The Attitudes of Generation Z Women to Sustainable Development—Aspects of SPET

Abstract

Climate change and environmental degradation require inclusive and multidimensional strategies, in which women from Generation Z are emerging as key actors. This study explores how female university students from this generation perceive and prioritize social, political, economic, and technological dimensions of sustainable development, with a focus on respondents from Europe. A structured survey instrument, based on a SPET model (Social, Political, Economic, Technological), was administered to 834 female students at a highly internationalized university in Poland. The questionnaire was available in Polish and English to account for linguistic and cultural variation within the Western civilizational context. Quantitative analysis revealed that the political dimension—particularly international cooperation and legal regulations—was viewed as the most critical for environmental protection, followed by technological innovation in energy and resource management. Social and economic factors received relatively less emphasis, with skepticism toward consumer-level behavior change and shared economy models. This study offers a meaningful contribution to understanding gender- and generation-specific perspectives on environmental responsibility. It also provides a foundation for the development of socially grounded, culturally sensitive strategies in sustainability education and policymaking, with relevance for both academic researchers and public stakeholders.

1. Introduction

The prevailing challenges of the contemporary world, namely climate change and environmental degradation, require a concerted response and profound public engagement on a global scale. A significant demographic that can influence the development of global environmental policies is women, including Generation Z women. Generation Z, according to researchers, refers to people born between 1995 and 2012 (2010–2012 is often considered the end of the generation). This age range includes the so-called digital natives/iGeneration—people who have been immersed in the world of the internet, mobile devices, and social media since early childhood, and who have experienced consistent historical and cultural experiences, such as growing up in an era of the climate crisis, technological transformation, and multiculturalism [1]. In our study, we analyzed women born between 1995 and 2010 [2,3,4]. Many studies have demonstrated that women are more inclined than men to participate in environmental activities and adopt pro-environmental attitudes based on concern for health, family, and the local environment [5]. Women tend to be more likely to make sustainable consumer decisions, due to a combination of their traditional social roles and their higher awareness of health and social responsibility in family and community life [6]. A notable illustration of this phenomenon is evidenced by the higher educational attainment and postgraduate engagement of Polish women, which positions them as a pivotal demographic in the process of shaping pro environmental attitudes through education. As indicated in the SDG Report [7], a positive correlation has been demonstrated between higher education and heightened environmental awareness, as well as an increased inclination to engage in sustainable development practices. Extensive education contributes to their engagement in sustainable development initiatives; they are more likely to participate in eco-media and civic campaigns. Generation Z women often reject traditional gender roles, which is associated with greater openness to collective values, empathy, and inclusivity [8]. This cultural and mental shift fosters their participation in climate movements, ecofeminist movements, and civic initiatives—especially within digital mobilization. Furthermore, research Lodi et al. shows that women’s participation in local politics increases public engagement in ecological change [9]. This appears to validate the hypothesis that Generation Z women play a key role in creating local and digital pro-environmental initiatives. Consequently, it appears that higher education, rejection of traditional gender roles, and growing political influence leads Generation Z women to participate in pro-environmental activism and promote sustainable development. Women born between 1995 and 2010 have been characterized by their upbringing in a period where environmental issues have become an integral part of public debates. Consequently, their attitudes towards consumption, sustainability, and shared responsibility for the environment have taken on a particular significance and rendered them a distinct research subject [10]. Generation Z can be distinguished from its predecessors (Generation Y) by its heightened awareness of global issues and its acceptance of contemporary technological and economic solutions oriented towards sustainable development. Sustainable development requires a societal capacity to understand and influence the desired relationships between the environment, the economy, and society [11,12]. The approach of women from this demographic group to environmental problems requires a multifaceted analysis. This analysis must consider the social, political, economic, and technological determinants of their attitudes. As indicated by previous research, young women have been shown to demonstrate a heightened sensitivity to issues of environmental justice, international cooperation, and the impact of policy on systemic solutions. Heightened awareness in the area of environmental protection in this group is often based on new concepts, such as corporate social responsibility, the sharing economy, the circular economy, Industry 4.0, sustainable supply chain management, and ESG, which shape a new economic model [13,14,15,16,17,18].

The multifaceted approach is justified for several reasons. Firstly, the political sphere is instrumental in determining the scope and effectiveness of environmental regulations and the involvement of governments in international climate protection agreements. Generation Z women are aware of global issues and expect democratic policies to result in effective systemic action. Secondly, the social dimension plays a key role in the formation of consumer attitudes and environmental awareness, a result of socialization, education, and behavioral norms within communities. Economic factors play a key role in shaping consumer attitudes, especially in consumer choices and support for sustainable economic models, such as the circular economy. This growing environmental awareness results in the increasing tendency of Generation Z women to purchase products and services that reduce their carbon footprint. Finally, technology influences the availability of contemporary energy solutions, such as renewable energy sources and technological innovations in the domains of recycling and the reduction in natural resource consumption.

It is evident that a comprehensive analysis of Generation Z women’s attitudes towards environmental issues requires a multifaceted consideration of the factors shaping their perspectives. This approach facilitates the development of more effective policies and education strategies tailored to the specific characteristics of this demographic group. To formulate effective environmental policies, exhaustive research must be undertaken on Generation Z women within a range of contexts, encompassing cultural and geographic-regional variations. A recent study [19] has indicated that, despite the fact that Generation Z is distinguished by its overall environmental awareness [20,21], significant differences in environmental attitudes are determined by place of residence, social norms and prevailing cultural values.

The importance of research from these viewpoints stems from the need to adapt global environmental strategies to local geo-cultural realities and diverse environmental perceptions. These perceptions may have an impact on the effectiveness or efficiency of the solutions introduced [22]. In this context, economic phenomena, such as globalization and glocalization, should be analyzed, as they may have important implications for the role of women in these processes. As Wisniewski and Brzezicka [23,24] demonstrate, cultural differences have a significant impact on perceptions of environmental priorities.

In collectivist cultures, typified by Asian countries, the common good and collective environmental action are prioritized. Conversely, in individualist cultures, such as Western Europe and the United States, individual environmental responsibility and consumer consciousness may assume a greater role [25]. However, the question arises as to whether Generation Z women in collectivist cultures are more inclined to advocate for government regulation and international collaboration, while ascribing greater significance to the impact of everyday consumer decisions and technological innovation in individualistic societies. These disparities may be attributed to varying patterns of socialization and education, as well as the experience of facing direct consequences of environmental degradation. In developing countries, where environmental crises manifest in more tangible ways, such as a lack of access to potable water or rising air pollution, women may adopt a more pragmatic approach to environmental protection, emphasizing direct reduction efforts. In developed countries, on the other hand, systemic changes such as the transition to a closed-loop economy may be prioritized.

The influence of linguistic context on variations in responses and perceptions also merits further investigation. Geographical region is a determining factor in both the level of environmental risks present and the access to resources and technologies available for addressing them. In the context of A.F. Plastin’s research, Generation Z women residing in regions afflicted by droughts or air pollution (e.g., Africa, Asia) may perceive environmental issues as a more imminent threat to quality of life compared to their peers in regions less exposed to the repercussions of the environmental crisis (e.g., Western Europe, North America) [26].

The necessity for research into the attitudes of Generation Z women towards environmental protection stems from the need to incorporate social and cultural diversity into decision-making processes. While international cooperation is paramount in the context of global environmental challenges, solutions must also be locally embedded and individualized. It is important to acknowledge the significance of cross-cultural differences to facilitate the development of educational campaigns and policy programs relevant to the requirements of various communities.

The research team formulated the following research questions/problems:

−. How do Generation Z women (students) assess the importance of social, political, economic, and technological areas in terms of environmental action?

−. Do Generation Z women (students) approach environmental problems differently depending on their cultural/civilization circles?

−. Does the geographic region exert an influence on Generation Z women’s (students) views on environmental protection?

The responses to these questions were derived from seven questions within each of the four strategic domains: social, political, economic and technological. A total of 28 questions were formulated [27]. A group of Generation Z women, all college students, was the subject of this analysis. The participants of the survey were drawn from a variety of geographical locations. However, given the representativeness of the research, this study focuses on Generation Z women from Europe. Within the Western civilization paradigm, the attitudes of Generation Z women may differ depending on the language they speak—Polish or English. The observed discrepancies can be attributed to the impact of language on perception, access to information, and cultural influences associated with linguistic differences [28]. In the context of attitudes toward climate change, English, the dominant language of the global climate discourse, is known to promote narratives focused on individual responsibility and technological innovation [29]. In contrast, within Polish culture, while classified as part of the Western civilization, more collectivist attitudes are apparent, characterized by a heightened emphasis on community action and institutional support [30,31]. Due to the nature of the research area, responses analyzed were given in Polish and English.

In the subsequent section, a theoretical analysis of the literature was conducted, and methodological assumptions were defined. In the third part of the study, a survey and analysis of the opinions of Generation Z women (students) was carried out in the context of the research questions. In the fourth part, a discussion was conducted, which included, among other things, an extended analysis of the attitudes of Generation Z women (students) towards sustainable development. The Section 5 concludes the study.

2. Theoretical Approach and Methodological Assumptions

2.1. Sustainability—The Theoretical Approach

The notion of sustainability as a new development model has emerged in response to mounting concerns about the environment dating back to the 1980s. While there is a consensus among sustainability researchers regarding its meaning [32,33,34], it is important to highlight that the term is subject to varying interpretation depending on one’s intent. As is often the case with buzzwords, the term is frequently misused [35,36].

The initial definition within sustainable development describes sustainability as a mode of development that meets present needs without compromising those of future generations. The concept of social needs, particularly among the economically disadvantaged, and the constraints imposed by technological and social structures, are aspects of sustainable development [37]. As Langhelle [38] asserts, environmental protection is not the primary goal of sustainable development, but rather a prerequisite for achieving it. Sustainable development is defined as a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, investment, technological development orientation, and institutional change are intertwined and enhance both present and future potential of meeting human needs and aspirations [37]. It is important to acknowledge the environment as an inherent element of development, rather than perceiving it as a mere means of production. It is a foundation for developmental endeavors, rather than a component thereof.

Sustainability is supported by three fundamental pillars: the economy, the environment, and society [12,39]. To address the issue of sustainability, therefore, various academic disciplines and sectors should be integrated. This assertion is supported by numerous scholars, including [40,41,42,43,44]. However, if a singular action were to be drawn from the sustainability model (e.g., one targeting environmental protection), it could cause issues within the systemic analysis of the aforementioned problem areas [45]. In light of this, it is not recommended to apply the mode of conceptual-definitional individualism, as it may result in asymmetrical outcomes, a distortion of systemic effects, or even harm the overall issue (e.g., excessive environmental expectations may cause economic uncompetitiveness). The approach underpinning the sustainability model is predicated on a systemic analysis that facilitates inter-area compensation and the fortification of weaker elements at the expense of stronger ones [46].

In the case of this paper, the concept of sustainability was not embedded within Meadowcroft’s [47] triangle or Giddings’ [12] nested model, but rather within a quadrant. The survey of Generation Z women’s attitudes was analyzed using a modified PEST method. It was conducted across four distinct domains: political (P), economic (E), social (S), and technological (T) [48]. The research team, following their own analyses, proposed a change in the order of these domains from PEST to SPET (S—social, P—political, E—economic, T—technological) relating them more closely to the environment as the main imperative [49]. (Figure 1). Changing the order and adding areas does not constitute new ideas and is dependent on the research topic [50,51,52]. This stems from a global trend aimed at estimating social and environmental aspects in the functioning of organizations, regions, and countries [53,54,55,56,57].

The adopted order of areas in the SPET model relies on the following assumptions:

−. The analysis commences with the social domain (S) because the social needs of future generations determine the direction of sustainable development.

−. The political domain (P) is analyzed second, because it initiates formal changes in the environmental area.

−. The economic domain (E) carries with it a plethora of regulations encompassing companies, citizens, cities, and regions.

−. Finally, the technical area (T) is addressed in response to the requirements of the aforementioned three areas.

This model enables the analysis of research results on the basis of research objectives. It is important to note that the proposed rationale is unique not only with regard to the order of domains, but also to the semantic context supported by substantive analyses.

2.1.1. Impact of Domain S on Environmental Change

In recent years, a substantial corpus of scientific publications has argued that the planet Earth is reaching a moment of critical resilience to environmental changes that have the potential to disrupt the foundations of civilization [58,59,60,61]. The Ecological Footprint is a metric widely used to assess environmental issues. As demonstrated in calculations conducted by the Global Footprint Network, the Earth’s resources are currently being utilized at approximately 171% of their capacity [62,63]. The resulting ecological deficit indicates that resources consumed and more waste and pollution generated are outside of Earth’s biological capacity [64]. While it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this method [65], it is evident that a confrontation with these issues is imminent. It is also evident that the biological capacity of the environment can only contract, not expand. Demand for resources is set to increase, as evidenced by data on the economic development of Asia and Africa [66].

Another significant issue relating to the efficient use of resources—relevant to both renewable and nonrenewable resources—is the social aspect, which is inherently linked to the economic aspect (described below) [67]. This problem is, within the social context, difficult to solve. Due to the complexity of the desired resource-efficient and economically sustainable model and the necessary subsequent changes in society, there are currently no effective social (or other) tools that provide comprehensive and appropriate solutions for all structures, problems, goals, types of actors, types of resources, etc. [68]. The possibility of achieving sustainable development is largely dependent on glocal and global social “will” (through various actions, including political ones) [23] and is subject to a trade-off between the present (here and now) and the well-being of future generations [35]. In the context of environmental protection, society—including businesses and consumers—must adopt responsible practices [69]. It is also important to acknowledge that, despite the proliferation of scientific publications and reports from international organizations regarding quality of life and well-being, measured using economic, social (e.g., HDI), or psychological well-being (e.g., HPI) indicators, the public perception of well-being is still predominantly influenced by GDP. The question must therefore be posed: is this approach appropriate from a social perspective? Hickel adopts a different approach by proposing the replacement of GDP with GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator). The GPI methodology considers personal consumption as well as social inequality and the social and environmental implications of economic activity [70,71,72].

The following problem questions must therefore be posed: to what extent do Generation Z women perceive the issue of sustainability within a social context? From a social perspective, will the solution be to regulate birth rates? Is society capable of changing its behavior and habits? To what extent does this conflict with the desire for more consumption (including clothes, electronics)? Does the perception of sustainability affect human relations? To what extent does it stem from prosperity? These questions and issues will be faced by Generation Z women. They are the ones who will create and co-create solutions upon “taking over generational governance.” Table 1 shows the problem questions from the social domain that were used in the research survey form.

2.1.2. Policies (P) Shaping the Future of the Environment

Over 50 years ago, political leaders began to adopt sustainable development as a leading model for social development [35]. The “nationalization” of the environmental problem, among other issues, occurred at the First United Nations (UN) Stockholm Conference in 1972, when the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Natural Environment of Man was established. One of the principles stated humankind’s responsibility to protect and manage the environment [73]. Subsequent summits were held in 1992, 2002 and 2012. However, it is the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that have now become the benchmark for governments and organizations.

Despite the scientific shortcomings regarding the formulation and anchoring of goals and objectives in scientific evidence of the sustainable development model [74], the attitudes of many generations have been shaped by the aforementioned acts of international law. The attitudes of Generation Z female students, the subject of this paper, are also subject to similar influences. The attitudes of the population have been shaped by, among other things, this resolution, which has not only influenced socio-economic life and international politics, but also national politics, and thus the lives of each person.

Following the introduction of sustainability reporting, a change in attitudes toward the environment and the formation of new ones, including new attitudes among business women, is also taking place at the corporate level. One of the earliest documents aimed at regulating corporate responsibility was the 1976 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises [75]. This document is subject to constant revision and updates, also within the context of climate change and biodiversity. In order to address contemporary challenges, it has been re-designated as ‘Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct’ [76]. Another important document in shaping the European Union’s economy was the NFRD Directive (Directive 2014/95/EU), which was adopted in 2014 and came into force in 2017. This piece of legislation was the first attempt to mandate reporting on sustainability issues by companies within the European Union. This was followed by Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022, amending Regulation (EU) No. 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU with regard to corporate sustainability reporting. It addresses three distinct yet interconnected domains: environmental, social, and corporate governance standards. As of 2025 (with reports covering the 2024 fiscal year), the CSRD will come into effect for companies that are already subject to the NFRD (under the Accounting Act), as well as for those that will fall within the scope of the NFRD for 2024 due to exceeding the relevant thresholds [77]. Sustainability reporting is a global phenomenon, and the most widely adopted standards are the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) [78,79,80]. These are two key international bodies that have been instrumental in shaping the global sustainability reporting landscape. Because a significant proportion of companies are managed by women, their attitudes in shaping corporate governance are of great significance. With women influencing governance, they also have the ability to transform a business entity’s stance on pro-environmental initiatives and the integration of sustainable supply chains.

The attitudes of Generation Z women are shaped by all activities in the political sphere. These include political party programs, international cooperation, and legislation. These areas interact with the economic domain [81], as well as the social and technological domains. The survey posed a question regarding the level of involvement that Generation Z women anticipate in the political sphere (see Table 2).

2.1.3. Economic (E) Determinants of Environmental Protection

Challenges posed by environmental protection, climate change, and the preservation of biodiversity require economic transformations, including changes in production and consumption patterns. Countries are establishing environmental funds in order to coordinate nationwide activities and establish financial support programs, as well as the accounting of projects and any necessary grants. Foundations and NGOs are being established to provide support from a social perspective. Financial institutions are incorporating environmentally sustainable products into their respective portfolios. As Dalia Streimikiene asserts [82], the provision of support aims to encompass both businesses and households. Initiatives and comprehensive incentive systems are being developed at international and national levels to address environmental issues. It is evident that environmental infrastructure projects are characterized by high cost intensity, thus giving rise to a significant demand for green financing on a global scale [83].

Business entities are indispensable in achieving sustainable development [84], which occurs, among other things, through the introduction of the circular economy [85,86,87]. Recent studies have indicated an increase in the number of investments made by companies in the field of the green economy [88]. Investors also have the option of purchasing renewable energy exchange-traded funds (ETFs) or renewable energy portfolios. Investment in the green economy is also facilitated through the bond asset class, specifically through issuing the so-called “green bonds” [89].

At the domestic level, within the framework of the “Clean Air” program in Poland, for instance, subsidies are being provided for building insulation and replacing window frames. These measures are designed to promote energy transformation and energy savings. New regulations are being implemented to address the segregation of waste, including textiles. An increasing number of countries have implemented a deposit system, which is a policy aimed at promoting recycling and reuse of packaging.

These programs have been developed in response to issues of resource scarcity, global warming, and pollution. They are designed to attain sustainable development without any substantial restrictions on consumption. Other areas of change are based on the implementation of self-restraint mechanisms aimed at a low-resource economy and the use of recycling processes. Another aspect is the sharing economy [90,91], i.e., the sharing of goods (for example, via the sharing of material resources, fixed assets, or software applications).

These aspects formed the foundation for a series of survey questions aimed at Generation Z women. To what extent will specific economic indicators influence the attainment of sustainable development goals? Are we able to protect the environment? Will society be able to reduce consumption (e.g., through sharing)? To what extent will economic incentives affect behavior toward the environment? Detailed survey questions are defined in Table 3.

2.1.4. The Impact of Technology (T) on the Environmental Crisis

Technology and the environment have become increasingly intertwined in contemporary society [92,93]. The manner in which technology is developed, utilized, and managed exerts a substantial influence on the environment. The environment, in turn, influences the evolution and direction of technology [94]. Feedback in this context should not be of an imposed or forced nature. It is imperative that this feedback is positive in nature—that is to say, it should provide process solutions that are better and more efficient for the adaptation and development processes in the next cycle.

It is important to acknowledge the role of technology in the onset of environmental issues, such as the carbon footprint [95]. On the other hand, technological progress and emerging technological tools can contribute to the resolution of environmental issues [96]. One of the most significant environmental challenges is the transition to renewable energy sources. In this context, technological development and innovation play a key role across various aspects of the energy landscape, including generation, storage, utilization, and transmission [97]. The reduction in the environmental impact of transportation—another significant environmental stressor—is also dependent on technological innovation. The Internet of Things (IoT) is another relatively recent area where technology plays a key role in shaping environmental processes. The integration of technology into the aforementioned feedback loop facilitates the monitoring of natural resource management, including water, air, and biodiversity [98,99]. Technological advancement has the capacity to enhance economic processes, thereby facilitating the development of effective solutions for environmental concerns. Technological solutions also have the capacity to mitigate the deleterious effects of industrial practices employed by humankind.

It is therefore important to understand the perception of the role of technology in environmental protection and sustainable development among Generation Z women who are technological natives [100]. Research questions originating from the technological domain are documented in Table 4.

2.2. Women’s Impact on the Environment

Social role theory allows us to interpret the social context of Generation Z women in relation to sustainable development. The theory posits that social expectations shape the behavior of individuals based on their assigned gender roles. Due to socialization within a predominantly patriarchal culture, women often perform caregiving roles and are concerned about the welfare of others, which makes them more likely to be pro-environmental. This heightened concern has been shown to manifest as a propensity towards pro-environmental attitudes. Generation Z women, having grown up in an era of increasing environmental awareness, may feel social pressure to engage in pro-environmental activities. Several scientific studies indicate that women are more likely to exhibit pro-environmental attitudes compared to men. This may be a result of both socialization and social expectations related to the caring role of women [101]. In this context, questions regarding differences in attitudes due to the varying cultural backgrounds of Generation Z women become legitimate.

The theory of gender roles in politics can be used to explain the attitudes of Generation Z women. Notably, this theory has been the subject of considerable criticism from feminist currents [102,103]. According to this theory, the social constructs of gender significantly influence women’s perceptions of politics and their subsequent participation in the political sphere. They result primarily from the historical division of responsibilities between men and women, which leads to the assignment of specific roles to each gender. This phenomenon has, in turn, influenced the development of stereotypes about their predispositions and skills. As a consequence of historical conditions and social expectations of men and women, the theory posits that traditional roles are observed and thus shaped. This, in turn, leads to the generalization and consolidation of beliefs about the characteristics of each gender. The social roles that individuals adopt have a significant impact on each gender’s behavior. This is because individuals strive to meet social expectations related to their gender. It is only through altering these expectations that stereotypes and expectations of both genders can be modified. Stereotypes can influence perceptions of competence and leadership in both men and women, thereby shaping their participation in public life. Kate Millet’s voice holds a special place among the critical approaches to this theory. According to Millet’s approach, gender relations are a form of politics that is structural and not merely interpersonal. Analyzing women’s attitudes toward sustainable development therefore requires that young women’s perception of the connections between ecology, gender inequality, and social justice be considered. Millett views gender relations as structures of power, not merely cultural or social issues [103]. In the context of sustainable development, this allows for an analysis of whether Generation Z women perceive (and how they interpret) systemic inequality in terms of access to resources, the climate debate, and political decisions. Consequently, Generation Z women may encounter obstacles due to conventional gender norms; nevertheless, they tend to overcome these stereotypes through active engagement in sustainable development initiatives. Their actions are frequently oriented towards the promotion of gender equality and social justice within the context of the environment. Is the feminist critique reflected in Generation Z women’s attitudes, which, according to this theory, should detract from the importance of politics in implementing sustainable development principles?

Drawing on Kate Millett and her work “Sexual Politics”, questions can be raised about young women’s identification as active agents of socio-ecological transformation, as well as whether their perception of structural barriers hindering their full participation in shaping environmental policies [103].

To analyze how the cultural context influences Generation Z women’s attitudes toward sustainable development, this study also utilizes Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory [104]. The individualism vs. collectivism dimension is particularly important, as it facilitates an understanding of how women from different cultural backgrounds perceive their role in achieving the sustainable development goals.

As Hofstede notes, individualistic societies—such as the Anglo-Saxon culture—promote autonomous decision-making and independent pro-environmental actions, often regardless of institutional support or political incentives [104]. In contrast, collectivist cultures tend to encourage environmental engagement through social norms, family values, and collective expectations.

In the context of sustainability, this cultural dimension is crucial for understanding whether Generation Z women perceive environmental responsibility as a personal moral obligation or as a community-driven behavior. Applying this model allows for embedding environmental engagement within a broader socio-institutional cultural context, facilitating a comparative and context-sensitive interpretation of the study results.

To explain the economic aspect of Generation Z women’s attitudes, we can refer to the theory of sustainable development economics, which focuses on integrating economic growth with environmental protection and social inclusion. It emphasizes the principles of intra- and intergenerational equity, aiming to balance economic growth with environmental protection and social well-being. This theory allows the assumption that Generation Z women, as conscious consumers and future leaders, play a pivotal role in promoting business models that incorporate social and environmental responsibility. Their involvement can accelerate the transformation toward a circular economy and support gender equality initiatives in the workplace.

Generation Z women, having been raised in the digital age, have easy access to information about products and their environmental impact. Consequently, consumers are able to make informed purchasing decisions, and tend to favor products that are eco-friendly, ethical, and supportive of local communities [105]. They often engage in initiatives that promote product reuse, recycling, and waste minimization [106], which aligns with the tenets of a closed-loop economy.

Furthermore, there is an increasing awareness among women of the importance of sustainability education, which has resulted in a higher interest in pursuing educational opportunities in areas such as ecology, sustainable business, and social innovation [105]. The advent of social media has enabled Generation Z women to participate in environmental campaigns, advocate for sustainable lifestyles, and influence corporations and politicians to effect pro-environmental changes [107,108,109].

Many young women are electing to establish their own sustainable businesses, offering products and services that aim to minimize the detrimental impact on the environment [69]. This may be due to the fact that young women in the EU are increasingly pursuing higher education and careers in previously male dominated sectors, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); however, this does not change the fact that gender equality is far from being achieved. Despite the European Union’s efforts in promoting gender equality in science, women continue to be underrepresented among scientists. According to M. Szpyrka, “Scientific breakthroughs and innovative discoveries have been shaped mostly by male minds, even though women make up as much as 48 percent of doctoral graduates in the EU. However, the proportion of researchers who are female is only one-third of the total. Furthermore, the United Nations has stated that female researchers’ careers tend to be shorter and less well paid. Women also continue to encounter obstacles, including unconscious bias, a scarcity of mentorship opportunities, and limited access to resources. In spite of progress occurring, these factors hinder the full realization of women’s potential in science” [110]. This paper is intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject matter. In light of the assumptions shown, the question must be posed: what is the role of economics and how is it perceived by Generation Z women in terms of their attitudes toward sustainability issues?

A theoretical analysis of the technological aspects of Generation Z women’s involvement in sustainable development reveals several key areas.

The first is the high level of digital environmental education predisposing Generation Z women to use the Internet and social media to expand their knowledge of sustainability. E-learning platforms and mobile applications offer courses and training in ecology, which encourages the formation of pro environmental attitudes. Moreover, members of this generation are engaged in initiatives related to the creation and execution of novel technologies directed towards environmental preservation. Examples of this activity include the development of applications that monitor energy consumption or initiatives that promote recycling and a closed-loop economy. Additionally, social media provide a platform for information sharing and mobilization in sustainability efforts. Generation Z women are using these tools to organize awareness campaigns, petitions, and educate their peers about environmentalism. In addition, mobile apps help monitor carbon footprints, plan sustainable purchases, or choose eco-friendly modes of transportation. Generation Z women are eager to use these solutions and integrate technology into their daily eco-friendly habits.

The second area of focus is gender equality within the technology sector. It is evident that, from both a policy and normative perspective, gender equality plays a pivotal role in achieving sustainable development, as outlined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Generation Z women are seeking to increase their representation in the technology industry by being active in these areas. This allows for innovations that incorporate a gender perspective in promoting green solutions [111]. Despite the advances apparent in this sphere, women continue to face barriers when attempting to access advanced technologies. This phenomenon is often attributed to the principle of the glass ceiling, which refers to spaces predominantly occupied and defended by men; this phenomenon is gradually showing signs of dissolution. A growing number of young women are opting to pursue engineering studies and establish start-ups centered on emerging technologies. Their presence in the technology sector not only contributes to innovation but also promotes a biophilic culture focused on harmony with nature [112]. However, the levels remain unsatisfactory. According to a 2021 report by the NCBiR’s National Contact Point for Research Programs, “less than 15% of start-ups in the EU were founded or co-founded by women, and only 6% by teams composed exclusively of women. This translated into low amounts of capital invested in women-led companies, creating a vicious cycle. A mere 5% of venture capital funding was allocated to mixed-gender teams, and a negligible 2% to teams consisting exclusively of women. The ongoing crisis caused by the pandemic has only served to exacerbate the situation. A comparative analysis of the financial support available to female entrepreneurs and their male counterparts during the pandemic reveals a striking disparity. The former experienced a 31% decline in funding compared to 2019, while the latter experienced a mere 16% decline” [113]. Furthermore, in 2023, European and US-based start-ups founded by women received a mere 2% of venture capital funding [114]. In the context of this paper, it appears pertinent to pose the following research question: what is the impact of technology on the realization of the principles of sustainable development, and to what extent are these principles relevant to the attitudes of young women from Generation Z?

2.3. Methodological Assumptions of the Study

The survey form was disseminated to respondents belonging to Generation Z, defined as individuals born between 1995 and 2010. Participants born outside this timeframe were disqualified from further participation. The survey was prepared in two languages (variable D1—see Appendix 1 in the RepOD data repository [27]), Polish and English. This decision was made in order to analyze the survey results in three distinct categories: (1) Poland (Polish language), (2) non-Poland (English language), and (3) the collective responses of all participants. The survey form included the following diagnostic elements: gender of the respondent (female, male, other, do not want to indicate) (variable D2—Appendix 1 [27], respondent’s field of education (economic, social, political science, technical engineering, mixed) (variable D3—Appendix 1 [27], respondent’s type of work experience (economic, social, political science, technical-engineering, no experience, mixed) (variable D4—Appendix 1 [27], respondent’s continent of origin (Europe, Africa, South America, North America, Australia and Oceania, Asia) (variable D5—Appendix 1 [27], respondent’s civilizational (cultural) circle (Western, Orthodox, Latin American, Islamic, African, Hindu, Chinese, Japanese) (variable D6—Appendix 1 [27].

The survey was prepared based on a content analysis of Generation Z’s attitudes toward the environment, taking into account four domains: social, political, economic and technological. In each domain, seven diagnostic questions were defined. Questions were developed based on own research [97,115,116], literature analysis [117,118,119,120,121] and a panel discussion conducted. Each question used a 4-point response scale: low, medium, high, very high. Th scale, also referred to as a “forced” Likert scale, is used to exact a clear opinion from a respondent by not allowing them to select a safe “neutral” option. Detailed diagnostic questions are included in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. Data analysis is presented in Appendix 2 and Appendices 4–6 in the RepOD [27].

The research is informed by a long-term perspective, influenced by the European Green Deal (2030—reducing emissions by 50%) and the broader European Green Deal (2050—climate neutrality). This standpoint determines the approach to learning about the perspectives of women from Generation Z, who are the primary beneficiaries and agents of action in the effort to mitigate the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This generation, being the youngest, possesses the knowledge and experience necessary to assess the studied phenomenon from the indicated perspective. In the target year of 2050, this will be the generation of 40- and 50-year-olds, and thus will hold responsibility for the social, political, economic and technological efforts related to the realization of the intended goals of sustainable development. The respondents were invited to share their perspectives on the processes that are already underway and will have an impact on the future. The timeframe of this future was deliberately not specified, although the fact that these factors are already underway means that they are known to respondents. The survey also did not ask respondents about their views on the factors and processes associated with environmental goals or about the degree to which a specific goal had been achieved. Furthermore, respondents were not asked about factors and processes that are yet to occur (future events), as they are fraught with difficult-to-define probabilities not only of their occurrence but, most importantly, the degree of their impact on the future environment.

The survey was conducted among students of the Academy of Economics and Humanities in Warsaw (AEH), now Vizja University (UV), in all fields, forms and levels of education. The selection of the university was based on several substantive and technical assumptions. AEH has been identified as the most internationalized university in Poland (THE 2024 [122]), with a student body representing 124 countries worldwide (approximately 5800 students) (UEHS, 2025 [123]). The authors of the survey had access to the entire Generation Z community from AEH (now Vizja University). The finalized survey was disseminated to the study’s participants via MS Forms from 12 December 2023 to 17 June 2024.

The survey encompassed a total of 1434 respondents. This group included 102 individuals who did not meet the age requirement, i.e., those born prior to 1995. The survey received a total of 1332 responses. Table 5 presents basic information on variable D1 (language of response) and D2 (gender of respondent). For the purposes of this article, responses were removed from the survey according to variable D2 (gender of respondent). Only responses given by the female gender were left in the database.

A sample of 834 responses was analyzed in this study (see Table 5, column 2), including 618 responses in Polish and 216 in English. The analysis of representativeness was achieved through the evaluation of the entire female sample, encompassing 834 responses from the PL + EN group and 618 responses from the PL sample [27]. In this particular instance, the analyses were conducted exclusively on these samples. Due to the absence of representativeness, the group of women who provided answers in English was omitted.

The results of the survey were operationalized. Diagnostic questions (6 questions) and content questions (28 questions) were transformed into variables. The 6 diagnostic questions were transformed into variables D1 (response language: Polish (1), English (2), D2 (gender of respondent—female gender only), D3 (respondent’s field of education: economic (1), social (2), political science (3), technical engineering (4), mixed (5)), D4 (respondent’s type of work experience: economic (1), social (2), political science (3), technical-engineering (4), no experience (5), mixed (6)), D5 (respondent’s continent of origin: Europe (1), Africa (2), South America (3), North America (4), Australia and Oceania (5), Asia (6)) and D6 (respondent’s civilizational (cultural) circle: Western (1), Orthodox (2), Latin American (3), Islamic (4), African (5), Hindu (6), Chinese (7), Japanese (8), Buddhist (9)). The 28 content questions were transformed into 28 variables: S1–S7 (7 for the social sphere—Table 1), P1–P7 (7 for the political sphere—Table 2), E1–E7 (7 for the economic sphere—Table 3) and T1–T7 (7 for the technological sphere—Table 4). Variables D1–D6 were measured on an ordinal scale with appropriately selected levels, while variables E1–T7 used a 4-point ordinal scale to assess the strength of a specific factor’s impact on the future of the environment.

Basic descriptive characteristics were prepared for the set of variables [124]. Appendix 9 in the RepOD [27] data repository summarizes the basic descriptive statistics: median, mean, mode, frequency (of mode), minimum, maximum, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis, and Appendix 10 in the RepOD [27] data repository summarizes data tables and graphs. Figure 2 shows the Box and Whisker Plot for all analyzed variables for the median, and Figure 3 shows the same for the arithmetic mean.

The analysis of the data shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 and Table 6 indicates that the two measures (median and arithmetic mean) do not produce similar or consistent results. This phenomenon is frequently observed when these measures are applied. However, it should be noted that the arithmetic mean was used only as an auxiliary measure. The primary measure for data of this type (i.e., ordinal data) is the median. When analyzing Figure 2, it can be observed that the variables E1–T7 are quite homogeneous, with the median at level 2 or 3. A median above 2 (E6, E7, S5, P1–P7, T2–T5, and T7) indicates that respondents gave more responses at levels 3 and 4 than at levels 2 and 3. The opposite is true for medians at level 2. The Q1–Q3 range in most cases falls between 2 and 3. A similar analysis can be conducted using the arithmetic mean. A summary of the results shows that 15 variables have a higher arithmetic mean than median (see Figure 4b), while others have a higher median than arithmetic mean (see Figure 4a). In these cases, the distribution of the data is positively skewed, meaning that there are more values higher than the mean, which causes the mean to be overestimated. The difference between the two measures ranges from 0.01 to 0.53, with a mean difference of 0.41 and a standard deviation of 0.17. In summary, comparing the values of the arithmetic mean and the median helps to identify similar trends, as well as right- and left-skewed distributions.

3. Opinion Research of Generation Z Women

3.1. General Analysis of Results

As demonstrated by the survey results (see Table 6), Generation Z women place the highest value on the political sphere as a means of environmental protection, identifying it as a significant opportunity. All of the questions in this category received a higher degree of importance than the issues covered by questions in the other categories. The exception to this is the question about the degree to which environmental issues are considered within ideologies, which form the foundations of political divisions. The second most significant domain is technology. In this instance, women expressed a lower level of concern with the belief that environmental crises can be solved through human invention. Next in order of importance are the social and economic domains, although, as the survey results indicate, the economic area is less important. The social domain, encompassing issues regarding the mitigation of ecological and material footprints, is of minimal relevance in this context. The assertion that environmental awareness grows alongside growing prosperity is also noteworthy. The belief that long-term and virtuous environmental restrictions contradict our feelings, aspirations, weaknesses and present-oriented instincts is of least importance. In the context of the economic domain, issues pertaining to the realization of environmental objectives within the economy, as well as consumer awareness of purchases influenced by the culture of sharing products and services, are of minimal significance, both in this particular domain and within the broader survey.

3.2. Importance of Domains (Social, Political, Economic, Technological) in the Context of Environmental Efforts

The most important issues for female respondents in the policy domain, and thus in the entire set of diagnostic questions, are about the active cooperation of states for environmental protection, support by states for this protection through appropriate laws for citizens and businesses, and cooperation with local government and citizens with an indication of the important role governments should play in shaping environmental policy (Table 6, Figure 5b). The first two issues are regarded as being of highest importance by the majority of female respondents. It appears that they attach less importance to the issue of democracy, which can favor the environment through informed public involvement, and the importance of ideologies that take these issues into account. This suggests a high level of confidence in the state, the law, and local structures that constitute a “golden triangle”—a concept coined by environmental economist Herman Daly—which is the climate antidote to environmental protection.

In the technological domain (Figure 5d), the key issues from the perspective of female respondents are about environmental concerns associated with contemporary energy production entities, technological solutions to environmental problems that operate on the basis of novel energy sources, and environmental issues characterized by innovative approaches to energy transmission or by invention (see Table 6 for further details). By contrast, the least significant factors in this domain are as follows: the human race will prevail over environmental crises through the development of new technologies; environmental crises will serve as the catalyst for significant advancements in the field of technology; the introduction of modern devices in households and businesses will influence the utilization of the environment. The pivotal factor, therefore, is energy—its utilization and innovation in this domain.

In the social domain (Figure 5a), respondents ascribed considerable significance to the following statement: the minimization of ecological and material footprints is instrumental in environmental preservation, particularly in the context of augmented prosperity and heightened environmental awareness (see Table 6). Conversely, female respondents ascribed lesser significance to the issue of stabilizing the world’s population (population growth) and its role in reducing environmental damage, as well as to the notion that humanity possesses the capacity to modify its behavior and act in a manner that would avert environmental crises. It is therefore important for Generation Z women to comprehend the repercussions of their carbon footprint and economic status to cultivate an awareness of the necessity for societal transformation.

Important in regard to environmental concerns within the economic domain (Figure 5c) are the following statements: the economy will pursue environmental protection objectives, and it will transition towards a closed-loop system (circular economy) to minimize waste and eliminate wastefulness. Conversely, reductions in material and energy consumption due to environmental deficits will adversely impact economic performance (see Table 6). In terms of economic issues, respondents emphasize the reduction in consumption, but not production. In this area, as well as in the survey as a whole, respondents attributed minimal importance to statements regarding the effectiveness of efforts and actions related to reducing the level of economic consumption of environmental resources, the shaping of consumer/purchasing awareness by a culture of sharing (the sharing economy), and the decoupling of economic growth (GDP) from predatory exploitation of the environment.

The survey ranked the variables by the average response value obtained. The visual representation of this analysis is presented in Figure 6. The survey indicated a clear variation in the thinking of Generation Z women in terms of which areas should have an impact on climate protection. The most strongly desired changes for all the women who participated in the survey (the highest number of top choices), as evidenced by the median and dominance of their responses, concern the areas of policy and technology (see Figure 6). Issues in the social and economic domains are of lesser importance. A total of 13 out of the 28 factors are attributable to the political and technological domains, with 7 falling into the former category and 6 into the latter. Nevertheless, political factors predominate in the aforementioned list, with the greatest weight being attributed to six of the seven variables. The technological aspects are significant, albeit secondary. It is evident that the most salient issue for women is the indication that it is the responsibility of the state to proactively engage in international cooperation to protect the environment. This should be accompanied by the implementation of appropriate legislation for citizens and businesses, thereby ensuring the government assumes a leading role in this endeavor. In the domain of technology, the most salient issues for the women of Generation Z pertained to environmental protection as espoused by contemporary energy producers, and technological solutions founded on novel sources of energy and methods of transmission.

Among the less significant areas (the social and economic domains), there appears to be an even and alternating distribution of importance. The most significant social factor in this group, with the highest median, is the concern for minimizing carbon and material footprints, which contributes to environmental care. It is imperative to acknowledge an additional economic factor: the prevailing sentiment that the economy is on the cusp of transitioning towards a closed-loop model. This paradigm shift is driven by a concerted effort to minimize waste and eliminate wastefulness, thereby fostering efficiency and sustainability. In the economic domain, the beliefs that are least important—not only for this area but also for the survey as a whole—are as follows: the belief that there will be a decoupling of economic growth (GDP) from predatory exploitation of the environment; the belief that consumer/purchasing consciousness will be shaped by a culture of sharing products and services; and the belief that efforts and actions to reduce the level of economic consumption of environmental resources will be effective. In the social domain, conversely, the least significant issue was the notion that stabilizing the world’s population (population growth) would result in a reduction in environmental degradation.

The survey results suggest that the presence of women in the surveyed population is indicative of a society that does not adhere to the principles of patriarchy. The prioritization of political issues, coupled with a high degree of confidence in the efficacy of efforts in this field, aligns with a theoretical framework proposed in the 1970s by Kate Millet, a renowned proponent of feminist thought. Millet’s seminal work, entitled “Private is Political,” encapsulates the philosophical underpinnings of this approach.

The fact that environmental stewardship affects each individual through the political sphere confirms the profound changes in the consciousness of Generation Z women. This sphere is perceived as being of particular importance to them, and they believe that they have a significant degree of influence over it. The political domain has been designated as the pivotal focal point for endeavors aimed at curtailing climate change. The state has been assigned the primary responsibility for guiding these changes.

Furthermore, it appears that this emphasis on policy is also reflected in women’s perceptions of technology as a domain with the potential to exert a substantial influence on environmental protection. Indeed, the issues outlined pertain to energy policy and are closely related to considerations of methods for energy procurement, utilization, and innovation in this domain. This trend appears to corroborate the theory of sustainable development economics in the context of a belief in the innovativeness of energy solutions that facilitate production within a closed-loop economy based on the lowest possible level of resource consumption.

3.3. Influence of Cultural/Civilization Circles on Environmental Problems

The analysis of the influence of cultural/civilization circles on environmental problems began with the preparation of models demonstrating the relationships between variables. The methodology stipulated in the repository was utilized [27]. A GRM (General Regression Model) for the D5 variable was constructed on the basis of the set of independent variables E1–T7. The goal of constructing the model was to analyze the relationship between these variables, rather than to develop a predictive model. According to the assumptions, evaluating the model’s quality (R, R², adjusted R², SS, F, p values) was given less importance in analyzing the diagnostic model. In this study, only statistically significant variables were considered. The construction and analysis of the stepwise regression model were undertaken in accordance with the established significance level. A total of 834 observations were recorded for the “Women ALL” category, 618 for the “Women PL” category, and 216 for the “Women EN” category. The analysis was conducted on 1322 observations, except for specific analyses restricted to particular subsets (such as a level-1 analysis for variable D1). In constructing the model for the D5 variable, an inclusive assumption was made: only observations for which the value of D6 was 1 were included in the analysis. A comprehensive overview of the variables that demonstrated statistical significance within the model is provided in Table 7.

The study posits that the geographic origin of a given respondent is defined by their civilizational circle, thereby delineating the order of importance of the indicated areas with regard to environmental protection. In the case of English-speaking Generation Z women from Western Europe (see Table 7, column “Women—EN”), the two social areas of greatest importance in the fight against climate change are S5, indicating a commitment to minimizing ecological and material footprints in order to protect the environment, and S1, indicating an awareness that, within the designated time frame, development will be determined by the Earth’s finite environmental resources.

Furthermore, factor T2 from the technological domain is of significance. This is due to the fact that technological solutions to environmental issues will be founded on new energy sources. In subsequent order of importance, two political factors merit consideration: P2 (ideologies should take environmental issues into account) and P7 (cooperation with local governments and citizens is important, but the government should continue to play a role in shaping environmental policy).

The distribution of factors influencing the fight for environmental protection is somewhat different for Polish-speaking Generation Z women (see Table 7, column “Women—PL”). In this instance, the most salient factor is the political factor P3, which underscores the pivotal role of nations in actively collaborating on the global stage to safeguard the environment. The economic factor E4 is also of significance in second place, characterized by the belief that there will be a decoupling of economic growth (GDP) from the predatory exploitation of the environment.

A different perspective is further exemplified by the subsequent most significant technological issues: T3 (environmental protection will be predicated on contemporary energy producers) and T5 (environmental protection will be founded on innovative methods of energy transmission). It is evident that social factors are the only ones indicated among the top factors for this group. The S4 initiative—minimizing the ecological and material footprint—contributes to environmental conservation. Conversely, S3 (the long-term and laudable assumptions of environmental restrictions) appears to contradict our feelings, aspirations, weaknesses, and present-oriented instincts.

It appears that English-speaking Generation Z women are distinguished by a heightened level of individual self-awareness, rooted in a strong conviction in their personal agency in the pursuit of environmental protection. Moreover, these individuals possess a high degree of confidence in technological advancements, believing that they will be able to utilize these innovations to contribute to the cause. From this standpoint, the implementation of policies is regarded as a means of reinforcing activism and disseminating proactive attitudes in the domain of environmental protection.

The characteristics of Polish-speaking Generation Z women are distinct. They adhere to principles that advocate for policy interventions in the economic sphere, facilitating technological advancements that promote effective environmental protection.

3.4. Are Men Less Polarized in Their Indications?

The indications exhibited by Generation Z women are notable when compared with the choices demonstrated by Generation Z men. As illustrated in Figure 7, a comparison of the mean values of male and female responses for each variable (E1–T7) is presented. Firstly, it is evident that women exhibit a stronger polarization of views on environmental protection than men, a phenomenon that is apparent across all areas surveyed. In the majority of cases, the indications are “stronger,” which may indicate a greater determination in identifying the factors affecting environmental conditions. A notable finding is that women exhibit a stronger belief in the causality of political factors compared to men, and, intriguingly, this belief is more pronounced in women than in men when it comes to technological factors. The belief in the causality of economic and social factors is almost equal for both genders.

The most significant disparities in the political sphere with regard to the strength of trust in factors within this group pertain to the variables P3 (states should proactively collaborate internationally to protect the environment), P1 (the environment should be prioritized in the programs of political parties), P2 (ideologies should take environmental issues into account), P6 (the state should support environmental protection through appropriate laws for citizens and businesses), and P7 (cooperation with local governments and citizens is important, but the government should continue to play a role in shaping environmental policy). This suggests a heightened level of confidence in state institutions, coupled with a clear understanding of the significance of the party system and the mechanisms of political decision-making. With the exception of variable T6, which states that humankind will overcome environmental crises through invention, all issues in the technological field are of greater importance to women than to men. This may be indicative of an increased conviction in the efficacy of technology and technological advancement for the benefit of humanity, as well as a high degree of confidence in the prevailing trends within this domain during the 21st century.

It is particularly noteworthy that in only 3 out of 28 variables is there a stronger preference for men. The economic variable E3 is defined as follows: a reduction in the consumption of materials and energy due to environmental deficits will result in a worsening of economic performance. The social variable S2 is expressed as follows: stabilizing the world population (population growth) will result in a reduction in environmental damage. The technological variable T6 is expressed as follows: humanity will overcome environmental crises through invention. The correlation of these three issues appears to indicate that men are adopting a more conservative stance towards the necessary changes than women.

For both genders, the most significant issue is variable P3—countries should proactively collaborate internationally to protect the environment. Conversely, for both genders, the least significant issue is variable E4—there will be a decoupling of economic growth (GDP) from the predatory exploitation of the environment.

4. Discussion

4.1. Importance of Areas as Assessed by Generation Z Women

The survey results indicate that Generation Z women perceive the political field as the most significant in terms of environmental action. The highest ratings were given to questions regarding the need for active international cooperation, legislation to support environmental protection, and the role of government as a key actor of change (variables: P3, P6, P7). This result strongly corresponds with the social role theory [108], according to which women are socially conditioned to prefer collective actions coordinated by political institutions. At the same time, Andruszkiewicz et al. (2023) [125] show that women of Generation Z in Central and Eastern Europe, including Poland, are more likely to declare trust in the roles of the state and regulations as the main factors of change. Therefore, the application of gender role theory to politics is evident in this context, as Generation Z women predominantly exhibit communitarian and collective attitudes, anticipating systemic action and coordination at the state level. In the technological domain, Generation Z women perceive an opportunity in the advancement of contemporary technologies. However, the findings reveal a certain degree of ambivalence. On the one hand, there is a call for innovation in renewable energy and novel energy transmission methods (variables: T2, T3, T5). On the other hand, concerns regarding the accessibility and costs of implementing these technologies are documented. Given these results, it is evident that Generation Z women recognize the need to consider economic barriers as a factor impeding the advancement of green technologies. These results appear to confirm the observations emerging from earlier research by Andruszkiewicz et al. (2023) [125], according to which they constitute a significant barrier in the area of technological development.

Conversely, the economic and social domains received lower ratings, a finding that can be attributed to several salient factors. Firstly, as research indicates, economic issues in the context of environmental protection may be perceived as less significant by Generation Z women. This is because, having been raised in an era of consumerism, these women find it difficult to curb their own consumption aspirations [105,126]. The difficulties in reconciling consumer aspirations with the reduction in the ecological footprint are also confirmed by the results, which indicate both a declared environmental awareness and, simultaneously, difficult consumer choices [125].

Secondly, in the social domain, there is a clear lack of explicit social tools and mechanisms that could effectively influence a change in environmental attitudes [127]. According to social role theory [102], Generation Z women, despite their high environmental awareness, may not perceive the impact of social action on a global scale as clearly as they do the impacts of politics and technology. This could mean that socialized activities require institutional support to be perceived as effective and socially efficient.

4.2. Language Circles of Generation Z Women’s Attitudes Toward the Environment

An analysis of the survey results indicates that there are discrepancies in the attitudes of Generation Z women according to their language group. In the English-speaking community, respondents placed greater emphasis on the significance of individual consumer action and environmental education. This propensity may be attributed to the more pronounced tradition of individualism within this demographic [25]. As Hofstede observed, individualism is a characteristic of Anglo Saxon societies, where individuals are more likely to make independent consumer decisions and take environmental actions without awaiting institutional support. Moreover, Andruszkiewicz et al. (2023) [125] in a comparative study of women of Generation Z in Poland and Germany showed that people from Western countries are more willing to react through independent purchasing choices, which aligns with our observations. Consequently, Anglophone women may be more inclined to participate in consumer campaigns promoting sustainable products or initiatives related to the circular economy [25].

In contrast, female respondents from the Polish-speaking group ascribed greater importance to collective actions. This finding lends support to the hypothesis that socialization in a culture with a stronger emphasis on collectivism is conducive to the promotion of communal actions. Within the framework of social role theory [102]. these variations can be attributed to different socialization patterns. English-speaking women demonstrate a stronger propensity for independent action, while Polish-speaking women exhibit a greater inclination towards community engagement and collaboration with institutional entities. As Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt have demonstrated, women raised in collectivist cultures may be more inclined to view environmental action as a social obligation rather than just a personal responsibility [102].

Moreover, within the Polish-speaking community, there is a discernible tendency to engage in initiatives that are endorsed by state and local institutions. This phenomenon may be attributed to the perception that individual actions, though commendable, may be less efficacious in ensuring environmental protection. As Herlander Mata-Lima have demonstrated, in collectivist cultures, environmental protection is commonly regarded as a collective endeavor, rendering the efficacy of individual actions of negligible significance compared to systemic solutions thus showing that individual actions can be perceived as ineffective without the institutional coordination and authority [127].

4.3. Poland vs. Western Europe—Regional Differences

The survey results demonstrated significant variations in the attitudes of Generation Z women in Poland and Western Europe. Female respondents from Poland placed more emphasis on the need for systemic and legislative changes, which may be due to the perception that environmental policies in the country are less effective compared to Western European standards. The above observation corresponds with the results of research conducted by Z. Ergun [128]. Poland, a nation with a lower GDP per capita and higher levels of air pollution [129], may perceive environmental problems as more pressing and in need of state intervention. This is further substantiated by a report published by the European Environment Agency [130], which underscores that Central and Eastern European countries tend to exhibit stronger support for government intervention in environmental protection, largely attributable to historical deficiencies in environmental infrastructure. According to the research conducted by the above two agencies, Central and Eastern European countries, including Poland, are more likely to consider strong institutional support as necessary, which is consistent with the results of this study. Furthermore, according to research conducted by Inglehart and Welzel, societies undergoing modernization (including many post-communist countries) are characterized by stronger expectations of the state as the main actor of change. This thesis supports the results of the study, indicating a greater trust in institutional actions in Poland [131]. Pickering, who analyzes the political and economic conditions of environmental actions in the CEE region, shows the limitations related to social capital, social trust, and the role of the state as a compensator for the deficits of grassroots initiatives [132].

In contrast, Western European women exhibited a greater predilection for grassroots initiatives and consumer action, a tendency that aligns with prevailing trends toward a circular economy [133]. In countries with higher income levels and greater environmental awareness (e.g., Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands), respondents demonstrated a greater willingness to reduce consumption and adopt sharing models (variables: E2, E4) [134]. This attitude may be attributed to the increased availability of environmentally friendly products and technological solutions, as well as enhanced infrastructural support for green initiatives [93]. The present study lends further credence to the theory of sustainability economics, as evidenced by the finding that respondents from Western Europe expressed a greater propensity to curtail consumption and adopt sharing models (variables: E2, E4), while respondents from Poland signaled a requirement for financial incentives to facilitate green initiatives, indicating an apparent economic impediment to the realization of environmental objectives. Moreover, the necessity for financial and systemic support from the state is evident in Poland, which may be attributable to a general perception that grassroots efforts are less effective. This contrast confirms the conclusions of the research conducted by H. Wilts and K. O’Brien, who indicate that countries with lower GDP levels and higher environmental pollution rates may perceive individual actions as less effective, leading to greater expectations of government intervention—“in cultures with a lower economic base, individual actions are perceived as less effective, which leads to increased expectations towards the state” [68]. Spaargaren, G., & Mol, A. P. J. draw similar conclusions from their research, according to which highly developed countries have a stronger attachment to “consumer citizenship”, which may explain the emphasis on grassroots action in Western Europe [135].

The feminist-ecological perspective is also emphasized by authors such as MacGregor and Gaard, who argue that women’s engagement in climate issues depends on the socio-economic context [136], and that various systems of oppression (including economic ones) shape women’s involvement in environmental activities [137].

4.4. Methodological Limitations

Although the study is statistically representative of the female population (female students), it is nevertheless necessary to be sufficiently cautious about the conclusions drawn. This is due to a number of important limitations of the study. Firstly, the students themselves (including women) chose to participate in the survey, which does not constitute a random sample. Nevertheless, it was important to impose categorization on the young female respondents to explore their perspectives on the complex future of the environment. Consequently, they were required to comparatively assess different spheres constructed from already defined factors.

One of the risks identified in the study is the risk of cultural generalization within the group of women. Accordingly, a research limitation of the study is such that the results obtained should be analyzed specifically in the context of the group of respondents studied, with a particular emphasis on women. The authors assume that future research should include groups of non-student youth, including women (e.g., employed young adults) and comparative East Asian/African cohorts.

Finally, it should be noted that while women are a particularly desirable type of respondents in forward-looking research, an entire generation of young people—including less-educated youth—is not taken into account, which may distort the obtained research results and is indicative of the caution required in drawing conclusions and generalizations.

Future research directions should include expanding the research to other groups of women from Generation Z (cohorts: young working, unemployed, well-off, from rural and urban backgrounds). Such research would strengthen the representativeness of the conclusions made. Future research should also explore the work experience of Generation Z women over time (multi-year studies), draw comparisons with male cohorts from the same generation, and investigate their professional activity and responses to emerging technologies, including widespread AI algorithm implementation.

5. Conclusions

In light of the findings presented in Part Four, it is possible to identify four predominant attitudes among Generation Z women regarding the climate crisis. All types vary in intensity and type of engagement—from political systemic solutions to social initiatives; they also take into account the linguistic context (Polish vs. English-speaking survey) and geographical context (Eastern European vs. Western European country).

Political Systemic Activists—Women in this group, clearly favor systemic and legislative action as key tools for environmental protection. Polish respondents are significantly more likely to prioritize state intervention and legislative creation as the primary tools for environmental protection, as evidenced by high scores in categories P3 (international cooperation), P6, and P7. In Western European countries, the same motivations are more oriented toward grassroots activities—citizen campaigns and pressure on governments—indicating a difference in institutional approaches and the realities of political systems.

Technological optimists vs. technological skeptics—Women from the English-speaking world clearly embrace technological innovation as the key to solving the climate crisis (variables T2, T3, T5), which is associated with a high level of trust in technological progress. Meanwhile, in Poland, a clear ambivalence is observed—on the one hand, the need for innovation is recognized; on the other, there is some distrust related to its costs and limited availability. These attitudes can therefore be divided into optimistic (faith in technological progress) and skeptical (concerns about technology as a potential threat to economic stability).

Ecological Consumers—In Western countries, Generation Z women are most likely to make pro-ecological consumer decisions: they choose products with a low carbon footprint and support the circular economy model (variable E4). Meanwhile, Polish respondents indicate that the higher cost of such consumption is a significant barrier, leading to lower engagement in consumer activity in this field.

Collective Social Activists—Polish-speaking Generation Z women demonstrate a high level of appreciation for social action and institutional collaboration (variables S2, S3), reflecting the fulfillment of caring and communal roles within the female identity. This is consistent with social role theory, which posits that women assigned to caring roles are more likely to engage in collective action.

Generation Z women have become leading architects of grassroots civic action: they coordinate multi-stakeholder petitions and lobby municipal councils for anti-smog resolutions, spearhead urban tree-planting campaigns, and organize public forums on renewable energy. Their prominent roles in the Youth Climate Strike demonstrate not only their capacity to mobilize peers for mass demonstrations, but also their ability to translate street-level pressure into structured dialogs with local and national policymakers.

Polish-speaking women of Generation Z, acting primarily through institutional channels of cooperation, have strengthened the politicization of climate change and popularized the language of concern and social justice. An example of this are the leaders of the Youth Climate Strike, often high school and university students, who initiate dialog with representatives of local governments and parliament, demanding climate legislation and carbon neutrality strategies. Similarly, the “Yes to Climate Education” initiative, a joint initiative launched by the UN Global Compact Network Poland, WWF Poland, Youth Climate Strike, Polish Ecological Club Mazowiecki District, IKEA Retail Poland, and Onet in 2021, demonstrates how collecting signatures and lobbying experts contribute to the inclusion of climate education in school curricula. From a global perspective, Polish-speaking activists demonstrate an ability to combine street pressure with substantive political dialog, which translates into significant participation in local anti-smog campaigns and the protection of urban green spaces.

At the same time, women from the English-speaking world are shaping new standards of grassroots activism, i.e., normalizing environmentalism as a way of life. By coordinating campaigns like Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion, they conduct media training and build social media campaigns that reach millions. They organize petitions and parliamentary briefings in the UK and Australia and represent youth organizations at climate conferences (COPs), significantly influencing international environmental policy priorities.

Further analysis of the survey results also revealed clear differences between Generation Z women and men in their perception of the influence of political, technological, economic, and social factors in the context of environmental protection. A notable finding of the present study is that Generation Z women exhibit a heightened polarization of views on environmental protection. This phenomenon may be attributed to an increased awareness of the repercussions of environmental degradation and the social roles assigned to them.

In the political context, women were more likely than men to attribute causality to state institutions in environmental protection, as evidenced by higher scores for the following variables: P3, P1, P2, P6, and P7. These results are consistent with the assumptions of social role theory, according to which women are more likely to view collective action as an effective tool for social change. This finding indicates a greater level of trust in state institutions and political mechanisms, which may be a consequence of an increase in women’s involvement in climate policy.

In the technological domain, Generation Z women exhibit a more pronounced conviction in the efficacy of technology in addressing environmental challenges. This can be interpreted as a belief in technological progress and its beneficial impact on the environment. The T6 variable—belief in invention as a solution to environmental crises—is the sole exception, in which male subjects demonstrated higher scores. This may indicate a more conservative attitude among men, who may perceive technology as a hindrance rather than a facilitator.

With regard to economic and social issues, differences between men and women are less pronounced; however, men scored higher for variables E3 and S2, which may indicate a greater focus on economic and demographic stability. The variable E3, which reflects the impact of environmental deficits on the economy, may suggest a more conservative attitude among men towards structural changes that could compromise economic stability.

For both genders, the most salient issue remains the P3 variable—international cooperation to protect the environment—suggesting a universal belief in the need for global action to address climate crises.

This analysis confirms that Gen Z women exhibit a higher level of trust in state institutions when it comes to environmental protection (variables P1, P2, P3, P6, P7). In the area of technology, their belief in technological agency predominates, while men are more likely to view technology as a potential barrier (variable T6). In the domains of economics and social relations, gender differences are more subtle, with men assigning greater importance to variables related to economic stability (E3) and social cooperation (S2). The key finding, however, is that all groups—regardless of gender—consider international cooperation (variable P3) the most important element of climate strategy, underscoring the universal significance of cross-border collaboration. Summarizing the research findings and conclusions, the analysis reveals four distinct types of attitudes among Generation Z women toward the climate crisis:

Political activists, who in Poland place a strong emphasis on international cooperation, legislation, and the role of government;

Technological groups—optimists and skeptics—focused on the potential and limitations of innovation;

Ecological consumers, encouraged to make environmentally friendly choices;

Collective social activists, concerned with the role of institutions and community norms.

These findings confirm that, regardless of gender, international cooperation remains the most crucial element of Generation Z’s climate strategies.

In light of these results, future analyses should explore three strategic dimensions. First, researchers should examine the motivations and constraints shaping Generation Z women’s attitudes toward technology. This includes distinguishing between technological optimists and skeptics, especially in relation to how cost and availability influence perceptions of innovation (variables T2–T5). Second, it is important to compare the effectiveness of various models of action—from individual to consumer-based, community-level, and systemic approaches—across different cultural and economic contexts. Third, further study is needed on how socialization processes influence the choice of environmental protection tools, particularly in forming collective behaviors aligned with social role theory. In parallel, the role of educational institutions and NGOs should be assessed in terms of strengthening grassroots and consumer-based initiatives. This includes examining whether increased trust in these entities can help overcome perceived barriers in regions with lower GDP levels.

Finally, cross-cultural comparative research is essential to determine whether Generation Z women’s adaptation mechanisms for environmental protection differ systematically across countries with varying socioeconomic structures. Such research would not only deepen theoretical understanding of Generation Z’s pro-environmental attitudes but also provide practical insights for effective educational and policy interventions that are sensitive to cultural and economic contexts.

Despite the complex and often difficult-to-understand differences in the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of Generation Z women across Europe and globally, it is important to recognize that women are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. This is often due to poverty, traditional roles and responsibilities, and prevailing cultural norms. At the same time, women frequently stand at the forefront of social movements and environmental organizations, serving as a driving force for change. Research conducted among female students strongly reflects this trend, including in Poland, where 68% of women aged 18–21 express concern about air pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss. In contrast, only 50% of young men report similar concerns.

In conclusion, Generation Z women—whether working through institutional partnerships or grassroots networks—are reshaping both the language and practice of environmental citizenship. By normalizing a care-and-justice framing, demanding legislative change, and embedding ecological values into everyday life, they are forging a comprehensive, multi-scalar strategy for climate action. Their combined focus on expert dialog and popular mobilization suggests a resilient model of civic engagement—one that other demographic groups and policymakers would do well to emulate.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.K., A.N.-K. and R.W.; data curation, A.N.-K. and R.W.; formal analysis, R.W. and T.K.; investigation, A.N.-K., T.K., R.W. and P.D.; methodology, T.K., A.N.-K., R.W. and P.D.; project administration, K.P., A.N.-K. and R.W.; resources, A.N.-K., R.W., T.K. and P.D.; supervision, R.W. and A.W.; validati, A.N.-K. and P.D.; visualization, R.W. and A.W.; writing—original draft, T.K., A.N.-K., R.W. and P.D.; writing—review and editing, K.P., T.K., R.W., P.D. and A.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article in: Wisniewski, R., Nowakowska-Krystman, A., Daniluk, P., Kownacki, T. Generation Z’s Approach to the Future of the Environment—In Search of the Imperative—Appendices, 2025, https://doi.org/10.18150/Q5GXUY, RepOD, V2.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 SPET sustainability model adopted in the article. Source: own study. S—Social; P—Political; E—Economic; T—Technological.

Figure 2 “Box and Whisker Plot” for all variables—median. Source: own calculations.

Figure 3 “Box and Whisker Plot” for all variables—arithmetic mean. Source: own calculations.

Figure 4 (a) Left-skewed graph for variable P2. (b) Left-skewed graph for variable S2. Source: own calculations.

Figure 5 (a) Visualization of the responses of the surveyed women—Social area. (b) Visualization of the responses of the surveyed women—Political area. (c) Visualization of the responses of the surveyed women—Economic area. (d) Visualization of the responses of the surveyed women—Technological area. Source: own calculations.

Figure 6 Visualization of median, mode, and arithmetic mean for all variables. Source: own calculations.

Figure 7 Visualization of median, mode, and arithmetic mean for all variables by gender. Source: own calculations.

Table 1

Questions from domain S.

Variable Designation	Diagnostic Question
S1	To what level, in your opinion: in the designated timeframe, development will be determined by the limited resources of the Earth’s environment?
S2	To what level, in your opinion: stabilizing the world’s population (birth rate) will reduce environmental damage?
S3	To what level, in your opinion: humanity is able to change its behavior and conduct so as not to create an environmental crisis?
S4	To what level, in your opinion: long-term and laudable assumptions of environmental constraints contradict our feeling, striving, weaknesses and instincts aimed at the present?
S5	To what level, in your opinion: attention to minimizing the environmental and material footprint contributes to caring for the environment?
S6	To what level, in your opinion:. s wealth increases, environmental awareness increases?
S7	To what level, in your opinion: global as well as local environmental challenges affect family and neighborhood relations?

Source: own study.

Table 2

Questions from the P domain.

Variable Designation	Diagnostic Question
P1	To what level, in your opinion: the environment should be a priority on political party agendas?
P2	To what level, in your opinion: ideologies should consider environmental issues?
P3	To what level, in your opinion: states should actively cooperate internationally to protect the environment?
P4	To what level, in your opinion: for environmental protection, deep reforms of the democratic system are needed, including reducing the influence of corporations in politics?
P5	To what level, in your opinion: democracy can foster the environment with informed public involvement?
P6	To what level, in your opinion: the state should promote environmental protection through appropriate laws for citizens and businesses?
P7	To what level, in your opinion: cooperation with local governments and citizens is important, but the government should continue to play a role in shaping environmental policy?

Source: own study.

Table 3

Questions from the economic domain.

Variable Designation	Diagnostic Question
E1	To what level, in your opinion: economic incentives (e.g., government subsidies, tax breaks) are able to change people’s behavior and conduct toward environmental change?
E2	To what level, in your opinion: consumer awareness/purchasing will be shaped by a culture of sharing/sharing economy of products/services?
E3	To what level, in your opinion: reduced consumption of materials and energy resulting from environmental deficits will have a downward effect on economic performance?
E4	To what level, in your opinion: there will be a decoupling of economic growth (GDP) from the predatory exploitation of the environment?
E5	To what level, in your opinion: effective will be the efforts and actions related to reducing the level of economic consumption of environmental resources?
E6	To what level, in your opinion: economy will move toward a closed loop (circular economy) to reduce waste and waste?
E7	To what level, in your opinion: in the economy will achieve environmental goals?

Source: own study.

Table 4

Questions from the technological domain.

Variable Designation	Diagnostic Question
T1	To what level, in your opinion: environmental crises initiate breakthroughs for humanity in the field of technology?
T2	To what level, in your opinion: technological solutions to environmental problems will be based on new energy sources?
T3	To what level, in your opinion: environmental protection will be based on modern energy production entities?
T4	To what level, in your opinion: environmental protection will be based on energy storage?
T5	To what level, in your opinion: environmental protection will be based on new ways of transmitting energy?
T6	To what level, in your opinion: humanity will overcome environmental crises through invention?
T7	To what level, in your opinion: modern devices in households and businesses will affect the way they use the environment?

Source: own study.

Table 5

Variable D1 and D2—summary of sample sizes.

		Variable D2			Total
		Women *	Man	Other
1		2	3	4	5
Variable D1	EN	216(55.1%)	169(43.1%)	7(1.8%)	392(100.0%)	29.4%
	PL	618(65.7%)	314(33.4%)	8(0.9%)	940(100.0%)	70.6%
Sum		834(62.6%)	483(36.3%)	15(1.1%)	1.332(100.0%)	100.0%

*—The study analyzed a sample of 834 women—column 2. The data for Man and Other are given for comparison. Source: own calculations.

Table 6

E1–T7 variables—summary of descriptive characteristics for the set: all women (sample of 834 women).

Variable Designation	Number of Responses Given at Each Level				Mode	Median	Mean	Std. Dev.
	1	2	3	4
P3	31	142	315	346	4	3	3.17	0.84
P6	44	179	332	279	3	3	3.01	0.87
P7	45	229	365	195	3	3	2.85	0.84
P1	71	225	315	223	3	3	2.83	0.92
P4	50	265	298	221	3	3	2.83	0.89
P5	54	239	371	170	3	3	2.79	0.84
T3	46	262	363	163	3	3	2.77	0.82
T2	43	269	359	163	3	3	2.77	0.82
T5	50	253	370	161	3	3	2.77	0.83
P2	57	250	364	163	3	3	2.76	0.84
T4	53	279	361	141	3	3	2.71	0.82
T7	65	292	319	158	3	3	2.68	0.87
E7	62	302	321	149	3	3	2.67	0.85
S5	55	293	285	201	2	3	2.76	0.89
E6	62	339	316	117	2	3	2.59	0.82
T1	77	347	299	111	2	2	2.53	0.84
S6	130	301	233	170	2	2	2.53	0.98
E3	82	336	309	107	2	2	2.53	0.84
S1	82	356	269	127	2	2	2.53	0.87
S7	128	313	240	153	2	2	2.50	0.96
S4	69	398	251	116	2	2	2.50	0.83
E1	65	379	306	84	2	2	2.49	0.78
S3	149	324	212	149	2	2	2.43	0.98
T6	126	341	255	112	2	2	2.42	0.90
S2	147	336	207	144	2	2	2.42	0.97
E5	87	388	284	75	2	2	2.42	0.79
E2	101	419	253	61	2	2	2.33	0.78
E4	89	441	260	44	2	2	2.31	0.73

Source: own calculations.

Table 7

E1–T7 variables statistically significant in the model for variable D5, ranked in order of importance in the model.

Steps	Women—ALL	Steps	Women—PL	Steps	Women—EN
	The Variable, in Order, that Entered the Model		The Variable, in order, that Entered the Model		The Variable, in Order, that Entered the Model
1	P3	1	P3	1	S5
2	E4	2	E4	2	T2
3	T2	3	T3	3	S1
4	T3	4	T5	4	P2
5	S1	5	S4	5	P7
6	S4	6	E2	6	E5
7	E5	7	S3
8	S6	8	T2
9	T6	9	T4
10		10	E6
R = 0.84; R2 = 0.71; Adj. R2 = 0.69; F-statistic; 43.66; p-value = 0.00; P to remove: 0.05.		R = 0.90; R2 = 0.82; Adj. R2 = 0.81; F-statistic; 64.33; p-value = 0.00; P to remove: 0.05.		R = 0.83; R2 = 0.71; Adj. R2 = 0.69; F-statistic; 12.18; p-value = 0.00; P to remove: 0.05.
Area	A numerical summary of the occurrence of a variable from a given area
S	3		2		2
P	1		1		2
E	3		3		1
T	2		4		1

References

1. Jayatissa, K.A.D.U. Generation Z—A New Lifeline: A Systematic Literature Review. Sri Lanka J. Soc. Sci. Humanit.; 2023; 3, pp. 179-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4038/sljssh.v3i2.110]

2. Dimock, M. Defining Generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/ (accessed on 21 June 2025).

3. Mahapatra, G.P.; Bhullar, N.; Gupta, P. Gen Z: An Emerging Phenomenon. NHRD Netw. J.; 2022; 15, pp. 246-256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/26314541221077137]

4. Polok, G.; Szromek, A.R. Religious and Moral Attitudes of Catholics from Generation, Z. Religions; 2024; 15, 25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel15010025]

5. UN Women. Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot 2021; UN Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2021.

6. Lašáková, A.; Vojteková, M.; Procházková, L. What (de)motivates gen z women and gen z men at work? Comparative study of gender differences in the young generation’s motivation. J. Bus. Econ. Manag.; 2023; 24, pp. 771-796. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2023.20439]

7. Raport SDG 2023: Kobiety Na Drodze Zrównoważonego Rozwoju; Główny Urząd Statystyczny: Warsaw, Poland, 2023.

8. Team Lewis Foundation. A Fair World for All Women and Girls; Team Lewis Foundation: London, UK, 2025; Available online: https://www.flipsnack.com/teamlewis/team-lewis-foundation-heforshe-iwd-2025/full-view.html (accessed on 21 June 2025).

9. Lodi, C.; Sacchi, A.; Vidoli, F. Gender politics, environmental behaviours, and local territories: Evidence from Italian municipalities. Ann. Reg. Sci.; 2025; 74, 52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00168-025-01377-3]

10. Legutko-Kobus, P.; Rzeńca, A.; Sobol, A. Leksykon Polityki Klimatycznej; Polskie Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistów Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych: Cracow, Poland, 2025.

11. Dacko, M.; Płonka, A. Idea rozwoju zrównoważonego w opiniach i postawach rolników. Rocz. Nauk. Ser.; 2017; 19, pp. 38-43.

12. Giddings, B.; Hopwood, B.; O’Brien, G. Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain. Dev.; 2002; 10, pp. 187-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.199]

13. Shulla, K.; Filho, W.L.; Lardjane, S.; Sommer, J.H.; Borgemeister, C. Sustainable development education in the context of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol.; 2020; 27, pp. 458-468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1721378]

14. Sawicka, J.; Marcinkowska, E. Environmental CSR and the Purchase Declarations of Generation Z Consumers. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 12759. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151712759]

15. Puiu, S.; Velickovic, M. Qualitative research on the perceptions of Romanian and Serbian entrepreneurs of SMEs regarding circular economy. J. Sustain. Bus.; 2025; 10, 12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40991-025-00120-7]

16. Shriban, M. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Strategic Imperative For Modern Businesses. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/10/11/corporate-social-responsibility-a-strategic-imperative-for-modern-businesses/ (accessed on 21 June 2025).

17. Nayernia, H.; Bahemia, H.; Papagiannidis, S. A systematic review of the implementation of industry 4.0 from the organisational perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2021; 60, pp. 4365-4396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.2002964]

18. Davies, P.A.; Fortt, S.E.; Huber, B.M. ESG Insights: 10 Things That Should Be Top of Mind in 2024. Latham & Watkins LLP, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governanceon, Tuesday, Jan 30, 2024; Available online: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/01/30/esg-insights-10-things-that-should-be-top-of-mind-in-2024/ (accessed on 23 June 2025).

19. Edukacja Klimatyczna w Polsce. Available online: https://edukacjaklimatyczna.org.pl/ (accessed on 11 May 2025).

20. Wasilewski, P. O Samorządach Uczniowskich; Rada Dzieci i Młodzieży Rzeczpospolitej przy Ministrze Edukacji Narodowej: Warsaw, Poland, 2019.

21. Radzewicz, J. Integracyjne I Silne Lokalne Rady Młodzieżowe; Polska Fundacja im. Roberta Schumana: Warszawa, Poland, 2019.

22. Wisniewski, R.; Brzezicka, J. Translocality on the real estate market: A new extended approach. Land Use Policy; 2020; 97, 104731. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104731]

23. Wisniewski, R.; Brzezicka, J. Glocal real estate market: Evidence from European countries. J. Eur. Real. Estate Res.; 2021; 14, pp. 120-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JERER-09-2019-0031]

24. NMInsights. Mapa Trendów 2024: Jakie Megatrendy Kształtują Świat?. Available online: https://nowymarketing.pl (accessed on 11 May 2025).

25. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations; 2nd ed. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2021.

26. Plastina, A.F. Social-Ecological Resilience and Environmental Change: Discourses, Frames and Ideologies; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2021.

27. Wisniewski, R.; Nowakowska-Krystman, A.; Daniluk, P.; Kownacki, T. Generation Z’s approach to the future of the environment—In search of the imperative (appendices, v2). RepOD, V2; 2025; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18150/Q5GXUY]

28. Boroditsky, L. How language shapes thought. Sci. Am.; 2011; 304, pp. 62-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62]

29. Leiserowitz, A.; Smith, N. Affective Imagery, Risk Perceptions, and Climate Change Communication. Ox. Res. Encycl. Clim. Sci.; 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.307]

30. Wierzbicka, A. Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1997.

31. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. Cultural scripts and interpersonal communication: Polish versus English. Łódź Pap. Pragmat.; 2010; 6, pp. 195-220.

32. Kulik, R.M. Sustainable Development; Britannica. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/topic/sustainable-development (accessed on 23 July 2025).

33. Biermann, F.; Hickmann, T.; Sénit, C.-A. The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals Transforming Governance Through Global Goals?; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781009082945]

34. Filho, W.L.; Wall, T.; Salvia, A.L.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Mifsud, M. The central role of climate action in achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Sci. Rep.; 2023; 13, 20582. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-47746-w]

35. Waas, T.; Hugé, J.; Verbruggen, A.; Wright, T. Sustainable Development: A bird’s-eye view. Sustainability; 2011; 3, pp. 1637-1661. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su3101637]

36. Meadowcroft, J. Sustainability; Britannica. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/science/sustainability (accessed on 23 July 2025).

37. WCED. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.

38. Langhelle, O. Why ecological modernisation and sustainable development should not be conflated. J. Environ. Policy Plan.; 2000; 2, pp. 303-322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714038563]

39. Lozano, R. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean. Prod.; 2008; 16, pp. 1838-1846. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008]

40. Whiteman, G.; Walker, B.; Perego, P. Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. J. Manag. Stud.; 2013; 50, pp. 307-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x]

41. Bai, X.; Surveyer, A.; Elmqvist, T.; Gatzweiler, F.W.; Güneralp, B.; Parnell, S.; Prieur-Richard, A.-H.; Shrivastava, P.; Siri, J.G.; Stafford-Smith, M. . Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.; 2016; 23, pp. 69-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.010]

42. Broman, G.; Robèrt, K.-H.; Collins, T.J.; Basile, G.; Baumgartner, R.J.; Larsson, T.; Huisingh, D. Science in support of systematic leadership toward sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 140, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.085]

43. Ranängen, H.; Cöster, M.; Isaksson, R.; Garvare, R. From global goals and planetary boundaries to public governance—A framework for prioritizing organizational sustainability activities. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 2741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10082741]

44. Valencia, S.C.; Simon, D.; Croese, S.; Nordqvist, J.; Oloko, M.; Sharma, T.; Buck, N.T.; Versace, I. Adapting the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda to the city level. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev.; 2019; 11, pp. 4-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2019.1573172]

45. Science Based Targets initiative. Science-Based Target-Setting Manual; version 4.1; SBTi World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/legacy/2017/04/SBTi-manual.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2025).

46. Berg, C. Sustainable Action: Overcoming the Barriers; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2020.

47. Meadowcroft, J. Sustainable development: A new(ish) idea for a new century?. Polit. Stud.; 2000; 48, pp. 370-387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00265]

48. Horzela, I.; Nowakowska-Krystman, A.; Piotrowska-Trybull, M.; Gryz, J.; Kownacki, T.; Wiśniewski, R.; Gromadzki, S. Energy portfolio of the Eastern Poland macro-region in the European Union. Energies; 2021; 14, 8426. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14248426]

49. Ruggerio, C.A. Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 786, 147481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481]

50. Clulow, V. Futures dilemmas for marketers Can stakeholder analysis add value?. Eur. J. Mark.; 2005; 39, pp. 978-997. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560510610671]

51. Schmieder-Ramirez, J.; Mallette, L.A. The SPELIT Power Matrix: Untangling the Organizational Environment with the SPELIT Leadership Tool; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2007.

52. Walden, J. Comparison of the STEEPLE Strategy Methodology and the Department of Defense’s PMESII-PT Methodology. Supply Chain Leadership Institute Available online: https://studylib.net/doc/8872805/comparison-of-the-steeple-strategy-methodology (accessed on 4 August 2025).

53. Stiglitz, J.E.; Sen, A.; Fitoussi, J.-P. Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up; The New Press: London, UK, 2010.

54. Sawaf, A.; Gabrielle, R. Sacred Commerce: A Blueprint for a New Humanity; 2nd ed. EQ Enterprises: New York, NY, USA, 2014.

55. Alibašić, H. Measuring the Sustainability Impact in Local Governments Using the Quadruple Bottom Line. Int. J. Sustain. Policy Pract.; 2017; 13, pp. 37-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18848/2325-1166/CGP/v13i03/37-45]

56. UNDP. Building Alliances for Sustainable Futures: Setting the Scene for the Hamburg Sustainabiity Confrencje. Proceedings of the UNDP at the Hamburg Sustainability Conference (HSC), The Global Meeting for New Sustainability Alliances; Hamburg, Germany, 7–8 October 2024.

57. Haksevenler, B.H.G.; Akpinar, A.; Sengul, Z.; Senik, B.; Orak, N.H.; Sorhun, S. Integrating Sustainable Development Into Urban Management: A Strategic Green City Index for Cities. Sustain. Dev.; 2025; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.70050]

58. Folke, C. Resilience (republished). Ecol. Soc.; 2016; 21, 44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444]

59. McKay, D.I.A.; Staal, A.; Abrams, J.F.; Winkelmann, R.; Sakschewski, B.; Loriani, S.; Fetzer, I.; Cornell, S.E.; Rockström, J.; Lenton, T.M. Exceeding 1.5 °C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science; 2022; 377, 6611. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abn7950]

60. Hickel, J.; O’nEill, D.W.; Fanning, A.L.; Zoomkawala, H. National responsibility for ecological breakdown: A fair-shares assessment of resource use, 1970–2017. Lancet Planet. Health; 2022; 6, pp. e342-e349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00044-4]

61. Richardson, K.; Steffen, W.; Lucht, W.; Bendtsen, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Donges, J.F.; Drüke, M.; Fetzer, I.; Bala, G.; von Bloh, W. . Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv.; 2023; 9, eadh2458. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458]

62. Global Footprint Network. Ecological Footprint Standards 2009. Available online: http://footprintstandards.org (accessed on 11 February 2024).

63. Global Footprint Network. Footprint Data Platform. Available online: https://data.footprintnetwork.org (accessed on 22 June 2025).

64. Fatemi, M.; Rezaei-Moghaddam, K.; Karami, E.; Hayati, D.; Wackernagel, M.; Vasa, L. An integrated approach of Ecological Footprint and AHP in human ecology. PLoS ONE; 2021; 16, e0250167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250167]

65. Global Footprint Network. Limitations and Criticism. Available online: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/limitations-and-criticisms/ (accessed on 22 June 2025).

66. Cudjoe, D.A.; Yumei, H.; Odum, B.; Baah, N. Is economic growth and development realizable for Africa?. World J. Soc. Sci. Hum.; 2019; 5, pp. 151-159. Available online: https://pubs.sciepub.com/wjssh/5/3/5/index.html (accessed on 4 August 2025).

67. Tietenberg, T.; Lewis, L. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; 12th ed. Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003213734]

68. Wilts, H.; O’BRien, M. A policy mix for resource efficiency in the EU. Ecol. Econ.; 2019; 155, pp. 59-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.004]

69. Hickel, J. Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World; Penguin: London, UK, 2020.

70. OECD. Better Life Index. Available online: https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ (accessed on 22 June 2025).

71. Social Progress Imperative. Social Progress Index. Available online: https://www.socialprogress.org/social-progress-index (accessed on 22 June 2025).

72. Furtado, C. Mit Rozwoju Gospodarczego; Państwowe Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne: Warszawa, Poland, 1982.

73. United Nations. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment; United Nations: Stockholm, Sweden, 1972; Available online: http://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/stockholm1972 (accessed on 22 June 2025).

74. International Council for Science (ICSU). Review of Targets for the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective; International Council for Science (ICSU): Paris, France, 2015; ISBN 978-0-930357-97-9

75. Ministerstwo Funduszy i Polityki Regionalnej. Wytyczne Oecd Dla Przedsiębiorstw Wielonarodowych; Ministerstwo Funduszy i Polityki Regionalnej: Warsaw, Poland, 2024; Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/fundusze-regiony/wytyczne-oecd (accessed on 22 June 2025).

76. OECD. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises-on-responsible-business-conduct_81f92357-en.html (accessed on 4 August 2025).

77. European Commission. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Available online: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/regulation-and-supervision/financial-services-legislation/implementing-and-delegated-acts/corporate-sustainability-reporting-directive_en (accessed on 22 June 2025).

78. Global Reporting Initiative. GRI Standards—Home Page. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/ (accessed on 22 June 2025).

79. IFRS Foundation. International Sustainability Standards Board. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/groups/international-sustainability-standards-board/ (accessed on 22 June 2025).

80. Severo, E.A.; De Guimarães, J.C.F.; Dorion, E.C.H. Cleaner production, social responsibility and eco-innovation: Generational perception in the transition to a green economy. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 319, 128624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128624]

81. Robèrt, K.-H.; Broman, G. Prisoner’s dilemma misleads business and policy making. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 140, pp. 10-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.069]

82. Streimikiene, D. Use of nudges for promotion of sustainable energy consumption in households. Contemp. Econ; 2023; 17, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.495]

83. Hunjra, A.I.; Bouri, E.; Azam, M.; Azam, R.I.; Dai, J. Economic growth and environmental sustainability in developing economies. Res. Int. Bus. Finance; 2024; 70, 102341. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102341]

84. Broman, G.I.; Robèrt, K.-H. Operative system for strategic sustainable development—Coordinating analysis, planning, action, and use of supports. Sustain. Dev.; 2025; 33, pp. 4759-4774. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.3357]

85. Masi, D.; Kumar, V.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Godsell, J. Towards a more circular economy: Exploring the awareness, practices, and barriers from a focal firm perspective. Prod. Plan. Control; 2018; 29, pp. 539-550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449246]

86. Tran-Thi-Thanh, T.; Nguyen-Thi-Phuong, A. Exploring the mechanisms underlying firms’ intent to adopt circular business models. Contemp. Econ.; 2023; 17, pp. 389-405. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.518]

87. Streimikis, J.; Ślusarczyk, B.; Siksnelyte-Butkiene, J.; Mura, L. Development of circular economy in the Visegrad Group of countries. Contemp. Econ.; 2024; 18, pp. 365-375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.543]

88. Streimikiene, D. Assessment of green growth in the Baltic States. Contemp. Econ.; 2024; 18, pp. 87-100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.527]

89. Badmus, J.O.; Alawode, O.S.; Bisiriyu, S.O. Green investments and inclusive growth: The case of the BRICS economies. Dev. Sustain. Econ. Finance; 2024; 2, 100019. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsef.2024.100019]

90. Mont, O.; Palgan, Y.V.; Bradley, K.; Zvolska, L. A decade of the sharing economy: Concepts, users, business and governance perspectives. J. Clean. Prod; 2020; 269, 122215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122215]

91. Khodayari, M.; Akbari, M.; Foroudi, P. The Sharing Economy: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2025; 49, e70010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.70010]

92. Feroz, A.K.; Zo, H.; Chiravuri, A. Digital Transformation and Environmental Sustainability: A Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1530. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031530]

93. Beier, G.; Fritzsche, K.; Kunkel, S.; Matthess, M.; Niehoff, S.; Reißig, M.; van Zyl-Bulitta, V. Green Digitized Economy? Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainability; IASS Fact Sheet 2020/1 Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS): Potsdam, Germany, 2020.

94. Papp-Váry, Á.; Pacsi, D.; Szabó, Z. Sustainable Aspects of Startups among Generation Z—Motivations and Uncertainties among Students in Higher Educations. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 15676. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su152115676]

95. Goel, A.; Masurkar, S.; Pathade, G.R. An overview of digital transformation and environmental sustainability. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 11079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su162411079]

96. Ezeigweneme, C.A.; Daraojimba, C.; Tula, O.A.; Adegbite, A.O.; Gidiagba, J.O. Technological innovations and environmental impact mitigation: A review. World J. Adv. Res. Rev.; 2024; 21, pp. 75-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.1.2687]

97. Wiśniewski, R.; Kownacki, T.; Daniluk, P.; Nowakowska-Krystman, A. Energy system development scenarios: Case of Poland. Energies; 2022; 15, 2962. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15082962]

98. Nižetić, S.; Šolić, P.; López-de-Ipiña González-de-Artaza, D.; Patrono, L. Internet of Things: Opportunities, issues and challenges towards a smart and sustainable future. J. Clean. Prod; 2020; 274, 122877. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122877]

99. Govindarajan, U.H.; Zhang, C.; Raut, R.D.; Narang, G.; Galdelli, A. Academic and patent progress on IoT technologies for environmental solutions. Technologies; 2025; 13, 64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/technologies13020064]

100. Promma, W.; Imjai, N.; Usman, B.; Aujirapongpan, S. The influence of AI literacy on complex problem-solving skills through systematic thinking skills and intuition thinking skills: An empirical study in Thai gen Z accounting students. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell.; 2025; 8, 100382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100382]

101. Malinowska, E.; Dzwonkowska-Godula, K.; Garncarek, E.; Czarnecka, J.; Brzezińska, J. Kulturowe Uwarunkowania Postaw Kobiet i Mężczyzn w Różnym Wieku Wobec Swojego Wyglądu i Zdrowia; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego: Łódź, Poland, 2017.

102. Eagly, A.H.; Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. The leadership styles of women and men. J. Soc. Issues; 2001; 57, pp. 781-797. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00241]

103. Millett, K. Sexual Politics; University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago, IL, USA, 1970.

104. Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J.; Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind; 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2010.

105. Paczka, E. Zamiana zachowań rynkowych pokolenia Z. Ekon.-Wrocław Econ. Rev.; 2020; 26, pp. 21-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19195/2658-1310.26.1.2]

106. Dąbrowska, A.; Shulhina, L. Zrównoważona konsumpcja i produkcja a zachowania konsumentów. Stud. I Pr. KZiF Zesz. Nauk.; 2024; 196, pp. 93-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33119/SIP.2024.196.7]

107. Gruszczyński, A. “Badaczka społeczna o Generacji Z”. Vogue Polska, 20 February 2024. Available online: https://www.vogue.pl/a/badaczka-spoleczna-o-generacji-z (accessed on 22 May 2025).

108. Młodzieżowy Strajk Klimatyczny. Available online: http://www.msk.earth/ (accessed on 22 May 2025).

109. Fridays For Future. Available online: https://fridaysforfuture.org/ (accessed on 22 May 2025).

110. Szpyrka, M. Kobiety w Nauce Na Fali Zmian: Jak Ue Napędza Równość Płci w Badaniach i Innowacjach. Available online: https://www.euractiv.pl/ (accessed on 22 May 2025).

111. United Nations Poland. Równość Płci a Cele Zrównoważonego Rozwoju. Available online: https://www.un.org.pl/rownosc-plci-a-cele-zrownowazonego-rozwoju (accessed on 22 May 2025).

112. Drygas, D. Jak Kobiety w Biznesie Nakręcają Zieloną Zmianę? “Reprezentują Kulturę Biofilną”. Biznes i Prawo; Gremi Media: Warsaw, Poland, 2024; Available online: https://kobieta.rp.pl/biznes-i-prawo/art41548621-jak-kobiety-w-biznesie-nakrecaja-zielona-zmiane-reprezentuja-kulture-biofiln (accessed on 4 August 2025).

113. Druga Edycja Women TechEU z Budżetem Zwiększonym o 10 Mln Euro. Available online: https://www.kpk.gov.pl/druga-edycja-women-techeu-z-budzetem-zwiekszonym-do-10-mln-euro (accessed on 4 August 2025).

114. MamStartup. Równość Płci w Innowacyjnych Projektach. Available online: https://mamstartup.pl/masz-technologie (accessed on 22 May 2025).

115. Wiśniewski, R.; Daniluk, P.; Nowakowska-Krystman, A.; Kownacki, T. Critical success factors of the energy sector security strategy: The case of Poland. Energies; 2022; 15, 6270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15176270]

116. Wiśniewski, R.; Nowakowska-Krystman, A.; Daniluk, P.; Kownacki, T. The impact of the rule of law on energy policy in EU member states. Energies; 2024; 17, 739. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en17030739]

117. Cieszkowski, Z.; Polak, E. Analiza praktycznych problemów rozwoju energetyki lokalnej. Maz. Stud. Reg.; 2011; 6, pp. 149-166. Available online: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/461294 (accessed on 22 June 2025).

118. Czaplicka-Kolarz, K.; Stańczyk, K.; Kapusta, K. Technology foresight for a vision of energy sector development in Poland till 2030. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change; 2009; 76, pp. 327-338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.05.007]

119. Ettmayr, C.; Lloyd, H. Local content requirements and the impact on the South African renewable energy sector. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci.; 2017; 20, 11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v20i1.1538]

120. Haapasalo, H.; Ingalsuo, K.; Lenkkeri, T. Linking strategy into operational management: A survey of BSC implementation in Finnish energy sector. Benchmarking; 2006; 13, pp. 701-717. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770610709068]

121. Pietrzak, M.B.; Igliński, B.; Kujawski, W.; Iwański, P. Energy transition in Poland—Assessment of the renewable energy sector. Energies; 2021; 14, 2046. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14082046]

122. Times Higher Education. World University Rankings 2025. Available online: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/latest (accessed on 22 May 2025).

123. UEHS 2025. Available online: https://vizja.pl/wspolpraca-miedzynarodowa/ (accessed on 22 May 2025).

124. TIBCO Software Inc. Statistica Data Analysis System; Version. 13 TIBCO Software Inc.: San Ramon, CA, USA, 2017.

125. Andruszkiewicz, K.; Grzybowska-Brzezińska, M.; Grzywińska-Rąpca, M.; Wiśniewski, P.D. Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behavior of Representatives of Generation Z from the Example of Poland and Germany. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 15068. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su152015068]

126. Balińska, A.; Jaska, E.; Werenowska, A. Environmentally and Socially Responsible Behavior of Women from Generation Z in the Context of Tourist Activity. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 5603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16135603]

127. Mata-Lima, H. Barriers to Sustainability: Reflections on Social and Environmental Dimensions. Rev. Gestão Soc. E Ambient.; 2024; 18, e010300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n12-070]

128. Ergun, S.J.; Karadeniz, Z.D.; Rivas, M.F. Climate change risk perception in Europe: Country-level factors and gender differences. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun.; 2024; 11, 1573. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03761-4]

129. Lipczyński, T. Siła Europejskich Gospodarek. Eurostat Podał Nowe Dane o PKB na Mieszkańca 2025. Available online: https://forsal.pl/gospodarka/pkb/artykuly/9765824,sila-europejskich-gospodarek-eurostat-podal-nowe-dane-o-pkb-na-mieszk.html (accessed on 23 June 2025).

130. European Environment Agency. European City Air Quality Viewer. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/air-pollution/european-city-air-quality-viewer (accessed on 23 June 2025).

131. Inglehart, R.; Welzel, C. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The human development Sequence; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005.

132. Pickering, J.; Bäckstrand, K.; Schlosberg, D. Between environmental and climate justice: Climate change, social justice, and the governance of nature. Environ. Polit.; 2015; 24, pp. 361-379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1023575]

133. Bocken, N.; Ritala, P.; Albareda, L.; Verburg, R. Innovation for Sustainability: Business Transformations Towards a Better World; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2019; Available online: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-97385-2.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2025).

134. Khatami, F.; Cagno, E.; Khatami, R. Circular Economy in the Agri-Food System at the Country Level—Evidence from European Countries. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 9497. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16219497]

135. Spaargaren, G.; Mol, A.P.J. Greening global consumption: Redefining politics and authority. Glob. Environ. Change; 2008; 18, pp. 350-359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.04.010]

136. MacGregor, S. ‘Gender and climate change’: From impacts to discourses. J. Ind. Ocean. Reg.; 2010; 6, pp. 223-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19480881.2010.536669]

137. Gaard, G. Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing species in a material feminist environmentalism. Fem. Form.; 2011; 23, pp. 26-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ff.2011.0017]