IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i3p1032-d315042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender Parity within the Gender—Sustainability Paradigm: A Case Study on Management Structures of the Romanian Academia

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina Drumea

    (Transilvania University of Brasov, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, 500036 Brasov, Romania)

  • Bogdan Băcanu

    (Transilvania University of Brasov, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, 500036 Brasov, Romania)

  • Carmen Elena Anton

    (Transilvania University of Brasov, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, 500036 Brasov, Romania)

  • Adriana Veronica Litra

    (Transilvania University of Brasov, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, 500036 Brasov, Romania)

  • Steliana Busuioceanu

    (Transilvania University of Brasov, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, 500036 Brasov, Romania)

  • Alexandra Doroș

    (Dragan European University of Lugoj, Faculty of Economic Sciences, 305500 Lugoj, Romania)

Abstract

Our study proposes a Romanian national perspective of the gender–sustainability paradigm in higher education under the Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG5) approach. The starting point is the interlinkage of the two concepts, gender parity and sustainability, depicted on a fundamental societal domain. Data collection was completed following a census approach, resulting in staffing data on 47 Romanian state-owned universities. Data collected envisaged the tenure teaching staff, divided into two gender groups; the count was focused on executive roles and collective managerial elected bodies for the 2015–2019 mandate. The gender situation was analyzed quantitatively by the number of teaching staff, their gender structure, and their representation in the executive functions and collective decision-making bodies. We calculated gender indexes and used statistical correlation coefficients to explain the relations between the different categories of personnel and their influence on establishing the management structures. The results of the gender configuration analysis were further associated with the latest national meta-ranking of Romanian universities. Our findings show that Romanian universities demonstrate sustainability under SDG5 through their institutional capacity to use either feminine majorities or a statistically detected pro-female voting propensity in order to construct optimally gendered management structures through vote only.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina Drumea & Bogdan Băcanu & Carmen Elena Anton & Adriana Veronica Litra & Steliana Busuioceanu & Alexandra Doroș, 2020. "Gender Parity within the Gender—Sustainability Paradigm: A Case Study on Management Structures of the Romanian Academia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-36, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:3:p:1032-:d:315042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/1032/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/1032/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosa Puertas & Luisa Marti, 2019. "Sustainability in Universities: DEA-GreenMetric," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-17, July.
    2. James Boyce, 1994. "Inequality as a Cause of Environmental Degradation," Published Studies ps1, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
    3. David Ciplet & J. Timmons Roberts & Mizan Khan, 2013. "The Politics of International Climate Adaptation Funding: Justice and Divisions in the Greenhouse," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(1), pages 49-68, February.
    4. Angela Wroblewski, 2019. "Women in Higher Education Management: Agents for Cultural and Structural Change?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Goldin, Claudia, 1992. "Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195072709.
    6. Sarah Bracking, 2015. "Performativity in the Green Economy: how far does climate finance create a fictive economy?," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(12), pages 2337-2357, December.
    7. Ralph Hansmann & Dagmar Schröter, 2018. "Equal Opportunities in Academic Careers? How Mid-Career Scientists at ETH Zurich Evaluate the Impact of Their Gender and Age," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    8. Boyce, James K., 1994. "Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 169-178, December.
    9. Paula Otero-Hermida & Mónica García-Melón, 2018. "Gender Equality Indicators for Research and Innovation from a Responsible Perspective: The Case of Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hayet Kerras & Jorge Luis Sánchez-Navarro & Erasmo Isidro López-Becerra & María Dolores de-Miguel Gómez, 2020. "The Impact of the Gender Digital Divide on Sustainable Development: Comparative Analysis between the European Union and the Maghreb," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-30, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adaman, Fikret & Gökşen, Fatoş & Zenginobuz, Unal, 2003. "Political economy of citizens’ participation in environmental improvement: The case of Istanbul," MPRA Paper 375, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Mark Sommer & Kurt Kratena, 2016. "The Carbon Footprint of European Households and Income Distribution. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 113," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58787.
    3. David Barkin, 2005. "Wealth, Poverty and Sustainable Development," Development and Comp Systems 0506003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Tunahan Haciimamoglu & Oguzhan Sungur & Korkmaz Yildirim & Mustafa Yapar, 2025. "Rethinking the Climate Change–Inequality Nexus: The Role of Wealth Inequality, Economic Growth, and Renewable Energy in CO 2 Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Chao Zhang & Ruifa Hu, 2020. "Does Fertilizer Use Intensity Respond to the Urban-Rural Income Gap? Evidence from a Dynamic Panel-Data Analysis in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    6. El Tinay, Hassan & Schor, Juliet B., 2025. "Do economists think about climate change and inequality? Semantic analysis and topic modeling of top five economics journals," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    7. Alassane Drabo, 2011. "Impact of Income Inequality on Health: Does Environment Quality Matter?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(1), pages 146-165, January.
    8. Nam Thanh Vu & Hung Quang Bui & Tuan Anh Pham & Duc Hong Vo, 2024. "Fintech development and environmental sustainability: Does income inequality matter?," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 350-369, June.
    9. Karin Andrea Wigger & Dean A. Shepherd, 2020. "We’re All in the Same Boat: A Collective Model of Preserving and Accessing Nature-Based Opportunities," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(3), pages 587-617, May.
    10. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation of land-use scenarios in the Chaco Salteño: Complementing the three-pillar sustainability approach with environmental justice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    11. Jeong Hwan Bae, 2018. "Impacts of Income Inequality on CO2 Emission under Different Climate Change Mitigation Policies," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 34, pages 187-211.
    12. Sirisha C. Naidu, 2005. "Heterogeneity and Common Pool Resources: Collective Management of Forests in Himachal Pradesh, India," Working Papers 2005-8, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    13. Benjamin Michallet & Giuseppe Lucio Gaeta & François Facchini, 2015. "Greening Up or Not? The Determinants Political Parties’ Environmental Concern: An Empirical Analysis Based on European Data (1970-2008)," Working Papers 2015.25, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    14. Kemkes, Robin J., 2015. "The role of natural capital in sustaining livelihoods in remote mountainous regions: The case of Upper Svaneti, Republic of Georgia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 22-31.
    15. Nicolli, Francesco & Gilli, Marianna & Vona, Francesco, 2025. "Inequality and climate change: Two problems, one solution?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    16. Vincent Anesi & Philippe De Donder, 2011. "Secondary issues and party politics: an application to environmental policy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 36(3), pages 519-546, April.
    17. Simona-Roxana Ulman & Costica Mihai & Cristina Cautisanu, 2020. "Peculiarities of the Relation between Human and Environmental Wellbeing in Different Stages of National Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-26, October.
    18. Zhang, Rui & Sharma, Rajesh & Tan, Zhixiong & Kautish, Pradeep, 2022. "Do export diversification and stock market development drive carbon intensity? The role of renewable energy solutions in top carbon emitter countries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 1318-1328.
    19. Wu, Tong & Rocha, Juan C. & Berry, Kevin & Chaigneau, Tomas & Hamann, Maike & Lindkvist, Emilie & Qiu, Jiangxiao & Schill, Caroline & Shepon, Alon & Crépin, Anne-Sophie & Folke, Carl, 2024. "Triple Bottom Line or Trilemma? Global Tradeoffs Between Prosperity, Inequality, and the Environment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    20. Dong, Xiao-Ying & Hao, Yu, 2018. "Would income inequality affect electricity consumption? Evidence from China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 215-227.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:3:p:1032-:d:315042. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.