Chamber and committees

There is significant evidence to suggest that our net zero ambitions are at serious risk unless we have a better focus on mobilising the commitment and talents of women in all areas of policy making, leadership and action. Research shows that women are more committed than men to recognising the need to reach net zero, despite being sidelined in many aspects of the work that is required.

At the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—which was held in Scotland in 2021, climate change in relation to gender equality was one of the topics that were discussed. A coalition of women’s groups called for women to play a greater role, yet in 2025, we must still repeat those calls.

Perhaps because of that, some positive actions are being taken in Scotland, such as those taken by Scottish Renewables. Its new voices campaign, which is sponsored by Ørsted, provides a year-long series of workshops for 10 participants from underrepresented groups. This year, six of the cohort are women.

However, Scottish Renewables knows that there is a long way to go and points out:

“Women continue to face wide and varying barriers to equality throughout their careers with a lack of encouragement to enter traditionally male dominated fields, such as STEM ... there has so far been a lack of focus on the women involved in the Renewables supply chain in Scotland”.

That must change. Scottish Renewables’ recognition of the issue is supported by international research. The global consultancy Oliver Wyman published research that claimed that although a fifth of major corporations have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, albeit by 2050, few actively considered or included women in their climate action plans. Although diversity and climate change were viewed as priorities, astonishingly, the research notes that

“almost none have considered how linking the two management priorities could accelerate their transition to net zero emissions.”

Some companies, such as Scottish Power, are addressing the problem, and they run programmes that range from international leadership to setting up in-company women networks. Scottish Power says:

“The more we can do as an industry and a society to show the opportunities available to women the more beneficial it will be to our journey to net zero.”

One of the problems in the political sphere is the dominance of overly simplistic, zero-sum thinking, which is beautifully explained in a blog article by Professor Graeme Roy and Sir Anton Muscatelli that the National Institute of Social and Economic Research published this week. From my perspective, we must not see the encouragement of more women into policy-making or leadership roles as if it is part of a zero-sum game with men. It is all about improving the overall impact for everyone’s benefit.

I am extremely grateful to Dr Hannah Salamon from the University of Glasgow for sending me an advance copy of her excellent blog entitled “Where are the women in the UK’s green energy transition?” When looking at the issue of underrepresentation of women, she points out:

“This marginalisation of women in green energy is problematic from two perspectives: first, it threatens the success of the energy transition from a workforce perspective. Second, it withholds the benefits that come along with the fast growth of the green energy sector (financial, social, and political) from women.”

I am particularly grateful to Hannah for offering to work with me in pursuing the agenda further.

Last February, Nesta—formerly the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts—reported on a United Kingdom Government report regarding public awareness and behaviour towards climate change and net zero. The report revealed that men and women think and behave differently when it comes to climate change. Some 93 per cent of men claimed awareness of net zero, but only 78 per cent expressed concern. In contrast, 85 per cent of women claimed both awareness of and concern about net zero. Furthermore, men are more likely than women to anticipate a negative economic impact from a transition to net zero. In other words, men are more likely to see the transition to net zero as a zero-sum game.

Despite women being more concerned, as I have outlined, it is largely men who drive policy making and lead our major businesses. I will highlight a practical example. An article by three University of Cambridge scholars, published less than a month ago, entitled “How Gender Influences the Motivation and Action Towards Climate Change: A Qualitative Study of Participants from a UK Construction Company”, reported on the results of an in-depth investigation of a large construction company. The results give us a clear insight into the difference between male and female actions. Unsurprisingly, where male culture predominates, as it does in construction, there is a lower action focus on climate change. Not only that, but the ways in which actions are carried out is important. The study notes:

“Given that women are more likely to display altruism and empathetic decision-making, it is crucial to incorporate this gender group in key societal decisions, actions and plans.”

I would argue that how we get to net zero, as well as the actions that we take, are important, and empathy and understanding are surely part of that. We must deliver change through people and not to people.

All the prevailing evidence suggests that increasing the engagement of women in net zero policy work, whether in business or in government, will accelerate actions towards net zero. Of course, this debate is about the future, not just the past—a future that I want to see shaped by the active engagement of all sections of our society.

It is not just the energy sector but all sectors of the economy and business that need to change, from the initial small-scale start-ups to large established corporations. The need to focus on net zero is considerable, but action can be accelerated by ensuring that women have a much stronger role to play. Despite its importance in Scotland, it cannot be left to organisations such as Women’s Enterprise Scotland to fight for change, although its pioneering work is to be greatly welcomed.

I would like to ask the cabinet secretary two questions. First, what is the Government’s strategy for involving more women in working specifically towards net zero? Secondly, what research into the role of women in pursuing net zero does the Government currently support?

I do not see this as a party-political issue, and I have deliberately avoided any party comment in my motion and speech. I believe that this is an issue on which members of all parties should and can come together to argue for more women to be engaged in net zero leadership and action. I concede that that is not an issue that can be left to Government alone. This issue—our shared issue—is one for all of humanity.

To ask the Scottish Government how the additional £34 million allocated to culture and heritage in its draft budget will assist in the preservation of any small, yet key, Scottish heritage sites under threat of closure, such as Kinneil museum in the Falkirk East constituency. (S6O-04234)

As the minister notes, this is a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization world heritage site. Kinneil museum is currently proposed for closure by Falkirk Council, but volunteers and Friends of Kinneil are keen to find a solution to the museum’s closure later this year. Given the complexities of community asset transfer for heritage sites of that nature, securing the museum’s future will probably require a partnership approach. Will the minister join me in supporting efforts to bring together both national and local stakeholders to explore options to safeguard Kinneil museum’s future?

You have taken another opportunity to put further commentary very effectively on the record. On the point that I asked about, aside from capacity—which, of course, is linked to funding—is there more that you feel you could have done if all things had been equal? I ask that because many of our evidence sessions are starting to feel like groundhog day for me, as we hear similar messages, and there is a commonly held understanding at the front of people’s heads that we need to do this, but something always seems to happen. That means that key groupings—not just women in business but small and medium-sized enterprises—are not necessarily thought of in the way that they should have been thought of. Is it simply an issue of capacity and funding, or is it more systemic?

Given that, and your earlier commentary about how you do not feel that the perspective of SMEs is understood—you have given various examples—what, then, is the issue? Has there been an issue with how representation has been given? Indeed, you have clarified that for me—thank you. Have SMEs not been listened to? Is it more complex than that?

I would like to bring in Vikki Manson and Duncan Thorp on that point and on my earlier challenge as to what they have proactively done, knowing what they know about the challenges.

If you do not mind, I will make the same point again. In response to my question, you have described all the good work that you are doing with your membership organisations in pushing outwards, but my challenge is for you to say what, having identified and become aware of the city region deals that are under way in various locations, you have proactively done, on behalf of your members, in relation to those deals. That is my question.

All of you have spoken compellingly, particularly Carolyn Currie, in setting out the context vis-à-vis women. I will lay down a gentle challenge to all three of you. Given your understanding of your respective roles and how the potential for inclusive economic growth could be increased, what have you proactively done to draw the attention of particular targeted city and region deals to your existence and to your compelling messages?

My point was about specific actions that you anticipate taking to protect the skills base during the transition period.

Thank you. Derek, you spoke about how vital it is that private sector partners are involved in various deals. I presume that they will do their own risk assessments because the convening power of a commitment to public sector funding is so vital to bringing in the private sector funding. Have you heard any concerns expressed by any of the private sector partners with whom you have dealt in any of the deals?