15 percentage points in Israel. The gender gap in threat perceptions is also larger than 10 percentage points in Japan, New Zealand, the United States, Sweden, Australia, Greece, the Czech Republic and Poland (listed in ascending order by gender gap in threat perception). Cross-country differences in the size of the gender gap in perceived threat are not driven by the differences in mean value across countries. That is, correcting for differences in mean value does not alter the magnitude of gender differences or the rank order of countries.
Figure 2.2. Gender differences in the perception of climate change as a major threat in OECD countries, 2020
Note: Countries are ranked in ascending order based on the percentage-point difference between men and women who reported that they perceived climate change to be a major threat.
Source: Calculations based on Wellcome (2020[9]), Wellcome Global Monitor 2020: COVID-19 (dataset), https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor-covid-19/2020#downloads-6b45.
2.2.2. Climate change perceptions vary little across age groups
Despite widespread perceptions of young generations being more sensitive to environmental concerns, (Figure 2.3) indicates that different age groups tend to have similar perceptions about the threat posed by climate change and global warming. For example, on average across OECD countries, 66% of 16‑29 year‑olds perceive climate change as a threat and 69% of individuals aged 50 or over also perceive climate change as a threat. In many countries, older people seem to be only marginally more worried about potential climate threats than younger people. Japan is the only country where the age difference is pronounced: 71% of 16‑29 year-olds perceive climate change as a threat, in contrast to 88% of individuals aged 50 or over – a difference that is statistically significant at conventional levels (p<0.05).
Figure 2.3. Differences in the perception of climate change as a major threat across age groups in OECD countries, 2020
Note: Countries are ranked in descending order based on the percentage of those aged 16‑29 years who reported that they perceive climate change to be a major threat. The number in brackets next to the country name represents the difference between the percentage of individuals aged 50 or above and those between the ages of 16 and 29 who report perceiving climate change as a major threat. The asterisk (*) in the bracket indicates that the difference is statistically significant at the 5% level.
Source: Calculations based on Wellcome (2020[9]), Wellcome Global Monitor 2020: COVID-19 (dataset), https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor-covid-19/2020#downloads-6b45.
2.2.3. Individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to consider climate change a major threat
The literature indicates that education is positively correlated with environmental attitudes in general and towards climate change specifically and can cause individuals to behave in a more environmentally friendly manner. In fact, it has been argued that education has the strongest effect on environmental concern and is the single, most stable variable that explains environmental concern.
Education promotes an understanding of a wide range of issues, including the scientific phenomena surrounding climate change. Information – both general knowledge and subject-specific knowledge – is a crucial component in attitude formation. As a result, what individuals learn in school helps shape their attitudes on a given subject – in this case, climate change. Furthermore, education is associated with people’s pro-environmental behaviours. Research has also shown that individuals with secondary or tertiary education are much less likely to deny climate change than those who only completed primary school education. Thus, when children and young adults learn (and continue to learn) about the determinants and consequences of climate change at school, they then have overall higher levels of self‑reported understanding of climate change and will go on to make more informed decisions in their daily lives through political and civic participation.
Figure 2.4 reveals that in the majority of countries, individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to consider climate change a major threat. In 14 of the 22 countries, tertiary-educated adults report higher perceptions of threat than those who did not complete secondary education. Across OECD countries, 73% of individuals with a tertiary qualification, 66% with a secondary qualification and 63% of those without secondary qualifications report perceiving climate change as a threat. In eight countries, perceptions of climate change as a major threat are higher among individuals without secondary qualifications than those with tertiary qualifications. The difference is statistically significant and quantitatively large in the United States. This could be a reflection of the geographic distribution of individuals with a different level of education in areas that are more or less affected by climate change. Cross-country differences in the association between education and perceptions of threat could be due to differences in exposure to the potential impact of climate change across education groups in the different countries. Box 2.1 illustrates differences by level of education in attitudes towards climate change and environmental issues in countries that took part in the OECD Environmental Policies and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) Survey in 2022.
Figure 2.4. Educational attainment and the perception of climate change as a major threat in OECD countries, 2020
Note: Countries are ranked in descending order based on the percentage of tertiary-educated individuals who reported that they perceived climate change to be a major threat. The number in brackets next to the country name represents the percentage-point difference between tertiary-educated individuals and individuals without secondary qualifications. The asterisk (*) indicates if the difference is statistically significant at the 5% level.
Source: Calculations based on Wellcome (2020[9]), Wellcome Global Monitor 2020: COVID-19 (dataset), https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor-covid-19/2020#downloads-6b45.
Box 2.1. Insights from the OECD EPIC Survey on differences in attitudes towards the environment and environmental policies by level of education
The third round of the OECD’s Survey on Environmental Policies and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) was implemented between June and July 2022. The sample included more than 17 000 households across 9 countries: Belgium, Canada, France, Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The 2022 EPIC Survey examines household behaviour in four key areas: 1) waste generation and disposal practices; 2) transport; 3) energy use; and 4) food consumption. The survey also explores how policies may affect key consumption decisions in those four areas. The sample surveyed comprised individuals aged 18 or older with full or partial responsibility for household expenses. To ensure that the survey was representative of the population, quotas were set for age, gender, geographic region and income.
Findings from the EPIC Survey indicate that climate change and other environmental issues, such as resource scarcity and pollution, were among the top three issues of concern in five of the nine countries surveyed. The majority of respondents (65%) reported being willing to make changes to their current lifestyles in order to benefit the environment. The survey results also highlight the importance of making environmentally sustainable choices available and feasible. This includes, for example, the option for households to choose renewably generated electricity or their ability to easily charge battery powered electric vehicles.
In addition to availability, cost and convenience emerge as important factors that determine choices, even for those who report having higher levels of income and environmental concern. For instance, respondents were more likely to engage in energy conservation when this was inexpensive or easy to do: 70% of respondents indicated that they turn off the lights when leaving the room, whereas 30% indicated that they minimise the use of heating or cooling. Households are also less likely to adopt low-emissions energy technologies that have high upfront installation costs or are not well understood, and 54% of regular car users indicated they would drive a car less if public transport was improved (i.e. made cheaper, with more frequent and spatially widespread services).
Importantly, the EPIC Survey results showed that respondents were much more supportive of policies that are voluntary and that expand their set of choices, as opposed to tax-based measures or policies that prohibit certain actions or options. These findings suggest that policymakers could leverage existing policy support to advance environmental policies, e.g. by using the revenues generated from tax-based measures to improve the affordability of other sustainable options and to enhance the acceptability of tax-based measures.
Results reported in Figure 2.5 reveal that individuals who completed tertiary-level qualifications were significantly more likely to rate climate change and environmental issues as being very important to them than individuals who had not completed tertiary-level qualifications in Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United States and the United Kingdom. In particular, differences by level of education were very pronounced in the United Kingdom, where they corresponded to 12 percentage points and Switzerland, where they corresponded to 9 percentage points. By contrast, in Canada, France, and Israel, there were no differences in ratings about the extent to which individuals with or without a tertiary degree rated climate change and environmental issues as being important to them.
Figure 2.5. Importance of environmental issues by level of educational attainment, selected countries, 2022
Note: Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of respondents rating climate change and environmental issues as very important among individuals with tertiary-level qualifications. Respondents were asked to report using a five-point scale ranging from “not at all important” to “very important” how important a series of issues were to them personally. The figure shows the percentage of respondents rating climate change and environmental issues as “very important”. Grey spikes in the figure indicate the 95% confidence interval.
Source: OECD (2023[10]), How Green is Household Behaviour?: Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises, https://doi.org/10.1787/2bbbb663-en.
Across countries examined in the EPIC Survey, 69% of individuals with and 67% without tertiary-level qualifications indicated that they expected climate change and environmental issues to negatively affect the quality of life of younger generations (Figure 2.6). Whereas similar percentages of respondents with and without tertiary-level qualifications reported expecting climate change and environmental issues to negatively affect their health (54% and 53%), individuals without tertiary-level qualifications were more likely to expect climate change and environmental issues to negatively affect their job security and less likely to expect them to affect miscellaneous aspects of their lives. In particular, only 18% of respondents with, and 22% without, a tertiary-level qualification, indicated that they expected climate change and other environmental issues to negatively affect their job security.
Figure 2.7 suggests that individuals with tertiary-level qualifications are considerably more likely than individuals without tertiary-level qualifications to indicate that they would be willing to make compromises in their current lifestyle for the benefit of the environment (71% of individuals with tertiary-level qualifications, but 61% of those without reported the same); that protecting the environment can boost the economy (71% of individuals with tertiary-level qualifications, but 59% of those without reported the same); that environmental issues should be resolved mainly through public policies (62% of individuals with tertiary-level qualifications, but 51% of those without reported the same); and that environmental issues will be resolved primarily through technological progress (52% of individuals with tertiary-level qualifications, but 40% of those without reported the same). By contrast, individuals without tertiary-level qualifications were more likely to indicate that environmental policies introduced by the government should not cost them extra money (60% of individuals with tertiary-level qualifications but 65% of those without reported the same). Although only a minority of respondents said that environmental issues should be dealt with primarily by future generations, individuals with tertiary-level qualifications were more likely than those without to report this (29% of respondents with tertiary-level qualifications, but 25% of respondents without did).
Figure 2.6. Share of respondents perceiving negative impacts of climate change or other environmental issues, 2022
Note: This survey item asked respondents, “How do you expect climate change (e.g. rising average temperatures, changes in extreme weather events) or other environmental issues to impact the following?” Respondents rated the impact on a five-point scale from “very negatively” to “very positively”. Grey spikes in the figure indicate the 95% confidence interval.
Source: OECD (2023[10]), How Green is Household Behaviour?: Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises, https://doi.org/10.1787/2bbbb663-en.
Figure 2.7. Respondents’ opinions on addressing environmental issues, 2022
Note: This survey item asked respondents, “To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements?” Respondents stated their level of agreement on a five-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Grey spikes in the figure indicate the 95% confidence interval.
Source: OECD (2023[10]), How Green is Household Behaviour?: Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises, https://doi.org/10.1787/2bbbb663-en.
Education not only helps shape attitudes towards the environment in general, and climate change in particular, and subsequently pro-environmental behaviour, but it is also key in equipping students with a solid foundational understanding of environmental phenomena and fostering the desire to learn more about and engage with environmental problems. Individuals who continue their studies and pursue higher educational qualifications generally acquire skills and habits that allow them to search for and understand information about environmental issues. In fact, educational attainment has been found to be one of the strongest predictors of the willingness to learn (OECD, 2021[11]). Given this, more educated individuals are more likely to continuously seek out relevant information and update their beliefs and understanding, even with regard to climate change, which could result in an even larger gap in environmental awareness over time. The implication is that obtaining a higher education may not only provide additional environmental information but, more importantly, it may prepare individuals to be lifelong learners, capable of constantly updating their knowledge and understanding.
2.2.4. Attitudes towards climate change differ depending on the sector in which individuals work
Results presented in Figure 2.8 indicate that in many countries, individuals working in industries that are among the 25% heaviest emitters of CO2 are less likely to believe in climate change than individuals working in industries that are among the 25% lowest emitters of CO2. Examples of most-emitting industries include coal and refined petroleum products; mining and quarrying, non-energy producing products; and water transport. The least-emitting industries include information technology and other information services; human health and social work activities; and administrative and support services. For example, in Ireland, 60% of individuals working in high CO2-emitting industries report believing that climate change is definitely happening, while this is the case for 72% of those working in low CO2-emitting industries. Similarly, in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Norway, Israel, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Finland (ranked in descending order based on the percentage of the population that believe climate change is definitely happening), individuals working in high greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting industries were less likely to report that they believe that climate change is definitely happening than individuals working in low CO2-emitting industries. Note that this relationship does not necessarily indicate a causal effect of sectoral CO2 emissions on attitudes towards climate change but may reflect the different sorting of workers into different sectors.
Figure 2.8. Climate change belief and CO2 emissions per output in OECD countries, 2020
Note: Countries are sorted in descending order of the percentage of the population aged 16 years or above who believe that climate change is definitely happening and work in the sectors with the lowest quartile of CO2 emissions multiplier within each country. The figure also shows the same outcome for the individuals working in the sectors with the highest quantile in terms of CO2 emissions multiplier.
Source: Calculations based on European Social Survey (2020[12]), European Social Survey (Round 8) (dataset), https://doi.org/10.21338/ESS8E02_2.
Figure 2.9 also shows that in the majority of countries, the percentage of individuals who are “very” or “extremely worried” about climate change is lower among individuals working in the most CO2-intensive sectors than among individuals working in the least CO2-intensive sectors, although differences are generally not very pronounced. On average, 31% of individuals working in the least CO2-emitting industries report being “very” or “extremely worried” about climate change, in contrast to 27% of individuals working in the most CO2-emitting industries.
Figure 2.9. Climate change concern and CO2 emissions per output in OECD countries, 2020
Note: Countries are sorted in descending order of the percentage of the population aged 16 years or above who are “very” or “extremely worried” about climate change and work in the sectors with the lowest quartile of CO2 emissions multiplier within each country. The figure also shows the same outcome for the individuals working in the sectors with the highest quantile in terms of CO2 emissions multiplier.
Source: Calculations based on European Social Survey (2020[12]), European Social Survey (Round 8) (dataset), https://doi.org/10.21338/ESS8E02_2.
Figure 2.10 indicates that, controlling for country-specific effects, as well as personal characteristics, such as age, gender and educational attainment, individuals who work in a more CO2-intensive sector are less likely to believe that climate change is happening, are less worried about climate change, and have a lower willingness to engage in behaviour aimed at reducing environmental degradation, although results are imprecisely estimated. The estimated effects are significant for belief in climate change and policy support. For example, working in sectors that emit 1% more CO2 per output is associated with a lower probability of believing that climate change is definitely happening of 0.8 percentage points. Similarly, working in sectors that emit 1% more CO2 per output is associated with a 1.5 percentage point lower probability of supporting a fossil-fuel tax. Conversely, the estimated effects are smaller and statistically insignificant with respect to climate worry and engagement in pro-environmental behaviour. To put this into perspective, workers in the most-emitting sectors among the top quartile in terms of the average CO2 emission per output across countries are less likely to state that climate change is definitely happening by approximately 17 percentage points, relative to workers in the least-emitting sectors among the lowest quartile.
These results could reflect that individuals more concerned about the environment work in industries and occupations less likely to contribute to environmental degradation. However, they could also imply that individuals adjust their attitudes and beliefs to the context in which they operate as a way to cognitively justify their everyday work. Finally, employment ethos, context and peer pressure could shape individuals’ attitudes and dispositions. Being surrounded by individuals who express greater environmental concerns and care about environmental protection every day at work might change the environmental concerns or the pro-environmental dispositions of someone with less positive attitudes towards the environment.
Figure 2.10. The impact of working in CO2-intensive industries on attitudes towards climate change and support for pro-environmental policies
Note: The figure shows the regression coefficients on the log of CO2 emissions multiplier in which individuals work on the various environmental attitudes. The regression is based on a pooled sample of countries, and the specification includes country-fixed effects and control for personal characteristics (age, gender and educational attainment). Grey spikes in the figure indicate the 95% confidence interval.
Source: Calculations based on European Social Survey (2020[12]), European Social Survey (Round 8) (dataset), https://doi.org/10.21338/ESS8E02_2 and on the World Values Survey (2014[13]), World Values Survey: All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile Version (database), www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp (used waves 3-7).
2.2.5. Attitudes towards climate change shape public support for environmental protection policies
Data show that individuals who are more worried about climate change tend to act more pro‑environmentally and express support for pro-environment policies (Figure 2.11). For example, there is approximately a 10 percentage-point difference in the percentage of individuals who choose an energy‑efficient product when purchasing a large electrical appliance between those who are more worried about climate change and those who are not. Individuals who are worried about climate change are also more likely to support pro-environmental policies, ranging from fossil-fuel taxation, renewable energy subsidies and bans on energy-inefficient household goods.
Figure 2.11 also makes clear that, in general, taxation is less favoured than subsidies and product-market interventions. One reason for this could be that fossil fuel taxes are already high in most OECD countries. For example, in 2018, OECD and Group of Twenty (G20) countries priced 80% of carbon emissions from road transport at EUR 60 or more (OECD, 2021[14]). Furthermore, research from the OECD has found that although taxes on fossil fuels appear to be among the least popular policies, what matters greatly is the use of the carbon tax revenue (Dechezleprêtre et al., 2022[15]). The study found that if carbon taxes were used to fund environmental infrastructure, subsidise low-carbon technologies or reduce income taxes, they would receive more support than if they were distributed equally to everyone (Dechezleprêtre et al., 2022[15]). The higher willingness of populations to support incentives and subsidies for low-carbon technologies over carbon taxes may have driven the adoption of the US Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The bill includes incentives, such as tax credits, to encourage people to upgrade their homes in energy‑efficient ways (Gabbatiss, McSweeney and Viglione, 2022[16]) and purchase clean vehicles (Ermey, 2022[17]).
Figure 2.11. Perceptions of climate change threat and engagement in pro-environmental behaviours and support for environmental protection policies
Note: Each bar represents the percentage of the population (aged 15 years or over) who engage in pro-environment behaviour and support environmental protection policies. The figure makes comparisons between those who are “very” or “extremely worried” about climate change and those who are not (i.e. either not at all worried, not very worried, or only somewhat worried). Asai, Borgonovi and Wildi (2022[1]) specify how the dichotomous variables are constructed. Grey spikes in the figure indicate the 95% confidence interval.
Source: Calculations based on European Social Survey (2020[12]), European Social Survey (Round 8) (dataset), https://doi.org/10.21338/ESS8E02_2.
Overall, results indicate significant variation in adults’ attitudes towards the environment and support for public policy across countries and individuals based on gender and education, as well as people’s economic vulnerability and the sectors they work in. Given this context, it is crucial to further understand how environmental attitudes are developed, especially among young people. Have young people today acquired the skills as well as the will to act for environmental sustainability? The next section will address this question.
2.3. Few young people excel in all dimensions of environmental sustainability
Young people play a crucial role in protecting the environment. Their present choices and behaviours as consumers have a direct tangible impact on the success of existing efforts to protect the environment. At the same time, the choices they undertake and the knowledge they accumulate in their formative years can significantly shape whether they will decide to seek employment opportunities that align with the achievement of green objectives or not, their future consumption decisions, their engagement in grassroots initiatives aimed at promoting environmental protection and their support for climate change mitigation policies. Considering the competences pupils have is therefore critical because they are at the basis of students full and active participation as young citizens of the world. Such competences shape and determine their willingness to shape the planet’s future in sustainable ways.
Environmental sustainability competence comprises the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that are critical to promoting environmental sustainability. In order for young people to engage in meaningful action in the present and be ready to take on challenges in the future, they should have developed all areas that constitute environmental sustainability competence, including cognitive (knowledge and skills), affective (attitudes and values) as well as behavioural (engagement in activities supporting the environment) aspects. Although several theoretical and operational definitions of environmental sustainability competence exist, this report borrows the GreenComp environmental sustainability competence approach, according to which sustainability education aims “to nurture a sustainability mindset from childhood to adulthood with the understanding that humans are part of and depend on nature. Learners are equipped with knowledge, skills and attitudes that help them become agents of change and contribute individually and collectively to shaping futures within planetary boundaries” (Borgonovi et al., 2022[3]).
The GreenComp framework identifies four areas that characterise environmental sustainability competence: 1) embodying sustainability values; 2) embracing complexity in sustainability; 3) envisioning sustainable futures; and 4) acting for sustainability. Embodying sustainability values implies that learners reflect on personal values and worldviews and compare them with unsustainability and sustainability values and worldviews. Embracing complexity in sustainability implies that learners adopt systemic and critical thinking to better assess information and frame current or future challenges as sustainability problems. Envisioning sustainable futures implies that learners can imagine alternative scenarios and identify steps to achieve a sustainable future by using creativity and adapting to change. Finally, acting for sustainability implies that learners act individually and collectively to shape sustainable futures and demand effective policy action for sustainability. Figure 2.12 details the four areas that characterise environmental sustainability competence and the indicators used to map them among young people.
Figure 2.12. Environmental sustainability competence
Source: Adapted from Borgonovi et al. (2022[3]), “Young people’s environmental sustainability competence: Emotional, cognitive, behavioural, and attitudinal dimensions in EU and OECD countries”, https://doi.org/10.1787/1097a78c-en.
2.3.1. In which countries are students prepared to tackle environmental challenges and be environmentally thoughtful consumers?
Students who, by age 15, have acquired the four key competence areas that characterise environmental sustainability are considered to have environmental sustainability competence. Environmental sustainability competence includes four areas: proficiency in science literacy, displaying an awareness of key environmental problems, having the agency to take action, caring for the environment and being willing to act to protect the environment (Box 2.2).
These two groups can be identified depending on their level of proficiency in science (Box 2.2). Students with foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence are those who, on top of fulfilling the other environmental competence areas, performed at least at the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) foundational level of science proficiency [PISA Level 2, see Section 1 in Borgonovi et al. (2022[3]) for a description]. Students with foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence can be expected to have acquired the level of skills that will enable them to become thoughtful citizens, to be engaged in protecting the environment through their consumption decisions and lifestyle choices and to have the emotional, cognitive and behavioural mindset to be able to consider the environmental consequence of their actions. The second group is that of students with advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence, students who mastered the science skills needed to have a strong performance in PISA (defined as achieving at least proficiency Level 4) and who, in the future, could engage more directly in shaping the green economy by developing new technologies, innovating in the use of existing technologies in environmentally sound ways or by developing new solutions to reduce the environmental footprint associated with producing goods and services.
Box 2.2. Definition of environmental sustainability competence groups
Students with foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence achieve at least at proficiency Level 2 in the PISA science test and:
Are aware of climate change and global warming. Students report either “I know something about this and could explain the general issue” or “I am familiar with this and I would be able to explain this well” about the environmental issues of climate change and global warming.
Care for the environment. Students agree or strongly agree that looking after the environment is important to them.
Are self-efficacious about being able to explain environmental phenomena. Students who reported that they could easily perform at least one of the three tasks, or reported that they could perform all three with a bit of effort, were considered to display high levels of environmental self-efficacy [for the tasks, see Box 1.5 in Borgonovi et al. (2022[3])].
Behave to promote environmental sustainability. Students report engaging in either energy‑saving or collective action to protect the environment.
Students with advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence are those who satisfy the same conditions but instead of achieving at least Level 2, achieve at least at Level 4 in the PISA science test.
Figure 2.13 and Figure 2.14 illustrate the distribution of 15-year-old students who, in 2018, had acquired the full range of cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions of environmental sustainability to exert positive change in the future, i.e. those with advanced levels of competence.
Figure 2.13 illustrates the percentage of 15-year-old students who, in 2018, had foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence. On average, 31% of 15-year-old students across OECD countries had foundational levels. These students achieved at least PISA Level 2 in science; reported being aware of climate change and global warming; felt confident about discussing or explaining environmental problems to others; reported that caring for the environment was important to them; and engaged in pro-environmental behaviour by either saving energy or participating in environmental groups. In Korea, one in two 15-year-old students in 2018 had foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence, the largest share across OECD countries with available data. In Canada, Portugal and Malta, over 40% of 15-year-olds had foundational levels. By contrast, in Bulgaria, Italy, Romania and the Slovak Republic, only one in four 15-year-old students or less had foundational levels. Results presented in Figure 2.13 indicate that, on average across OECD countries, only around one in three students, by age 15, mastered the emotional, cognitive and behavioural areas of environmental sustainability competence that represent a solid foundation upon which to build their future and the future of the planet. In other words, the vast majority of 15-year-old students in 2018 failed to acquire the entire environmental competence toolbox.
Figure 2.13. Distribution of students with foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence in OECD countries (PISA 2018)
Note: Countries are sorted in descending order of the percentage of students who achieved foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence. Results were obtained from the sub-sample of students with valid information on all areas. The figure presents the percentage of students who reported that looking after the environment was important to them; who achieved at least the foundational proficiency Level 2 in the PISA science assessment; who indicated being aware of climate change and global warming; who reported high levels of environmental self-efficacy [see Section 1 in Borgonovi et al. (2022[3]) for a full description]; and who reported either reducing energy consumption for environmental reasons or participating in activities in favour of environmental protection.
Source: Calculations based on OECD (2018[18]), PISA 2018 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.
Figure 2.14 illustrates the distribution of 15-year-old students who, in 2018, had advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence. It indicates that, on average across OECD countries, 13% of 15‑year-old students in 2018 achieved advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence, meaning that they were strong performers in the PISA science test, achieving at least proficiency Level 4; as well as reporting that looking after the environment was important to them; being aware of climate change and global warming; having high environmental self-efficacy; and engaging in pro-environmental behaviours. Only in Canada, Germany, and Korea did at least one in five students satisfy all conditions to be considered as having advanced levels of environmental sustainability competence, reflecting the high number of students who, at age 15, achieved only foundational proficiency levels in science. In nine countries – Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Romania, and the Slovak Republic – less than one in ten students achieved advanced levels of environmental sustainability competence. This is despite the fact that in order to ensure an economy-wide effort to meet ambitious climate targets, OECD countries will have to re-orient production to satisfy net-zero requirements, and such re-orientation requires labour market re-allocation towards jobs in the green economy. Such jobs require strong technical skills, which most 15-year-olds in OECD countries lack.
Figure 2.14. Distribution of students with advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence in OECD countries (PISA 2018)
Note: Countries are sorted in descending order of the percentage of students who achieved advanced levels of environmental sustainability competence. Results were obtained from the sub-sample of students with valid information in all areas. The figure presents the percentage of students who reported that looking after the environment was important to them; who achieved at least the foundational proficiency Level 4 in the PISA science assessment; who indicated being aware of climate change and global warming; who reported high levels of environmental self-efficacy [see Section 1 in Borgonovi et al. (2022[3]) for a full description]; and who reported either reducing energy consumption for environmental reasons or participating in activities in favour of environmental protection.
Source: Calculations based on OECD (2018[18]), PISA 2018 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.
Figure 2.15 shows gender and socio-economic status data for this population (OECD average): the percentage of boys and girls who had foundational and advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence and the percentage of socio-economically disadvantaged and advantaged students who had foundational and advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence.
Results indicate that in 2018, more girls than boys achieved foundational levels: 35% of girls but 31% of boys had foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence across OECD countries. Detailed country analyses reveal that gender differences in favour of girls were especially pronounced in Korea, Lithuania and Poland, where the gender gap was 7 percentage points; Bulgaria and Malta, where the gap was 8 percentage points; and the Republic of Türkiye (hereafter “Türkiye”), where the gender gap was 9 percentage points. By contrast, Figure 2.15 shows that in 2018, there was no gender difference in the percentage of boys and girls who achieved advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence: 13% of boys and girls across OECD countries could be classified as having advanced levels. Country-specific analyses reveal that in Estonia and Korea, girls were considerably more likely than boys to be classified as having advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence (in Estonia, 19% of girls but 16% of boys, and in Korea, 25% of girls but 23% of boys). Differences in the percentage of girls and boys who achieved foundational and advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence are due to differences in the likelihood that boys and girls will be high and low achievers in science. Box 2.3 discusses in detail gender differences in science achievement by level of achievement and by science domain.
Figure 2.15 also provides, for the OECD average, the percentage of socio-economically disadvantaged and advantaged students who achieved foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence. Socio-economically disadvantaged students are students in the bottom quartile of the national distribution of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS). Socio-economically advantaged students are students in the top quartile of the national distribution of ESCS. On average, across OECD countries, 21% of socio‑economically disadvantaged but 46% of socio-economically advantaged students had foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence, a difference of 25 percentage points. Country-specific analyses reveal that socio-economic disparities in the percentage of students with foundational levels were larger than 30 percentage points in Bulgaria, Hungary and Portugal and were below 20 percentage points only in Italy (16 percentage-point difference) and Türkiye (17 percentage-point difference).
Figure 2.15. Distribution of students with foundational and advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence by gender and socio-economic status, OECD average (PISA 2018)
Note: The figure presents the percentage of boys and girls who reported that looking after the environment was important to them and the percentage of socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students who reported that looking after the environment was important to them; who achieved at least the foundational proficiency Level 2 (students with foundational levels in environmental sustainability competence) and Level 4 (students with advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence) in the PISA science assessment; who indicated being aware of climate change and global warming; who reported high levels of environmental self-efficacy [see Section 1 in Borgonovi et al. (2022[3]) for a full description]; and who reported either reducing energy consumption for environmental reasons or participating in activities in favour of environmental protection. Socio-economically disadvantaged students are students in the bottom quartile of the national distribution of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS). Socio-economically advantaged students are students in the top quartile of the national distribution of ESCS.
Source: Calculations based on OECD (2018[18]), PISA 2018 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.
Figure 2.15 also shows that there are large differences per socio-economic status in the likelihood that 15‑year-old students will have advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence. On average, across OECD countries, 5% of socio‑economically disadvantaged, but 24% of socio-economically advantaged students, had advanced levels of competence, a difference of 19 percentage points. Country-specific analyses reveal that socio-economic disparities in the percentage of those who had advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence were larger than 25 percentage points in France, Germany, New Zealand, Portugal and Switzerland. These results are especially concerning because PISA reveals that students with a socio-economically disadvantaged background are less likely than their more advantaged counterparts to expect to continue their studies (OECD, 2021[11]), and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to work in jobs that are likely to be displaced by the twin digital and green transition (Box 2.4). These results suggest that initial education systems are currently failing to equip many youngsters, and socio-economically disadvantaged youngsters in particular, with the foundation skills and mindsets they will need in order to be open to finding employment opportunities in the new green economy.
Box 2.3. Gender differences in science differ by level of proficiency and science competency subscale
Although at age 15, boys and girls perform at similar levels in science (OECD, 2019[19]), in many countries, boys are over-represented among students with the highest levels of achievement. Moreover, boys and girls are not equally likely to perform at similar levels in different areas of science. In particular, boys and girls are not equally likely to achieve high levels in areas of science that pertain to physics, biology or geoscience.
Figure 2.16 illustrates the gender gap (measured in percentage-point difference) in PISA 2015 in different areas of science among students with different levels of achievement. Boys were over-represented among the highest achieving students (defined as students performing at or above proficiency Level 5 in PISA 2015) in all science tasks but, in particular, in science tasks requiring them to explain phenomena scientifically or in tasks related to physics (the difference in the percentage of boys and girls who performed at this level in these tasks was 3 percentage points). By contrast, the gender gap among the highest achievers was less pronounced when considering science tasks requiring students to evaluate and design scientific enquiry or tasks requiring students to display their procedural and epistemic knowledge (the difference in the percentage of boys and girls who performed at this level was 1 percentage point). By contrast, Figure 2.16 reveals that in many areas, 15-year-old girls are more likely than boys to perform at least at foundational levels (defined as achieving at least proficiency Level 2). In particular, Figure 2.16 reveals that boys are over-represented among young people who fail to reach foundational levels of proficiency in science tasks requiring them to evaluate and design scientific enquiry or display their procedural and epistemic knowledge (the difference in the percentage of boys and girls who performed at this level in these tasks was around 3 percentage points). Similarly, boys were over-represented among young people who failed to reach at least foundational levels of proficiency in tasks related to biology (living systems) and earth and space.
Figure 2.16. Gender differences by science competency subscale (PISA 2015)
Note: The figure shows the percentage-point difference in science proficiency Level 5 and above of 15-year-old boys and girls by science competency subscale and the percentage-point difference in science proficiency Level 2 and above of 15-year-old boys and girls by science competency subscale.
Source: Calculations based on OECD (2018[18]), PISA 2018 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.
Box 2.4. Twin green and digital transition
“Enabling competences” are competences that are not directly related to environmental sustainability competence per se but allow environmental sustainability competence to be developed and effectively used in the labour market and society.
Among this set of enabling competences, digital skills can play a major role in promoting young people’s acquisition of environmental sustainability competence and engagement in a green economy. For instance, digital skills could contribute to establishing circular economies and cleaner production processes. The 3R practice (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) is a prime example of how the use of digital technologies for industrial symbiosis, i.e. outgoing flows from one manufacturing facility are used by another, can help reduce and, potentially, replace reliance on virgin raw materials. Digital efficacy and the ability to manage digital systems and processes are also considered essential to facilitating the decoupling of economic growth and climate change, as many of these green technologies rely on and are enhanced by digital ones.
Examples of the intrinsic relationship between digital and green skills abound. For instance, in the energy sector, digital skills are used to improve efficiency by maximising quality while minimising energy use, thus contributing to the green energy transition. According to the IEA (2017[20]), digitally enabled tasks (such as data processing, modelling, simulation and optimisation) have been pivotal for the energy sector since the 1970s and have progressively acquired prominence in other environmentally sensitive domains, such as transport, buildings and industry. The cases of the photovoltaics and biofuel regional clusters in Wales (United Kingdom) and the Cleantech platform in central Israel provide other relevant illustrations of regions in which pre-existing specialisations and digital capabilities have facilitated the development of new green specialisations (Cooke, 2010[21]).
To some extent, digitalisation may accelerate the transition towards a greener economy and digital competences could play a prominent role in green ones (Cecere et al., 2014[22]). Research, for example, reveals that the use of digital media such as Science, Camera, Action! (SCA) facilitates children’s constructive climate change engagement by combining educational activities with digital photography to facilitate individual and collaborative climate change action (Trott and Weinberg, 2020[23]). Similarly, digital storytelling has been successfully used to raise children’s environmental attitudes (Theodorou et al., 2018[24]). In fact, students’ exposure to digital social stories through the web application “Pixton” to educate them on recycling, reusing and reducing influenced not only children’s environmental knowledge but also their willingness to change their behaviour. A sustainability app has been shown to positively affect environmental awareness and users’ pro-environmental behaviours (D’Arco and Marino, 2022[25]).
Digital technologies have also been used in buildings to encourage occupants to engage in pro‑environmental behaviours when prompted by their computers (Khashe et al., 2017[26]). Such smart digital monitoring tools led to high levels of engagement and compliance. “Digital nudging” has been identified as effective in guiding people’s behaviour in a digital choice environment and promoting individual pro-environmental behaviour (Henkel et al., 2019[27]). Digital nudging can support individuals’ pro-environmental behaviour and lead to changes in individual behaviours, such as using energy more efficiently, consuming less water or increasing the use of renewable energy sources. Thus, digital nudging can potentially prevent further environmental damage and provide a cost-effective way to encourage pro-environmental behaviour at both macro (society and organisations) and micro (individuals) levels.
In recognition of the importance and interdependence of the green and digital transition, the European Union (EU) is resetting its growth strategy, based on sustainability, with the green and digital transition as its transformative driver. The green and digital transition – the “twin transition” – is at the top of the EU political agenda and will shape Europe and its future. On the one hand, the European Green Deal aims to transform the EU into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy in which there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 and economic growth is decoupled from resource use. On the other hand, the EU’s digital transformation aims to empower businesses and people in a human-centred, sustainable and more prosperous digital future. Both processes are taking place in parallel and influence each other. Or as the European Commission highlights: “This twin challenge of a green and digital transformation has to go hand-in-hand” (European Commission, 2020, p. 1).
To achieve the EU’s objectives of becoming a greener, digitally fit and fairer Europe, the European Commission has adopted several initiatives and set clear targets to identify both green and digital interlinkages and synergies as well as tension points to ensure that the two transitions can reinforce each other (e.g. e-waste, digital carbon footprint). Such initiatives entail, for instance:
Identifying and addressing reskilling/upskilling and (re)training needs stemming from new, green or digital products, services or technologies.
Fostering social acceptance and/or behavioural changes for more sustainable business models, consumption patterns and/or modes of transport.
Investing in education and training, enhancing skills and equipping people for new green and digital jobs.
Developing readiness to build, reinforce and strengthen digital and green capacity and digital tools.
Raising awareness of the opportunities and challenges related to the green and digital transition and contributions to their social acceptance.
2.3.2. Caring for the environment is associated with engagement in individual and collective environmental action
Acting for environmental sustainability involves acting individually and collectively to shape a sustainable future and demanding effective policy action for sustainability. Students’ environmental actions at present are key to environmental welfare and, as such, describe 15-year-old students’ present contribution to environmental sustainability. Figure 2.17 and Figure 2.18 consider how students’ current engagement in individual and collective forms of pro-environmental behaviours depends on emotional, attitudinal and cognitive areas of environmental sustainability competence. The figures illustrate the percentage-point difference in the probability that 15-year-old students report reducing energy consumption for environmental reasons and participation in environmental groups, which is associated with a one-unit change in emotional, attitudinal and cognitive dimensions of environmental sustainability competence. Percentage‑point differences represented in the figures compare students with similar gender, socio‑economic status, language and migration status and attending schools with a similar socio-economic intake. Furthermore, they were estimated when comparing students with similar levels of sustainability competence on the other dimensions.
Results reported in Figure 2.17 indicate that, on average, across OECD countries with available data, students who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that looking after the global environment was important to them were 16 percentage points more likely to save energy than those who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. In particular, in Australia, France, Germany, Korea, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, the difference in the percentage of 15-year-old students who reported engaging in energy-saving behaviours between those who reported caring about the environment and those who did not was larger than 20 percentage points. Differences were smallest and corresponded to fewer than 5 percentage points in Bulgaria and Lithuania.
Figure 2.17 also suggests that a high level of environmental self-efficacy is strongly associated with engagement in saving energy. On average, across OECD countries with available data, students who reported high levels of environmental self-efficacy were 4 percentage points more likely to report saving energy for environmental reasons than students with low levels of environmental self-efficacy. The difference in the propensity to engage in energy-saving behaviour between students with high and low levels of environmental self-efficacy was highest in Germany, Lithuania and Romania (greater than 7 percentage points). The difference in energy-saving behaviour between students who achieved at least foundational proficiency levels in the PISA science test (i.e. achieved proficiency Level 2) and those who did not was negative but quantitatively small. On average, across OECD countries, students who achieved at least foundational proficiency levels in science were 1 percentage point less likely to engage in energy-saving behaviours than other similar students. In Italy, the difference was larger and corresponded to 7 percentage points; in Bulgaria and Romania, it corresponded to 5 percentage points. Finally, students who reported being aware of environmental problems were 4 percentage points more likely, on average across OECD countries, to engage in energy-saving behaviours than students who reported low levels of environmental awareness.
Figure 2.17. The association between environmental sustainability competence areas and energy-saving behaviours among 15-year-olds in OECD countries (PISA 2018)
Note: Countries are sorted in descending order of the percentage-point difference in energy saving associated with students being top performers in science. Results were obtained by estimating whether a respondent reported as a function of the four dimensions of environmental sustainability competence, as well as gender, individual socio-economic status measured using the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status, an indicator of whether the respondent spoke, at home, the same language of the PISA test and whether they or their parents were born outside of the country in which they sat the PISA test; as well as the school average socio-economic status.
Source: Calculations based on OECD (2018[18]), PISA 2018 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.
Figure 2.18 illustrates associations with participation in activities in favour of environmental protection. In line with energy-saving behaviour, participation in activities in favour of environmental protection varies markedly depending on whether or not students report caring about the environment and their level of environmental self-efficacy. Data from 2018 reveal that 15-year-old students who reported caring about the environment and had high levels of environmental self-efficacy were more likely to participate in activities favouring environmental protection. By contrast, in most countries, after taking into account whether students reported caring about the environment, their environmental awareness and self-efficacy, participation in activities favouring environmental protection was lower among students who achieved at least foundational levels in science. This could reflect the fact that individuals with higher levels of science achievement may be more reluctant to invest their time in such activities and invest more time in their studies or that, other things being similar, they are more pessimistic about the value of such participation. Box 2.5 illustrates the extent to which young people’s engagement in activities in favour of environmental protection is related to the level of engagement of their parents.
Figure 2.18. The association between environmental sustainability competence and participation in activities in favour of environmental protection among 15-year-olds in OECD countries (PISA 2018)
Note: Countries are sorted in descending order of the percentage-point difference in activities in favour of environmental protection associated with students who achieved foundational levels of science performance. Results were obtained by estimating whether a respondent reported as a function of the four areas of sustainability competence, as well as gender, individual socio-economic status measured using the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status, an indicator of whether the respondent spoke, at home, the same language of the PISA test and whether they or their parents were born outside of the country in which they sat the PISA test; as well as the school average socio-economic status.
Source: Calculations based on OECD (2018[18]), PISA 2018 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.
Box 2.5. Children’s environmental engagement is associated with their parents’ level of environmental engagement
Youngsters’ environmental sustainability competence, especially attitudinal and emotional aspects of such competence, are determined by a variety of factors related to the cultural setting in which they are born and raised. Among these factors, parents play a pivotal role in their children’s socialisation. Children socialised into assuming a personal identity consistent with environmental protection are considerably more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviours than children who have not developed the same identity. Although the idea that environmental values are transferred from parents to children is obvious at first, the intergenerational transfer of values resulting in within-family similar behaviours and attitudes is not necessarily unidirectional. Transfers may not only flow from parents to children but also from children to parents. Children can and do act as agents of environmental change for older generations. Supportive evidence of bidirectional influences is, for example, documented for waste-related consumption and waste management.
Figure 2.19 shows the likelihood of students engaging in a given environmental action when their parents do the same, relative to the likelihood of students engaging in environmental behaviour when parents do not (i.e. the odds ratio1). Almost all associations are significant at the 5% significance level; the only exception is in Malta for “boycotting products or companies for political, ethical or environmental reasons”.
The magnitude of these associations differs between countries and topics. While for energy-saving behaviour, in 2018, 15-year-old students in Germany were around 70% (odds ratio = 1.76) more likely to save energy for environmental reasons when their parents saved energy compared to when their parents did not, in Malta, 15-year-old students were even more likely to engage in energy-saving behaviour (odds ratio = 3.17). However, the likelihood of engaging in pro-environmental behaviour also varies between the type of behaviour. For example, 15-year-old students in Malta are 44% (odds ratio = 1.44) more likely to sign environmental or social petitions when their parents do so as well, compared to when they do not.
Figure 2.19. Effect of parents’ environmental engagement on students’ engagement (PISA 2018)
Note: Each value represents a separate estimate of students’ behaviour on parents’ behaviour, controlling for gender, language spoken at home, immigrant background, economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) and schools’ ESCS. These are the odds ratios from logistic regressions. All coefficients are statistically significant at the 5% significance level.
Source: Calculations based on OECD (2018[18]), PISA 2018 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.
1. Regarding the odds ratio, a value above (below) 1 means that students whose parents engage in a specific environmental action have a higher (lower) probability of performing the same action.
On average, across OECD countries with available data, students who reported high levels of environmental self-efficacy were 9 percentage points more likely to report participating in activities in favour of environmental protection than students with low levels of environmental self-efficacy. The difference in the propensity to participate in activities in favour of environmental protection between students with high and low levels of environmental self-efficacy was highest in Chile, Hungary and Portugal. Similarly, students who reported caring about the environment were 13 percentage points more likely to have participated in activities in favour of environmental protection across OECD countries. The difference was largest in Korea – 24 percentage points – and smallest in Lithuania, where it was 3 percentage points and not statistically significant . The difference in participation in activities in favour of environmental protection between students who achieved at least foundational performance levels in science and those who did not was strong and negative. Other things being equal, throughout OECD countries, students who achieved at least foundational levels of science proficiency were 11 percentage points more likely to have participated in activities. Finally, across OECD countries, students who reported being aware of environmental problems were 3 percentage points more likely to report participating in activities in favour of environmental protection than students who did not.
2.4. Conclusions
Successfully implementing climate change mitigation policies domestically and internationally requires understanding adults’ and children’s attitudes towards climate change and the environment. Attitudes drive the actions individuals take as consumers, how they use their skills in the workplace, their willingness to invest in devising new production processes or technical innovations to promote environmental sustainability, and their support for policies aimed at reducing climate change and protecting the environment.
Results presented in this chapter reveal significant variations in different groups who report being worried about climate change, both across and within countries across different groups. In particular, results indicate that educational attainment is a strong predictor of climate change perceptions, and so are gender and the sector in which individuals work. In particular, individuals facing different levels of economic vulnerability and those working in different sectors express different attitudes towards climate change as well as different levels of support for policy action aimed at reducing environmental degradation. For example, individuals who anticipate being negatively impacted by climate change mitigation policies are more likely to report a low understanding of climate change and low threat perceptions. In particular, results show a negative correlation between working in a big CO2-emitting sector and supporting pro‑environmental policies. Individuals working in industries that are among the heaviest emitters of greenhouse gases are less likely to believe in climate change and less likely to see climate change as a threat than individuals working in industries that are among the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
On the education front, many education systems emphasise the protection of the environment or education for environmental sustainability in their curricula and acquiring environmental sustainability competence as key for education systems to develop involved and responsible citizens. Previous empirical studies indicate that teachers and school principals endorse these policy objectives, recognise the key role education systems can play in promoting the green transition and regard the promotion of students’ respect for and safeguarding of the environment as an important goal.
The foundation for this is environmental sustainability competence. Results indicate that large disparities exist in the extent to which education systems and societies generally equip children with this key foundation for their future. Disparities in acquiring different environmental sustainability competence areas are compounded, and socio-economically disadvantaged youths are, in particular, less likely to acquire environmental sustainability competence. On average, throughout OECD countries, analyses presented reveal that they are 19 percentage points less likely to have foundational levels of environmental sustainability competence and 18 percentage points less likely to have advanced levels of competence compared to their more socio-economically advantaged peers.
A second key dimension of inequality is gender. Subtle but pervasive gender differences exist when granular indicators are available and can be analysed. Delivering a just and inclusive green transition can only be achieved with the participation of all, and the barriers and stereotypes that continue to lead boys and girls, men and women, to make different educational and life choices should be dismantled. In particular, gender differences in the awareness of environmental problems differ depending on the nature of such problems. For example, across OECD countries, boys report higher levels of awareness of nuclear waste, the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the use of genetically modified organisms and the consequences of clearing forests for other land use. By contrast, girls reported higher levels of awareness of water shortage, air pollution and the extinction of plants and animals (Borgonovi et al., 2022[3]). Similarly, while boys scored higher than girls in physical, and earth and science areas, girls scored higher than boys in biology. These differences map onto gender differences in broad science areas in tertiary education, with few women engaged in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), while they are more likely to pursue degrees in biology than physics and engineering (Henkel et al., 2019[27]). These differences are related to gender differences in the development of numeracy skills (Borgonovi, Choi and Paccagnella, 2021[28]).
The extent to which individuals can acquire environmental sustainability competence is determined by a variety of factors, among others, the cultural setting in which students are born and raised and the school environment they are exposed to. Within schools, different potential underlying processes may shape students’ environmental sustainability competence, such as formal curricula and teaching practices.
Parents play a pivotal role in their children’s socialisation. Within families, values, attitudes and behaviours may be passed on, resulting in an alignment between generations. The degree of transfer may depend on the extent and type of parents’ interaction with their children. On average, analyses presented in this chapter reveal a significant positive correlation between the pro-environmental behaviour of parents and children within families. The responsibility to equip new generations with solid environmental sustainability competence does not, therefore, lie solely with the formal education sector but is a shared responsibility that all families should take on themselves. Parents are the first and probably most important role models for their children, and their attitudes and behaviours have long-lasting impacts on the possibility of new generations tackling environmental degradation and propelling the green transition. At the same time, children worldwide have developed a new environmental consciousness and can stimulate their parents to modify long-held actions and behaviours to adopt more sustainable lifestyles. In this framework of mutual influence, it is even more urgent to equip youngsters with environmental sustainability competence to also create change within harder-to-reach generations.
The results presented highlight that being a top performer in some fields is not sufficient to develop greater awareness of environmental problems. Findings reveal that for the science domain only (i.e. not for reading), being a top performer is associated with greater awareness of environmental problems compared to students with lower levels of achievement. These findings suggest that it is not students’ general high educational performance and the factors that generally accompany high achievement that determine environmental awareness but, rather, that the content of the educational curriculum matters. Students with high levels of science knowledge and understanding and who can solve complex scientific problems using such knowledge are likely to have acquired a greater understanding of environmental and sustainability issues, equipping them with greater environmental awareness.
Global environmental problems have become more complex and will affect economies and societies in the coming decades. While it is the responsibility of today’s society to leave behind a better environmental future for today’s younger generations, it will be today’s younger generation that will shape future environmental policies.
References
[1] Asai, K., F. Borgonovi and S. Wildi (2022), “Understanding how economic conditions and natural disasters shape environmental attitudes: A cross-country comparison to inform policy making”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 280, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8e880ea2-en.
[2] Borgonovi, F. et al. (2022), “The environmental sustainability competence toolbox: From leaving a better planet for our children to leaving better children for our planet”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 275, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/27991ec0-en.
[3] Borgonovi, F. et al. (2022), “Young people’s environmental sustainability competence: Emotional, cognitive, behavioural, and attitudinal dimensions in EU and OECD countries”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 274, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1097a78c-en.
[28] Borgonovi, F., A. Choi and M. Paccagnella (2021), “The evolution of gender gaps in numeracy and literacy between childhood and young adulthood”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 82, p. 102119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102119.
[22] Cecere, G. et al. (2014), “Technological pervasiveness and variety of innovators in green ICT: A patent-based analysis”, Research Policy, Vol. 43/10, pp. 1827-1839, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.06.004.
[21] Cooke, P. (2010), “Regional innovation systems: Development opportunities from the ‘green turn’”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 22/7, pp. 831-844, https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2010.511156.
[25] D’Arco, M. and V. Marino (2022), “Environmental citizenship behavior and sustainability apps: An empirical investigation”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 16/2, pp. 185-202, https://doi.org/10.1108/tg-07-2021-0118.
[15] Dechezleprêtre, A. et al. (2022), “Fighting climate change: International attitudes toward climate policies”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1714, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3406f29a-en.
[17] Ermey, R. (2022), “From health-care subsidies to $10,000 in discounts and rebates, 3 ways the Inflation Reduction Act could save you money”, CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/17/inflation-reduction-act-how-the-bill-could-save-you-money.html (accessed on 30 August 2022).
[12] European Social Survey (2020), European Social Survey (Round 8), https://doi.org/10.21338/ESS8E02_2 (accessed on 18 May 2022).
[16] Gabbatiss, J., R. McSweeney and G. Viglione (2022), “What Joe Biden’s landmark climate bill means for climate change”, Carbon Brief, https://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-what-joe-bidens-landmark-climate-bill-means-for-climate-change/ (accessed on 30 August 2022).
[27] Henkel, C. et al. (2019), “How to Nudge Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Experimental Study”, ResearchGate, ECIS, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Johann-Kranz/publication/332874850_HOW_TO_NUDGE_PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL_BEHAVIOUR_AN_EXPERIMENTAL_STUDY/links/5ccfd4e1a6fdccc9dd901b8d/HOW-TO-NUDGE-PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL-BEHAVIOUR-AN-EXPERIMENTAL-STUDY.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2023).
[20] IEA (2017), Digitalization and Energy, IEA, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264286276-en.
[26] Khashe, S. et al. (2017), “Buildings with persona: Towards effective building-occupant communication”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 75, pp. 607-618, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.040.
[10] OECD (2023), How Green is Household Behaviour?: Sustainable Choices in a Time of Interlocking Crises, OECD Studies on Environmental Policy and Household Behaviour, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2bbbb663-en.
[14] OECD (2021), Effective Carbon Rates 2021: Pricing Carbon Emissions through Taxes and Emissions Trading, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0e8e24f5-en.
[11] OECD (2021), OECD Skills Outlook 2021: Learning for Life, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0ae365b4-en.
[19] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
[18] OECD (2018), PISA 2018 Database, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (accessed on 9 August 2022).
[5] Spence, A., W. Poortinga and N. Pidgeon (2011), “The psychological distance of climate change”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 32/6, pp. 957-972, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x.
[24] Theodorou, P. et al. (2018), Recycling and Education through Digital Storytelling in the Age Group “8-12” in Greece, Proceedings of the Protection and Restoration of the Environment XIV, Thessaloniki, Greek, 3–6, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326208103_RECYCLING_AND_EDUCATION_THROUGH_DIGITAL_STORYTELLING_IN_THE_AGE_GROUP_8-12_IN_GREECE.
[23] Trott, C. and A. Weinberg (2020), “Science education for sustainability: Strengthening children’s science engagement through climate change learning and action”, Sustainability, Vol. 12/16, p. 6400, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166400.
[4] Vona, F. et al. (2018), “Environmental regulation and green skills: An empirical exploration”, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Vol. 5/4, pp. 713-753, https://doi.org/10.1086/698859.
[9] Wellcome (2020), “Wellcome Global Monitor Wave 2 (2020) Full Public Dataset”, Wellcome Global Monitor 2020: COVID-19, https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor-covid-19/2020#downloads-6b45 (accessed on 2022 May 18).
[8] World Bank Group (2021), “Czech Republic”, Climate Change Knowledge Portal for Development Practitioners and Policy Makers, https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/czech-republic/vulnerability (accessed on 17 August 2022).
[7] World Bank Group (2021), “Italy”, Climate Change Knowledge Portal for Development Practitioners and Policy Makers, https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/italy (accessed on 17 August 2022).
[6] World Bank Group (2021), “Mexico”, Climate Change Knowledge Portal for Development Practitioners and Policy Makers, https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/mexico (accessed on 17 August 2022).
[13] World Values Survey (2014), World Values Survey: All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile Version, https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp (accessed on 18 May 2022).
Note
← 1. Note that the percentage of individuals who consider climate change to be a major threat is somewhat lower than in another OECD study, where 70% to 90% “somewhat” or “strongly agree” with the statement “climate change is an important issue” (Dechezleprêtre et al., 2022[15]). This discrepancy is due to multiple reasons, including the way in which the question was framed (threat or important problem), the answer choices, and the countries considered. In particular, the dichotomous variable constructed in this work takes 1 only if the respondent believes that climate change is a major threat, whereas Dechezleprêtre et al. (2022[15]) consider both “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree” to classify respondents who believe that climate change is an important problem. The percentage of individuals in the Wellcome Global Monitor who believe that climate change is either a major or a minor threat is high, about 90% in most countries.