As structural transformation and economic development have progressed, the issue of climate change has become increasingly critical, concurrently with the growing significance of women in the labor market. Yet, the impact of the gender gap in labor participation rates on carbon emission efficiency remains ambiguous. This article employs a data envelopment analysis model to evaluate carbon emission efficiency, utilizing US state-level data from 2010 to 2021 for an empirical investigation into the influence of the gender gap in labor market participation and unemployment rates on carbon emission efficiency. Overall, the narrowing of the gender gap in the labor market contributes to the improvement of carbon emission efficiency. The detailed findings are as follows: (1) diminishing the gender gap in labor force participation and unemployment rates can enhance carbon emission efficiency, a trend particularly pronounced in states that have adopted the Equal Rights Amendment and during the pre-COVID-19 era; (2) gender gap in labor market participation and unemployment rates affects carbon emission efficiency through skilled labor biased technological progress and income inequality and (3) the increase of innovation efficiency, saving rate and endowment structure can mitigate gender gap in labor market participation and unemployment rates’ effects on carbon emission efficiency.
WangQHuSLiR. Could information and communication technology (ICT) reduce carbon emissions? The role of trade openness and financial development. Telecomm Policy2024a; 48: 102699.
2.
TaylorRGScanlonBDollP, et al.Groundwater and climate change. Nat Clim Change2013; 3: 322–329.
3.
WangQZhangFLiR. Free trade and carbon emissions revisited: the asymmetric impacts of trade diversification and trade openness. Sus Dev2024b; 32: 876–901.
4.
LiRLiLWangQ. The impact of energy efficiency on carbon emissions: evidence from the transportation sector in Chinese 30 provinces. Sustain Cities Soc2022; 82: 103880.
5.
SarkarBSarkarMGangulyB,et al.Combined effects of carbon emission and production quality improvement for fixed lifetime products in a sustainable supply chain management. Int J Prod Econ2021; 231: 107867.
6.
WangQZhangFLiR,et al.Does artificial intelligence facilitate the energy transition and curb carbon emissions? The role of trade openness. J Clean Prod2024c; 447: 141298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141298
7.
WangQZhangFLiR. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in 208 counties: the roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent. Environ Res2023; 216: 114637.
8.
Van der BorghtRBarberaMP. How urban spatial expansion influences CO2 emissions in Latin American countries. Cities2023; 139: 104389.
9.
DelreyEKyriacouASilvaJ. Maternity leave and female labor force participation: evidence from 159 countries. J Popul Econ2021; 34: 803–824.
10.
HuangLLongYChenJ,et al.Sustainable lifestyle: urban household carbon footprint accounting and policy implications for lifestyle-based decarbonization. Energy Policy2023; 181: 113696.
11.
HavetNBayartCBonnelP. Why do gender differences in daily mobility behaviours persist among workers?Transport Rer A-Pol2021; 145: 34–48.
12.
VatnAAasenMThøgersenJ, et al.What role do climate considerations play in consumption of red meat in Norway?Glob Environ Change2022; 73: 102490.
13.
LiJZhangJZhangD,et al.Does gender inequality affect household green consumption behavior in China?Energy Policy2019; 135: 111071.
14.
AndrijevicMCrespo CuaresmaJLissnerT, et al.Overcoming gender inequality for climate resilient development. Nat Commun2020; 11: 6261.
15.
HeiieinerE. Silences of Bretton Woods: gender inequality, racial discrimination and environmental degradation. Rev Int Polit Econ2023; 30: 1701–1722.
16.
KhanM. Shifting gender roles in society and the workplace: implications for environmental sustainability. MPRA Working Paper, 2023.
17.
BushSSClaytonA. Facing change: gender and climate change attitudes worldwide. Am Polit Sci Rev2023; 117: 591–608.
18.
FanFDaiSYangB,et al.Urban density, directed technological change, and carbon intensity: an empirical study based on Chinese cities. Technol Soc2023a; 72: 102151.
19.
KonaduRAhinfulGSBoakyeDJ, et al.Board gender diversity, environmental innovation and corporate carbon emissions. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 174: 121279.
20.
BenlemlihMAssafCEl OuadghiriI. Do political and social factors affect carbon emissions? Evidence from international data. Appl Econ2022; 54: 6022–6035.
21.
NuberCVelteP. Board gender diversity and carbon emissions: European evidence on curvilinear relationships and critical mass. Bus Strat Env2021; 30: 1958–1992.
22.
MartínezMCVSantos-JaénJMRománRS, et al.Are gender and cultural diversities on board related to corporate CO2 emissions?J Clean Prod2022; 363: 132638.
23.
LiRWangQGuoJ. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis of carbon emissions: exploring the impact of geopolitical risks, natural resource rents, corrupt governance, and energy intensity. J Environ Manage2024; 351: 119663.
24.
KeHYangBDaiS. Does intensive land use contribute to energy efficiency? Evidence based on a spatial Durbin model. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022b; 19: 5130.
25.
KabeerN. Gender equality, inclusive growth, and labour markets. In: Women's economic empowerment. New York: Routledge, 2021, pp.13–48. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003141938-3.
26.
NguyenC. Gender equality and economic complexity. Econ Syst2021; 45: 100921.
27.
FanFDaiSZhangK,et al.Innovation agglomeration and urban hierarchy: evidence from Chinese cities. Appl Econ2021; 53: 6300–6318.
28.
VaioDAHassanRPalladinoR. Blockchain technology and gender equality: a systematic literature review. Int J of Info Manage2023; 68: 102517.
29.
GalbreathJTischD. The effects of women in different roles on environmentally sustainable practices: empirical evidence from the Australian wine industry. Australas J Environ Manag2020; 27: 434–451.
30.
KeHDaiSYuH. Spatial effect of innovation efficiency on ecological footprint: city-level empirical evidence from China. Environ Technol Innov2021; 22: 101536.
31.
ZhangCYYuBChenJM,et al.Green transition pathways for cement industry in China. Resour Conserv Recycl2021; 166: 105355.
BaronRMKennyDA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol2019; 51: 1173.
34.
SobelME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In: LeinhardtS (ed.) Social methodol. vol. 13. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association, 1982, pp.290–312.
35.
KeHDaiSYuH. Effect of green innovation efficiency on ecological footprint in 283 Chinese cities from 2008 to 2018. Environ Dev Sustain2022a; 24: 2841–2860.
36.
HansenBE. Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: estimation, testing, and inference. J Econom1999; 93: 345–368.
37.
GrigoliFKoczanZTopaiiovaP. Automation and labor force participation in advanced economies: macro and micro evidence. Eur Econ Rev2020; 126: 103443.
38.
KocaaslanOK. Oil price uncertainty and unemployment. Energy Econ2019; 81: 577–583.
39.
FanMLiMLiuJ,et al.Is high natural resource dependence doomed to low carbon emission efficiency? Evidence from 283 cities in China. Energy Econ2022; 115: 106328.
40.
AfsharianMAhnH. The overall Malmquist index: a new approach for measuring productivity changes over time. Ann Oper Res2015; 226: 1–27.
41.
JiaRFanMShaoS,et al.Urbanization and haze-governance performance: evidence from China's 248 cities. J Environ Manag2021; 288: 112436.
42.
WangZXuXZhuY,et al.Evaluation of carbon emission efficiency in China's airlines. J Clean Prod2020; 243: 118500.
43.
FareRGrifellTEGrosskopfS,et al.Biased technical change and the Malmquist productivity index. Scand J Econ1997; 99: 119–127.
44.
FanPQianXWangJ. Does gender diversity matter? Female directors and firm carbon emissions in Japan. Pac-Basin Finance J2023b; 77: 101931.
45.
YuHKeHYeY,et al.Agglomeration and flow of innovation elements and the impact on regional innovation efficiency. Int J Technol Manag2023; 92: 229–254.
46.
AndreoniAChangHJ. The political economy of industrial policy: structural interdependencies, policy alignment and conflict management. Struct Change Econ Dyn2019; 48: 136–150.
47.
BaiCLeiX. New trends in population aging and challenges for China's sustainable development. China Econ J2020; 13: 3–23.
48.
HooperPMishkinFSSufiA. Prospects for inflation in a high pressure economy: is the Phillips curve dead or is it just hibernating?Res Econ2020; 74: 26–62.
49.
BrowneORJiXJ. The economic value of clarifying property rights: evidence from water in Idaho's snake river basin. J Environ Econ Manag2023; 119: 102799.
50.
HsiaoC. Analysis of panel data (No.64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
51.
GuimbeauAJiXJMenonN,et al.Mining and women's agency: evidence on acceptance of domestic violence and shared decision-making in India. World Dev2023; 162: 106135.
52.
EnglandPLevineAMishelE. Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. PNAS2020; 117: 6990–6997.
53.
JohnsonOWHanJYCKnightAL, et al.Intersectionality and energy transitions: a review of gender, social equity and low-carbon energy. Energy Res Soc Sci2020; 70: 101774.
54.
KimME. Transformative justice and restorative justice: gender-based violence and alternative visions of justice in the United States. Int Rec Vict2021; 27: 162–172.
55.
SouleSAOlzakS. When do movements matter? The politics of contingency and the equal rights amendment. Am Sociol Rev2004; 69: 473–497.
56.
HouZRoseta-PalmaCRamaíhoJJ. Directed technological change, energy, and more: a modern story. Environ Dev Econ2020; 25: 611–633.
