This study examines the impact of green trade (GT) on both environmental sustainability and economic productivity across 33 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. The findings reveal that while GT contributes to lower carbon emissions, its influence on productivity is mixed. In countries with moderate productivity levels, GT supports further growth. However, in more advanced economies, additional GT may slow productivity improvements, highlighting a potential “sustainability trap.” The results also show that established green export sectors tend to yield greater productivity benefits than newer alternatives. It suggests that policymakers should tailor GT strategies to their country’s stage of development.
AhmadMSatrovicE (2023) Role of economic complexity and government intervention in environmental sustainability: is decentralization critical?Journal of Cleaner Production418: 138265.
2.
AhmedBWahabSRahimS, et al. (2024) Assessing the impact of geopolitical, economic, and institutional factors on China’s environmental management in the Russian-Ukraine conflicting era. Journal of Environmental Management356: 120567.
3.
AhmedFKousarSPervaizA, et al. (2022) Role of green innovation, trade and energy to promote green economic growth: a case of South Asian nations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research29: 6871–6885.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
6.
BeheraBBeheraPSethiN (2023) Decoupling the role of renewable energy, green finance and political stability in achieving the sustainable development goal 13: empirical insight from emerging economies. Sustainable Development32(1): 101–118.
7.
BlancoERazzaqueJ (2009) Ecosystem services and human well-being in a globalized world: assessing the role of law. Human Rights Quarterly31(3): 692–720.
8.
BrynjolfssonERockDSyversonC (2019) Artificial Intelligence and the Modern Productivity Paradox: A Clash of Expectations and Statistics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
CanMBenJMBursselaersJ (2021a) Exploring the impact of trading green products on the environment: introducing the green openness index. Ecological Economics184: 107022.
10.
CanMAhmedZMercanM, et al. (2021b) The role of trading environment-friendly goods in environmental sustainability: does green openness matter for OECD countries?Journal of Environmental Management295: 113038.
11.
ChoiC-HZhouXKoJ-O (2024) Can human capital drive sustainable international trade? Evidence from BRICS countries. Sustainability16(1): 135.
12.
ChristofzikDElstnerSFeldLP, et al. (2024) Unraveling the productivity paradox: evidence for Germany. German Economic Review25(3): 165–207.
13.
ChungYHFäreRGrosskopfS (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management51(3): 229–240.
14.
CzernyALetmatheP (2024) The productivity paradox in carbon-intensive companies: how eco-innovation affects corporate environmental and financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment33(3): 5900–5919.
GoldinIKoutroumpisPLafondF, et al. (2024) Why is productivity slowing down?Journal of Economic Literature62(1): 196–268.
17.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper No. 3914. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
18.
HashmiRAlamK (2019) Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, innovation, CO2 emissions, population, and economic growth in OECD countries: a panel investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production231: 1100–1109.
19.
HayesAF (2009) Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs76(4): 408–420.
20.
HuangJBYangQOFengC (2020) Green trade assessment for sustainable development of Chinese ferrous metal industry. Journal of Cleaner Production249: 119–135.
21.
HuangLHZhaoW (2022) The impact of green trade and green growth on natural resources. Resources Policy77: 102739.
22.
HuiZChoiCH (2024) Is carbon emission trading policy a panacea? The implications of promoting green total factor productivity. Asia Pacific Economic Literature38(1): 42–55.
23.
ImranMAnHSKaleemM, et al. (2020) Effect of regional factor productivity on manufacturing sector: the case of Sino-Pak economic ties. Financial Innovation6: 5.
24.
IPCC (2023) AR6 synthesis report: climate change 2023. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch (accessed 20 July 2024).
25.
JiangYFWangHYLiuZK (2021) The impact of the free trade zone on green total factor productivity: evidence from the Shanghai pilot free trade zone. Energy Policy148: 112000.
26.
LiJMDongKYDongXC, et al. (2022) How green trade influences pollution emissions in China: a provincial perspective. Energy Economics115: 106330.
27.
LiYWuYLChenYQ, et al. (2021) The influence of foreign direct investment and trade opening on green total factor productivity in the equipment manufacturing industry. Applied Economics53: 6641–6654.
28.
LiuHLZhangJHHuangHY, et al. (2022a) Environmental good exports and green total factor productivity: lessons from China. Sustainable Development31(3): 1681–1703.
29.
LiuHLLeiHZhouYC (2022b) How does green trade affect the environment? Evidence from China. Journal of Economic Analysis1(1): 1–19.
30.
MelitzMJ (2003) The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica71(6): 1695–1725.
31.
MrabetZAlsamaraMMimouniK, et al. (2021) Can human development and political stability improve environmental quality? New evidence from the MENA region. Economic Modelling94: 28–44.
32.
NguyenTTTChoiCH (2025) Assessing the impact of ICT on export performance: a comparative analysis of ASEAN-5 and partner countries. Review of Development Economics. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/rode.13191.
33.
Steen-OlsenKWeinzettelJCranstonG, et al. (2012) Carbon, land, and water footprint accounts for the European Union: consumption, production, and displacements through international trade. Environmental Science & Technology46(20):10883–10891.
34.
WangJChoiCH (2023) Security or sovereignty: The dynamic impact of political crises on Chinese tourism. Current Issues in Tourism27(23): 4049–4065.
35.
WangMLPangSLHmaniI, et al. (2020) Towards sustainable development: How does technological innovation drive the increase in green total factor productivity?Sustainable Development29: 217–227.
36.
YinZHChoiCH (2022) Economic and non-economic determinants of environmental sustainability in the long run: Evidence from G20 economies. Journal of Korea Trade26: 1–19.
37.
YinZHChoiCH (2024) How does digitalization affect trade in goods and services? Evidence from G20 countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy16: 3614–3638.
38.
YinZHZhangTHChoiCH (2023) Toward sustainable development: does digitalization narrow the gender gap in the labor market?Sustainable Development31(5): 3528–3539.
39.
ZhangTChoiCH (2025) Will digital trade be friend or foe of the green economy? Unveiling the complexities of green growth. Journal of Applied Economics28(1): 2464591.
