Monthly Archives: September 2025

Selfish or Supportive? How Gender Shapes Patterns of Sponsorship at Work

In today’s highly competitive industries, workplace sponsorship is increasingly recognised as a decisive factor in career progression. Yet new research from the Rady School of Management at the University of California, San Diego, suggests that men and women often view the practice through markedly different lenses. According to the study, recently published in the Academy of Management Journal, men are more likely to see sponsorship as a means of accelerating their own professional advancement. At the same time, women place stronger emphasis on ensuring the success of those they sponsor.

The findings raise important questions about how organisations design sponsorship initiatives, and whether female leaders should shoulder a disproportionate share of responsibility in the pursuit of equity and inclusion at work. “Female sponsors juggle multiple priorities, balancing their own career interests with the needs of their protégés,” explained Elizabeth L. Campbell, assistant professor of management at UC San Diego and the study’s lead author. “In contrast, men tend to concentrate on how providing sponsorship enhances their own careers. This tendency was particularly evident among more senior men, who increasingly viewed sponsorship as a strategic tool for advancing their own success.”

For women, however, the pattern was strikingly consistent. Regardless of their level of experience or seniority, they continued to frame sponsorship in terms of the protégé’s goals and development rather than their own. This difference was borne out across a series of surveys and experiments. In one survey involving over 800 managers from diverse industries, participants were asked to set developmental goals for their protégés. Women typically established goals that prioritised their protégés’ advancement, while men set fewer such goals and were more likely to align them with their personal career trajectories.

The research also explored the social networks that men and women draw upon when engaging in sponsorship. In an experiment with nearly 600 participants, individuals were asked to identify up to ten people they would turn to for sponsorship-related support. Men tended to activate broad networks, reaching out to weaker ties who provided diverse streams of information and opportunity. Women, by contrast, leaned on denser networks of close, interconnected colleagues, reflecting a strategy rooted in trust and stronger relational bonds. As Campbell observed, this raises further questions about which approach better serves the protégé. “Sociological evidence suggests that broad networks offer greater access to fresh information and opportunities,” she noted, “but dense networks may foster deeper, more supportive relationships. The most effective model of sponsorship may well depend on context.”

These gender-based distinctions hold significant implications for workplace policy. Many organisations have introduced sponsorship programmes as part of their diversity and equity strategies, often encouraging leaders to “sponsor more.” Yet this research suggests such blanket approaches may overlook the nuances in how men and women conceptualise sponsorship. If men frame the practice in ways that also benefit themselves, while women focus disproportionately on their protégés, women may inadvertently carry a heavier burden in advancing workplace inclusion. “We might need to rethink how we train leaders to sponsor,” Campbell concluded. “Should everyone be encouraged to adopt a more self-interested approach, or should we push toward the more protégé-centred model women exemplify? It’s an open question, and one that future research must grapple with.”

With sponsorship continuing to shape career mobility, the study underscores the importance of recognising and addressing these gender differences. By doing so, both employees and employers can move towards more equitable, balanced, and ultimately practical approaches to workplace advancement.

More information: Elizabeth Campbell et al, The Gendered Complexity of Sponsorship: How Male and Female Sponsors’ Goals Shape Their Social Network Strategies, Academy of Management Journal. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2023.1110

Journal information: Academy of Management Journal Provided by University of California – San Diego

Rising methane emissions fuel worsening global heat

Leave a Reply

Global methane emissions are continuing to rise with no signs of slowing, according to a major new international study. Researchers found that global trade alone contributes around 30% of the methane circulating in the atmosphere, intensifying the greenhouse gas burden that is heating the planet. With shifting patterns of trade, transactions between developing nations—so-called South-South exchanges—now dominate supply chains. Asia and the developing Pacific region have emerged as the largest emitters, their rapid industrialisation and population growth driving emissions upwards.

The study, published today (3 September) in Nature Communications, provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of methane emissions. Covering 164 countries and 120 sectors between 1990 and 2023, the work was led by teams at the Universities of Birmingham and Groningen. Methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas, with a warming potential around 80 times greater than carbon dioxide over 20 years. The authors stress that reducing methane now offers one of the fastest ways to curb global heating in the near term.

The findings reveal a sharp contrast between developed and developing economies. Wealthier nations have managed to cut methane emissions while still achieving economic growth, mainly through gains in production efficiency and cleaner technologies. By contrast, developing regions are experiencing rapid increases. Lead author Professor Yuli Shan, from the University of Birmingham, highlighted the urgency: “Methane has a short atmospheric lifespan, which means reductions today can have an immediate impact. Our findings underscore the need for coordinated global action, especially in developing regions where emissions are rising fastest.”

The research also pinpoints sectors that offer the most significant opportunities for reductions. Fertiliser production stands out as an area in need of urgent attention, alongside oil and gas extraction, where advanced leak detection technologies could play a decisive role. Livestock farming, a significant source of methane, could benefit from innovations in feed formulation and waste management. The study further notes the importance of consumption choices—such as reducing red meat intake—as a means of cutting demand for methane-intensive products.

Co-corresponding author Professor Klaus Hubacek, from the University of Groningen, emphasised that policymakers must look at supply chains in their entirety. “This study provides a roadmap for policymakers to integrate methane into national climate strategies. It’s not just about where emissions occur, but why—and that requires looking at the entire supply chain,” he said. Using the latest global trade and environmental accounts dataset, the team showed how shifts in trade flows have pushed emissions into developing nations, where technological efficiency is often lower.

Despite these challenges, the study points to encouraging progress in technology and efficiency. Between 1998 and 2023, the global average methane emission coefficient dropped by nearly 67%, reflecting advances in energy systems and cleaner production methods. Yet methane has already contributed about 30% to global warming since pre-industrial times, and its role in air pollution causes around one million premature deaths annually. For the authors, the message is clear: reducing methane offers an immediate and effective climate solution, but it demands collective global action across trade, production, and consumption alike.

More information: Yuli Shan et al, Global methane footprints growth and drivers 1990-2023, Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-63383-5

Journal information: Nature Communications Provided by University of Birmingham

The flawed arithmetic of national carbon budgets

Leave a Reply

Climate action is not keeping pace with the goals set under the Paris Agreement, and new research suggests that part of the problem lies in how fairness and ambition are measured. A study led by Yann Robiou du Pont at Utrecht University, published on 3 September in Nature Communications, found that existing assessments contain a bias that benefits high emitters while disadvantaging more vulnerable countries. The findings raise significant questions about the way climate obligations are calculated and highlight the global consequences of such skewed approaches.

The researchers argue that fairness assessments have been distorted by shifting baselines, often starting from ever-rising emissions rather than fixed responsibilities. This method effectively delays the duty of wealthy, high-emitting countries to reduce emissions, while placing a disproportionate burden on those least responsible for the crisis. By contrast, the Utrecht team proposes a framework that calculates the ambition gap immediately, incorporating both climate measures and international financial transfers. This approach seeks to avoid rewarding inaction and would place greater accountability on nations with the resources and historical responsibility to do more.

Fair-share emissions allocations are central to this debate. They distribute the remaining global carbon budget based on principles of equity, historical contribution, and capacity to respond, thereby identifying what each country should commit to to keep warming within 1.5°C. The researchers contend that basing calculations on current conditions effectively excuses major polluters, pushing the world towards more dangerous climate outcomes. An allocation based on historical responsibility, however, would shift the burden onto wealthier, high-emitting nations, forcing sharp and immediate cuts in their emissions. Because these reductions cannot be achieved domestically alone, significant financial support for mitigation in poorer countries would also be required.

The study shows that eliminating the systemic bias alters the rankings of which nations face the most significant ambition gap. Within high-income countries, the United States, Australia, Canada, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia emerge as those most misaligned with their fair shares, requiring both deeper emission cuts and greater financial contributions. This finding challenges the conventional framing of developed versus developing countries, demonstrating that some wealthy nations are effectively rewarded for slower action compared to others.

Such fair-share calculations are already playing a role in climate litigation. Courts increasingly rely on these assessments to evaluate whether national targets are equitable, as seen in the KlimaSeniorinnen case at the European Court of Human Rights. The court ruled that inadequate climate action breaches human rights, and nations must demonstrate how their pledges represent a fair contribution to global goals. The International Court of Justice further underscored this legal duty in a July 2025 advisory opinion, affirming that states are bound by international law to act urgently to prevent climate harm. These developments signal that courts are becoming an influential force in enforcing accountability where political negotiations fall short.

Ultimately, the study highlights that the climate crisis cannot be solved without addressing inequities in responsibility and capacity. Wealthier nations, particularly those with long histories of emissions, must not only reduce their own output more steeply but also provide substantial financial support to others. By setting fairer baselines and removing systemic rewards for inaction, the researchers argue that climate ambition could rise globally, offering a more just and effective path towards meeting the Paris Agreement targets.

More information: Yann Robiou du Pont et al, Effect of discontinuous fair-share emissions allocations immediately based on equity, Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-62947-9

Journal information: Nature Communications Provided by Utrecht University

Environmental justice and economic divides: a shared challenge

Leave a Reply

Governments across the globe are increasingly confronted with two pressing challenges: environmental degradation and the persistence of economic inequality. While each has long been the subject of policy debate, there has been little effort to understand how they are connected, or to examine whether initiatives designed to mitigate one might also shape the other. Addressing this gap, a new study entitled The Economics of Inequality and the Environment, co-authored by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in the Journal of Economic Literature, offers the first comprehensive overview of how environmental protection and social inequality interact.

At the heart of the study lies the concept of social welfare, understood as the sum of individual well-being derived from consumption, leisure, and environmental quality. The researchers emphasise that environmental policy affects all three components, not only through improvements in air, water, or climate, but also through shifts in incomes and prices. Because these changes are felt differently by rich and poor households, environmental policies are rarely neutral in their distributional effects. A tax on fossil fuels, for example, may alter the relative welfare of different groups even before considering its environmental benefits.

As co-author Ulrike Kornek, a PIK researcher and Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics at Kiel University, explains, this perspective has concrete implications for climate policy design. The success of instruments such as carbon pricing depends heavily on whether they widen or reduce the income gap. Governments can redistribute revenues to protect poorer households, but this raises further questions about the overall impact on emissions. Moreover, the degree of inequality within a society influences its collective willingness to invest in environmental protection, while climate change itself tends to deepen existing disparities, creating a feedback loop between the two issues.

The study investigates these links through three main channels. The first is the distribution of benefits from environmental policy. Poorer households, often lacking the resources to adapt to extreme weather, tend to gain more from measures that reduce climate risks. Fewer days of excessive heat, for instance, can improve productivity and wages, while reducing workplace accidents. Similarly, climate stability supports agriculture, potentially lowering food prices and enhancing food security. In this way, environmental policy can serve not only ecological but also social objectives.

The second channel concerns the distribution of costs. Policies that increase the price of essentials such as petrol or heating fuel tend to affect poorer households disproportionately, particularly in industrialised countries. At the same time, industries exposed to climate regulations may pass on costs through reduced wages or lower returns on capital, indirectly shaping the gap between rich and poor. The third channel highlights the feedback from inequality to environmental outcomes, what the researchers term the “equity–pollution dilemma.” Here, redistribution that improves the economic position of poorer households can inadvertently increase spending on carbon-intensive goods. At the same time, persistent inequality may weaken the political consensus needed for ambitious climate action.

To strengthen the evidence base for policymaking, the authors call for more empirical studies that measure “income elasticities”—the extent to which changes in household income alter behaviours such as energy consumption or willingness to pay for climate protection. They also stress the need for more precise environmental data to map these interactions in detail. As Kornek concludes, inequality and environmental degradation cannot be addressed in isolation. Only by recognising their interplay can governments design strategies that deliver both fairness and sustainability, ensuring that efforts to protect the planet also support social cohesion.

More information: Ulrike Kornek et al, The Economics of Inequality and the Environment, Journal of Economic Literature. DOI: 10.1257/jel.20241696

Journal information: Journal of Economic Literature Provided by Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

The Uneven Playing Field of Subsidiaries

Leave a Reply

When a large corporation acquires a smaller company or establishes a new subsidiary, one of its first strategic decisions is how closely to integrate the new unit — both operationally and financially. This balance determines whether the parent shoulders most of the risks and profits alone or chooses to share them with outside investors. The choice is rarely straightforward, as it involves weighing the benefits of control against the dangers of exposure. Korean chaebols such as Samsung and Hyundai illustrate one approach: they retain firm management control while reducing their financial commitments by inviting other investors to participate. In doing so, they maintain influence over subsidiaries without bearing the full risk burden.

This intriguing phenomenon inspired Metin Sengul, professor of management at Texas McCombs, to investigate why firms often create a deliberate “wedge” between their rights to control subsidiaries and their rights to claim financial returns. He notes that this wedge is not accidental but carefully designed and adjusted to serve different corporate strategies. In collaboration with Tomasz Obloj of Indiana University, Sengul examined French government data covering 133 manufacturing companies. Together, they studied 843 cases of subsidiaries that were either created or acquired between 1997 and 2004, providing a rich foundation for analysing ownership structures.

Their findings revealed that, on average, parent firms maintained a 21% wedge between control rights and financial rights. For instance, a company might retain 100 per cent control over a subsidiary’s operations while claiming only 79 per cent of its profits. Importantly, this wedge was not uniform but shifted according to two internal factors: relatedness and multimarket contact. Relatedness refers to how closely a subsidiary’s activities align with its parent’s other operations. The greater the similarity, the smaller the wedge became, as firms tended to increase their financial stakes in subsidiaries that promised synergies.

The logic behind this behaviour is apparent. When subsidiaries are strategically aligned with the parent’s other businesses, opportunities for cost savings, innovation, and coordination increase. Parent companies, therefore, have more substantial incentives to capture a larger share of the profits. A case in point is PSA Group, the French automaker behind Peugeot and Citroën, which tended to hold tighter ownership of subsidiaries that shared suppliers or manufacturing technology. Here, synergy translated directly into financial commitment, as complete alignment increased the benefits of internalising profits.

In contrast, when uncertainty was high, parents often preferred to spread the risk. Sengul highlights the 1990s partnership among GM, Chrysler, Daimler-Benz, and BMW to explore hybrid vehicle technologies. At that time, the commercial prospects of hybrids were highly uncertain, long before Tesla reshaped the market. None of the companies assumed majority control or financial dominance. By sharing both authority and risk, they collectively invested in innovation while insulating themselves from the potentially steep costs of failure.

The dynamics of multimarket contact added further complexity. Parent firms tended to take higher financial stakes when subsidiaries competed with a moderate number of rivals across multiple markets, because those subsidiaries often generated substantial profits under manageable competition. Yet when the overlap with competitors was too significant, parents deliberately reduced their control and financial rights to avoid provoking retaliation. Sengul’s research ultimately demonstrates that ownership decisions cannot be reduced to financial logic alone. Instead, they represent carefully calibrated strategies designed to balance control, risk, coordination, and competitive dynamics. As he concludes, ownership is about more than control — it is about creating and capturing value in an increasingly complex and competitive corporate landscape.

More information: Metin Sengul et al, Ownership as a Bundle of Rights: Antecedents of the Wedge Between Control and Cash-Flow Rights Within Firms, Strategy Science. DOI: 10.1287/stsc.2022.0114

Journal information: Strategy Science Provided by University of Texas at Austin

Do Steeper Taxes Prompt the Rich to Seek New Homes?

Leave a Reply

In debates about taxation, it is often claimed that raising rates drives wealthy individuals to uproot themselves in search of more favourable fiscal climates. Yet how frequently do these threats materialise? A recent article in the American Journal of Sociology, titled “Taxing the Rich: How Incentives and Embeddedness Shape Millionaire Tax Flight,” investigates this very question, exploring the tension between financial incentives to relocate and the countervailing pull of social embeddedness within communities.

The article, by Cristobal Young and Ithai Lurie, focuses on two watershed events that have reshaped the dynamics of tax migration among high-income earners: the 2017 federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and the COVID-19 pandemic. The TCJA, the authors note, altered incentives by exposing a greater portion of income to state-level taxation, thereby making relocation potentially more attractive. By contrast, the pandemic disrupted long-standing networks of personal and professional ties, weakening the embeddedness that often keeps top earners anchored to particular places. To examine these shifts, the study draws on Internal Revenue Service data covering the nation’s highest earners from 2016 to 2023.

The findings complicate the conventional wisdom. Young and Lurie report that the TCJA alone did not produce a measurable surge in tax-motivated migration. By contrast, the pandemic period saw a discernible rise in millionaire movement, though the effect proved to be transitory. This contrast suggests that relocation was less about the lure of reduced tax burdens than about the erosion of social capital during a time of upheaval. In states such as New York and California, departures were more closely tied to weakened community bonds than to headline tax rates.

The study therefore lends support to theories of embeddedness, which posit that economic decision-making is constrained—and often redirected—by the strength of social networks. For affluent individuals, the value of personal and professional ties, along with the prestige and opportunities they confer, can outweigh the financial appeal of moving to lower-tax jurisdictions. Wealthy residents, in other words, are often deeply rooted, and those roots exert a stabilising influence even in the face of higher fiscal costs.

Ultimately, Young and Lurie argue, these results reveal that state “competitiveness” cannot be reduced to the question of tax burdens alone. Factors such as infrastructure, public services, and overall quality of life also play critical roles in determining whether a state retains its most prosperous citizens. In their conclusion, the authors emphasise that policies focused solely on tax reduction overlook the broader conditions that make a place attractive, writing: “Competitiveness is not just about reducing costs; it also involves building opportunity and quality of life.”

More information: Cristobal Young et al, Taxing the Rich: How Incentives and Embeddedness Shape Millionaire Tax Flight, American Journal of Sociology. DOI: 10.1086/737165

Journal information: American Journal of Sociology Provided by University of Chicago Press Journals