# Empowering sustainability: can women engineers play a key role in achieving a sustainable future?

Mantoura Nakad, Husni Charif, Linda Gardelle, Rami J Abboud

► To cite this version:

Mantoura Nakad, Husni Charif, Linda Gardelle, Rami J Abboud. Empowering sustainability: can women engineers play a key role in achieving a sustainable future?. Sustainable Futures, 2025, pp.100977. 10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100977. hal-05155597

HAL Id: hal-05155597

https://ensta.hal.science/hal-05155597v1

Submitted on 10 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Empowering sustainability: Can women engineers play a key role in achieving a sustainable future?

Mantoura Nakad<sup>a,c,*</sup> ◊, Husni Charif<sup>b ◊</sup>, Linda Gardelle<sup>c ◊</sup>, Rami J Abboud<sup>a ◊</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

Sustainable development

SDG

Gender

Engineering education

Perceptions

Awareness

## ABSTRACT

Engineers are considered key professionals and the main driver for achieving the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Despite this, engineering has long been thought to be man's job, leading to persistent gender disparity in the profession. This study aims to gain a nuanced understanding of gender differences, if any, in engineers' awareness and attitudes towards sustainable development (SD). It aims to assess students' perceptions regarding the importance of sustainability and obstacles to SD. It also examines their views on sustainable practices, design projects, university encouragement, campus initiatives, and the role of engineers in advancing sustainability. A structured online survey, consisting of closed-ended questions, was designed to evaluate students' knowledge and perceptions of sustainability and to identify meaningful differences between male and female students in the field of engineering using the Faculty of Engineering, at the University of Balamand, in Lebanon. The results show that female engineering students scored higher than their male peers with two aspects being of statistical significance related to SD importance. Moreover, female students demonstrated a stronger awareness of SD related challenges and placed greater emphasis on the social pillar of sustainability. These findings highlight the critical importance of encouraging more women to pursue engineering studies and remain active in the profession. Empowering women in engineering can contribute meaningfully to sustain the engineering profession by diversifying it, and by shaping a more sustainable and equitable world.

## 1. Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) officially launched the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a target date of 2030, focusing on the three pillars of sustainable development (SD), namely, environmental, social and economic [1,2]. Significant efforts have been dedicated to achieve these goals, and progress has been tracked using specific indicators. However, much of the research and initiatives have been concentrated on the environmental and economic pillars of sustainability, leading to less attention being given to the social pillar [3]. As a result, there is less awareness about social aspects when discussing sustainability.

Gender equality, SDG 5, which is a relatively well-known crucial social SDG, requires considerable attention for the significant gender inequality gap that still exists worldwide. Perception, cultural norms and religious beliefs play a major role particularly in countries where

traditional values hold strong influence. For example, in many Arab countries, it is still not widely accepted that women can be prominent politicians, head of states, presidents or prime ministers [4–6] or to even pursue careers in what many may perceive as men’s jobs, like engineering for example [7]. Women aspiring to undertake these roles may face societal skepticism, institutional barriers, or even family opposition. These dynamics can hinder progress toward gender equality, a fundamental component of social sustainability, which is proven, for example, in Lebanon’s SDG dashboard (Fig. 1). The latter shows the remaining major challenges by depicting the alarming red SDGs, including SDG 5.

Engineering has long been thought to be a man's job [9,10], and the number of women engineers remains significantly low despite ongoing attempts to encourage females to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Despite that the first few female engineers earned their engineering degrees at the end of the 19th

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Dean's Office, Faculty of Engineering, University of Balamand, Kelhat, Koura, Lebanon</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Department of Statistics, Faculty of Business and Management, University of Balamand, Kelhat, Koura, Lebanon</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> FoAP Research Unit (Cnam, InstitutAgro, ENSTA Institut Polytechnique de Paris), 29806 Brest Cedex 9, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: mantoura.nakad@balamand.edu.lb (M. Nakad), husni.charif@balamand.edu.lb (H. Charif), linda.gardelle@ensta.fr (L. Gardelle), rjabboud@balamand.edu.lb (R.J. Abboud).</footnote>
Century and the turn of the 20th Century [11], and even with the recent relative increase in females studying engineering, the number of females actively working as engineers remains significantly low [12,13]. In effect, working women engineers keep on dropping from the workforce year on year as is the case for example in developed countries like UK [12], where the percentage had surprisingly dropped from 16.5 % in 2022 to 15.7 % in 2023, accounting for over 38,000 women leaving the engineering profession. Despite this, the latter had not affected the total percentage of engineers as a UK workforce. These percentages are not any better in other leading western countries with females representing only about 13 % of the total engineering workforce in the USA as per a 2019 consensus report [13].

The significant gap globally between men and women studying one branch or another of STEM, which was reported to be a maximum of 35 % with only 8 % of women studying engineering and 5 % studying science/mathematics, should raise alarm bells [14]. STEM careers, especially engineering, are considered to be critical jobs for driving innovation to address the needs of the future of the 3 developmental pillars to sustain growth for future generations [14]. Engineers are considered to be key professionals and the main drive for achieving the UN 17 SDGs by 2030 [15,16]. Their role includes designing and implementing innovative solutions for difficult global challenges, such as combating climate change, ensuring clean water, renewable energy and resilient infrastructure. In fact, at the turn of the 21st Century, the 2004 Barcelona Declaration, which was announced during the 2nd International Conference on Engineering Education for Sustainable Development (EESD), demanded that all higher education engineering faculties and schools evolve their curricula [17]. Specifically, they were asked to infuse new knowledge leading to engineers to gain wider and broader knowledge and understanding of complex design issues whilst applying engineering ethical considerations [17].

Whilst significant strides have been made in integrating sustainability into engineering curricula [18-20], an important research question arises in addressing SDG 5, which focuses on gender equality: can or should women be encouraged to play a more constructive role in engineering towards fulfilling these 17 SDGs? This study also aims to gain a nuanced understanding of gender differences, if any, in engineers' awareness and attitudes toward SD. It follows from the studies by Nakad and Kovesi [21] and Nakad et al. [22] who assessed the engineering students' awareness and perceptions toward SD at the University of Balamand (UOB) in Lebanon, and aims to focus on the males and females perceptions for: (a) SD importance, (b) SD design projects, (c) SD obstacles, (d) SD practice, (e) SD university encouragement, (f) SD campus practice, and (g) the role of engineers towards SD. Baytiyeh [23] found out that female engineering graduates possessed adequate theoretical knowledge and technical skills before graduation. As such, our further

research question is whether women engineers have better awareness and perceptions towards the role of engineers to achieve the SDGs targets than men engineers.

## 2. Literature review

Limited research has been undertaken in assessing the roles, awareness and perceptions of women studying STEM, in particular engineering, and what they can bring to the profession. In effect, and despite a lot of STEM initiatives had taken place to incorporate these disciplines in primary and secondary schools' levels, aiming to attract young people, especially girls, towards technology, a discipline that is highly needed for a sustainable future, it does not seem to have paid dividend [24]. Whilst Güdel et al.'s study concluded that there was no gender difference in the ability for "designing in the context of sustainability", the outcome showed that boys were more interested in taking jobs requiring technological input of design, innovation and development when compared to girls [24]. The latter was further echoed by López-Iñesta et al. [25] who undertook a pilot study based on an initiative by the School of Engineering at the University of Valencia trying to promote STEM careers to increase and subsequently retain female students choosing STEM studies. The pilot study concluded to show that despite all concerted efforts, STEM women including those who studied engineering tend to move to other professional specialties, requesting either time-off or going part-time for different reasons. Some of those reasons were reported by Cech and Blair-Loy [26] to be related to maternity leave, upbringing children and taking care of elderly. The concerns were further emphasized by López-Iñesta et al. [25] who highlighted that despite the genuine efforts in promoting STEM disciplines for female students, the female numbers remained low, in their case in Spain, dropping from 30 % in the academic year 1985-1986 to 13 %, 30 years on, in the academic year 2017-2018. If one is to take stock on this ongoing saga and look at the extensive study that was performed mid-way in 1999 by Schinzel [27], the study provided an early warning of the decline in females studying and/or working in STEM disciplines in many countries and not only in a select few. In fact, the study raised a serious question indicating that there is a significant difference in female studying computer science courses in developing countries and industrially developed countries, with the latter being far worse especially when comparing the western European countries with their eastern counterparts. For example, whilst the number of female students in the mid-80s reached 20 % in Germany, this had dropped to between 6 and 10 % in the late 90 s. Whereas the number of female students in Bulgaria, whilst it had dropped from 70 % in 1987 to 50 % in the late 90s, it was still respectable and equitable with male students. The low number of women or female studying STEM does not seem to

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Lebanon SDG Dashboard (UN-Lebanon - accessed 25/01/2025) [8].</figcaption></figure>
have varied by much as recently reported by Yates and Plagnol [28]. Von Haartman et al. [29] looked at the issue from a different perspective by comparing sustainability learning between engineering students (predominantly males) and nursing students (predominantly females). Their study aimed at analyzing students' perceptions on both programs with the assumption that women have tended to be more concerned about environmental sustainability than men are. The data was collected from two different surveys that were conducted in 2010 and 2013, in which the same students answered the same questions at the beginning and at the end of their studies. The results showed that engineering students improved their sustainability performance significantly more than the nursing students. The study also showed that women increased their actions significantly more during their studies than men. Each discipline had a different focused interpretation of sustainability. The nurses focused on social issues whilst the engineers drifted towards environmental issues. The authors concluded with a dilemma knowing that female students tend to be more environmentally focused but somehow they tend to drift away from disciplines that focus on environmental sustainability like engineering. In assessing the gender gap in household pro-environmental behavior, Kennedy and Kmec's study [30] re-affirmed that women self-report higher levels of engagement in pro-environmental behavior (PEB), which is unpaid work, more than men do as it is tied to women's economic status in distinct ways when compared to men. By virtue that PEB is unpaid work, it tends to be under-valued by policy-makers and scholars alike. Hence, the authors suggested that instead of concluding the discussion with reports of gender differences in PEB, researchers should use these differences as a springboard to consider more effective explanations for these differences and to discover the relationship between women's higher level of PEB engagement and their status in both the public and private spheres. They concluded in suggesting that women's pro-environmental behaviors are linked to their economic status and household roles, highlighting a gendered relationship between environmental actions and economic factors.

The gender gap exists in many aspects in society and not in STEM alone, something that Shinbrot et al. [31] tried to assess over a two-year global study investigating the perceptions of women and men who were engaged in SD agendas. The study highlighted new perspectives to existing literature on women as SD leaders. Despite this, the study revealed that women leaders in SD faced barriers such as patriarchal structures, lack of self-confidence, and gender differences. It further highlighted the need for global women's movements and male allies to work together to confront hierarchical domination and oppression, and to change structures and perceptions of women leaders in SD. The latter resonates well with the study by Galbreath and Tisch [32] who analyzed the impact of women in leadership roles on sustainable practices within the Australian wine industry. They found that having women in both CEO and operations manager roles positively correlated with environmentally sustainable practices. The latter complemented the findings of Elm et al. [33], which showed that women had shown higher level of moral reasoning than men do, which is a cognitive skill that people utilize in resolving moral dilemmas. On the other hand, ethical values are those that are set on acceptable moral principles. According to recent research, women seem to be less tolerant of unethical behavior than men [34,35], and are more sensitive than men to environmental challenges because of their ethical implications, which may be partially explained by a lack of tolerance for unethical behavior [36]. Women would therefore be expected to readily advocate on behalf of stakeholders to achieve higher levels of environmentally sustainable practices, as they seem to be more aware of firms' social responsibilities and possess moral and ethical values that motivate them to take action in these areas more than men. Furthermore, Kawgan-Kagan [37] showed that women were greener than men but rejected innovative technology and drove actively less in a study that was conducted amongst 2400 respondents from four major cities in Germany. The study analyzed travel patterns and preferences and found that women were more concerned about

environmentally-friendly mobility. It further improved understanding of sustainable urban mobility, highlighting the need to consider gender differences in planning processes to improve urban living by reducing space scarcity, emissions, and noise exposure. The latter study's findings were further echoed by Zhao et al.'s [38] literature study and showed that women showed a more positive green consumption intention, consumed less carbon, and purchased green products more frequently. Whereas men were doing better than women in terms of environmental knowledge, and in some regions, they expressed higher concerns about environmental problems, which ties in nicely with the dilemma that was eluded to by Von Haartman et al. [29] too. Furthermore, Echavarren's study [39] supports the ecofeminist perspective that women exhibit greater environmental concern than men. It examines how gender egalitarian attitudes influence this gap, suggesting that societal roles and values contribute to differences in environmental concern. So why are not women then gearing to study disciplines that focus on environmental challenges like engineering? The answer to the last question may be explained by Msambwa et al. [40] who tried to put a finger on the reasons as to why the percentage of girls studying STEM disciplines had declined. Their systematic review summarized 3 main reasons for the decline: personal, behavioral and environmental, which are not far off from Baytieh's findings in 2012 [23]. The three can possibly be linked to SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). Self-belief in one's abilities is an important factor to excel, to understand their environment and above all avoid stereotypes. Hence, such a decline in female STEM students can no longer be related to the level of economic development, or religion or societal influence – it must be multifactorial, and the serious decline should be tackled globally somehow.

Hence, in order to promote STEM disciplines amongst girls, educational institutions have for sure an important role to play from kindergarten all the way to university – it is not the job of one or the other. Such concerted educational efforts can promote lifelong learning strategies for all, fulfilling several targets within SDG 4 and SDG 5 to secure quality education and gender equality respectively whilst aiming to promote engineering and science for sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11) through innovation and industry (SDG 9).

# 3. Methodology

## 3.1. *Study environment*

The study was undertaken in Lebanon, at the Faculty of Engineering at UOB. The environment is in our opinion ideal to assess the perception and awareness of male versus female student engineers for what Lebanon, as a country, represents in its geographical location between the West and the East, and educationally, culturally and financially. Since its independence in 1943, Lebanon had seen a relatively good period of stability until the mid-seventies with its capital Beirut dubbed as the Paris and the Switzerland of the Middle East for its lifestyle mimicking western societies whilst preserving its mix Arabic culture and population of Christians and Muslims. In effect, Lebanon has the most religiously diverse community in the Middle East, and probably the world for its population size, with 18 recognized religious sects [41]. In addition, with Lebanon hardly having had a chance to catch its breath since the start of the civil war in 1975, including several invasions by foreign countries, the latest being in September 2024, as well as its financial sector melt-down starting in 2020 due to accumulating political corruptions for decades, meant that Lebanon had not had time to focus on establishing strategies to implement the SDGs despite its close ties with the UN. The one sector that has truly so far escaped being destroyed or ruined is the education sector and its quality education. The latter is what preserves societies from being completely destroyed [42]. As such, the Lebanese society makes it an ideal environment to assess females' perception towards engineering as Lebanon is a country at the crossroads of multiple influences (European, Mediterranean, Gulf
countries, etc.) with acumen for excellence in education despite all adversities.

## 3.2. Development of the questionnaire

To validate the aforementioned research questions and assess differences in attitudes and perceptions between male and female engineering students at UOB on various aspects related to SD, the authors developed a questionnaire, in English, consisting of separate segments designed to discover the main segregating dimensions that exist. The latter is based on a previous study by the first author and the literature that was conducted in the article specifically from articles referenced 2–6 [21]. Since this study is original and not tackled in previous research, validation of the questions was further carried out through a group of judges consisting of peer academic professors as well as expert consultants. The judges evaluated the clarity of the questions, their relevance, and the adequacy of the scales employed. A pilot pretest was then conducted through a small group of fifteen engineering students. This was followed by a “soft launch” of the complete survey in order to capture any presence of technical issues before the final questionnaire was distributed via electronic mail. Since this study is not concerned with developing new scales but rather identifying and highlighting differences in attitudes and perceptions of engineering students on various facets of SD, the authors are not reporting an extensive study of validity and reliability of scales. As mentioned earlier, face validity was confirmed by the judges. The internal consistencies for the set of measures in each of the seven dimensions under consideration were all above 0.7 reflecting adequate composite reliability (the Cronbach’s alphas are respectively: 0.809; 0.715; 0.753; 0.805; 0.897; 0.898; 0.851).

Besides the demographic questions in the first section of the questionnaire, the second section titled “SD perceptions and interests”, includes 3 sets of questions grouped under common themes with each set measured on a relevant 5-point likert scale. The first set addressed the perceived importance (Scale: Not at all important – Extremely Important) of SD to own personal and professional life, family, country, environment, social/cultural issues, economic issues, and impact on strengthening woman’s rights and overall wellbeing (items are listed in Table 1). This was followed by a set of questions to help identify the areas of SD projects and practices that the student engineers think are most importantly related to SD. The areas tapped on include the agreement extent (Scale: Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree) that

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Comparison of average perceptions of SD importance.</caption><thead><tr><th>Questions</th><th>Female (n = 85) Mean (SD)</th><th>Male (n = 198) Mean (SD)</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>How important is SD for your Personal & Professional life</td><td>3.67 (1.05)</td><td>3.58 (1.00)</td><td>.47</td><td>0.495</td></tr><tr><td>How important is SD for your Family</td><td>3.36 (1.16)</td><td>3.36 (1.12)</td><td>.00</td><td>0.994</td></tr><tr><td>How important is SD for your Country and Future Generations</td><td>4.14 (1.11)</td><td>4.04 (1.07)</td><td>.51</td><td>0.475</td></tr><tr><td>How important is SD for your Environment</td><td>3.48 (1.02)</td><td>3.39 (0.95)</td><td>.55</td><td>0.458</td></tr><tr><td>SD is more importantly related to Social/Cultural issues</td><td>2.98 (0.80)</td><td>2.98 (0.79)</td><td>.01</td><td>0.935</td></tr><tr><td>SD is more importantly related to Economic issues</td><td>3.24 (0.92)</td><td>3.19 (0.83)</td><td>.19</td><td>0.663</td></tr><tr><td>SD is more importantly related to Strengthening Women's rights and participation is essential for achieving it</td><td>3.13 (0.93)</td><td>2.78 (0.99)</td><td>7.51</td><td>0.007***</td></tr><tr><td>I expect my quality of life or overall Wellbeing to be better than my parent's when I reach their age</td><td>3.42 (1.04)</td><td>3.18 (1.06)</td><td>3.24</td><td>0.073*</td></tr></tbody></table>

sustainability is more importantly related to the (1) environment, (2) social/cultural issues, (3) economic issues, or political (items are listed in Table 2). The third basket in Section 2 of the questionnaire addressed potential obstacles confronting the achievement of SD as perceived by the participants (Scale: Strongly Agree-Strongly Disagree) including the lack of awareness, technology, supportive environment, educational programs and financial support as well as other political obstacles (refer to Table 3).

Section 3 of the questionnaire titled “SD practices and strategies” includes 3 sets of questions. The first addressed the importance of various daily life actions or practices (Scale: No Important at all – Very Important) to better achieve sustainability. The potential actions listed are to: (1) minimize waste, (2) use of public transport, (3) use of renewable or green energy, or (4) taking environmentally friendly initiatives (items are listed in Table 4). In the second set, respondents were asked to gauge the university’s commitment (Scale: Not committed at all – Strongly committed) towards encouraging SD education through offering (1) orientation programs and extracurricular activities, (2) environmental and research centers, or through (3) participating in SD related projects, or (4) offering courses in which instructors emphasize SD (refer to Table 5). A third set sought students’ agreement extent on whether the university currently adopts on-campus practices towards achieving SD. In particular, students marked their agreement level on university practices such as (1) energy saving, (2) Recycling and use of environmentally friendly products, (3) Planting and forestation, (4) group transportation, and (5) medical practices (refer to Table 6).

The fourth and final section of the questionnaire titled “SD education and the engineering profession” asked participants to gauge their role as engineers in achieving SD. The respondents rated their agreement with statements like (1) Engineers are key players in achieving sustainability, (2) Engineers have more responsibility in generating solutions, and that (3) SD can only be achieved through the engineering profession. Furthermore, students were asked to state the extent to which they agree with (4) the university and the faculty of engineering highlights the role of engineers in following SD education, (5) the engineering profession in Lebanon encourages its engineers to apply SD practices, and finally (6) engineering students with SD knowledge have a higher chance of employability (refer to Table 7).

## 3.3. Obtaining information

The questionnaire was distributed via an electronic platform (Google Forms), after receiving ethical clearance from the Research Ethics Committee. All questions in the second section marked as mandatory to prevent missing data. Participants were informed upfront that their responses would be used collectively for academic and scientific purposes only. They were also assured that their privacy and the security of their information would be protected in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants who agreed to the terms and consented to participate were granted access to the first section of

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Comparison of average perceptions of SD projects.</caption><thead><tr><th>In what area do you think SD Projects & Practices should be the most related to?</th><th>Female (n = 85) Mean (SD)</th><th>Male (n = 198) Mean (SD)</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Environment</td><td>4.49 (0.70)</td><td>4.28 (0.81)</td><td>4.40</td><td>0.037**</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td>4.08 (0.76)</td><td>3.87 (0.78)</td><td>4.57</td><td>0.033**</td></tr><tr><td>Economical</td><td>4.22 (0.76)</td><td>4.08 (0.84)</td><td>1.96</td><td>0.163</td></tr><tr><td>Political</td><td>3.74 (0.92)</td><td>3.67 (1.01)</td><td>0.296</td><td>0.587</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>\*, \*,\* \*,\*\* indicate significance at the 10 %, 5 %, and 1 % significance level.</footnote>

<footnote>\*, \*,\* \*,\*\* indicate significance at the 10 %, 5 %, and 1 % significance level.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Comparison of average perceptions of SD obstacles.</caption><thead><tr><th>What is stopping your society from achieving SD?</th><th>Female (n = 85) Mean (SD)</th><th>Male (n = 198) Mean (SD)</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lack of Awareness</td><td>4.04 (1.10)</td><td>3.65 (1.08)</td><td>7.65</td><td>0.006***</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of Technology</td><td>3.41 (1.12)</td><td>3.19 (1.06)</td><td>2.60</td><td>0.108</td></tr><tr><td>Political Reasons</td><td>3.78 (1.19)</td><td>3.85 (1.16)</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.610</td></tr><tr><td>Non Supportive Environment</td><td>3.56 (1.22)</td><td>3.29 (1.13)</td><td>3.28</td><td>0.071*</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of Educational Programs</td><td>3.95 (1.11)</td><td>3.67 (1.08)</td><td>4.10</td><td>0.044**</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of Financial Support</td><td>3.88 (1.06)</td><td>3.56 (1.16)</td><td>4.99</td><td>0.026**</td></tr></tbody></table>

\*, \*, \*\*\* indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level.

<table><caption>**Table 4**
Comparison of average perceptions of SD better practice.</caption><thead><tr><th>To what extent do you think the below actions or practices are important in your daily life to better achieve sustainability?</th><th>Female (n = 85) Mean (SD)</th><th>Male (n = 198) Mean (SD)</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Minimize energy, waste, water, and plastic usage</td><td>4.25 (0.79)</td><td>4.02 (0.93)</td><td>3.84</td><td>0.051*</td></tr><tr><td>Walk, cycle, or use of public transportation</td><td>4.12 (0.97)</td><td>3.91 (0.94)</td><td>2.74</td><td>0.099*</td></tr><tr><td>Use renewable energy</td><td>4.44 (0.79)</td><td>4.22 (0.89)</td><td>3.81</td><td>0.052*</td></tr><tr><td>Environmentally friendly initiatives</td><td>4.36 (0.91)</td><td>4.11 (0.92)</td><td>4.73</td><td>0.031**</td></tr></tbody></table>

\*, \*, \*\*\* indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level.

<table><caption>**Table 5**
Comparison of average perceptions of extent to which university encourages SD education.</caption><thead><tr><th>To what extent is the university committed to encouraging SD education?</th><th>Female (n = 85) Mean (SD)</th><th>Male (n = 198) Mean (SD)</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Orientation programs & extra-curricular activities</td><td>3.85 (1.04)</td><td>3.70 (1.03)</td><td>1.26</td><td>0.263</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental and research Centers</td><td>3.73 (1.07)</td><td>3.60 (0.97)</td><td>0.98</td><td>0.324</td></tr><tr><td>Participation in sustainability related projects</td><td>4.11 (0.95)</td><td>3.85 (0.97)</td><td>4.27</td><td>0.040**</td></tr><tr><td>Courses and instructors emphasizing SD</td><td>3.55 (1.21)</td><td>3.63 (1.03)</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.578</td></tr></tbody></table>

\*, \*, \*\*\* indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level.

the questionnaire. Those who did not agree were redirected to a thank-you message. Participation was entirely voluntary. Two reminder notifications were sent, and responses submitted later than 25 days were excluded from the analysis. The database was later downloaded in a CSV format for statistical analysis. A total of 283 students completed the survey. As shown in the subsequent section, the sample is a good representative of the population of targeted students.

### 3.4. Participants

The survey targeted all engineering students at both bachelor and master levels. The survey was sent by an electronic link to 761 students of whom 283 students, i.e. 37%, completed the questionnaires. The study's ethical considerations were highlighted in the survey's front online page indicating the main objectives of the study, which was approved by the faculty. The confidentiality policy, participants

<table><caption>**Table 6**
Comparison of average perceptions of adoption of campus practices.</caption><thead><tr><th>Do you think that the university currently adopts the following on-campus practices towards achieving SD?</th><th>Female (n = 85) Mean (SD)</th><th>Male (n = 198) Mean (SD)</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Energy saving</td><td>3.07 (0.97)</td><td>3.13 (0.88)</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.637</td></tr><tr><td>Recycling waste and use of environmentally friendly products</td><td>3.19 (1.03)</td><td>3.25 (0.99)</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.621</td></tr><tr><td>Planting and forestation</td><td>3.41 (1.15)</td><td>3.34 (0.95)</td><td>0.314</td><td>0.576</td></tr><tr><td>Group transportation</td><td>3.62 (1.04)</td><td>3.41 (1.02)</td><td>2.48</td><td>0.117</td></tr><tr><td>Medical practices</td><td>3.32 (0.95)</td><td>3.26 (0.88)</td><td>0.221</td><td>0.639</td></tr></tbody></table>

\*, \*, \*\*\* indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level.

<table><caption>**Table 7**
Comparison of average perceptions of role of engineers.</caption><thead><tr><th>What do you think of the role of engineers in achieving SD?</th><th>Female (n = 85) Mean (SD)</th><th>Male (n = 198) Mean (SD)</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>They are key players</td><td>3.89 (1.08)</td><td>3.65 (1.09)</td><td>3.09</td><td>0.080*</td></tr><tr><td>They have more responsibilities in generating solutions</td><td>3.99 (1.05)</td><td>3.55 (1.03)</td><td>10.60</td><td>0.001***</td></tr><tr><td>SD can only be achieved through the engineering profession</td><td>3.14 (1.10)</td><td>2.83 (0.87)</td><td>6.53</td><td>0.011**</td></tr><tr><td>Your university and faculty highlight the role of engineers in following a SD education</td><td>3.59 (1.06)</td><td>3.24 (0.89)</td><td>7.96</td><td>0.005***</td></tr><tr><td>The engineering profession in Lebanon encourages its engineers to apply SD</td><td>3.13 (1.22)</td><td>2.90 (0.94)</td><td>2.96</td><td>0.086*</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering students with SD knowledge have a higher chance of employability</td><td>3.48 (0.92)</td><td>3.28 (0.84)</td><td>3.35</td><td>0.068*</td></tr></tbody></table>

\*, \*, \*\*\* indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level.

anonymity as the link cannot identify individuals, and data storage, which will be used for educational advancement and research dissemination only, were equally highlighted on the front page. The students who participated were from the six major disciplines of: chemical engineering, civil engineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and engineering management (Fig. 2). The 283 participants were divided into 198 (70%) male students and 85 (30%) female students according to the respective majors (Figs. 3 and

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Distribution of participants by major.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Male and female students' participation.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Male and female students' participation as a percentage of the total respondents per major.</figcaption></figure>

4).

The total male/female registered students at the time of data
collection were 579/182, i.e. 76 %/24 %, which is in line with the
published literature [27,43]. Fig. 4 provides more meaningful infor-
mation by dissecting the data in Fig. 3 in exploring the percentage of
male/female respondents per registered gender per major. Fig. 5 goes
deeper looking into the number of participating male and female stu-
dents against those registered male and female students per discipline. It
transpires a higher appetite of female contribution for the study in every
discipline where the percentage of females is higher than males in all
disciplines.

4. Results and data analysis

4.1. SD importance

Table 1 considers the gender differences in the average perceptions of SD importance measures. No significant differences were captured except for the measure of the SD importance to strengthening women’s rights (p = 0.007) and on the own quality of life and overall well-being (p = 0.073). Females felt stronger towards these measures.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Male and female students' participation as a percentage of the total registered male and female per major.</figcaption></figure>
## 4.2. SD design projects

Table 2 presents the gender differences in the way engineering students perceived the importance of SD projects and practices on the areas related to environment, social, economic and political aspects considered. Significant differences were observed in measures related to environment (p = 0.037) and social aspects (p = 0.033).

## 4.3. SD obstacles

Table 3 demonstrates that male and female students disagree on many aspects related to the perception of the obstacles stopping the society from achieving SD. In particular, significant differences were observed for the following perceived reasons: Lack of awareness (p = 0.0061), Supporting Environment (p = 0.071), Lack of Educational Programs (p = 0.044) and Lack of Financial Support (p = 0.026). In all of these measures, females feel stronger towards these obstacles.

By further dissecting the Lack of Awareness with the specific question “are you aware of the UN 17 SDGs?”, (Fig. 6a–6c) reveal that as awareness increases, the perception of “importance” increases as well. Fig. 6(a) illustrates the gender differences in the perception of the importance of sustainability (Scale: “1=Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree”) on the overall well-being after adjusting for the effect of the SD Awareness covariate measured through the specific question “are you aware of the UN 17 SDGs? (Scale: 1=Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree)”. Thus, Fig. 6a depicts the two regression lines split by gender. It reveals that as awareness increases, the perception of “importance of sustainability on overall well-being” increases as well. Furthermore, though females with low awareness have higher perceptions of importance, this is reversed for those with higher awareness levels as males seem to score slightly higher ratings. Similar results are obtained when the regressor in Fig. 6a is replaced with “Importance of Sustainability towards strengthening women’s rights” or “Importance of Sustainability towards environment” in Figs. 6a, 6b and 6c respectively. Thus, (Fig. 6a–6c) show that despite the fact that males’ overall ratings of importance of sustainability towards overall well-being, strengthening women’s rights, and environment were lower than female ratings, those few who indicated high SD awareness tend to have slightly higher importance perceptions than females.

## 4.4. SD practice

Table 4 analyses the differences in the perceptions of the extent to which students think certain actions or practices are important in their daily life to better achieve sustainability. Significant differences were observed in how students perceived the effect of minimizing energy (Electricity, oil, gas) waste, water and plastic spending/usage, transportation, renewable energy, and environmental practices (p = 0.051, 0.099, 0.052, 0.031 respectively).

## 4.5. SD university encouragement

Table 5 compares the average perceptions of the extent to which the university encourages SD education. No significant differences were observed in perceptions of extracurricular activities, research centers or courses. However, significant differences (p = 0.04) were observed on the extent of their university encouraging them to participate in SD projects (e.g. ERASMUS+, regional/local).

## 4.6. SD campus practice

Table 6 presents differences in how males and females engineering students currently perceive their university adopt on campus practices towards achieving SD. No significant differences were noted in the areas of energy saving, recycling, forestation, transportation, and medical practices. The question about medical practices was asked to ascertain engineering students’ awareness of what is on offer on campus for good health and wellbeing knowing that the university cares about good health and wellbeing as it was ranked a joint first in Lebanon for the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact 2023 as well as the great role that the university and the faculty of engineering played nationally during the pandemic [44].

## 4.7. The role of engineers towards SD

Table 7 illustrates how male and female students differ in terms of how they perceive their role in achieving SD. Significant differences were noted in perceiving themselves as *Key Players* in achieving sustainability (p = 0.08), have more responsibility in *Generating Solutions* (p = 0.001), that SD can only be achieved through the engineering Profession (p = 0.011), how the university and the faculty of engineering

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6a. Effect of awareness on SD perceptions of importance across gender.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6b. Effect of awareness on perceptions of importance of sustainability in strengthening women across gender.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6c. Effect of awareness on SD perceptions of importance of sustainability for the environment across gender.</figcaption></figure>

highlights the role of engineers in following a SD Education (p = 0.005), how the engineering profession in Lebanon encourages its engineers to apply SD practices (p = 0.086). They also differ significantly in terms of how Engineering students with SD knowledge have a higher chance of Employability (p = 0.068).

## 5. Discussion

As highlighted in the Introduction and the Literature Review sections, there is a serious decline in number of females either studying or working in STEM disciplines and in engineering specifically [14,28]. With the number of males and females almost equal [45] globally, it makes it even more important to have a higher percentage of females working in STEM and engineering disciplines by addressing the various challenges that are driving them away from these critical important scientific disciplines. As such, in this study, we have addressed the guided research questions through an online quantitative survey of the

engineering students' understanding of SD and the role of engineers. This study was further undertaken to get a nuanced understanding of gender differences, if any, in engineers' awareness and attitudes toward SD in line with what Von Haartman et al. [29] tried to do comparing engineering students and nursing students.

The results in Section 4 demonstrate that female engineering students offer a more open-minded approach to overcoming obstacles in achieving SD. This should provide an additional argument for encouraging females to remain in the profession, be supported, and be valued. Their inclusion is essential for sustaining the profession and achieving the SDG targets (Table 3). Men and women in engineering may have differing perspectives on various aspects of their field [30,46], so it is not surprising that they also perceive obstacles to achieving SD differently (Table 3). In particular, significant differences were observed for the following perceived reasons: Lack of Awareness (p = 0.0061), Supporting Environment (p = 0.071), Lack of Educational Programs (p = 0.044) and Lack of Financial Support (p = 0.026). In all of these
measures, females felt generally stronger towards these obstacles despite the fact that the highest score was from a male student (Fig. 6a–6c). By virtue of more female students (Fig. 5) taking part, it shows more interest and awareness of the importance of SD for female engineering students when compared to male engineering students. This finding complements that of Shinbrot et al. [31] who showed important perspectives of women as leaders in SD. This is further confirmed from Table 1, which shows that the female engineering students are giving more importance to women, who are showing more awareness about the strong link between SD and equity (p = 0.007). The latter may mean that women are more interested in SD to make a positive change in a country like Lebanon where gender equality still have major challenges as per Fig. 1.

Table 7 further provides an eye opener to the extent that female engineering students are more likely to agree that engineers are key players and have more responsibilities in generating solutions than their male counterparts in every aspect assessing the Role of Engineers in achieving SD. Female engineers considered themselves more of key players (p = 0.08) with further awareness that can be harnessed through education (p = 0.005) and in generating solutions (p = 0.001). These results are equally supported in Table 1 where no significant differences were captured except for the measure of SD importance to women (p = 0.007) and on the own well-being (p = 0.073). Female students seem to have a stronger feel for what SDGs stand for than male students, which gives them a more realistic understanding of implementing the three pillars of sustainability, especially projects that address social issues such as community well-being, education, and public health. These findings tie in nicely with the literature [24,25], which showed that despite that the boys are more interested in technology than the girls, the girls expressed much more interest than boys when “dealing with people in the future job” as an activity that is not related to technology. The latter is nicely in synchronous with the findings of Shinbot et al. [31] and Galbreath and Tisch [32] who portrayed the positive impact of women in leadership roles on SD practices.

With engineering programs focusing their curricula rightly towards a culminating capstone design project as it is normally requested by engineering accrediting agencies (e.g. ABET, CTI, etc. [47,48]), more specifically known as *senior design projects*, Table 2 complements the results of Table 7 in showing that female students perceived more the importance of implementing SD in projects and practices in the areas related to the three pillars (environment, social, economic) and equally in political aspects than the male students. Significant differences were observed in measures related to the environment (p = 0.037) and the social aspects (p = 0.033), which tie in nicely with the results from Table 5 showing that female students are significantly more engaged and participating with sustainability run projects at their faculty, university and further afield. It is unsurprising that women engineers tend to integrate the social pillar more than men, as research indicates that women often bring a higher social orientation to engineering roles [29, 49] and in having a higher level of moral reasoning and less tolerant for unethical behavior than men do [33–36]. Of course, we are not arguing that these differences in perception are due to biological differences between men and women, but rather, they stem from issues of education and culture [50]. For instance, a study on the civil engineering industry suggests that women possess higher social orientation than men, which can lead to increased social innovation in engineering projects [51].

In addition, in accordance with publications showing that women tend to be more concerned about environmental sustainability than men [29,37–39], Table 4 highlights the significant differences that were observed in how students perceived the effect of minimizing energy (electricity, oil, gas) waste, water and plastic spending/usage, transportation, renewable energy, and environmental practices. Female students were significantly more aware than male students in several items (refer to Table 4): minimizing energy waste, water and plastic spending/usage (p = 0.051); walk, cycle, or use of public transportation (p = 0.099); use of renewable energy (p = 0.052); and environmental friendly

initiatives (p = 0.031). The latter was perceived despite the fact that no significance was accounted for students' perceptions when investigating on campus projects and practices (refer to Table 6). In effect, Tables 4 and 7 may lead us to conclude that women are more aware of the role of engineers in generating solutions and the practices related to daily life, which aligns nicely with the concept of sustainability and circular economy, e.g. the use of renewable energy and the minimize of waste. The latter can indicate their valuing of the long-term SD impacts over short-term gains when compared to men. Furthermore, Table 5 shows that female engineering students significantly perceive that the university is more committed to participation in sustainability related projects than male students (p = 0.04). These qualities are crucial for multidisciplinary sustainable projects in line with the findings of Love et al. [52].

In essence, female engineering students' academic abilities should be as good as male engineering students. It is for sure down to the individual student and their efforts to be better, equal or lower in performance and/or knowledge irrespective of gender. A snapshot from the Academic Year 2022/2023 final year awards, at the Faculty of Engineering at UOB, showed that 68% of the final year awards winners in all disciplines and all levels were female students (13 out of 19 students). In effect, for the same year, 36 female engineering students scored a final cumulative average between 85% and 94% in comparison to 30 male engineering students, amongst whom 16 female students scored between 90% and 94% from a total of 26 engineering students (https://www.balamand.edu.lb/faculties/FOE/About/Pages/Details.aspx?FilterField1=ID&FilterValue1=384). In the latest academic year 2023/2024, the results were equally impressive with 50% of the final year awards winners being female engineering students (7 out of 14 awardees - https://www.balamand.edu.lb/faculties/FOE/About/Pages/Details.aspx?FilterField1=ID&FilterValue1=548). These results are very heartening knowing that the percentage of female students registered in any one year is less than 30% of the total registered engineering students.

In light of these results, it seems valuable to continue this research in order to understand the various factors that contribute to students' awareness and knowledge of sustainability issues. Indeed, a similar study on engineering students in the Maghreb (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) showed that foreign media play a central role in the dissemination of information and raising awareness on this topic, more so than the education received in school [53]. It would be interesting to see if this is also the case in Lebanon and whether both girls and boys are influenced in the same way.

## 6. Conclusion

This study has answered the research questions and demonstrated a connection between gender and sustainability. Female engineering students tend to integrate the social pillar of sustainability, which tends to receive less attention [3], more actively into their work and are more attuned to the obstacles hindering SD than male engineering students. Moreover, it showed that female engineering students significantly expect SD projects and practices to relate to the environment and social aspects than their male counterparts. They further showed higher awareness, which may demonstrate significant differences in how they perceive their role in achieving SD and generating innovative solutions. Whilst both female and male students equally felt that the university adopt sustainable practices on campus, female students seem to be more aware of the distinct approach to addressing social and sustainability challenges (Table 2). They equally edge the male engineering students with the activities undertaken at their university. Therefore, by addressing SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality), societies can foster pathways toward greater inclusion and sustainability. As such, empowering women in engineering not only promotes gender equality but also strengthens the collective capacity to address economic, environmental, and social challenges. Such efforts ensure that individuals of all genders must contribute to shaping a more sustainable
and equitable world. Having shown that female engineering students' awareness and perceptions are just as well, if not better, than their male counterparts, we can argue that their greater and more significant awareness of the role of engineers and the importance of sustainable development for creating a better future for generations to come, further emphasizes the need to encourage more women to study engineering and stay in the profession. The latter should start by empowering women to first believe in themselves as equal, and then tackle equality through addressing curricula from kindergarten by embedding gender and equality from the onset. There should be equal access to quality education for girls and women by providing equal access to financial resources and equal pay by institutions and governmental agencies. In addition, policies should make sure to allow equal women representation in governments to ensure that their voices are heard in decision-making.

This study is particularly relevant in the context of Lebanon, where both gender equality and SD are critical yet underexplored issues. Lebanon, a country with a rich cultural heritage and a recent history of political and social issues, is at a crossroad in terms of educational and societal challenges. In a region where gender disparities in the workforce are still prominent, the findings of this study highlight the potential for female engineering students to play a key role in shaping Lebanon's path toward a more inclusive and sustainable future. Furthermore, Lebanon's unique political and economic challenges, coupled with its strategic position in the Middle East, make it an ideal setting for exploring how gender-inclusive education in engineering can contribute to the achievement of the SDGs. This research underscores the importance of nurturing and retaining female talent in the engineering profession to foster innovative solutions that may address Lebanon's pressing environmental, social, and economic problems.

Moreover, the insights gained from this study can be valuable not only for Lebanon but also for other countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, as well as nations facing similar challenges in gender equality and SD. Countries can draw from these findings to enhance educational policies, encourage female participation in STEM fields, both in education and in the workforce, and promote more inclusive practices that align with the global agenda of achieving the SDGs.

## 7. Limitation

The generalizability of the results from this study, which included only engineering students from one faculty at one university, UoB, may be limited. As such, a multi-center study involving many faculties/universities is warranted.

### Declaration statement

The authors declare that they have considered and upheld the moral and professional responsibility in conducting the online survey. By virtue that it is online and anonymous, the students' identity is unknown to the authors and it was voluntary to complete.

### Funding

No external funding was received for this research. The study was internally funded by the university.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Mantoura Nakad:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Project administration, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
**Husni Charif:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Formal analysis.
**Linda Gardelle:** Writing – review & editing.
**Rami J Abboud:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that no AI tools were used in generating this manuscript:

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Supplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.sfr.2025.100977.

### Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

### References

[1] S. Romero, M. Aláez, D. Amo, D. Fonseca, Systematic review of how engineering schools around the world are deploying the 2030 agenda, Sustainability 12 (12) (2020) 5035, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125035.

[2] UN, The Sustainable Development Goals Report, 2024. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2024/.

[3] M. Boström, A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: introduction to the special issue, Sustain.: Sci., Practice Policy 8 (1) (2012) 3–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2012.11908080.

[4] J.E. Peterson, The political status of women in the arab gulf states, Middle East J. 43 (1) (1989) 34–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4327879.

[5] M. Langworthy, R. Naguib, Through the Eye of the Needle: lessons in Women's Empowerment and Public Policy from the Arab Gulf, in: R. Naguib (Ed.), Women's Empowerment and Public Policy in the Arab Gulf States. Gulf Studies, Women's Empowerment and Public Policy in the Arab Gulf States. Gulf Studies, 11, Springer, Singapore, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6006-4-7.

[6] M. Azam, Socioeconomic structures in the Arab Gulf States and democracy, Annals Human Social Sci. 5 (3) (2024) 593–605, https://doi.org/10.35484/ahss.2024(5-III)52.

[7] A. Al-Alawi, H. Elias, F.A. Zaid, M.S. Alroaili, Al-Bassam SA, Factors affecting Bahraini women working in the engineering fields, J. Int. Women's Studies 20 (7) (2019) 289–318. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol20/iss7/19/.

[8] UN-Lebanon SDGs dashboard. https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/profiles/lebanon, 2025.

[9] J. Evatts, Gender and Career in Science and Engineering, Taylor and Francis, London, 1996. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL21579443M/Gender_and_career_in_science_and_engineering#overview.

[10] J. Gill, R. Sharp, J. Mills, S. Franzway, I still wanna be an engineer! Women, education and the engineering profession, European J. Eng. Edu. 33 (4) (2008) 391–402, https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790802253459.

[11] A.S. Bix, Engineeresses invade campus: four decades of debate over technical coeducation, IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 19 (1) (2000) 20–26, https://doi.org/10.1109/44.828560.

[12] EngineeringUK - Women in Engineering and Technology. https://www.engineeringuk.com/media/bryloncz/women-in-engineering-2024-update-engineeringuk-may-2024.pdf, 2024.

[13] ThomasNet Industry Insights, Where are America's women engineers?, https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/where-are-america-s-women-engineers/, 2021.

[14] J. Amunga, M.M. Amadalo, The gender STEM gap and its impact on Sustainable Development Goals and the Big Four Agenda in Kenya: a Synthesis of Literature, Int. J. Contemp. Edu. 4 (1) (2021) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.11114/ijce.v4i1.5042.

[15] S. Rahimifard, H. Trollman, UN Sustainable Development Goals: an engineering perspective, Int. J. Sustainable Eng. 11 (1) (2018) 1–3, https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2018.1434985.

[16] M. Nakad, L. Gardelle, R.J. Abboud, Stimulating engineering students' potential for sustainable development, Sustainability 17 (3) (2025) 1073, https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031073.

[17] K.F. Mulder, in: Engineering Education in Sustainable Development EESD 2004: Proceedings of the III International Conference on Engineering Education in Sustainable Development: Barcelona, Spain, 2004 9788495999603. October 27-29ISBN 8495999609, https://books.google.com.lb/books/about/Engineering_Education_in_Sustainable_Dev.html?id=PKz6AAAACAAJ&redir esc=y.

[18] K. Mulder, J. Segalás, D. Ferrer-Balas, How to educate engineers for/in sustainable development: ten years of discussion, remaining challenges, Int. J. Sustain. Higher Edu. 13 (2012) 211–218, https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211242535.

[19] M. Nakad, L. Gardelle, R.J. Abboud, A systematic review of the different methods assessing sustainability integration in engineering curricula, Sustainability 16 (11) (2024) 4549, https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114549.

[20] L. Gardelle, Sustainability in Engineering Education in Europe over the last 15 years: visions and tendencies among educators as revealed by a literature review, Eur. J. Eng. Edu. (2025) 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2025.2474044.
[21] M. Nakad, K. Kovesi, What about sustainability? Investigating engineering students' sustainability awareness and attitude, in: SEFI2022-50th Annual Conference, 2022. https://cnam.hal.science/hal-03917430v1/file/SEFI2022_Sustainability_Awareness_Paper.pdf.

[22] M. Nakad, K. Kövesi, L. Gardelle, R.J. Abboud, Engineering Students' Perceptions Towards Promoting Sustainability, in: IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2023, pp. 1-5, https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125179.

[23] H. Baytiyeh, Women engineers in the Middle East from enrollment to career: a case study, in: American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2012. https://peer.asee.org/women-engineer-s-in-the-middle-east-from-enrollment-to-career-a-case-study.pdf.

[24] K. Güdel, A. Heitzmann, A. Müller, Self-efficacy and (vocational) interest in technology and design: an empirical study in seventh and eighth-grade classrooms, Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 29 (5) (2019) 1053-1081, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9475-y.

[25] E. López-Inesta, C. Botella, S. Rueda, A. Forte, P. Marzal, Towards breaking the gender gap in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje 15 (3) (2020) 233-241, https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2020.3008114.

[26] E.A. Cech, M. Blair-Loy, The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM, IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje 116 (10) (2019) 4182-4187, https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2020.3008114.

[27] B. Schinzel, The contingent construction of the relationship between gender and computer science, in: International Symposium on Technology and Society - Women and Technology: Historical, Societal, and Professional Perspectives. Proceedings. Networking the World (Cat. No.99CH37005), New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1999, pp. 299-311, https://doi.org/10.1109/istas.1999.787351.

[28] J. Yates, A.C. Plagnol, Female computer science students: a qualitative exploration of women's experiences studying computer science at university in the UK, Educ Inf Technol 27 (2022) 3079-3105, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10743-5.

[29] R. Von Haartman, K. Sammalisto, R. Lozano, P. Blomqvist, A Longitudinal Comparison of Sustainability Learning between Men and Women in Engineering and Nursing Programmes, Sustainability 9 (8) (2017) 1464, https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081464.

[30] E.H. Kennedy, J. Kmec, Reinterpreting the gender gap in household pro-environmental behaviour, Environ. Sociol. 4 (3) (2018) 299-310, https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1436891.

[31] X.A. Shinbrot, K. Wilkins, U. Gretzel, G. Bowser, Unlocking women's sustainability leadership potential: perceptions of contributions and challenges for women in sustainable development, World Dev. 119 (2019) 120-132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.03.009.

[32] J. Galbreath, D. Tisch, The effects of women in different roles on environmentally sustainable practices: empirical evidence from the Australian wine industry, Austr. J. Environ. Manag. 27 (4) (2020) 434-451, https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2020.1838351.

[33] D.R. Elm, E.J. Kennedy, L. Lawton, Determinants of moral reasoning: sex role orientation, gender, and academic factors, Business & Society 40 (3) (2001) 241-265, https://doi.org/10.1177/000765030104000302.

[34] T.K. Wong, P. Wan, Perceptions and determinants of environmental concern: the case of hong kong and its implications for sustainable development, Sustain. Dev. 19 (4) (2011) 235-249. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sd.429?utm_source=tfo&getti_integrator=tfo.

[35] G. Richardson, G. Taylor, R. Lanis, Women on the Board of Directors and Corporate Tax Aggressiveness in Australia: an Empirical Analysis, Account. Res. J. 29 (3) (2016) 313-331. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ARJ-09-2014-0079/full/html.

[36] A.B. Carroll, The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organisational stakeholders, Bus. Horiz. 34 (4) (1991) 39-48, https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G.

[37] I. Kawgan-Kagan, Are women greener than men? A preference analysis of women and men from major German cities over sustainable urban mobility, Transportation Res. Interdiscipl. Perspect. 8 (2020) 100236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100236.

[38] Z. Zhao, Y. Gong, Y. Li, L. Zhang, Y. Sun, Gender-related beliefs, norms, and the link with green consumption, Front Psychol 12 (2021) 710239, https://doi.org/10.3389/psyg.2021.710239.

[39] J.M. Echavarren, The gender gap in environmental concern: support for an ecofeminist perspective and the role of gender egalitarian attitudes, Sex Roles 89 (9) (2023) 610-623, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01397-3.

[40] M.M. Msambwa, K. Daniel, C. Lianyu, A. Fute, A systematic review of the factors affecting girls' participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects, Comput. Appl. Eng. Edu. 32 (2) (2024) e22707, https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22707.

[41] US Department of State (USDS), Office of International Religious Freedom International Religious Freedom report: Lebanon, 2022. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/lebanon/.

[42] N. Mandela, The collapse of education is the collapse of a nation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-YML68YVCw, 1990. https://blog.madeeasy.in/education-is-the-most-powerful-weapon.

[43] I.G. Bokova, Cracking the code: Girls' and Women's Education in science, technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), UNESCO, 2017. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000253479.

[44] Times Higher Education Impact. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/impact/good-health-and-well-being/2023#!/length/25/locations/LBN/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc, 2023.

[45] E.H. Dyvik, Statista Global Population 2000 to 2022, by gender, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1328107/global-population-gender/, 2024.

[46] C.S. González-González, A. García-Holgado, F.J. García-Peñalvo, Strategies to introduce gender perspective in Engineering studies: a proposal based on self-diagnosis, in: 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 27-30 April 2020, Porto, Portugal, 2020, pp. 1884-1890. https://gredos.usal.es/bitstream/handle/10366/143084/1774-pre.pdf?sequence=1.

[47] ABET. https://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/C3_C5_mapping_SEC_1-13-2018.pdf, 2018.

[48] CTI, References and guidelines(R&O) major accreditation criteria. https://www.cti-commission.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/RO_Referentiel_2023_ENGLISH.pdf, 2023.

[49] N. Canney, A. Bielefeldt, Gender differences in the social responsibility attitudes of engineering students and how they change over time, J Women Minor Sci Eng 21 (3) (2015) 215-237, https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorSciEng.2015011109.

[50] A. Oakley, Sex, Gender and Society, Temple University Press, 2016. ISBN 9781315243399, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333555600_Sex_Gender_and_Society.

[51] M. Lamola, D. Pooe, S. Munongo, Organisational innovation and gender diversity: insights from the civil engineering industry, Acta. Commercii 24 (1) (2024) 1-12, https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v24i1.1269.

[52] H.B. Love, A. Stephens, B.K. Fosdick, E. Tofany, E.R. Fisher, The impact of gender diversity on scientific research teams: a need to broaden and accelerate future research, Humanit. Social Sci. Commun. 9 (1) (2022) 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01389-w.

[53] A. Grövel, S. Bylykbashi, L. Gardelle, Pratiques et formation aux défis environnementaux: une enquête auprès des élèves-ingénieurs en Algérie, au Maroc et en Tunisie, in: S. Dans Amdouni, L. Gardelle, M. Banguerna, S. Ajana (dir.) (Eds.), Les Formations D'ingénieurs Face Aux Enjeux Environnementaux Au Maghreb, 2022, pp. 101-130. https://hal.science/hal-03944544/document.