research work on environmental policy

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Collection  26 September 2022

Climate, energy and environmental policy: from formulation to implementation

The sustained global economic growth achieved over the past half century has transformed the lives of billions of people, yet this has not come without costs. Increased economic activity has led to greater energy demands and reliance on non-renewable resources and widespread environmental degradation including climate change, deforestation, and high levels of air and water pollution. The challenge therefore facing governments and policymakers is to maximise the opportunities derived from increased economic activity and growth, while minimising adverse environmental impacts.

This Collection invites research (empirical, methodological and theoretical) concerned with all aspects of the formulation, adoption, and implementation of climate, energy, and environmental policies.

Articles are invited from a variety of geographic and disciplinary perspectives, including science and technology studies, science policy studies, public policy, political science, sociology, and philosophy. Research that advances specific policy proposals must be supported by rigorous analysis and balanced appraisal.

Contributions are invited on key themes, including but not limited to:

• All aspects of the policymaking process from problem identification, agenda setting, assessment of policy options, implementation, and evaluation;
• Processes, instruments and bodies to facilitate climate (change and adaptation), energy and environmental policymaking;
• Policymaking and regulation at all scales (local, national, regional and global) and contexts (e.g. city-, country- and region-specific);
• Production and use of evidence and expertise in developing policy;
• Considerations of the networks of power, influence and evidence-use contributing to policy formulation;
• Relationship between scientific evidence and other knowledge types (e.g., sectoral, local and indigenous);
• Policy decision-making processes in differing contexts (government, civil society, and corporate settings);
• Negotiation and design of regional and international agreements;
• Role of incentives and trade-offs in policy making, and the ramifications of non-compliance;
• Mechanisms for enabling public/non-expert participation in policymaking;
• Interplay of policymaking with economic, social, planning and political considerations;
• Perspectives on justice, equity and inclusion arising from policy adoption;
• Inter- and transdisciplinary initiatives (e.g., co-production and humanities-based research);
• Impacts of trade and investment on policy action.

Research focused on green electoral politics and activism should be directed to our sister collection Going green? Environmental politics and activism .

Stathis Arapostathis

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece

Fateh Belaïd

King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center, Saudi Arabia

Charlotte Unger

Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. (IASS), Germany

• Collection content
• How to submit
• About the Guest Editors
• Collection policies

Exploring role-playing as a tool for involving citizens in air pollution mitigation urban policies

• Jaime Garrido
• Arturo Vallejos-Romero

Mainstreaming social sciences expertise in UK environment policy and practice organisations: retrospect and prospect

• Carol Morris
• Beth F. T. Brockett
• Bianca Ambrose-Oji

The inferiors imitate the superiors: the government’s low-carbon concerns and the renewable energy technology of firms

• Zhaohua Wang

Climate change and food security in South Asia: the importance of renewable energy and agricultural credit

• Abdul Rehman
• Zakia Batool

Low-carbon transition and energy poverty: quasi-natural experiment evidence from China’s low-carbon city pilot policy

• Yiming Xiao
• Zhijun Feng
• Shangrui Wang

A dynamic linkage between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and agricultural productivity: evidence from Ethiopia

• Asmamaw Mulusew
• Mingyong Hong

The Paris Agreement’s inherent tension between ambition and compliance

Parties to the Paris Agreement face mounting social pressure to raise their ambition, thereby reducing the gap between individual pledges and collective temperature goals. Although crucial for inciting positive change, especially given that the Paris Agreement lacks an enforcement mechanism, it is also important to consider social pressure’s potential negative unintended consequences. First, it might undermine the Paris Agreement’s celebrated flexibility, which allows countries to design their Nationally Determined Contributions according to domestic conditions and capabilities. Second, it might result in widespread noncompliance by inciting pledges that the countries concerned prove unwilling or even unable to fulfill. Should that happen, confidence in the Paris Agreement and its institutions might falter. Further research is therefore needed to identify the scope conditions for social pressure to work effectively in the domain of international climate policy.

• Tatjana Stankovic
• Tora Skodvin

Digital infrastructure construction drives green economic transformation: evidence from Chinese cities

• Boqiang Lin

The price and income elasticities of natural gas demand in Azerbaijan: Is there room to export more?

• Sarvar Gurbanov
• Jeyhun I. Mikayilov
• Shahin Maharramli

Assessing climate justice awareness among climate neutral-to-be cities

• Nives Della Valle
• Giulia Ulpiani
• Nadja Vetters

Economic experiments support Ostrom’s polycentric approach to mitigating climate change

• Manfred Milinski
• Jochem Marotzke

Configurational analysis of environmental NGOs and their influence on environmental policy in Turkey

Quick links.

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Associates Login

Username or Email

Remember Me

Lost your password?

• Working Papers
• Other Publications
• Research Workshops
• Seminars and Webinars
• Other Events
• Leadership, Staff, and Students
• MIT Faculty And Researchers
• External Faculty And Researchers
• CEEPR Alumni And Former Visitors
• About The Project
• Project Team
• Publications
• Roosevelt Mapping
• Case Studies
• Opportunities
• – Associates
• – Support Us
• News Archive

• Interactive Mapping Tool

Bridging the Divide: Assessing the Viability of International Cooperation on Border Carbon Adjustments

Cooperation at the intersection of climate change and international trade is intensifying, as highlighted by numerous initiatives recently launched at the multilateral, plurilateral, and bilateral levels. Yet many of these initiatives eschew one of the most contested issues at the climate and trade nexus: border carbon adjustments (BCAs). A new Working Paper argues the case for international cooperation on BCAs.

Understanding the Future of Critical Raw Materials for the Energy Transition

In a new Working Paper, the researchers examine the impact of energy transition policies on the U.S. markets of three critical minerals used for batteries: cobalt, lithium and nickel. Specifically, they investigate the impact of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the associated policies aimed at boosting the domestic production of these critical minerals, combining those impacts with various demand projections.

A Supply Curve for Forest-Based CO2 Removal

Forestation is viewed as an important means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and thereby reducing net CO2 emissions. But how much CO2 can be removed, and at what cost? A new Working Paper focuses on forested and forestable areas in South America, and using spatially disaggregated data, the authors estimate a supply curve for forest-based atmospheric CO2 removal.

Regulation of Access, Pricing, and Planning of High Voltage Transmission in the U.S.

A new Working Paper outlines the historical and regulatory evolution of the U.S. electric power system, focusing on generation, transmission, and distribution. Key reforms, such as open-access transmission and nodal pricing, are highlighted. Challenges in transmission planning and generation interconnection processes are discussed, along with recent efforts to streamline them.

Commentary: Strategic Sector Investments are Poised to Benefit Distressed US Counties

This commentary by MIT authors Brian Deese, Lisa Hansmann, Lily Bermel, Ryan Cummings with partners at Brookings Metro looks into the distribution of strategic sector investments in the US—defined as clean energy, semiconductors and electronics, biomanufacturing, and other advanced industries—spurred in part by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act.

The Next Front in the War Against Climate Change

Clean-energy investment in America is off the charts—but it still isn’t translating into enough electricity that people can actually use. In 2023, the U.S. added 32 gigawatts of clean electricity to the grid in the form of new solar, battery storage, wind, and nuclear. It was a record—but it was still only about two-thirds of what’s necessary to stay on track with the Inflation Reduction Act's goal of reducing emissions by 40 percent by 2030. In this piece from The Atlantic, MIT Institute Innovation Fellow Brian Deese discusses what he sees as the next phase of necessary reforms in the electricity market to meet these targets.

The Roosevelt Project: A Fairer Path to Decarbonization

An article in the Spring 2024 issue of MIT Spectrum highlights the work being done at the Roosevelt Project where MIT researchers build case for cleaner energy that brings greater economic opportunity to low-income communities. “Our mission is to understand how the country could decarbonize while boosting economic opportunities for at-risk communities. If laws and bills are written correctly, these communities can grow while still decarbonizing,” says Christopher R. Knittel, the George P. Shultz Professor of Energy Economics and professor of applied economics at the MIT Sloan School of Management and a Roosevelt Project researcher.

MIT Sloan's Climate Catalysts Thrive on Collaboration

“MIT is never better than when we come together to solve big problems,” said MIT President Sally Kornbluth in a video announcing the launch of the Climate Project at MIT. This emphasis on collaboration was apparent during the MIT Sloan Climate Catalysts: Sparking Change event at the MIT Museum. Held shortly after the announcement of the MIT Climate Policy Center, the event celebrated MIT Sloan’s contributions to the climate space. Knittel, who will be named associate dean of climate at MIT Sloan effective July 1, kicked off the lightning talks with an overview of the MIT Climate Policy Center. “Climate change is, by its nature, an interdisciplinary problem,” said Knittel. “We won't just solve it alone through technology. We need the other disciplines to solve climate change.”

Clean Investment Monitor

The Clean Investment Monitor (CIM) is a joint project of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR) and the Rhodium Group. The CIM tracks public and private investments in climate technologies in the United States. Through this data and analysis, the CIM provides insights into investment trends, the effects of federal and state policies, and on-the-ground progress in the U.S. towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

The CIM covers dozens of different technologies and their input components across all sectors of the economy, including for clean electricity and transportation, building electrification, low-emission industrial production, and carbon management.

Climate Action Through Education

The MIT Climate Action Through Education (CATE) program, directed by Professor Christopher R. Knittel, has developed an MIT-informed interdisciplinary, place-based climate change curriculum for U.S. high school teachers in the following core disciplines: History/Social Science, English/Language Arts, Math, and Science.

Curricular materials – labs, units, lessons, projects – will be aligned with Next Generation Science Standards, and MA education standards. The solutions-focused curriculum aims to inform students about the causes and consequences of anthropogenic climate change, while equipping them with the knowledge and sense of agency to contribute to climate mitigation, adaptation and resilience.

Driving Towards Seamless Public EV Charging

Widespread electric vehicle (EV) adoption is critical to confronting climate change – but a lack of sufficient public charging infrastructure is holding many potential EV drivers back. A team of researchers from Harvard and the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research will work to accelerate progress on public EV charging as a gating requirement to achieving widespread EV adoption. The team will contribute by working directly with stakeholders and stakeholder groups to identify barriers to seamless public EV charging, build consensus for solutions, and advance those solutions.

The Roosevelt Project

Transitioning the United States economy toward deep decarbonization will have unequally distributed effects, positive and negative, across socio-economic groups, geographies and economic sectors. The concerns of workers and communities adversely affected by the transition must inform the discussion around decarbonization, associated policy changes and institutional development. The goal of the Roosevelt Project is to provide an analytical basis for charting a path to a low carbon economy in a way that promotes high quality job growth, minimizes worker and community dislocation, and harnesses the benefits of energy technologies for regional economic development.

Invest in the future of MIT Sloan. Give today!

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

From MIT delta v to Demo Day and Beyond

Sparking Financial Policy Conversations

Sustainability in Action: Education, Research, and Community

Year In Review

An Equitable Approach to Environmental Policy Research

Haley Bierman

Feb 23, 2024

Founded in 1977, the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR) promotes rigorous, objective research for improved environmental decision-making in the public and private sectors, and secures the relevance of its work through close cooperation with industry partners from around the globe. Current research areas include energy supply and demand, climate change, and nature conservation.

Promoting socially conscious decarbonization

The Roosevelt Project , one of CEEPR’s most innovative and impactful research initiatives, is led by former U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest J. Moniz (Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, Emeritus; Faculty Director, Roosevelt Project) and Michael J. Kearney (Executive Director, Roosevelt Project). This interdisciplinary team of MIT and Harvard researchers explores how we can navigate the shift toward a low-carbon economy while ensuring that under-resourced socioeconomic groups, geographies, and economic sectors are not marginalized or left behind in the process.

During the project’s first phase, researchers explored our world’s past, present, and future in decarbonization. They published nine white papers with their findings and recommendations for how we should move forward with decarbonization. In “Distributed Effects of Climate Policy: A Machine Learning Approach,” co-authors Christopher Knittel (George P. Shultz Professor; Professor of Applied Economics; Director, CEEPR) and Tomas Green , SM ’20, ran several decarbonization policies through their machine learning model and found that carbon pricing, or taxing carbon emissions, is the most effective and socioeconomically equitable way to transition to a low-carbon economy.

History is littered with lots of transitions that have left certain groups behind. What we hope to do is provide a framework or set of tools for policymakers to keep that from happening as we decarbonize the economy.

For phase two, researchers examined decarbonization efforts in four U.S. regions: the Industrial Heartland, Appalachia, the Gulf Coast, and New Mexico. The resulting case studies were shared with state and federal policymakers to give them the tools and information to make informed decarbonization policy decisions. The current third phase of the project involves examining the grid, steel, and mining industries to develop methods for decarbonizing in a socioeconomically equitable way.

Looking ahead

Along with the Institute's commitment of $50 million in resources to jumpstart the Climate Project at MIT , MIT Sloan will contribute $25 million to endow a new climate policy center led by Knittel. Together, these funds will allow for early advances and express the seriousness of MIT's intentions to potential partners around the world.

MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research

Since 1977, the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR) has been a focal point for research on energy and environmental policy at MIT.

The Climate Project at MIT

Richard Lester describes an emerging new initiative that will back climate efforts at the Institute and find outside partnerships to drive actionable innovation.

MIT Sloan to launch new climate policy center with $25 million investment

As part of the new Climate Project at MIT, the center will create and strengthen connections between leading climate researchers and policymakers.

Related Posts

• Energy and Environment

Main navigation

Climate change, energy conservation and power supplies pose some of today’s greatest challenges. SIEPR researchers are using the tools of economics to analyze the impact of environmental policy decisions being made in the United States and abroad. Our scholars work closely with scientists, engineers, and policymakers to develop and analyze economically viable approaches to safeguarding the environment and the broader impacts of environmental factors on society. Through our joint venture with Stanford's Precourt Institute for Energy, we also support the work of  Stanford Environmental and Energy Policy Analysis Center  (SEEPAC).

Keywords: environmental economics, energy markets, pollution, conservation, agriculture, climate change

People in Energy and Environment Research

Hunt Allcott

Marshall Burke

Steven Callander

Lawrence Goulder

Anne Joseph O'Connell

Ömer Karaduman

Charles D. Kolstad

David Lobell

Matteo Maggiori

Roger G. Noll

Monika Piazzesi

A. Mitchell Polinsky

Stefan Reichelstein

Maya Rossin-Slater

John Shoven

Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato

James Sweeney

Michael Tomz

Frank A. Wolak

Related publications.

• Conrad, E., Hehmeyer, P., & Cain, B. (2024). Overcoming roadblocks to California’s public EV charging infrastructure . Policy Brief.
• Ahmed, S., Goda, G. ., Hahn, M., & Hehmeyer, P. (2023). Following the rules: Connecting academic research to policy . Policy Brief.
• Ferguson, B. ., & Milgrom, P. (2023). Market Design for Surface Water . Working Paper.
• Cain, B. ., & Hehmeyer, P. (2023). California’s population drain . Policy Brief.
• Buckberg, E. (2023). Clean vehicle tax credit: The new industrial policy and its impact . Policy Brief.
• Auclert, A., Monnery, H., Rognlie, M., & Straub, L. (2023). Managing an Energy Shock: Fiscal and Monetary Policy . Working Paper.
• Heft-Neal, S., Gould, C., Childs, M., Kiang, M., Nadeau, K., Duggan, M., Bendavid, E., & Burke, M. (2023). Behavior Mediates the Health Effects of Extreme Wildfire Smoke Events . Working Paper.
• Burke, M., Childs, M., De la Cuesta, B., Qiu, M., Li, J., Gould, C., Heft-Neal, S., & Wara, M. (2023). Wildfire Influence on Recent US Pollution Trends . Working Paper.
• Borgschulte, M., Molitor, D., & Zou, E. . (2022). Wildfires reveal the large toll of air pollution on labor market outcomes . Policy Brief.
• Burke, M., Heft-Neal, S., Li, J., Driscoll, A., Baylis, P., Stigler, M., Weill, J., Burney, J., Wen, J., Childs, M., & Gould, C. (2021). Exposures and behavioral responses to wildfire smoke . Working Paper.
• Einav, L., Finkelstein, A., & Mahoney, N. (2021). The IO of Selection Markets . Working Paper.
• West, J., Fairlie, R., Pratt, B., & Rose, L. (2021). Automated Enforcement of Irrigation Regulations and Social Pressure for Water Conservation . Working Paper.
• Benami, E., Ho, D., & McDonough, A. (2020). Innovations for environmental compliance: emerging evidence and opportunities . Policy Brief.
• Ketcham, J. (2019). To reduce Alzheimer’s disease, clean up the air . Policy Brief.
• Kim, J., Lee, A., & Rossin-Slater, M. (2019). What to Expect When It Gets Hotter: The Impacts of Prenatal Exposure to Extreme Heat on Maternal and Infant Health . Working Paper.
• Alexander, D., & Schwandt, H. (2019). The impact of car pollution on infant and child health: Evidence from emissions cheating . Working Paper.
• Hodgson, C. (2019). Information externalities, free riding, and optimal exploration in the UK oil industry . Working Paper.
• Burke, M., & Tanutama, V. (2019). Climatic constraints on aggregate economic output . Working Paper.
• Baylis, P., & Boomhower, J. (2018). Moral hazard, wildfires, and the economic incidence of natural disasters . Working Paper.

Related News

At what point do we decide ai’s risks outweigh its promise.

May 31, 2024

• Research Highlight
• Innovation and Technology

Ways to strengthen and stabilize California’s residential care system

A new report coauthored by SIEPR Senior Fellow Alison Morantz examines California’s safety net of support for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

• Housing and Infrastructure
• Taxes and Public Spending

Rosenkranz Prize winner investigates impact of price controls on contraceptives

This year's Rosenkranz Prize winner is SIEPR Faculty Fellow Natalia Serna, a health economist examining how women's health is impacted by price controls on oral contraceptives.

May 23, 2024

• Awards & Appointments
• Global Development and Trade

California public school enrollment drops again, but transitional kindergarten is up

Enrollment at California’s public schools continued to decline this year, reports the LA Times. SIEPR's Thomas Dee chimes in on the very serious consequences of the pandemic.

May 17, 2024

• Media Mention

How large might Labour’s ‘dullness dividend’ be?

Measuring economic policy uncertainty matters a lot, says Financial Times. The relevant correlations are established in a 2016 study from SIEPR's Nick Bloom and Steve Davis.

May 16, 2024

• Politics and Media

When the Export-Import Bank closed up, US companies saw global sales plummet

In taking a look back at a temporary shutdown of the export crediting agency, SIEPR Faculty Fellow Chenzi Xu sheds light on the importance of trade financing.

May 15, 2024

• Money and Finance

Facebook Use May Have Helped Trump With Some Voters, Report Says

New study from SIEPR's Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow evaluates Facebook, Instagram role in US election

May 13, 2024

Preventing Bailouts Is Simple, But It Isn’t Easy

SIEPR Senior Fellows Amit Seru and John Cochrane on the possibility of a bailout-free financial system

Facebook went away. Political divides didn't budge.

A Stanford-led study into how quitting social media affected users’ political views in the runup to the 2020 presidential vote has implications for this year’s election.

Adrien Auclert appointed as an economic advisor to French government

Auclert, a SIEPR faculty fellow, adds macroeconomics heft to the French prime minister’s Economic Analysis Council.

May 10, 2024

IMF's Gita Gopinath: Geopolitics and its impact on global trade and the dollar

Gita Gopinath, the International Monetary Fund’s second-highest ranking official, discussed threats to the world economy during her visit to Stanford.

How our sense of economic reality is being distorted

A new study from SIEPR's Neale Mahoney adds to the evidence that competition for eyeballs may be warping our sense of the world.

May 09, 2024

Why Maternity Care is Underpaid

SIEPR Senior Fellow David Chan talks to TIME about the maternity care crisis in America.

May 08, 2024

70 years after Brown v. Board of Education, new research shows rise in school segregation

SIEPR Senior Fellow Sean Reardon and researchers at Stanford and USC launch the Segregation Explorer, a website providing data on segregation trends and patterns across the U.S.

May 07, 2024

The unexpected explanation for why school segregation spiked

The recent rise in segregation in schools is due to two specific policy choices, SIEPR Senior Fellow Sean Reardon tells Washington Post.

May 06, 2024

Bad news bias in gasoline price coverage

TV coverage of gas prices is negatively skewed and it's only getting worse, three SIEPR affiliates write for Briefing Book.

What if canceling people’s medical debt doesn’t help them?

Vox examines the "shocking" research on medical debt relief programs from SIEPR's Neale Mahoney.

May 02, 2024

A/B Testing Gets an Upgrade for the Digital Age

GSB researchers, including three SIEPR scholars, are pioneering experimentation methods to keep up with technology and help solve real-world challenges.

May 01, 2024

With Inflation This High, Nobody Knows What a Dollar Is Worth

Are we all suffering from “money illusion”? The New York Times explores how inflation is actually impacting people, with research from SIEPR’s Neale Mahoney.

April 26, 2024

Seven Stanford faculty members elected to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

Two SIEPR Senior Fellows, Daniel Ho and Muriel Niederle, are among seven Stanford scholars elected this year to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Upcoming Events

Building a better future for the golden state: a fireside chat with fiona ma, california state treasurer.

John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Building 366 Galvez Street Stanford , CA 94305 United States

2024 Summer Economic Institute for Teachers

Environmental Policy and Innovation: A Decade of Research

Innovation is an important part of environmental policy, and encouraging innovation is often an explicit goal of policymakers. A large literature in environmental economics examines the links between environmental policy and innovation. Popp et al. (2010) provides an extensive review of the literature on environmental innovation. This paper updates that review, highlighting research published during the past decade, with a focus on empirical research examining links between environmental policy and environmentally friendly innovation. I highlight major trends in the literature, including an increased number of cross-country studies and a focus on the effect of different policy instruments on innovation. I include a discussion of the justifications and evidence for technology-specific policy incentives and present evidence on the effectiveness of government R&D spending. My review concludes with a discussion of three promising areas for new research on environmental innovation.

The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Published Versions

David Popp, 2019. " Environmental Policy and Innovation: A Decade of Research, " International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, vol 13(3-4), pages 265-337.

Working Groups

Mentioned in the news, more from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

As Economic Concerns Recede, Environmental Protection Rises on the Public’s Policy Agenda

Partisan gap on dealing with climate change gets even wider, how we did this.

For this report on the public’s policy agenda for the current year, we surveyed 1,504 U.S. adults by telephone in January 2020. The surveys were conducted in both English and Spanish over the phone under the direction of Abt Associates. Respondents to this survey were randomly selected via a combination of landline and cell phone random-digit-dial samples. To ensure that the results of this survey reflects a balanced cross section of the nation, the data are weighted to match the U.S. adult population by gender, age, education, race and ethnicity and other categories.

Here are the questions used for the report , along with responses, and its methodology .

Reflecting a strong U.S. economy, Americans’ policy priorities have changed in recent years. The public now places less priority on economic and job concerns than it did just a few years ago. At the same time, environmental protection and global climate change are rising on the public’s agenda for the president and Congress.

For the first time in Pew Research Center surveys dating back nearly two decades, nearly as many Americans say protecting the environment should be a top policy priority (64%) as say this about strengthening the economy (67%).

In addition, while a smaller share (52%) rates dealing with global climate change as a top priority, this is 14 percentage points higher than just three years ago. Today, similar shares rate climate change and improving the job situation (49%) as top policy priorities for President Donald Trump and Congress. Three years ago, 68% said jobs were a top priority, compared with just 38% who named climate change.

The public’s concerns about jobs and the economy have decreased as perceptions of the national economy have improved. (For more on economic attitudes, see “ Views of Nation’s Economy Remain Positive, Sharply Divided by Partisanship .”)

While environmental concerns have increased overall, partisanship continues to be a major factor in attitudes about the environment and climate change. Since 2017, virtually all the increase in the share of Americans saying global climate change should be a top priority has come among Democrats. Still, members of both parties are more likely to rate protecting the environment a top policy priority than did so a year ago, though this continues to be a much higher priority for Democrats than Republicans.

The national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted Jan. 8-13 on cellphones and landlines among 1,504 adults, finds that defending the country against terrorism remains a top priority among the public overall, as has been the case since 2002. Currently, 74% say defending the country from future terrorist attacks should be a top priority for the president and Congress this year – the highest of the 18 items included in the survey.

Defending against terrorism is followed by strengthening the economy, reducing health care costs and improving education, each of which is named as a top policy priority by 67% of the public. Nearly as many say that protecting the environment (64%) and taking steps to make Social Security financially sound (63%) should be top policy priorities.

The issue of climate change highlights the deep partisan divides in views of many public priorities. Dealing with global climate change ranks at the bottom of the list of 18 policy priorities for Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (just 21% call it a top priority). By contrast, climate change is near the top of the list of issues among Democrats and Democratic leaners (78% call it a top priority).

Large majorities of Democrats also place top priority on protecting the environment (85%), reducing health care costs (80%) and improving the educational system (80%). For Republicans, no more than about half rate these issues top priorities. And there is a sizable divide on the importance of addressing gun policy: Democrats are roughly 40 percentage points more likely than Republicans to view this as a top priority for the president and Congress (66% vs. 25%).

Among Republicans, defending the country from terrorist attacks (87%) ranks as the leading policy priority for the president and Congress, followed by strengthening the economy (74%) and dealing with the issue of immigration (73%). By contrast, about six-in-ten Democrats rate strengthening the economy (61%) and defending against terrorism (60%) as top priorities; fewer than half say this about dealing with immigration (40%). Republicans also are much more likely than Democrats to say strengthening the U.S. military should be a top priority for the president and Congress (66% vs. 30%).

Changing views of the environment and climate change

Over the past year, both Republicans and Democrats have become more likely to say protecting the environment should be a top priority. However, when it comes to dealing with global climate change, Democrats place greater importance on the issue than they did a year ago, while views among Republicans have not changed.

Overall, 85% of Democrats say protecting the environment should be a top priority for the president and Congress, up 11 percentage points from the share who said this in 2019. Fewer than half as many Republicans (39%) rate environmental protection as a major priority; still, this is up 8 points since last year and is the largest share of Republicans saying this in Pew Research Center surveys over the past decade.

Democrats and Republicans have long been far apart in their views of the importance of climate change. But the differences are now wider than ever: 78% of Democrats say addressing this issue is a top priority, up from 67% who said this last year. By contrast, the relatively small share of Republicans who say addressing climate change is a top priority (21%) is unchanged from a year ago.

Over the past several years, climate change has increased markedly as a policy priority among Democrats. In 2015, 46% of Democrats said it was a top priority, ranking it among the lower half of Democrats’ priorities for the president and Congress. Since then, the share of Democrats rating it as a major priority has increased more than 30 points; today it is in the top tier of Democrats’ policy concerns, along with environmental protection, health care costs and education.

Long-term declines in the shares rating economic concerns as priorities

In 2011, 88% of Republicans and 87% of Democrats said strengthening the economy was a top priority for the president and Congress. Since then, there has been a gradual decline in the shares of both groups who place top priority on the economy, though the decline has been somewhat steeper among Democrats. In the current survey, the share of Democrats who say strengthening the economy is a top priority is down to 61%, while the share of Republicans who say this has fallen to 74%.

The priority placed on improving the job situation also has fallen sharply among partisans in the last decade. Overall, 51% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans say strengthening the job situation is a top priority for the president and Congress. In 2011, large majorities of both groups (87% and 86%, respectively) saw this as a top priority.

Currently, deficit reduction (53% top priority) ranks close to climate change as a mid-tier public priority. Among the public overall, concern over the deficit is down sharply from the start of Barack Obama’s second term (73% called it a top priority in 2013).

The nation’s debt and annual budget deficit have continued to increase in recent years, with the overall debt load exceeding the nation’s gross domestic product . Yet in both parties, reducing the budget deficit has declined as a priority since 2013. Currently, 62% of Republicans and 45% of Democrats say reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority for the president and Congress.

Age and gender differences in policy priorities

The policy priorities of younger and older Americans differ in several key respects. Older people are more likely to prioritize a range of issues such as strengthening the military and making the Social Security system financially sound. On the other hand, younger people are more likely to prioritize environmental issues.

A majority of adults ages 50 and older (57%) say strengthening the military should be a top priority for the president and Congress. Fewer of those ages 30 to 49 (42%) rate this as a top priority, as do just 28% of those under 30.

The age differences are nearly as stark in views of keeping Social Security financially sound. Majorities of those older than 30 say this should be a top priority, compared with 46% of those younger than 30.

Several other policy priorities – including reducing crime, cutting the budget deficit and defending the nation against terrorism – also are viewed as top priorities by larger shares of older adults than by young people.

By contrast, Americans under the age of 30 are more likely to prioritize protecting the environment (77% vs. 55%), improving the educational system (74% vs. 59%) and dealing with climate change (61% vs. 45%) than are older Americans.

Women are more likely than men to prioritize a range of policy goals, particularly dealing with gun policy and addressing global climate change.

While a 56% majority of women say dealing with gun policy is a top priority, only about a third of men (36%) say the same. And women are 16 percentage points more likely than men to say that dealing with global climate change should be a top policy priority (60% vs. 44%).

Larger shares of women than men also prioritize reducing health care costs, dealing with the problems of the poor and needy, improving the job situation and protecting the environment.

For their part, men are slightly more likely than women to prioritize reducing the budget deficit (57% vs. 49%), dealing with immigration (59% vs. 51%) and dealing with global trade (46% vs. 38%).

Public’s policy priorities: 2012-2020

There have been sizable changes in the public’s policy priorities since 2016 and 2012, the previous presidential election years.

Economic concerns have declined since 2012, when the unemployment rate was more than double its current level of 3.6% .

The share of Americans who say improving the job situation is a top priority has declined by 33 percentage points since 2012 and 15 points since 2016. Similarly, while an overwhelming share of the public (86%) cited strengthening the economy as a major priority in 2012, and 75% did so four years later, that has now fallen to 67%.

Over the same period, protecting the environment has risen on the public’s agenda. In 2012, 43% of Americans rated this as a top priority. Today, more than six-in-ten (64%) do so. And 49% of Americans now say improving the country’s roads, bridges and public transportation systems should be a top priority, up from 30% in 2012.

Yet the public’s views of several priorities have shown little change during the past eight years. Currently, nearly three-quarters of Americans (74%) say defending against terrorism should be a top priority; this is comparable to shares saying this in 2016 (75%) and 2012 (69%). And there have been only modest changes in the shares rating strengthening Social Security as a top priority over this period.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Climate, Energy & Environment
• Economic Conditions
• Issue Priorities
• Science Funding & Policy

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in the U.S.

How republicans view climate change and energy issues, how americans view future harms from climate change in their community and around the u.s., americans continue to have doubts about climate scientists’ understanding of climate change, growing share of americans favor more nuclear power, most popular, report materials.

• January 2020 Political Survey

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Environmental policy

• Reference work entry
• Cite this reference work entry

• Michael E. Kraft  

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of Earth Science ((EESS))

247 Accesses

2 Citations

Environmental policy comprises a diversity of governmental actions that affect or attempt to affect environmental quality or the use of natural resources. It represents society's collective decision to pursue certain environmental goals and objectives and to use particular means to achieve them, often within a specified time. Environmental policy is not found in any single decision or statute. Rather, it is the aggregate of laws, regulations, and court precedents, and the attitudes and behavior of public officials charged with making, implementing, and enforcing them. It includes what governments choose to do to protect environmental quality and natural resources as well as what they choose not to do, thereby allowing other influences, such as private decision-making, to determine environmental outcomes. A range of political and economic forces shape such decisions, and the United States and other nations typically have a disparate and uncoordinated collection of environmentally...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

Andrews, R. N.L., 1994. Risk-based decisionmaking. In Vig, N. J., and Kraft, M. E. (eds), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 209–31.

Google Scholar  

Bowman, A., and Tompkins, M., 1993. Environmental protection and economic development: can states have it both ways? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 2–5 September.

Bryner, G. C., 1993. Blue Skies, Green Politics: The Clean Air Act of 1990. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 203 pp.

Caldwell, L. K., 1982. Science and the National Environmental Policy Act: Redirecting Policy Through Procedural Reform. University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 178 pp.

Caldwell, L. K., 1990. International Environmental Policy: Emergence and Dimensions (2nd edn). Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 461 pp.

Dunlap, R. E., 1991. Public opinion in the 1980s: clear consensus, ambiguous commitment. Environment, 33, 9–37.

Freeman, A. M III, 1994. Economics, incentives, and environmental regulation. In Vig, N. J., and Kraft, M. E. (eds), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 189–208.

Lester, J. M., 1994a. A new federalism? Environmental policy in the states. In Vig, N. J., and Kraft, M. E. (eds), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 51–68.

Lester, J. M. (ed.), 1994b. Environmental Politics and Policy (2nd edn). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Mazmanian, D, and Morell, D. (eds), 1992. Beyond Superfailure: America's Toxics Policy for the 1990s. Boulder, Col: Westview Press, 278 pp.

Meyer, S. M., 1993. Environmentalism and Economic Prosperity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Mitchell, R. C., 1990. Public opinion and the green lobby: poised for the 1990s? In Vig, N. J., and Kraft, M. E. (eds), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 81–99.

National Commission on the Environment, 1993. Choosing a Sustainable Future. Washington, DC: Island, 180 pp.

Ophuls, W., and Boyan, A. S. Jr., 1992. Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited: The Unraveling of the American Dream. New York: W.H. Freeman, 379 pp.

Paehlke, R., 1994. Environmental values and public policy. In Vig, N. J., and Kraft, M. E. (eds), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 349–68.

Portney, P. R. (ed.), 1990. Public Policies for Environmental Protection. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 336 pp.

Soroos, M. S., 1994. From Stockholm to Rio: the evolution of global environmental governance. In Vig, N. J., and Kraft, M. E. (eds), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 299–321.

United Nations, 1993. Agenda 21: the United Nations Programme of Action From Rio. New York: United Nations, 294 pp.

US EPA, 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. Washington, DC: Science Advisory Board, US Environmental Protection Agency.

Vig, N. J., and Kraft, M. E. (eds), 1984. Environmental Policy in the 1980s: Reagan's New Agenda. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Vig, N. J., and Kraft, M. E. (eds), 1994. Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda (2nd edn). Washington, DC: CQ Press, 416 pp.

WCED, 1987. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environmental and Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 400 pp.

Cross-references

Ambient Air and Water Standards ; Conventions for Environmental Protection ; Environmental Law ; Environmental Security ; United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) ; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) ; United States Federal Agencies and Control

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Kraft, M.E. (1999). Environmental policy. In: Environmental Geology. Encyclopedia of Earth Science. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4494-1_121

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4494-1_121

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-0-412-74050-3

Online ISBN : 978-1-4020-4494-6

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Ecosystems are deeply interconnected – environmental research, policy and management should be too

Lecturer in Marine Science, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Professor of Marine Sciences, University of Waikato

Director of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Disclosure statement

Rebecca Gladstone-Gallagher receives funding from philanthropy, Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), including from the National Science Challenges, the Marsden Fund and the Rutherford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowships.

Conrad Pilditch receives funding from Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), including the National Science Challenge Sustainable Seas, Marsden Fund and regional councils. He is a member of the Sustainable Seas Challenge Leadership Team.

Simon Francis Thrush receives funding from MBIE, government agencies, international organisations and philanthropy. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

University of Auckland and University of Waikato provide funding as members of The Conversation AU.

University of Waikato and University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau provide funding as members of The Conversation NZ.

View all partners

Why are we crossing ecological boundaries that affect Earth’s fundamental life-supporting capacity? Is it because we don’t have enough information about how ecosystems respond to change? Or are we unable, even unwilling, to use that information better?

We have a lot to learn still, but as we show in our research , using current ecological knowledge more effectively could deliver substantial environmental gains.

Our work focuses on improving links between research and ecosystem management to identify key trigger points for action in a framework that joins land, freshwater and sea ecosystems.

Specifically, we investigate solutions to environmental and societal problems that stem from the disparities between scientific research, policy and management responses to environmental issues.

We need managers and policy makers to consider ecological tipping points and how they can cascade though ecosystems from land into rivers and lakes and, ultimately, the ocean.

Our work’s standing among global research aimed at stopping ecosystem collapse has been recognised as one of 23 national champions in this year’s Frontiers Planet Prize .

Read more: Our oceans are in deep trouble – a 'mountains to sea' approach could make a real difference

More holistic solutions

This issue came into focus when New Zealand set up research collaborations known as national science challenges a decade ago to solve “wicked” social and ecological problems.

The challenges focused on environmental issues were deliberately created to concentrate on separate ecosystem and management domains (marine, freshwater and land). But all included research groups addressing ecological tipping points.

This was our inspirational spark. Our research highlights the consequences of managing land, freshwater and sea ecosystems in socially constructed bubbles. We focus on solutions where social and ecological connections are at the forefront of environmental management practices and decisions.

An example is the movement of pollutants such as microplastics from the land to the sea. Most of the microplastics found along coasts and in harbours are blown or washed off the land. While this pollution is a well recognised environmental threat to the marine environment, we have not yet focused on strategies to reduce the load.

Our work points to the ignored but critical issue that people’s impacts on land accumulate in the sea, but land management and consequent actions are not informed by these far-field effects.

This leads to lags in decision making which create undesirable environmental outcomes that are difficult to return from. But if we act on these connections, the environmental gains could be substantial.

Cyclones as a real-world example

As a result of massive soil erosion on the east coast of the North Island during Cyclone Bola in 1988, steep hillsides were retired from grazing and converted to pine plantations to help stabilise the land.

Fast forward three decades and a large proportion of the forest reached harvest at the same time. The exposed soil associated with clear felling was left draped in woody debris to protect it from rain.

However, Cyclone Gabrielle hit in February last year, with extreme rainfall washing both soil and woody debris into streams.

This destroyed habitats, transported vast amounts of silt and wrecked lowland farms, orchards and critical infrastructure. The debris also clogged harbours and coastal beaches, smothered seafloor habitats, destroyed fisheries and affected cultural and recreational values.

This real-world example demonstrates the severe consequences of lags in information flow and management responses. If land-use management decisions had considered the effects on other connected ecosystems and the potential for climate change to intensify those connections, the outcomes could have been different.

We could have implemented more diverse strategies in land use and put emphasis on restoring native forest and coastal wetlands.

Read more: Cyclone Gabrielle triggered more destructive forestry 'slash' – NZ must change how it grows trees on fragile land

Living with nature, not off it

Our vision is one where social and ecological connections across ecosystem domains are at the forefront of moving to a more sustainable future.

Living within planetary boundaries requires a paradigm shift in behaviours, including the way we link science and management to on-the-ground action. Crucially, we need to increase the speed at which new research is taken up and rapidly transition this into action that improves environmental outcomes at local scales.

This behavioural shift underpins the way to a more integrated, broad-scale ability to act and stay within planetary boundaries.

Our research shows we can, with trust and open minds, transcend the disciplinary silos to support new forms of research organisation. The challenge now is to extend holistic approaches into new practices.

Read more: NZ’s vital kelp forests are in peril from ocean warming – threatening the important species that rely on them

This means identifying opportunities where connected research can alter behaviours across society, from individuals to global finance and governance. Central to this transition is recognising we are part of complex social and ecological systems and our actions have indirect effects and long-term consequences.

We need new research to provide this evidence. It will inevitably lead to new questions about fundamental ecological and integrated Earth processes.

We believe these holistic approaches will allow science to be more readily incorporated into decision making and ensure environmental perspectives are captured. This will lead to relevant, locally appropriate, integrated and robust environmental management actions.

• New Zealand
• Extreme weather
• Evidence-based policy
• Microplastic pollution
• Cyclone Gabrielle
• Science + Environment

Data Manager

Research Support Officer

Director, Social Policy

Head, School of Psychology

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

• University Home
• Parsons School of Design
• Eugene Lang College of Liberal Arts
• College of Performing Arts
• The New School for Social Research
• Schools of Public Engagement
• Parsons Paris
• Continuing and Professional Education
• Milano School of Policy, Management, and Environment
• School of Media Studies
• Julien J. Studley Graduate Programs in International Affairs
• Creative Writing Program (MFA)
• Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (MA)
• Bachelor’s Program for Adults and Transfer Students

Environmental Policy and Sustainability Management (MS)

Take the next step.

• How to Apply
• Request Information
• Admission Events
• Check Application Status

Admission Contact Merida Escandon Gasbarro 72 Fifth Avenue, 1st floor New York, NY 10011 646.909.1108 [email protected]

Program Contact Lauretha Slaughter 72 Fifth Avenue, 6th floor New York, NY 10011 [email protected] 212.229.5400 x1107

Related Links

• Year/Semester in Review Reports
• Program Blog
• Tuition & Fees
• Financial Aid & Scholarships
• Academic Catalog

Research and Work

The boundary-breaking research and work of MS Environmental Policy and Sustainability Management students and alumni are defined by interdisciplinary exploration and innovative problem solving that challenge the status quo and build a more just, sustainable, and equitable future.

Capstone Projects

Students in the MS Environmental Policy and Sustainability Management program conduct a capstone research project that results in either a paper of publishable quality or a professional decision report. As they conduct their capstone research, students are prompted to critically reflect on questions of power, justice, sustainability, diversity, and global awareness. The final document can serve as the basis of a professional portfolio or academic research pursuits.

• Capstone Booklet
• Capstone Project Presentations
• Capstone Project Presentations – Part 1 , Part 2

Student–Alumni Collaborations

BIPOC EARTH (Environmental Action Rooted in Transformational Healing) is an environmental justice collective centering Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). This collective aims to provide a space for organizing focused on intersectional environmental justice that activates, supports, heals, and empowers BIPOC communities at The New School and beyond. We aim to honor, uplift, and contribute to a radically transformative future rooted in decolonial, racially just, feminist, cooperative, and ecologically centered practices that build intergenerational and multiracial communities for liberation.

The Cooperative Climate Futures (CCF) project is put together by a team of organizers, the majority of whom consist of program alumni and current students. The research expertise and work history of CCF's participants vary widely, but they find connection through a commitment to creating a decolonial, ecocentric, equitable, and sustainable future. CCF seeks to build connections between organizations transnationally with the aim of developing a strong, robust, and resilient decolonial future network. We do this work through a decolonial, Black queer feminist, and Just Transition framework. This project is designed to uplift the communities and organizations already doing the work to create a sustainable and equitable climate-just future.

Take The Next Step

• Request Info

Submit your application

Undergraduates.

To apply to any of our undergraduate programs (except the Bachelor's Program for Adults and Transfer Students and Parsons Associate of Applied Science programs) complete and submit the Common App online.

Undergraduate Adult Learners

To apply to any of our Bachelor's Program for Adults and Transfer Students and Parsons Associate of Applied Science programs, complete and submit the New School Online Application.

To apply to any of our Master's, Doctoral, Professional Studies Diploma, and Graduate Certificate programs, complete and submit the New School Online Application.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley Open Access Collection

What really matters for successful research environments? A realist synthesis

Rola ajjawi.

1 Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Paul E S Crampton

2 Research Department of Medical Education, University College London, London, UK

3 Monash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education (MCSHE), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

Charlotte E Rees

Associated data.

Table S2. MeSH terms and a selection of key terms utilised in the database searches.

Table S3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to topic, recentness and type of article.

Table S4. Refined inclusion and exclusion criteria to include contextual parameters.

Table S5. Studies by type: qualitative, quantitative and mixed‐methods.

Research environments, or cultures, are thought to be the most influential predictors of research productivity. Although several narrative and systematic reviews have begun to identify the characteristics of research‐favourable environments, these reviews have ignored the contextual complexities and multiplicity of environmental characteristics.

The current synthesis adopts a realist approach to explore what interventions work for whom and under what circumstances.

We conducted a realist synthesis of the international literature in medical education, education and medicine from 1992 to 2016, following five stages: (i) clarifying the scope; (ii) searching for evidence; (iii) assessing quality; (iv) extracting data, and (v) synthesising data.

We identified numerous interventions relating to research strategy, people, income, infrastructure and facilities (IIF), and collaboration. These interventions resulted in positive or negative outcomes depending on the context and mechanisms fired. We identified diverse contexts at the individual and institutional levels, but found that disciplinary contexts were less influential. There were a multiplicity of positive and negative mechanisms, along with three cross‐cutting mechanisms that regularly intersected: time; identity, and relationships. Outcomes varied widely and included both positive and negative outcomes across subjective (e.g. researcher identity) and objective (e.g. research quantity and quality) domains.

Conclusions

The interplay among mechanisms and contexts is central to understanding the outcomes of specific interventions, bringing novel insights to the literature. Researchers, research leaders and research organisations should prioritise the protection of time for research, enculturate researcher identities, and develop collaborative relationships to better foster successful research environments. Future research should further explore the interplay among time, identity and relationships.

Short abstract

This realist review shows when and why interventions related to research strategy; people; income, infrastructure and facilities; and collaboration result in positive or negative research environments. Findings indicate that protected time, researcher identities and collaborative relationships are important for fostering successful research environments.

Introduction

Research environments matter. Environmental considerations such as robust cultures of research quality and support for researchers are thought to be the most influential predictors of research productivity. 1 , 2 Over 25 years ago, Bland and Ruffin 1 identified 12 characteristics of research‐favourable environments in the international academic medicine literature spanning the period from the mid‐1960s to 1990 (Box 1 ). Although these characteristics are aspirational in flavour, how they interplay to influence research productivity within increasingly complex institutional structures is not yet known. Indeed, although existing reviews have begun to help us better understand what makes for successful research environments, this research has typically ignored the contextual complexities and multiplicity of environmental characteristics 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 and has focused on narrow markers of productivity such as the quantity of research outputs (e.g. ref. 7 ) The current realist synthesis, therefore, aims to address this gap in the research literature by reviewing more recent literature ( 1992–2016 ) and exploring the features of successful research environments in terms of which interventions work, for whom, how and in what circumstances.

Characteristics of successful research environments 1

• Clear organisational research goals
• Research productivity as a priority and at least equal priority to other activities
• A robust research culture with shared research values
• A positive group climate
• Participative governance structures
• Non‐hierarchical and decentralised structures
• Good communication and professionally meaningful relationships between team members
• Decent resources such as people, funding, research facilities and time
• Larger group size, moderately established teams and diversity
• Rewards for research success
• Recruitment and selection of talented researchers
• Research‐oriented leaders with research expertise and skill

The contextual background for understanding successful research environments

Against a backdrop of the mass production of education, reduced government funding for research and ‘new managerialist’ cultures in higher education, 8 , 9 increased scrutiny of the quantity and quality of research, the research environments in which research is produced and the impacts of research has become inevitable. 10 Indeed, in higher education institutions (HEIs) globally, research productivity is being measured as part of individual researcher and research group key performance indicators. 7 In many countries, such as Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand and the UK, 11 HEI research is measured on a national scale through government‐led research assessments. Such research measurement has contributed to the allocation of funding to universities and differentiation of universities in the competitive marketplace, with some solidifying their institutional identities as ‘research‐intensive’ and others emphasising their relative ‘newcomer‐to‐research’ status (e.g. previously ‘teaching‐intensive’ universities). 9 , 12 , 13 Such institutional differentiation also parallels that of individual academics within universities, who are increasingly encouraged to take either ‘research‐active’ or ‘education‐focused’ career pathways. 8 , 9 It is these broader national and institutional constraints that inevitably impact on research environments at the level of units, centres, departments and schools within universities (the level of ‘research environment’ that we focus on in this paper). Table S1 provides definitions of key terms.

Key features of research environments identified in previous reviews

Evans defines a research environment as including: ‘shared values, assumptions, beliefs, rituals and other forms of behaviour whose central focus is the acceptance and recognition of research practice and output as valued, worthwhile and pre‐eminent activity.’ 14 Previous reviews have tended to focus on interventions aimed at individual researchers, such as research capacity building, 4 , 5 , 7 and with individual‐level outcomes, such as increased numbers of grants or publications. 4 , 5 , 7 These reviews have typically concluded that research capacity‐building interventions lead to positive research outcomes. 4 , 5 , 7 Furthermore, the reviews have identified both individual and institutional enablers to research. Individual enablers included researchers’ intrinsic motivation to conduct research. 6 , 7 Institutional enablers included peer support, encouragement and review, 7 mentoring and collaboration, 4 , 5 research leadership, 5 , 6 institutional structures, processes and systems supporting research, such as clear strategy, 5 , 6 protected time and financial support. 5 Although these reviews have begun to shed light on the features of successful research environments, they have significant limitations: (i) they either include studies of low to moderate quality 4 , 5 or fail to check the quality of studies included, 7 and (ii) they do not explore what works for whom and under what circumstances, but instead focus on what works and ignore the influence of the context in which interventions are implemented and ‘how’ outcomes come about. Indeed, Mazmanian et al. 4 concluded in their review: ‘…little is known about what works best and in what situations.’

Conceptual framework: a realist approach

Given the gaps in the research literature and the importance of promoting successful research environments for individuals’ careers, institutional prestige and the knowledge base of the community, we thought a realist synthesis would be most likely to elucidate how multiple complex interventions can influence success. Realism assumes the existence of an external reality (a real world), but one that is filtered (i.e. perceived, interpreted and responded to) through human senses, volitions, language and culture. 15 A realist approach enables the development and testing of theory for why interventions may or may not work, for whom and under what circumstances. 16 It does this through recognising that interventions do not directly cause outcomes; instead, participants’ reactions and responses to the opportunities provided by the intervention trigger outcomes. This approach can allow researchers to identify causal links in complex situations, such as those between interventions and the contexts in which they work, how they work (mechanisms) and their outcomes. 17 Although the context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) approach is not necessarily linear, it can help to provide explanations that privilege contextual variability. 18

Aligned with the goals of realist research, this synthesis aims to address the following research question: What are the features of successful research environments, for whom, how and in what circumstances?

We followed five stages of realist synthesis: (i) clarifying scope; (ii) searching for evidence; (iii) assessing quality; (iv) extracting data, and (v) synthesising data. 19 Our methods also follow the RAMESES ( r ealist a nd m eta‐narrative e vidence s ynthesis: e volving s tandards) reporting guidelines. 20

Clarifying the scope

We first clarified the scope of our realist synthesis by identifying relevant interventions based on the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 environment assessment criteria. The REF is a national exercise assessing the quality of research produced by UK HEIs, its impact beyond academia, and the environment that supports research. The assessment criteria indicated in the REF2014 environment template included the unit's research strategy , its people (including staffing strategy, staff development and research students), its income, infrastructure and facilities (IIF), as well as features of collaboration . 21 These guided our search terms (see stage 2 below). We chose to use these quality markers as they informed the UK national assessment exercise, upon which other national exercises are often based. In addition, these criteria were explicit, considered and implementable, and were developed through consensus. Like other realist syntheses, 18 , 22 , 23 ours considered a multiplicity of different interventions rather than just one and some of the papers we reviewed combined multiple interventions.

Based on previous reviews, 1 , 4 , 5 , 7 our initial programme theory speculated that interventions aligned to having an explicit research strategy, staff development opportunities, funding and establishing research networks would be effective for creating successful research environments (Fig. ​ (Fig.1 1 gives further details of our initial programme theory).

Initial programme theory

Searching for empirical evidence

We devised search terms as a team and refined these iteratively with the help of a health librarian experienced in searching. We split the research question into three key concepts: (i) research environment; (ii) discipline, and (iii) research indicator (i.e. positive or negative). We then used variations of these terms to search the most relevant databases including MEDLINE, ProQuest, Scopus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and Web of Science. Table S2 illustrates the MeSH terms and provides a selection of key terms utilised in the database searches.

We were interested in comparing research cultures across the disciplines of medical education, education and medicine for two key reasons. Firstly, the discipline of medical education consists of a rich tapestry of epistemological approaches including biomedical sciences, social sciences and education, and medicine. 24 , 25 Secondly, there have been disciplinary arguments in the literature about whether medical education should be constructed as medicine or social science. 24 , 26

We agreed various inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to topic, recentness and type of article (Table S3 ), as well as refined criteria to include contextual parameters (Table S4 ). We chose 1992 as the start date for our search period as 1992 saw the first published literature review about productive research environments in the academic medicine literature. 1

Study selection

The first top‐level search elicited 8527 journal articles across all databases. Once duplicate results had been removed, and ‘topic’ and ‘recentness’ study parameters reinforced, 420 articles remained. The searching and selection process is summarised in a PRISMA ( p referred r eporting i tems for s ystematic reviews and m eta‐ a nalyses) diagram (Fig. ​ (Fig.2). 2 ). Three research assistants and one of the authors (PESC) initially assessed relevance by reviewing abstracts using preliminary inclusion criteria. If any ambiguities were found by any of the reviewers, abstracts were checked by one of the other two researchers (RA and CER). Where divergent views existed, researchers discussed the reasons why and agreed on whether to include or exclude. A 10% sample of these 420 abstracts were double‐checked by an additional two researchers, including a number of articles previously excluded, for quality control purposes.

PRISMA flow diagram of the selection process

Assessment of quality

We assessed the journal articles for relevance and rigour. 20 We defined an article's relevance according to ‘whether it can contribute to theory building and/or testing’. 20 Following the relevance check and ‘type’ exclusions to original research papers, 100 articles remained, which were then assessed for rigour. Although we chose to narrow down to original research, we kept relevant articles such as systematic reviews and opinion pieces to inform the introduction and discussion sections of this paper.

We defined rigour as determining ‘whether the method used to generate the particular piece of data is credible and trustworthy’. 20 We used two pre‐validated tools to assess study quality: the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to assess the quality of quantitative research, 27 , 28 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist for qualitative and mixed‐method studies. 29 Both tools are used to consider the rigour of study design, sampling, type of data, data analysis and outcomes/findings, and have been employed in previous reviews. 23 , 30

Following the quality assessment, 47 articles remained and were then subjected to data extraction and synthesis. Five papers were excluded as they did not contribute to our theory building or lacked CMO configurations (CMOCs). We kept notes of the reasons for excluding studies and resolved doubts through discussion (Fig. ​ (Fig.2 2 ).

Data extraction

Two data‐rich articles containing multiple CMOCs were inductively and deductively (based on the initial programme theory) coded by all of us to ensure consistency. We then discussed any similarities and differences in our coding. As is inherent in the challenges of realist approaches, we found differences in our identifications of CMOCs, which often related to how one particular component (e.g. time) could be an outcome at one moment and a mechanism the next. This alerted us to overlapping constructs, which we then explored as we coded remaining papers. To collect data across all remaining papers, we extracted information relating to: study design, methods and sample size; study setting; intervention focus; contexts of the intervention; mechanisms generated in the results, and outcomes. The key CMOCs in all 42 articles were identified primarily from the results sections of the papers. The process of data extraction and analysis was iterative with repeated discussion among the researchers of the demi‐regularities (i.e. patterns of CMOCs) in relation to the initial programme theory and negotiations of any differences of opinion.

Data synthesis

Finally, we interrogated our data extraction to look for patterns across our data/papers. We used an interpretative approach to consider how our data compared with our initial programme theory in order to develop our modified programme theory.

Characteristics of the studies

The 42 papers represented the following disciplines: medical education ( n = 4, 10%); 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 education ( n = 18, 43%), 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 and medicine ( n = 20, 48%). 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 There were 26 (62%) qualitative studies, 11 (26%) quantitative studies and five (12%) mixed‐methods studies (Table S5 ). The studies were from countries across the globe, including Australia ( n = 10, 24%), the USA ( n = 7, 17%), the UK ( n = 6, 14%), Canada ( n = 4, 10%), South Africa ( n = 4, 10%), Denmark ( n = 2, 5%), Turkey ( n = 2, 5%) and others ( n = 7, 17%) (e.g. Belgium, China, Germany, New Zealand and the Philippines). The research designs varied but common approaches included qualitative interviews, surveys, documentary/bibliographic analysis, case studies and mixed‐methods studies. Study participants included academics, teachers, health care professionals, senior directors, PhD students, early‐career researchers (ECRs) and senior researchers. Table S6 lists the individual contexts, interventions, mechanisms and outcomes identified from individual papers.

Extending our initial programme theory

A key finding from our realist synthesis was that the same interventions fired either positive or negative mechanisms leading to positive or negative outcomes, respectively, depending on context. Surprisingly, the CMOCs were mostly consistent across the three disciplines (i.e. medical education, education and medicine) with local contexts seemingly interplaying more strongly with outcomes. Therefore, we present these disciplinary contexts here as merged, but we highlight any differences by disciplinary context where relevant.

Having a research strategy promoted a successful research environment when it enabled appropriate resources (including time) and valuing of research; however, it had negative consequences when it too narrowly focused on outputs, incentives and rewards. In terms of people , individual researchers needed to be internally motivated and to have a sense of belonging, and protected time and access to capacity‐building activities in order to produce research. Lack of knowledge, researcher identity, networks and time, plus limited leadership support, acted as mechanisms leading to negative research outcomes. The presence of IIF was overwhelmingly indicated as necessary for successful research environments and their absence was typically detrimental. Interestingly, a few papers reported that external funding could have negative consequences because short‐term contracts, reduced job security and the use of temporary junior staff can lead to weak research environments. 40 , 67 , 71 Finally, collaboration was crucial for successful research mediated through trusting respectful relationships, supportive leadership and belongingness. Poor communication and competitive cultures, however, worked to undermine collaboration, leading to isolation and low self‐esteem, plus decreased research engagement and productivity. Table ​ Table1 1 highlights illustrative CMOCs for each intervention extending our initial programme theory.

Positive and negative context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) for each intervention

CMOCs indicated in bold highlight the three cross‐cutting themes of time, identity and relationships.

ECRs = early‐career researchers.

Key cross‐cutting mechanisms: time, identity and relationships

As Table ​ Table1 1 shows, the same intervention can lead to positive or negative outcomes depending on the particular contexts and mechanisms triggered. This highlights greater complexity than is evident at first glance. Cross‐cutting these four interventions were three mechanisms that were regularly identified as critical to the success (or not) of a research environment: time; researcher identities, and relationships. We now present key findings for each of these cross‐cutting mechanisms and discuss how their inter‐relations lead to our modified programme theory (Fig. ​ (Fig.3). 3 ). Note that although we have tried to separate these three mechanisms for ease of reading, they were often messily entangled. Table ​ Table2 2 presents quotes illustrating the way in which each mechanism mediates outcomes within particular circumstances.

Modified programme theory. ECR = early‐career researcher

Time, identity and relationships as cross‐cutting mechanisms mediating successful research environments

Time was identified as an important mechanism for mobilising research outcomes across our three disciplines. Time was conceptualised severally including as: protected time; workload pressures influencing time available; efficient use of time; flexible use of time; making time, and time in career. The two most commonly considered aspects were protected time and workload implications. Protected time was largely talked about in the negative across a variety of contexts and disciplines, with lack of protected time leading to lack of researcher engagement or inactivity and reduced research productivity. 32 , 35 , 37 , 41 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 67 Also across a variety of contexts and disciplines, and acting as a positive mechanism, available protected time was found to lead to increased research productivity and active research engagement. 31 , 36 , 40 , 48 , 49 , 63 , 65 With regard to workload, limitations on the time available for research imposed by excessive other workloads led to reduced research activity, lower research productivity, poor‐quality research and reduced opportunity to attend research training. 40 , 41 , 47 , 49 , 60 , 67 Juggling of multiple responsibilities, such as clinical, teaching, administrative and leadership roles, also inhibited research productivity by diminishing the time available for research. 35 , 40 , 49 The alignment of research with other non‐research work was described as driving efficiencies in the use of time leading to greater research productivity (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 1).

Identity was also an important mechanism for mobilising research outcomes across our three disciplines. Interpretations included personal identities (e.g. gender), professional identity (e.g. as a primary practitioner or a primary researcher), and social identity (e.g. sense of belongingness). Researcher identity was often referred to in relation to first‐career practitioners (and therefore second‐career researchers). Sharp et al. 48 defined these as participants recruited into higher education not directly from doctoral study but on the basis of their extensive ‘first‐order’ knowledge and pedagogical expertise. These were also practitioners conducting research in schools or hospitals. Identities were also referenced in relation to early, mid‐career or senior researchers. Academic staff working in academic institutions needed to develop a sense of researcher identity, belongingness, self‐efficacy for research and autonomy to increase their satisfaction, competence and research activity. 39 , 40 , 44 , 46 , 51 , 67 For first‐career practitioners (i.e. teachers, doctors), the research needed to be highly relevant and aligned to their primary identity work in order to motivate them. 53 , 59 , 62 , 65 This alignment was described as having a strong research–teaching nexus. 40 , 48 Linked to this concept was the need for first‐career practitioners to see the impact of research in relation to their primary work (e.g. patient‐ or student‐oriented) to facilitate motivation and to develop a researcher identity (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 2). 36 , 37 , 41 , 49 , 53 , 54 , 67 Where research was seen as irrelevant to primary identity work (e.g. English language teaching, general practice), there was research disengagement. 37 , 48 , 52 , 59 , 67

Relationships

For all researchers and across our three disciplines, relationships were important in the mediating of successful research environments. 31 , 34 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 57 , 60 , 66 , 67 Positive research relationships were characterised by mutual trust and respect, 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 54 , 66 , 72 whereas others described them as friendships that take time to develop. 51 Mutually supportive relationships seemed to be particularly relevant to ECRs in terms of developing confidence, self‐esteem and research capacity and making identity transitions. 35 , 43 , 48 , 58 , 67 Relationships in the form of networks were considered to improve the quality of research through multicentre research and improved collaboration. 33 , 60 Supportive leadership as a particular form of relationship was an important mechanism in promoting a successful research environment. Supportive leaders needed to monitor workloads, set the vision, raise awareness of the value of research, and provide positive role‐modelling, thereby leading to increased productivity, promoting researcher identities and creating thriving research environments (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 3). 31 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 53 , 55 , 62 Research leadership, however, could be influenced negatively by the context of compliance and counting in current university cultures damaging relationships, creating a loss of motivation, and raising feelings of devalue. Indeed, the failure of leaders to recognise researcher identities led to negative research productivity. 36 , 37 , 38 , 43 , 46 , 48 , 49

Intersections between time, identity and relationships within successful research environments

Time and identity.

Time and identity intersected in interesting ways. Firstly, time was a necessary enabler for the development of a researcher identity. 37 , 38 , 41 , 48 , 49 , 54 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 69 Secondly, those who identified as researchers (thus holding primary researcher identities) used their time efficiently to favour research activity outcomes despite a lack of protected time. 35 , 43 Conversely, for other professors who lacked personal determination and resilience for research, having protected time did not lead to better research activity. 43 This highlights the fact that time alone is insufficient to support a successful research environment, and that it is how time is utilised and prioritised by researchers that really matters (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 4).

Identity and relationships

Interventions aimed at developing researcher identity consistently focused on relationship building across the three disciplines. The interventions that supported identity transitions into research included formal research training, 44 , 48 , 52 , 68 mentoring, 41 , 48 , 57 , 65 , 72 writing groups, 72 and collaboration with peers and other researchers, 39 , 41 , 43 operating through multiple mechanisms including relationships. The mechanisms included self‐esteem/confidence, increased networks, external recognition as a researcher, belongingness, and self‐efficacy. 35 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 52 , 57 Furthermore, our data suggest that leadership can be an enabler to the development of a researcher identity. In particular, leadership enabled research autonomy, recognition and empowerment, and fostered supportive mentoring environments, leading to researcher identity development and research productivity (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 5). 34 , 38 , 46 , 48

Time and relationships

Relationships were developed and sustained over time (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 6). Across the three disciplines, the role of leaders (managers, directors, deans) was to acknowledge and raise awareness of research, and then to prioritise time for research against competing demands, leading to effective research networks, cohesion and collaboration. 31 , 34 , 38 , 43 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 55 , 70 Second‐career PhD students who did not invest time in establishing relationships with researchers in their new disciplines (as they already had strong supportive networks in their original disciplines) found that they had limited research networks following graduation. 48

Summary of key findings

Our initial programme theory was based on previous literature reviews 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 and on the REF2014 criteria. 10 , 21 However, we were able to develop a modified programme theory on the basis of our realist synthesis, which highlights novel findings in terms of what really matters for successful research environments. Firstly, we found that key interventions led to both positive (subjective and objective) and negative (subjective and objective) outcomes in various contexts. Interestingly, we did not identify any outcomes relating to research impact despite impact nowadays being considered a prominent marker of research success, alongside quantitative metrics such as number of publications, grant income and h‐indices. 21 Secondly, we found that disciplinary contexts appeared to be less influential than individual, local and institutional contexts. Finally, our modified programme theory demonstrates a complex interplay among three cross‐cutting mechanisms (time, researcher identity and relationships) as mechanisms underpinning both successful and unsuccessful research environments.

Key findings and comparisons with the existing literature

Our research supports the findings of earlier reviews 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 regarding the importance of having a clear research strategy, an organisation that values research, research‐oriented leadership, access to resources (such as people, funding, research facilities and time), and meaningful relationships. However, our research extends these findings considerably by flagging up the indication that a clear linear relationship, whereby the presence of these interventions will necessarily result in a successful research environment, does not exist. For example, instituting a research strategy can have negative effects if the indicators are seen as overly narrow in focus or output‐oriented. 38 , 40 , 46 , 47 , 64 Similarly, project money can lead to the employment of more part‐time staff on fixed‐term contracts, which results in instability, turnover and lack of research team expertise. 40 , 67 , 71

Our findings indicate that the interplays among time, identity and relationships are important considerations when implementing interventions promoting research environments. Although time was identified as an important mechanism affecting research outcomes within the majority of papers, researcher identity positively affected research outcomes even in time‐poor situations. Indeed, we found that identity acted as a mechanism for research productivity that could overcome limited time through individuals efficiently finding time to prioritise research through their motivation and resilience. 35 , 43 Time was therefore more than just time spent doing research, but also included investment in developing a researcher identity and relationships with other researchers over time. 37 , 38 , 41 , 48 , 49 , 54 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 67 , 69 Relationship‐building interventions were also found to be effective in supporting difficult identity transitions into research faced by ECRs and those with first‐career practitioner backgrounds. Supportive leadership, as a particular form of relationship, could be seen as an enabler to the provision of protected time and a reasonable workload, allowing time for research and for researcher identity formation. 34 , 38 , 46 , 48 Indeed, our realist synthesis findings highlight the central importance of researcher identity and thus offer a novel explanation for why research environments may not flourish even in the presence of a research strategy, resources (e.g. time) and valuing of research.

Researcher identity is complex and intersects with other identities such as those of practitioner, teacher, leader and so on. Brew et al. 39 , 73 , 74 explored researcher identification and productivity by asking researchers if they considered themselves to be ‘research‐active’ and part of a research team. Those who identified as researchers prioritised their work differently: those who were highly productive prioritised research, whereas those in the low‐productivity group prioritised teaching. 73 Interestingly, highly productive researchers tended to view research as a social phenomenon with publications, presentations and grants being ‘traded’ in academic networks. Brew et al. 39 explain that: ‘…the trading view relates to a self‐generating researcher identity. Researcher identity develops in the act of publication, networks, collaborations and peer review. These activities support a person's identification as a researcher. They also, in turn, influence performance measures and metrics.’ Although the relationships among identity, identification and productivity are clearly complex, we explored a broader range of metrics in our realist synthesis than just productivity.

Methodological strengths and limitations

This is the first study to explore this important topic using realist synthesis to better understand the influence of context and how particular interventions lead to outcomes. We followed RAMESES 20 guidelines and adopted a rigorous team‐based approach to each analytic stage, conducting regular quality checks. The search was not exhaustive as we could have ‘exploded’ the interventions and performed a comprehensive review of each in its own right (e.g. mentoring). However, for pragmatic reasons and to answer our broad research questions, we chose not to do this, as suggested by Wong et al. 20 Although all members of the team had been involved in realist syntheses previously, the process remained messy as we dealt with complex phenomena. The messiness often lies in untangling CMOCs and identifying recurrent patterns in the large amounts of literature reviewed.

Implications for education and research

Our findings suggest that interventions related to research strategy, people, IIF and collaboration are supported under the ‘right’ conditions. We need to focus on time, identity and relationships (including leadership) in order to better mobilise the interventions to promote successful research environments.

Individuals need to reflect on how and why they identify as researchers, including their conceptions of research and their working towards the development of a researcher identity such that research is internally motivated rather than just externally driven. Those who are second‐career researchers or those with significant teaching or practitioner roles could seek to align research with their practice while they establish wider research networks.

We recommend that research leaders support individuals to develop their researcher identity, be seen to value research, recognise that research takes time, and provide access to opportunities promoting research capacity building, strong relationships and collaboration. Leaders, for example, may introduce interventions that promote researcher identities and build research relationships (e.g. collaborations, networking, mentoring, research groups etc.), paying attention to the ways in which competitive or collaborative cultures are fostered. Browne et al. 75 recently recommended discussions around four categories for promoting identity transition: reflection on self (values, experiences and expectations); consideration of the situation (circumstances, concerns); support (what is available and what is needed), and strategies (personal strategies to cope with change and thrive). With the professionalisation of medical education, 76 research units are increasingly likely to contain a mixture of first‐ and second‐career researchers, and our review suggests that discussions about conceptions of research and researcher identity would be valuable.

Finally, organisations need to value research and provide access to resources and research capacity‐building activities. Within the managerialist cultures of HEIs, compliance and counting have already become dominant discourses in terms of promotion and success. Policymakers should therefore consider ways in which HEIs recognise, incentivise and reward research in all its forms (including subjective and objective measures of quantity, quality and impact) to determine the full effects of their policies on research environments.

Future research would benefit from further exploration of the interplay among time, identities and relationships (including leadership) in different contexts using realist evaluation. 77 Specifically, as part of realist approaches, longitudinal audio‐diaries 78 could be employed to explore researcher identity transitions over time, particularly for first‐career practitioners transitioning into second‐career researchers.

Contributors

RA and CER were responsible for the conception of the synthesis. All authors contributed to the protocol development. RA and PESC carried out the database searches. All authors sifted for relevance and rigour, analysed the papers and contributed to the writing of the article. All authors approved the final manuscript for publication.

Conflicts of interest

Ethical approval.

not required.

Supporting information

Table S1. Definitions of key terms.

Table S6. Contexts, interventions, mechanisms and outcomes identified in individual studies.

Acknowledgements

we thank Andy Jackson, Learning and Teaching Librarian, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK, for his advice and help in developing our literature searches. We also thank Laura McDonald, Paul McLean and Eilidh Dear, who were medical students at the University of Dundee, for their help with database searches and with sifting papers for relevance and rigour. We would also like to thank Chau Khuong, Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, for her work in designing Figs ​ Figs1 1 and ​ and3 3 .

Sovereign Debt and Environment Profiles: A New Interactive Database for Sustainable Debt on a Livable Planet

By Rebecca Ray and Jörg Haas

Without a stepwise injection of capital into developing countries, meaningful progress on addressing climate change and meeting the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement targets will remain out of reach. The Group of 20 (G20) Independent Experts Group estimates that emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) excluding China need to mobilize $3 trillion per year, with $1 trillion coming from international sources and another $2 trillion mobilized domestically.  

Yet, the countries most in need of climate and biodiversity finance are also fiscally constrained, a problem that has been exacerbated by the response to COVID-19 pandemic, subsequent capital flight, monetary tightening in advanced countries as well as the dollar strengthening. In fact, many EMDEs have net negative flows , meaning that more money is leaving these countries – primarily to the Global North – than flowing in. In some cases, countries urgently need access to affordable finance while others are already facing unsustainable debt burdens and require comprehensive debt relief.

These burdens can create a vicious cycle where fiscal constraints jeopardize long-term environmental commitments, which in turn make developing economies more vulnerable to the extreme weather events linked to climate change, further exacerbating the underlying fiscal constraints. To replace this vicious cycle with a virtuous cycle built on resilience and sustainable growth, developing countries must have fiscal space to make necessary investments in climate and nature.

The Sovereign Debt and Environment Profiles (SDEP) Database , a new interactive database from the Boston University Global Development Policy Center (GDP Center), explores the fiscal constraints and green investment opportunities of 114 EMDEs. It shows each country’s external debt stock and near-term repayment schedule by creditor and classifies each country’s climate investment needs and biodiversity investment opportunities in four ways:

• Climate change adaptation: The extent to which each country is vulnerable to the effect of extreme weather events linked to climate change, including through impacts to food, water, health, ecosystem services, human habitat and infrastructure.
• Climate change mitigation: The extent to which each country’s energy trajectory needs investment if it is to become compatible with the goal of limiting catastrophic climate change.
• Land conservation: The extent to which each country’s system of national protected areas can effectively be expanded through additional land conservation investment.
• Marine conservation: The extent to which each country’s system of marine protected areas can effectively be expanded through additional marine conservation investment.

Bridging existing research  

The SDEP Database bridges and visualizes data from two recent research publications. First, a recent report from GDP Center researchers explores these four environmental variables for climate and biodiversity investment, demonstrating that countries with greatest green investment opportunities and needs are disproportionately burdened with unsustainable debt levels and repayment schedules, jeopardizing their ability to make these needed investments.

These findings are further supported by a new report from the Debt Relief for a Green and Inclusive Recovery (DRGR) Project which provides an enhanced debt sustainability analysis (DSA) for 66 countries that are considered low-income countries by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The report finds that debt relief is urgently needed for at least 47 economically vulnerable EMDEs to maintain debt sustainability while investing in shared climate and development goals.

Using the methodology and enhanced DSA from the DRGR Project report, the SDEP Database considers each of the following three groups of countries independently:

• Low-income Countries in Need of Debt Relief: These 47 countries have been identified, per the enhanced DSA, as needing debt relief to meet the SDGs and climate investment needs in the next five years.
• Low-income Countries in Need of Liquidity: These 19 countries have not been identified as needing debt relief, but they still face high costs of capital and need liquidity support.
• Market Access Countries: These 48 countries are out of scope of analysis of DRGR Project report , but they may still face capital market constraints due to the high cost of capital.

The 47 low-income countries in need of debt relief collectively owe $383 billion in nominal debt (including borrowing from the IMF), and the creditor breakdown is illustrated in Figure 1. The largest share of this debt is owed to multilateral creditors ($91.5 billion to the World Bank and $57.6 billion to other multilateral creditors), followed by private creditors ($59.6 billion to bondholders and $40.3 billion to other private creditors), China ($55.1 billion), Paris Club ($28.9 billion), the IMF ($24.9 billion) and other official bilateral creditors ($24.5 billion). The DRGR report recommends a “New Common Framework” for debt restructuring with these 47 countries.

Figure 1: Nominal debt stock of low-income countries in need of debt relief, by creditor group, 2022

Beyond Gross Domestic Product: including nature in economic policy assessment

Nature-inclusive policy-making requires an indicator measuring the contribution from ecosystems to the benefits used by people and society. Such an indicator should complement the typical economic measure of GDP in policy scenarios and assessments.

The supply of ecosystem services, such as crop pollination and water purification, are of great importance to any economy, both directly and indirectly. However, most assessments use Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the main economic development indicator. GDP shows the total value of output/income generated in a country, but it does not capture fully the contributions of nature to economic activity. The concept of Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP), which summarises the value that ecosystem services provide to the economy in monetary terms, is a way to overcome these shortcomings in policy assessments. It also allows assessing the impact of particular policies on the overall condition of ecosystems.

A JRC study shows the importance of adding nature’s value 

The  Gross Ecosystem Product in Macroeconomic Modelling report explains and showcases how GEP can be applied in macroeconomic analyses alongside the traditional GDP indicator. The application of GEP to assess the value of ecosystem services in the decision-making process could enhance the quality of new policies and stewardship, which in turn could improve the management of natural capital. 

Real-world policy implementations of GEP as a metric alongside GDP are still pending due to various reasons, including technical limitations related to data availability and the complexity of ecosystem service valuation resulting in large uncertainties of estimates. However, preliminary simulations using the INCA (Integrated Natural Capital Accounting) approach and data show that the inclusion of GEP can alter the outcome of evaluations significantly, offering a more nuanced and realistic picture of the value of ecosystem services. 

For example, JRC researchers simulated a scenario in which changes in consumer preferences lead to a gradual increase in the consumption of proteins of plant origin. GDP would record a positive, yet very small, economic impact: an increase of 0.01% in the EU in 2030 compared to the reference scenario. In contrast, the GEP index would increase by 1.5%: this corresponds to 2.3 billion euros, a significant economic impact that GDP missed almost entirely.

A fruitful collaboration

The report is the result of a cooperation between scientists from the JRC and Wageningen Economic Research (WEcR), who develop and operate a macroeconomic model called MAGNET. Compared to other models used to assess the impact of policies on the economy, MAGNET was the most fitting option due to its built-in ability to represent land supply and forestry. JRC researchers introduced the new GEP module to MAGNET, which allows comparing the impact of different policies on both GDP and GEP in the European Union. The GEP module uses the INCA dataset, developed and maintained by the JRC, to incorporate the value of ecosystem services. This dataset is a product of the INCA project, which follows the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) global framework. Adhering to this international standard ensures the credibility of the GEP module.

The development of the GEP module is an ongoing process: JRC researchers are working on ways to make it even more accurate and effective. For example, connecting it to larger and more detailed data sets could lead to better specification of the ecosystem services supply functions and to the inclusion of more types of ecosystem services in the GEP indicator. Enriching GEP accounting with perspectives on the link between biological and human production, or considering harm to the ecosystem carrying capacity, may also contribute to make the model more accurate. 

• Green transition
• Healthy biodiversity
• Sustainable food systems

More news on a similar topic

• News announcement
• 30 May 2024

• General publications
• 28 May 2024

• 27 May 2024

Share this page

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Environmental Justice

Community change grants now open.

The Community Change Grants $2 Billion Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is NOW OPEN. Learn more about the NOFO and find helpful resources .

Technical Assistance Available

Technical Assistance is available to help you apply for our Community Change Grants !  Learn more .

EJ Clearinghouse Open!

The EJ Clearinghouse is a compilation of online materials to assist EJ partners. Check out available resources and suggest resources to be included!

Visit the EJ Clearinghouse

EJ Community Engagement Calls

Join us for our monthly national EJ Community Engagement Call to hear from us and be heard! Learn more .

“Environmental justice” means the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment so that people:

• are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and
• have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices

Grants and Resources

• EJ Grants, Funding, and Technical Assistance
• Resources for Communities
• EJ in Your Community
• EJ Program Funded Projects
• EJ Learning Center
• EPA American Rescue Plan (ARP) Funding

Strategic Planning

• Learn about Environmental Justice
• EJ Scorecard and EPA
• Equitable Development
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Community Outreach and Engagement
• Journey to Justice Tour

Collaborative Partnerships

• Community Voices
• National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
• White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC)
• International Human Rights and Rights of Indigenous People
• Tribes and Indigenous Peoples

This timeline presents EPA's involvement in the Environmental Justice Movement and the major events leading up to it. This is not meant to be an all inclusive history of the movement in general.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Programs Climate Change and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) recognizes that climate change poses a serious threat to the U.S. housing finance system. FHFA's regulated entities – Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank System – have an important leadership role to play in addressing this issue. In its supervisory capacity over the regulated entities, as well as its role as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, FHFA has been actively working to ensure that the regulated entities are accounting for the risks associated with climate change and natural disasters while also overseeing the regulated entities' work related to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) broadly.

To this end, FHFA established an internal Climate Change and ESG Steering Committee, consisting of the Agency's leadership, and eight working groups staffed with experts from across the agency on the following areas:

• Assessing climate exposure;
• ESG reporting and disclosure;
• Governance;
• Green bonds;
• Consumer protection;
• Internal agency operations; and 
• Legal.  

The working groups will work with FHFA's regulated entities, members of the FSOC Climate-Related Financial Risk Committee (CFRC), members of the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), members of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission (FLEC), members of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG), and other stakeholders.

A​dditional Steps Taken

In April 2023, FHFA joined the  Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) . MitFLG, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is focused on strengthening the nation’s disaster resilience by expanding mitigation awareness, coordination, and action.

In July 2022, FHFA joined the  Financial Literacy Education Commission (FLEC) . FLEC is a national interagency group focused on coordinating financial education efforts throughout the federal government.

On May 11, 2022, FHFA joined the  Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) . NGFS is an international group comprised of central banks and financial supervisors whose purpose is to help strengthen the global response required to meet the goals of the Paris agreement.

Econ Summits

FHFA will host an  Economic Summit  on climate risk on November 12, 2024. ( Fall 2024 Econ Summit Call for Papers)

On October 3, 2023, FHFA hosted an  Economic Summit  on climate risk. The Summit included three sessions: climate change and insurance; land use regulations, disclosures, and risk modeling; and disaster risk and house prices.

On November 1, 2022, FHFA hosted an  Economic Summit  on climate risk, with sessions on climate stress testing and academic research on impacts to vulnerable communities.

Other FHFA Public Engagements

On March 13, 2024, the FHFA Multifamily team hosted a Multifamily Insurance Symposium. The symposium included sessions on insurance market risks and challenges, insurance and affordability, emerging solutions, and the Enterprises’ and HUD’s perspectives on insurance market challenges.

On November 14 and 15, 2023, the FHFA Single-Family team hosted a Single-Family Insurance Symposium. Day One included sessions on insurance commissioner perspectives, implications of growth in residual insurance markets, insurance industry perspectives, and the homeownership experience. Day Two included sessions on strengthening community resilience and insurability, empowering communities with information, wildfire solutions, building climate resilience across sectors, building codes and standards, and consumer perspectives.

Agency Documents

See FHFA’s climate-related performance measures and targets for 2024 within FHFA’s  FY 2024 Annual Performance Plan .

See FHFA’s FY23 climate-related activities and plans for FY24 within FHFA’s  2023 Performance and Accountability Report .

See FHFA’s climate-related activities in 2022 within FHFA’s  2022 Annual Report to Congress .

See FHFA’s climate-related performance measures and targets for 2023 within FHFA’s  FY 2023 Annual Performance Plan .

See FHFA’s FY22 climate-related activities and plans for FY23 within FHFA’s  2022 Performance and Accountability Report .

See FHFA’s climate-related activities in 2021 within FHFA’s  2021 Annual Report to Congress .

Climate Blog Series

Read about the ongoing work and accomplishments of FHFA’s Climate Change and ESG Working Groups.

The Need to Address Climate Risk

August 28, 2023

Daniel E. Coates    

Deputy Director, FHFA Division of Research and Statistics

Chair, Climate Change and ESG Steering Committee

Executive Sponsor, Climate Change and ESG Working Groups

Understanding the Climate’s Impact on Vulnerable Populations

November 27, 2023

Authors:    

Leda DeRosa Bloomfield  

Branch Chief for Policy and Equity, Office of Fair Lending Oversight

Division of Housing Mission and Goals 

Sarah Friedman  

Examination Specialist, Office of Fair Lending Oversight

Division of Housing Mission and Goals

FHFA’s Fall 2023 Econ Summit on Climate Risk

January 22, 2024

November Wilson

Senior Economist, Climate Change and ESG Branch

Division of Research and Statistics

Incorporating Climate-Related Risks into Governance

April 22, 2024

Eric Kelley

Senior Strategic Analyst

Division of Conservatorship Oversight and Readiness

Anne Marie Pippin  

Deputy Director

La’Toya Holt    

Senior Risk Analyst, Governance and Management Risk Branch

Office of Risk Analysis

Policy and Guidance and Development

Division of Enterprise Regulation

Varun Joshi

Economist, Climate Change and ESG Branch

Progress in Addressing Climate-related Disclosure Standards

April 23, 2024

Suzanne Crump  

Principal Accountant (Advisor)

Office of the Chief Accountant

Truc-An To  

Principal Accountant, Financial Disclosure Branch

Quinn McDonough

Accountant, Accounting Policy Branch

Lessons Learned from Assessing Exposure to Climate-Related Risks

May 1, 2024

Caroline Hopkins

Senior Economist

Supervisory Financial Analyst

Andrew Davenport

Principal Economist

Barry Carroll

Senior Financial Analyst

Stefan Szilagyi

Supervisory Economist

Division of FHLBank Regulation

​Disaster Response and Assistance

In May 2019, FHFA formalized its agency-wide Disaster Response Team (DRT), which had been meeting informally for years prior. The DRT has experience coordinating with the regulated entities, other government agencies, external parties, and internal FHFA stakeholders during natural disasters. It is guided by a natural disaster response and recovery framework developed by FHFA in coordination with its regulated entities to support borrowers and renters affected by natural disasters. This framework incorporates forbearance and workout options for borrowers in areas impacted by natural disasters, tailoring options to their specific circumstances.

For more information on disaster response and assistance: See  https://www.fhfa.gov/homeowners-and-homebuyers/mortgage-assistance/disaster-assistance

RFI: Climate and Natural Disaster Risk Management at the Regulated Entities

Link to Comments

Link to RFI Synopsis

Listening Session

On March 4, 2021, FHFA held a public listening session on Climate and Natural Disaster Risk Management at the Regulated Entities.

March 4, 2021 Listening Session

March 4, 2021 Agenda

March 4, 2021 Listening Session Transcript

March 4, 2021 Listening Session Presentations

Statements, Remarks, and External Engagements

Daniel E. Coates, Executive Sponsor of the Climate Change and ESG Working Groups at FHFA, discussed FHFA and its regulated entities’ actions to address climate change in an interview with The Economist on March 27, 2024.

Daniel E. Coates, Executive Sponsor of the Climate Change and ESG Working Groups at FHFA, delivered closing remarks addressing climate change at the joint GSE Climate Risk Forum held on March 20 and 21, 2024 at the Freddie Mac Headquarters.

Daniel E. Coates, Executive Sponsor of the Climate Change and ESG Working Groups at FHFA, delivered remarks on FHFA and its regulated entities’ actions to address climate-related risk during the Ceres webinar, Charting Progress: Regulator Actions on Climate Financial Risks, on December 18, 2023.

Daniel E. Coates, Deputy Director for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, discussed the impact of climate change on the housing finance sector at the Insurance Information Institute (III) Town Hall held on November 30, 2023.

Daniel E. Coates, Deputy Director for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, participated in a panel on Climate-Related Risk for Housing Finance at the Financial Services Conference organized by the Consumer Federation of America on November 16, 2023.

Jessica Shui, Climate Change and ESG Branch Manager for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, delivered remarks on FHFA’s progress in advancing climate resiliency at the Financial Literacy and Education Commission  Public Meeting  held on November 15, 2023.

Jessica Shui, Climate Change and ESG Branch Manager for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, delivered remarks addressing climate risk at CoreLogic’s DC Government Forum held on November 13, 2023.

Sandra L. Thompson, Director of FHFA, delivered  remarks  addressing climate change at the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s Climate-related Financial Risk Advisory Committee Meeting on October 20, 2023.

Daniel E. Coates, Deputy Director for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, delivered remarks on FHFA’s work to address climate change during an interview with National Mortgage Professionals on October 12, 2023.

Daniel E. Coates, Deputy Director for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, delivered closing remarks addressing climate change at the joint GSE Climate Risk Forum held on October 10, 2023.

Sandra L. Thompson, Director of FHFA, participated in a climate change Q&A organized by the National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU) on September 13, 2023.

Daniel E. Coates, Deputy Director for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, delivered remarks which also touched upon climate change at the 2023 American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association (AREUEA) National Conference held on June 1, 2023.

Daniel E. Coates, Deputy Director for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, participated in a panel discussion on climate risk hosted by CoreLogic on May 10, 2023.

Daniel E. Coates, Deputy Director for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, delivered remarks on FHFA’s actions to address climate-related risk during the Ceres webinar, The Climate Risk Scorecard: Assessing U.S. Financial Regulator Action, on December 6, 2022.

Sandra L. Thompson, Director of FHFA, delivered  remarks  during the Financial Literacy Education Commission (FLEC) Public Meeting on November 17, 2022, which also touched upon climate.

Daniel E. Coates, Deputy Director for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, served as the keynote presenter for the September 30, 2022, Climate Adaptation Forum (CAF).

Sandra L. Thompson, Director of FHFA, addressed climate change during the National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU)’s Congressional Caucus event in September 2022.

Daniel E. Coates, Deputy Director for the Division of Research and Statistics at FHFA, addressed climate change in a podcast on climate change risk organized by the National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU) in August 2022.

Remarks of Sandra L. Thompson, Director of FHFA, at Financial Stability Oversight Council Principals Meeting on July 28, 2022.

Federal Housing Finance Agency Announces Membership in the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS)​ on May 11, 2022 .

FHFA Acting Director Sandra L. Thompson's Statement on Climate Change on December 27, 2021 .

Prepared Remarks of Sandra L. Thompson, Acting Director of FHFA, at Financial Stability Oversight Council Principals Meeting. on October 21, 2021 .

Regulated Entities

On March 20 and 21, 2024, the Enterprises hosted a joint GSE Climate Risk Forum. The event included panel sessions, presentations, and individual speakers covering topics on the low-carbon transition and housing.

On October 10, 2023, the Enterprises hosted a joint GSE Climate Risk Forum. The event included panel sessions, presentations, and individual speakers covering topics on climate resilience and the housing market.

In June 2023, the Federal Home Loan Banks released an inaugural  Corporate Social Responsibility Report  highlighting their commitment to robust and prudential risk management and governance in order to continue to meet the demands of their member districts.

The ESG website of the  Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas  describes their ESG strategy and includes a link to their  2022 ESG Report , published in April 2023.

Fannie Mae  and  Freddie Mac's  ESG websites describe their ESG strategies and include links to their most recent Sustainability and ESG Reports.

Email:  [email protected]

Europeans continue to feel directly affected by environmental issues and policy

A new Eurobarometer survey found that more than three-quarters of citizens believe the environment has a direct effect on their daily life.

Europeans continue to express high levels of concern about the environment , which they see as an issue affecting them personally, according to a  new Eurobarometer survey on ‘Attitudes of Europeans towards the environment’ published today. 

More than three-quarters of Europeans (78%) say that environmental issues have a direct effect on their daily life and their health . And more than four in five respondents (84%) agree that EU environmental legislation is necessary for protecting the environment in their country . These results are nearly identical to those from the  last survey conducted in 2019, highlighting the continued relevance of EU environmental policy. 

Citizens are also concerned about the costs of pollution . 92% of Europeans say that companies should pay for the costs of cleaning up their pollution, while 74% agree that public authorities should pay for the costs.

Concerns about water pollution and scarcity 

78% of respondents are in favour of proposing more EU measures to address water-related issues .

Pollution and overconsumption/wastage of water  are seen as the two main national threats linked to water . In countries frequently affected by droughts, the number one threat in terms of water is   droughts, as in Spain, Cyprus and Malta. Additionally, a majority of respondents considered that none of the most relevant sectors , such as industry, energy producers, tourism or agriculture, are currently doing enough to use water efficiently .

Support for circular economy and nature restoration 

Citizens consider promoting the circular economy as the most effective way of tackling environmental problems in 11 Member States, followed closely by restoring nature . 

Generally, there is a readiness towards more sustainable consumer behaviour with almost six in ten respondents willing to pay more for sustainable products that are easier to repair, recyclable and/or produced in an environmentally sustainable way.

As part of a more circular economy, citizens support reducing the amount of waste by sorting their waste for recycling correctly and using reusable packaging. In addition, in order to reduce waste, almost half of the respondents would primarily buy products that do not have more packaging than necessary and over 40% would primarily buy products in recycled packages. 

At the EU level as a whole, plastic and chemical waste are viewed as the most problematic , cited by 35% and 34% of respondents respectively.

Awareness of impacts of harmful chemicals 

More than four in five respondents  (84%) are worried about the impact of harmful chemicals present in everyday products on their health, and the same proportion is worried about the impact of such chemicals on the environment. Since the 2019 survey, these concerns have remained almost steady.

The chemical safety of products is also taken into account by 72% of the Europeans interviewed when making purchases. 29% of Europeans say that they have heard about PFAS  (also known as ‘forever chemicals’), while 71% have not. Then, once they have received more information about PFAS,   81% of respondents express concern about their potential impact   on their health and 84% about the effects of such chemicals on the environment. Finally, EU environmental protection from hazardous chemicals is seen as too low, and should be increased ,   according to more than half of the respondents.

Speaking on the Eurobarometer survey, Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevičius said:

“The results of this survey confirm the importance that green policies play in Europeans’ daily lives. I am encouraged to see this strong support for actions ranging from circular economy developments to nature restoration, at the heart of the European Green Deal. It is also clear that citizens think there is still more work to do to protect the environment, especially in areas such as chemical safety and water resilience.”

Background 

The survey is published during the annual  EU Green Week conference “Towards a water resilient Europe” organised in Brussels on 29 and 30 May. At the conference, the Commission will launch a  campaign to stimulate an EU-wide conversation about the increasing water-related challenges as well as the solutions to address them. 

The survey was carried out between 6 March and 8 April 2024 in the 27 EU Member States. 26,346 respondents from different social and demographic groups were interviewed face-to-face at home or via video link, in their mother tongue. 

This Special Eurobarometer survey is the follow-up of a Special Eurobarometer survey conducted in  December 2019 on the same topic with some of the questions asked again to track evolution in public opinion.

For More Information 

Eurobarometer survey  

EU Green Week : "Towards a water resilient Europe” 

#WaterWiseEU : A campaign to stimulate an EU-wide conversation around water today and in the future. 

EU Environment newsletter

EU Environment newsletters deliver the latest updates about the European Commission’s environmental priorities straight to your inbox.

Share this page

More From Forbes

Answering 'what is your ideal work environment' in a job interview.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Employers ask about your ideal work environment to assess fit.

Predicting what you'll be asked in a job interview is challenging. One common question that may leave you stumped if caught off guard is, “What is your ideal work environment?” Another version of this question is, "What type of work environment do you prefer?" Obviously, there is no perfect workplace. But preparing an answer to this question in advance will accomplish two things. First, it will force you to dig deep to identify what’s important to you. Best of all, articulating your vision in a clear and succinct way that aligns with the company’s values will also leave a lasting impression on your future employer.

Your ideal work environment refers to the type of workplace where you will be the most productive and satisfied. Employers ask this question for several reasons. One is to assess cultural fit. They want to know that your desires match what they have to offer. Why? Employees who fit well within an organization are more likely to feel motivated and engaged, resulting in higher productivity. It also gives the hiring manager insight into your personality—something more difficult to glean from a résumé.

Finding an ideal culture match matters just as much to you, the job seeker, as to the employer. So much so that a Glassdoor survey polling over 5,000 respondents from the U.S., U.K., France and Germany found that 73% said they wouldn’t even apply to a company unless its values align with their own. The next time you prepare for an interview, follow these steps to respond to the question, “What is your ideal work environment?”

Reflect on past experiences

The first step is to define your preferences. Look back on past work experiences to identify the environments in which you thrived. Remember, it’s about more than just describing the physical location. Think about factors such as:

• Flexibility
• Work-life balance
• Opportunities for growth
• Collaboration vs. working independently
• Structured vs. ambiguous environments

Then, make a list and prioritize these attributes. Are there any elements on which you could be flexible? Also, note any characteristics you consider deal breakers.

NSA Warns iPhone And Android Users To Turn It Off And On Again

Donald trump $300 million poorer after guilty verdict as truth social stock sinks, trump still faces 54 more felony charges after hush money verdict, research the company.

Some employers ask about your ideal work environment to ensure you researched the company. Check the job description for keywords like creative, fast-paced or team-oriented. To learn more about the company culture , review the corporate website. Pay special attention to the mission statement and careers section. Also, look at social media channels to get a glimpse into the organization’s priorities. Another idea is to create a Google alert to stay on top of breaking news or announcements. Finally, talk to current employees. By scheduling informational interviews, you can get an insider perspective on what it’s like to work there.

Prepare your response

In a job interview, you always want to appear energetic and enthusiastic about the role. So, when you respond, frame your answer in a positive light. For example, instead of describing how you hated working for your micromanaging boss who tracked your every move, focus on the fact that you’re a self-starter who thrives on flexibility. Highlight what is most important to you and connect it to the organization you’re interviewing with. To make your response more compelling, use real-life examples. By using a storytelling approach, your interview will be engaging and memorable.

Example answers

Here are a few sample responses to this increasingly common interview question:

You enjoy a team-based environment

My ideal work environment is one where I can express my creativity while using my problem-solving skills to overcome obstacles. I enjoy collaborating with team members on challenging assignments. Working in a rewarding environment is also important to me. That’s why I was impressed that you recently created a program to recognize employees who go above and beyond. I find that I’m most productive and motivated when I’m part of a team that celebrates each other’s wins.

You prefer a balance between group and independent projects

I prefer working both in a group setting and independently at times. When I researched your company, I learned that many employees collaborate on projects and also focus on their own responsibilities. I’ve found that this balance is what makes me thrive as an advertising executive. While I enjoy brainstorming sessions, I also like spending time alone to strategize and focus on my day-to-day responsibilities.

You thrive in a remote setting

My ideal work environment centers around working for an organization that empowers its employees. When I read that you are a global company that prioritizes a sense of belonging, I was excited. I am most energized and productive when I am given the flexibility to work remotely for fast-paced, high-growth companies. Given that you promote transparency, work-life balance and asynchronous work, I can make an immediate contribution in this role.

Job interviews are a two-way conversation. If you determine that the company culture and your expectations don’t align, that’s okay. The role may not be a good fit. However, if there is overlap, you can decide whether some preferences are worth compromising. Most importantly, be authentic. It will make you a more attractive candidate and increase the likelihood of finding a job opportunity that is the best fit for you.

Are you a woman who needs help changing careers? Download my FREE 22-page e-book: How Professional Women Can Master Career Change!

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Global (EN)
• Albania (en)
• Algeria (fr)
• Argentina (es)
• Armenia (en)
• Australia (en)
• Austria (de)
• Austria (en)
• Azerbaijan (en)
• Bahamas (en)
• Bahrain (en)
• Bangladesh (en)
• Barbados (en)
• Belgium (en)
• Belgium (nl)
• Bermuda (en)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (en)
• Brasil (pt)
• Brazil (en)
• British Virgin Islands (en)
• Bulgaria (en)
• Cambodia (en)
• Cameroon (fr)
• Canada (en)
• Canada (fr)
• Cayman Islands (en)
• Channel Islands (en)
• Colombia (es)
• Costa Rica (es)
• Croatia (en)
• Cyprus (en)
• Czech Republic (cs)
• Czech Republic (en)
• DR Congo (fr)
• Denmark (da)
• Denmark (en)
• Ecuador (es)
• Estonia (en)
• Estonia (et)
• Finland (fi)
• France (fr)
• Georgia (en)
• Germany (de)
• Germany (en)
• Gibraltar (en)
• Greece (el)
• Greece (en)
• Hong Kong SAR (en)
• Hungary (en)
• Hungary (hu)
• Iceland (is)
• Indonesia (en)
• Ireland (en)
• Isle of Man (en)
• Israel (en)
• Ivory Coast (fr)
• Jamaica (en)
• Jordan (en)
• Kazakhstan (en)
• Kazakhstan (kk)
• Kazakhstan (ru)
• Kuwait (en)
• Latvia (en)
• Latvia (lv)
• Lebanon (en)
• Lithuania (en)
• Lithuania (lt)
• Luxembourg (en)
• Macau SAR (en)
• Malaysia (en)
• Mauritius (en)
• Mexico (es)
• Moldova (en)
• Monaco (en)
• Monaco (fr)
• Mongolia (en)
• Montenegro (en)
• Mozambique (en)
• Myanmar (en)
• Namibia (en)
• Netherlands (en)
• Netherlands (nl)
• New Zealand (en)
• Nigeria (en)
• North Macedonia (en)
• Norway (nb)
• Pakistan (en)
• Panama (es)
• Philippines (en)
• Poland (en)
• Poland (pl)
• Portugal (en)
• Portugal (pt)
• Romania (en)
• Romania (ro)
• Saudi Arabia (en)
• Serbia (en)
• Singapore (en)
• Slovakia (en)
• Slovakia (sk)
• Slovenia (en)
• South Africa (en)
• Sri Lanka (en)
• Sweden (sv)
• Switzerland (de)
• Switzerland (en)
• Switzerland (fr)
• Taiwan (en)
• Taiwan (zh)
• Thailand (en)
• Trinidad and Tobago (en)
• Tunisia (en)
• Tunisia (fr)
• Turkey (en)
• Turkey (tr)
• Ukraine (en)
• Ukraine (ru)
• Ukraine (uk)
• United Arab Emirates (en)
• United Kingdom (en)
• United States (en)
• Uruguay (es)
• Uzbekistan (en)
• Uzbekistan (ru)
• Venezuela (es)
• Vietnam (en)
• Vietnam (vi)
• Zambia (en)
• Zimbabwe (en)
• Financial Reporting View
• Women's Leadership
• Corporate Finance
• Board Leadership
• Executive Education

Fresh thinking and actionable insights that address critical issues your organization faces.

• Insights by Industry
• Insights by Topic

KPMG's multi-disciplinary approach and deep, practical industry knowledge help clients meet challenges and respond to opportunities.

• Advisory Services
• Audit Services
• Tax Services

Services to meet your business goals

Technology Alliances

KPMG has market-leading alliances with many of the world's leading software and services vendors.

Helping clients meet their business challenges begins with an in-depth understanding of the industries in which they work. That’s why KPMG LLP established its industry-driven structure. In fact, KPMG LLP was the first of the Big Four firms to organize itself along the same industry lines as clients.

• Our Industries

How We Work

We bring together passionate problem-solvers, innovative technologies, and full-service capabilities to create opportunity with every insight.

• What sets us apart

Careers & Culture

What is culture? Culture is how we do things around here. It is the combination of a predominant mindset, actions (both big and small) that we all commit to every day, and the underlying processes, programs and systems supporting how work gets done.

Relevant Results

Sorry, there are no results matching your search..

Crisis in childcare and the state of work in America

May 28, 2024

Introduction

The childcare crisis, which was simmering prior to the pandemic, has come to a boil. Pandemic-era aid has lapsed or is about to lapse. Work from home (WFH) and more flexible work schedules helped some working parents, but most workers still need to work in person. Millennials are in the thick of it. They make up the largest generation of thirty-somethings we have ever seen and are now forming households and having families.

Women are bearing more of the costs, but all of us are paying the price. Absences due to childcare problems remain elevated, hours parents can work are dropping, coworkers are picking up the slack and children are suffering. Those shifts are hurting bottom lines and eroding our potential to grow as an economy.

This report provides a deep dive into the childcare crisis, its breadth, who it is hitting the hardest and how it is undermining potential business and overall economic growth. Recent economic gains are only papering over a much more deep-seated problem. There are solutions, with companies and states stepping up to the plate. The challenge is to get more on board and catch up with peers around the world to unlock the potential of our workers, employers and economy.

Assessing the crisis: runaway costs and a lack of access

Chart 1 shows the yawning gap between the costs of childcare versus the overall consumer price index (CPI). Between 1991 and 2024, the costs for daycare and preschool rose at nearly twice the pace of overall inflation.

CPI, all items vs. daycare & preschool (January 1991 - April 2024)

Index, dec 1990=100, SA

A baseline estimate of childcare affordability is when the cost comprises up to 7% of family household income. Today, childcare costs are often in the 10-20% range. 1

Childcare is not available for many Americans where they live. As of 2018, some 51% of Americans lived in what is known as a “childcare desert.” 2  Those are areas where access to childcare facilities is either non-existent or the slots available at licensed daycare facilities are three times the number of children.

The shortage of workers in the childcare sector remains acute. Workers in the sector earn less than $15 per hour, well below the wages in other low-wage sectors. That raises the question about the quality of workers childcare centers can attract in an already tight labor market.

Many states have made significant investments in childcare services; it is one of the few bipartisan issues. The most proactive states view it as an advantage when competing for business and workers. Access to universal pre-school, known as pre-K, is a factor on which states are ranked for determining the state attractiveness for businesses.

The problem is that those programs are still ramping up and large gaps remain. Many states have yet to adopt them, and those that do only offer services for children three or four years of age. Care for infants and toddlers is still lacking. These initial years are when parents make key decisions about employment.

There are also consequences for children’s education. Research by the American Enterprise Institute shows that absences from school have increased and become chronic, especially in low-income households. 3  One way that low-income parents are dealing with the need to work and the gap in childcare is having older children watch their younger siblings. That adds insult to injury to the learning lost during the pandemic and is yet another hurdle to social mobility.

Headwinds to labor force participation

The participation rate of prime-age workers, defined as adults aged 25-54, hit its pre-recession peak in 2023 and remained above its February 2020 level in early 2024.

Sadly, those gains have done little to recoup what was lost in the 2000s. Prime-age labor force participation was 83.5% in April 2024, still more than a percentage point below the peak it hit during the boom of the late 1990s. That translates to roughly 1.2 million fewer 25–54-year-old workers in the labor force, all else equal.

Those figures are even more discouraging given the context of the tightest labor market conditions we have seen in decades. In April, the unemployment rate was below 4% for the 27 th consecutive month, tying the record last hit in the 1960s.

Why does that matter? Tight labor markets force employers to cast a larger net and lure people who might have otherwise stayed on the periphery into the labor force. They also enable workers to find better matches and escape under-employment, which boosts productivity.

Women doing better, but still lagging

Chart 2 breaks down the labor force participation rate by gender. Two takeaways are:

• Women’s participation in the labor market hit a record high in 2023 and again in April 2024, following a 23-year hiatus.
• Men’s participation in the labor market has basically recovered what it lost to the recession for the first time since the 1950s but remains on a multi-decade downtrend.

The gains made by women were all that more impressive given the employment shock of the COVID-recession. The recession was dubbed a “she-cession” for the disproportionate hit it dealt to low-wage jobs in the service sector, which tend to be dominated by women. (See Chart 2.)

Prime-age (25-54 years) workers labor force participation rate (January 1948 - April 2024)

Percent, SA

A Brookings study found that women with children under the age of 5, especially highly educated, married or foreign-born, accounted for the bulk of that rise. 4   Women in the workforce still face a penalty for having children, though WFH has muted that penalty. 5  The challenge is that the share of workers who can work fully or even partially remotely is still low. Nearly 60% of all workers still need to work fully in-person. 6

Immigration also picked up after the pandemic; foreign-born workers participate at higher rates than native-born workers.

Women with a high school degree or less had a harder time recovering. Work done by the ADP Research Institute showed that women are now working one hour less on average per week than they were in 2019. 7

The hours worked gap between men and women has also grown by an hour, which is a setback to weekly earnings. Women aged 16-24 and 25-35 were hit hardest in the wake of the pandemic. Men in those age groups saw no change in the hours they worked from 2019 to 2023. 

Women with young children have a much lower labor force participation rate as compared to other groups. Women with children under six had a participation rate of only 69% in 2023, while men in the same group had a rate of 95%. Participation among women with children between six and 17 was 78%, while that for men was 92%.

No one expects the labor force participation rate of women to necessarily equal that of men. Parents should be able to choose to work or stay at home if they can afford it. However, the US has gone from leading its peers in women’s workforce participation rates in the 1990s to lagging them dramatically today. That suggests a more systemic problem.

US moves from a leader to a laggard

Women’s prime-age participation rate in the US now lags its peers, including Japan, as well as many developing countries. In 2022, Germany, France, Canada, Austria and Sweden, among others, all had participation rates at least seven percentage points higher than the US. 

According to a study by the US Department of Labor, if the US had the same participation rate as Canada and Germany, around five million more women would be in the workforce today. 8 That translates to approximately $775 billion (about $2,400 per person in the US) in additional economic activity each year in addition to better outcomes for children.

Men are not immune to disruptions from childcare problems. Their participation in the labor force has largely recovered since the pandemic but remains on a long-term downward trend. There is a whole field of research studying the causes of this. As men take more active roles in childcare, they are also facing the challenges of being full-time workers and full-time parents. 

The Federal Reserve’s new survey about US households found that 29% of prime-age women were not working for pay. 9 Nearly two-fifths of this group cited childcare responsibilities as a reason why. This raises the question about how much of a choice mothers with children have to work or not to work.

Voluntary work not truly “voluntary”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) definitions separate part-time work into economic reasons, or involuntary part-time work , and noneconomic reasons, or voluntary part-time work . 10 Involuntary part-time work includes reasons such as “slack work; unfavorable business conditions; inability to find full-time work; and seasonal declines in demand.”

Voluntary part-time work includes the following reasons: “illness or other health or medical limitations; childcare problems ; family or personal obligations ; in school or training; retirement or Social Security limits on earnings; having a job where full-time work is less than 35 hours” (emphasis added).

A rise in voluntary part-time work is typically seen as a sign that economic conditions for workers are improving. However, the surge in voluntary part-time work we have seen in recent years may not all be by choice.

Someone who must devote a significant amount of time to caregiving responsibilities due to high costs and the lack of public and private benefits would still respond to a surveyor of the Household Survey that they prefer part-time work. That might conceal their true preferences and obscure both the current state of work and the crisis in care in the US.

The number of voluntary part-time workers has spiked in recent years. It reached a new series high in March 2024 at 22.9 million and remains elevated at 22.3 million (seasonally adjusted) as of April 2024.

Chart 3 shows the large uptick in part-time work due to childcare problems. Childcare problems as a share of total voluntary part-time work have also risen from an average of 3.8% pre-2010 to 4.4% in the 2010s to 4.9% since the pandemic. Historically, women, teenagers and older individuals are overrepresented among voluntary part-time workers. 11

Working part-time due to childcare problems (January 1994 - April 2024)

Thousands, 3 month moving average, NSA

Full-time workers are not immune to the struggles due to childcare. The number of full-time workers who had to cut work hours to fewer than 35 per week due to childcare problems spiked in response to initial lockdowns and the pivot online. The ranks of those workers have abated slightly but remain well above pre-pandemic levels. (See Chart 4.)

Parents are settling in and scraping by after the initial chaos of the pandemic. Some work is better than no work, but the elevated levels of both data series point to the underlying stress in the labor market due to the childcare crisis and its negative impact on employment and output.

Full-time workers who worked part-time due to childcare problems (January 2003 - April 2024)

Moreover, the data does not fully capture the degree to which childcare problems are affecting working parents, and therefore employers. In recent years, many parents have had to take care of a child who is home due to illness, not in school or a lapse in coverage by a care provider.

They may be able to take a sick day or vacation time but that is not always possible. Doing work and childcare at the same time leads to inevitably lower quality work and more stress. These unpredictable absences and distractions are costly for employers and increase the burden to coworkers, which is accelerating burnout and undermining productivity.

Flexible work arrangements help

In the wake of the pandemic, more flexible working arrangements have become the norm, including full-time remote, or WFH, and different hybrid models. This sudden increase in flexibility, especially WFH, was met with a backlash. Debates immediately arose about WFH’s effect on employee satisfaction and its impact on productivity and profits.

Research has yielded a range of findings, from lower productivity to no effect to higher productivity. Research by Stanford University Professor Nick Bloom and colleagues found that WFH resulted in higher productivity and lower wage growth. 12 Firms save money on wages and office space with fully remote and hybrid options.

Mothers with young children (especially those who are college-educated) have benefitted from WFH. 13

Indeed Hiring Lab data show that women are more likely to say that remote work is a reason for looking for new employment. 14

Hybrid work tends to boost productivity, as it allows for more mentoring, collaboration and engagement. 15 The peak days in the office are Tuesday through Thursday. Younger and older workers want to be in offices more than millennials in their thirties.

Millennials moved the furthest from their offices, seeking space and schools for their burgeoning families. 16  That shift in commutes has made it harder for companies to bring the largest share of the labor force back into offices.

When it comes to return-to-office (RTO) mandates, the evidence is clear. Research found that RTO mandates do not increase firm performance but do decrease employee satisfaction. 17 An MIT Sloan article found that such mandates decrease employee engagement and increase turnover, especially for high performers and caregivers.

The KPMG U.S. CEO Outlook Pulse Survey , a survey of 100 CEOs of large companies, found that CEOs are increasingly predicting that hybrid work is here to stay. Only 34% stated employees would be back in the office within three years, down from 62% last year.

The problem is that flexible work arrangements tend to accrue to white collar workers. However, there are options that in-person establishments are exploring, including four-day work weeks. One study conducted in the UK on 61 companies that experimented with a 4-day workweek found that workers were more efficient, happier and had lower turnover rates. 18

These debates will continue, but more flexible work arrangements are here to stay. Companies should pay attention to their employees’ different preferences. Instead of a strict company-wide policy, different business units, functions or teams could experiment with what their ideal arrangements might be.

Productivity growth still suppressed

Productivity slowed dramatically in the wake of the 2008-09 recession and remains below its pre-pandemic trend, despite substantial gains in 2023. The challenge is how to change that.

Generative AI (Gen AI) has extraordinary potential. Work done by the Census suggests that the number of firms investing in GenAI is low but moving up rapidly – it has increased from about 3.7% of all businesses in September 2023 to 5.4% in February 2024. 19 Adoption is following a U-shape, with the largest and smallest firms investing the most.

The KPMG U.S. CEO Outlook Pulse Survey also found that nearly all CEOs will continue investing in GenAI next year with 41% responding they will increase their investments. Nearly 70% of CEOs stated that their companies are using GenAI to fill gaps in the workforce.

The costs of GenAI shift the dynamics of use cases that are theoretically versus economically feasible, at least for now. It has variable costs (e.g., costs increase as use increases). Add the time it takes to adopt a new technology, and GenAI alone cannot solve our current productivity challenges; it typically takes at least a decade to see the benefits of a technological innovation.

Even if adoption is much more rapid than historical norms, that means we are not likely to see the economy-wide effects of GenAI until the late 2020s and early 2030s. That raises the question: how can firms boost productivity growth more today?

This is where childcare policies can play a larger role. A growing body of research shows the benefits that companies and the economy at large can gain from childcare support and benefits.

Childcare issues are leading to absenteeism and its associated costs for employers. Chart 5 shows that American workers are increasingly taking time off work due to childcare problems.

Full-time workers who missed work due to childcare problems (January 2003 - April 2024)

Companies also benefit via improvements in employee satisfaction and engagement, retention and productivity. One study found that companies offering caregiving benefits were rewarded with higher retention and employee productivity. 20 Company case studies found that every dollar spent on caregiving benefits resulted in gains of $18.93.

As firms benefit, so does the economy. Research has shown the clear link between childcare and better employment outcomes, especially for women. A meta-analysis of the empirical literature about childcare costs and employment found that “a 10% reduction in the price of childcare would lead to a 0.25-11% increase in maternal employment, likely near 0.5-2.5%.” 21

An increase in labor force participation leads to an increase in economic growth. An Economist Impact study found that increased access to childcare could result in millions of women entering the workforce, increasing GDP growth between 0.19% to 1.09% per country per year. 22

Childcare as a strategic investment 

American workers’ access to childcare from employers is low. According to the BLS, as of March 2023 only 13% of full-time and 6% of part-time private industry workers have access to employer-provided childcare benefits. 23 These figures vary by income – higher-earners are more than three times as likely to have access than lower-earners. 24 Those who are least able to afford childcare are the least likely to have access, disproportionately affecting people of color.

Childcare-related benefits are increasingly on the agenda in corporate America. A recent care.com survey found that 56% of employers responded that childcare benefits will be prioritized in 2024. 25 An analysis by Revelio Labs found that job postings mentioning childcare benefits have increased since 2021. 26 They remain very low overall at only 2% of postings.

Working parents are increasingly looking for these benefits. A survey of more than 2,000 parents with children conducted by KinderCare and Harris Poll found that 72% of respondents “say that if they knew they would always have quality childcare coverage, they would be able to focus better on their work.” 27

That shows the potential gains in engagement and productivity that could come from childcare policies. Up to 57% said they “would [even] take a pay cut to work for a company that provided childcare benefits.” Moreover, 46% of the respondents in the Modern Family Index say they “want help paying for childcare.” 28

Companies face many constraints and competing demands. They cannot provide everything to everyone. However, many companies are expanding and publicly disclosing their childcare-related benefits. They are meeting demands by top talent, especially millennials, and they have reaped the business benefits by doing so. Companies disclosing these policies are dispersed across industries and geographies with different types of workforces.

Employer-provided childcare-related benefits include subsidized childcare or childcare discounts; on-site childcare; backup childcare; dependent care flexible savings account (FSA); childcare referral services; or flexible working hours.

Childcare-related policies should be understood as strategic investments. Though there is no one-size-fits-all childcare-related policy, companies can identify the right policies for their workforce by actively engaging with employees.

Frontline workers may prefer on-site childcare. White collar workers may instead seek flexible work options and subsidized center-based daycare. These are not zero sum. Listening to employees will help avoid losing top talent.

After instituting a new policy, companies can make sure employees are aware of it, encourage employees to use it and evaluate its effects on employee engagement, satisfaction and productivity. This data-driven approach will ensure the policies are achieving the best ROI. 

In addition to childcare-related benefits, another policy that leads to positive outcomes is paid parental leave, which can help parents navigate the dizzying initial period of a child’s life.

Parental leave expanded

The United States is one of just seven countries in the world without paid maternity leave and one of 83 without paid paternity leave. 29 For those countries with mandatory paid parental leave, the average time is 29 weeks for maternity leave and 16 weeks for paternity leave.

In the US, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees that eligible workers have access to up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. 30 Only 56% of American workers are eligible. The share is lower for people of color and low-income workers.

With the absence of federal policy, state and local governments have started to step in. As of January 2024, 13 states and Washington DC offer paid parental leave. 31 This means that 37 states do not. Among those that do, not all offer 12 weeks, whereas the evidence-based minimum best practice for paid parental leave is 26 weeks. 32

Data show that American workers are increasingly taking time off from work for parental leave. (See Chart 6). The number reached record highs in the data series two separate times in 2023. It is on a general upward trend despite recent declines.

Though usage has grown across the board, one estimate found that fewer than 5% of working fathers take more than two weeks of paid parental leave (and three-fifths of low-income fathers take no time). 33 This reflects access and economic necessities, but it also reveals the staying power of traditional gender norms and the social stigma around working men taking leave to care for their babies.

Full-time workers who missed work due to maternity or paternity leave (January 2003 - April 2024)

Increased usage of parental leave is due to state government policies and the fact that large companies are increasingly offering paid parental leave as an employee benefit. Public disclosure of paid parental leave among the Russell 1000 universe is growing but is still relatively low. 34 To ensure equity, the best practice is to provide parity in paid parental leave, but three-quarters of R1000 companies do not offer parity.

Company policies include 26 weeks of paid leave for all parents, including after birth, adoption, surrogacy or foster care placement. Many companies enhanced their paid parental leave in 2023, increasing the number of weeks offered for both maternity and paternity leave. Not all companies are moving in this direction; some have announced cuts to their policy.

Research shows the benefits of paid parental leave. It increases employee commitment and cooperation, reduces absenteeism and helps companies attract and retain top talent and thus lower turnover and hiring costs. 35

Moreover, paid parental leave results in better health outcomes for mothers and children. 36 When men take paternity leave, research shows it leads to lower divorce rates, closer relationships between fathers and children and lower rates of postpartum depression and other maternal health issues. 37

One study found that maternal earnings increase 6.7% each month that fathers stay on paternity leave. 38 Paid parental leave also saves lives. 39 California’s eight-week partial paid family leave law reduced infant mortality rates and prevented the deaths of 339 infants.

As many small and mid-sized companies may not be able to provide paid leave, states can play a key role to help employers boost retention and productivity with these benefits. California’s paid leave program is 100% funded via employee contributions to the state disability insurance fund and provides partial-wage replacement for up to eight weeks to eligible workers.

Bottom Line

The crisis in childcare in the US is a headwind for women’s labor force participation and parents more broadly and is disrupting the lives of children, extended families and coworkers. It is exacerbating income, gender and racial inequalities.

Conversely, efficient and relatively inexpensive childcare benefits can boost participation in the labor force and productivity growth. The benefits tend to accrue to white collar workers but can also lift the fortunes of low-income households and their children. Many states are actively trying to level the playing field and enact policies that benefit a larger swath of constituents. Large gaps remain.

Leading companies understand this. They are competing via the expansion and disclosure of their childcare policies. It is rare to see so many incentives align as they do with childcare policies. The benefit versus the cost proposition is clear – it is a win-win.

1 “ Childcare Prices as a Share of Median Family Income by Age of Children and Care Setting .” Women’s Bureau, US Department of Labor.

2 “ Do You Live in a Child Care Desert? ” Center for American Progress. 2020.

3 Malkus, Nat. “ Long COVID for Public Schools: Chronic Absenteeism Before and After the Pandemic .” American Enterprise Institute. January 2024.

4 Bauer, Lauren and Sarah Yu Wang. “ Prime-age women are going above and beyond in the labor market recovery .” Brookings. August 30, 2023.

5 Kleven, Henrik, Camille Landais and Gabriel Leite-Mariante. “ The Child Penalty Atlas .” NBER Working Paper 31649. February 2024 and Harrington, Emma and Matthew E. Kahn. “ Has the Rise of Work-from-Home Reduced the Motherhood Penalty in the Labor Market? ” October 31, 2023.

6 Barrero, Jose Maria, Nicholas Bloom and Steven J. Davis. “ The Evolution of Working from Home .” WFH Research. July 2023.

7 “ People are working less .” Today at Work. ADP Research Institute. Issue 5. March 2024.

8 Glynn, Sarah Jane. “ The Cost of Doing Nothing, 2023 Update: The Price We STILL Pay without Policies to Support Working Families .” US Department of Labor. November 2023.

9 “ Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2023 .” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. May 2024.

10 “ Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, Concepts and Definitions (CPS) .” US Bureau of Labor Statistics. November 28, 2023.

11 Dunn, Megan. “ Who chooses part-time work and why? ” Monthly Labor Review. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. March 2018.

12 Shah, Krishan et. al. “ Managers say working from home is here to stay .” VoxEU, CEPR. February 18, 2024.

13 Casselman, Ben, Emma Goldberg and Ella Koeze. “ Who Still Works from Home? ” The New York Times. March 8, 2024.

14 Bunker, Nick. “ Remote Work Holds More Appeal for Female Job Seekers .” Indeed Hiring Lab. March 27, 2024.

15 Bloom, Nicholas, Ruobing Han and James Liang. “ How Hybrid Working from Home Works Out .” NBER Working Paper 30292. January 2023.

16 Akan, Mert et. al. “ Americans Now Live Farther From Their Employers .” February 2024.

17 Ding, Yuye and Mark (Shuai) Ma. “ Return-to-Office Mandates .” SSRN. January 26, 2024.

18 “ Making it Stick: The UK Four Day Week Pilot One Year On .” Autonomy. February 2024.

19 “ Business Trends and Outlook Survey .” United States Census Bureau. May 9, 2024.

20 “ The R.O.I. of Caregiving Benefits .” VIVVI and The Fifth Trimester. February 2024.

21 Morrissey, Taryn W. “ Child care and parent labor force participation: a review of the research literature .” Review of Economics of the Household. Springer. Volume 1. March 2017.

22 Ballesteros, Monica, Shreya Mukarji and Lavanya Sayal. “ The childcare dividend initiative: bridging the access gap: quantifying the economic returns of public investment in childcare .” Economist Impact. 2023.

23 “ Percentage of private industry workers with access to employer-provided benefits by work status, March 2023 .” US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

24 “ Percentage of civilian workers with access to quality-of-life benefits by worker characteristic, March 2023 .” US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

25 “ 2024 Future of Benefits Report .” Care.com. March 2024.

26 Abdelwahed, Loujaina and Beyza Arslan. “ Are Current Child Care Benefits Enough to Keep Mothers at Work? ” Revelio Labs. October 19, 2023.

27 “ KinderCare Confidence Index .” KinderCare Learning Companies. 2024.

28 “ 10th Annual Modern Family Index: The New Working Parent .” Bright Horizons. 2024.

29 Cain Miller, Claire. “ The World ‘Has Found a Way to Do This’: The U.S. Lags on Paid Leave .” The New York Times. October 25, 2021.

30 “ Family and Medical Leave Act .” US Department of Labor.

31 “ State Paid Family Leave Laws Across the U.S. ” Bipartisan Policy Center. January 16, 2024.

32 “ Paid Family Leave: How Much Time Is Enough? ” New America.

33 Turner, Terry. “ Average Paid Maternity Leave by State: 2024 Statistics .” Annuity.org. January 10, 2024.

34 Avila, Jordyn and Matthew Nestler. “ Only 9% of America’s Largest Companies Provide Parity in Paid Parental Leave of 12+ Weeks for Primary and Secondary Caregivers .” JUST Capital. April 27, 2023.

35 Bartel et. al. “ The impact of paid family leave on employers: evidence from New York .” Community, Work & Family. January 29, 2023; Shaak, Natalie. “ Making the Case for Paid Family Leave .” Policy Brief. Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health. March 2023; and Davison, H. Kristl and Adam Scott Blackburn. “ The Case for Offering Paid Leave: Benefits to the Employer, Employee, and Society .” Compens Benefits Rev. 55 (1). January 2023.

36 Van Niel, Maureen Sayres et. al. “ The Impact of Paid Maternity Leave on the Mental and Physical Health of Mothers and Children: A Review of the Literature and Policy Implications .” Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 28 (2). 2020.

37 Saxbe, Darby and Sofia Cardenas. “ What Paternity Leave Does for a Father’s Brain .” The New York Times. November 8, 2021.

38 Johansson, Elly-Ann. “ The effect of own and spousal parental leave on earnings .” The Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation. Working Paper. March 22, 2010.

39 Chen, Feng. “ Does paid family leave save infant lives? Evidence from California’s paid family leave program .” Contemporary Economic Policy. 41 (2). October 5, 2022.

Explore more

April showers

The first rate cut is still expected in December.

KPMG Economics

A source for unbiased economic intelligence to help improve strategic decision-making.

Navigating policy purgatory: Inflation and the challenge for the Fed

The central banker’s worst nightmare is to cut rates, then have to raise them.

Subscribe to insights from KPMG Economics

KPMG Economics distributes a wide selection of insight and analysis to help businesses make informed decisions.

Meet our team

By submitting, you agree that KPMG LLP may process any personal information you provide pursuant to KPMG LLP's Privacy Statement .

Thank you for contacting KPMG. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

Contact KPMG

Job seekers

Visit our careers section or search our jobs database.

Use the RFP submission form to detail the services KPMG can help assist you with.

Office locations

International hotline

You can confidentially report concerns to the KPMG International hotline

Press contacts

Do you need to speak with our Press Office? Here's how to get in touch.