Assessing sustainable development with the forces of technological innovation,entrepreneurial activity and energy consumption: Insight from asymmetric and bootstrap causality methods
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2024
Assessing sustainable development with the forces of technological innovation,entrepreneurial activity and energy consumption: Insight from asymmetric and bootstrap causality methods
This is a sustainable study of China amidst high carbon emissions. China has experienced tremendous increase in its economic operations and development which involve the excessive utilization of fossil fuel energy sources. This has put China in the list of nations that contribute towards global warming via carbon emission. On this note, data from China over the period 2002Q1–2019Q4 is analyzed, using multiple techniques (nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag-NARDL, fully modified ordinary least square-FMOLS, and bootstrap approach of Granger causality) for clear insight into China's sustainable development. Relevant instruments (technological innovation, entrepreneurial activities, economic growth proxied by GDP, fossil fuel energy consumption, and FDI) are used to measure China's economic and environmental performance to determine the level of sustainable development of the country. NARDL and FMOLS results reveal that technological innovation and entrepreneurial activity mitigate carbon emissions, while fossil fuels and economic growth induce China's carbon emissions. Also, findings from the bootstrap approach affirm the NARDL and FMOLS outcomes, with both two-way and one-way nexus established among the selected variables. Policies targeting the reduction of fossil fuel consumption in China despite the technological innovations and entrepreneurial activities are thus recommended.
BrahmbhattMHaddaouiCPageJ. Green industrialisation and entrepreneurship in Africa. Contributing Paper for African Economic Outlook2017: 1–60.
2.
HuangCLVauseJMaHW, et al. Using material/substance flow analysis to support sustainable development assessment: a literature review and outlook. Resour Conserv Recy2012; 68: 104–116.
3.
ReynoldsMBlackmoreCIsonR, et al. The role of systems thinking in the practice of implementing sustainable development goals. In: Leal FilhoW (ed.) Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. Cham: Springer, 2018, pp.677–698.
4.
HallJKDanekeGA. Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: past contributions and future directions. J Bus Ventur2010; 25: 439–448.
5.
SteleAVThurikM. The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth. Small Business Economics2005; 24: 311–321.
6.
BergmannHSternbergR. The changing face of entrepreneurship in Germany. Small Bus Econ2007; 28: 205–221.
7.
WongPKHoYPAutotioE. Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Bus Econ2005; 24: 335–350.
8.
JiangPHuYCYenGF, et al. Green supplier selection for sustainable development of the automotive industry using grey decision-making. Sustain Dev2018; 26: 890–903.
9.
DeanTJMcmullenJS. Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. J Bus Ventur2007; 22: 50–76.
10.
CaliendoLDvorkinMParroF. Trade and labor market dynamics: general equilibrium analysis of the china trade shock. Econometrica2019; 87: 741–835.
ChengXShuaiCMWangJ, et al. Building a sustainable development model for China's poverty-stricken reservoir regions based on system dynamics. J Clean Prod2018; 176: 535–554.
13.
YoungWTilleyF. Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The shift toward effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainability debate. Bus Strategy Environ2006; 15: 402–415.
14.
SchaperM. Making Ecopreneurs. Burlington: Gower, 2010.
15.
KirikkaleliDAdebayoTS. Do renewable energy consumption and financial development matter for environmental sustainability? New global evidence. Sustain Dev2021; 29: 583–594.
16.
ZhaoFZhangSDuQ, et al. Assessment of the sustainable development of rural minority settlements based on multidimensional data and geographical detector method: A case study in Dehong, China. Socio-Econ Plan Sci2021; 78: 101066.
17.
KihomboSAhmedZChenS, et al. Linking financial development, economic growth, and ecological footprint: what is the role of technological innovation. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 61235–61245.
18.
UdembaENGüngörHBekunFV, et al. Economic performance of India amidst high CO2 emissions. Sustain Prod Consum2021; 27: 52–60.
19.
KumarSManagiS. The economics of sustainable development: the case of India (Vol. 32). Springer Science & Business Media, 2009.
20.
FäreRGrosskopfSNorrisM, et al. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. Am Econ Rev1994; 84: 66–83.
21.
LiKLinB. Impact of energy conservation policies on the green productivity in China’s manufacturing sector: evidence from a three-stage DEA model. Appl Energy2016; 168: 351–363.
22.
WangLXueXZhaoZ. The impacts of transportation infrastructure on sustainable development: emerging trends and challenges. Int J Environ Res. Public Health2018; 15(6): 1172.
23.
AcsZJGrootHLNijkampP. The emergence of the knowledge economy: a regional perspective. Springer Science and Business Media, 2002.
24.
ChengYAwanUAhmadS, et al. How do technological innovation and fiscal decentralization affect the environment? A story of the fourth industrial revolution and sustainable growth. Technol Forecast Soc Change2021; 162: 120398.
LawSHLeeWCSinghN. Revisiting the finance-innovation nexus: evidence from a non-linear approach. J Innov Knowl2018; 3: 143–153.
27.
NguyenDNTranQNTruongQT. The ownership concentration−innovation nexus: evidence from SMEs around the world. Emerg Mark Finance Trade2022; 58: 1288–1307.
28.
FethiSRahumaA. The impact of eco-innovation on CO2 emission reductions: evidence from selected petroleum companies. Struct Chang Econ Dyn2020; 53: 108–115.
29.
ShahbazMRaghutlaCSongM,et al.Public-private partnerships investment in energy as new determinant of CO2 emissions: the role of technological innovations in China. Energy Econ2020; 86: 104664.
30.
SamargandiN. Sector value addition, technology and CO2 emissions in Saudi Arabia. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017; 78: 868–877.
31.
YuYDuY. Impact of technological innovation on CO2 emissions and emissions trend prediction on ‘new normal’economy in China. Atmos Pollut Res2019; 10: 152–161.
32.
BalsalobreDÁlvarezACantosJM. Public budgets for energy RD&D and the effects on energy intensity and pollution levels. Environ Sci Pollut Res2015; 22: 4881–4892.
33.
YiiKJGeethaC. The nexus between technology innovation and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: evidence from granger causality test. Energy Procedia2017; 105: 3118–3124.
34.
LongXLuoYWuC,et al.The influencing factors of CO2 emission intensity of Chinese agriculture from 1997 to 2014. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 13093–13101.
35.
MensahCNLongXBoamahKB,et al.The effect of innovation on CO2 emissions of OCED countries from 1990 to 2014. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 29678–29698.
36.
ChengCRenXWangZ,et al.Heterogeneous impacts of renewable energy and environmental patents on CO2 emission-evidence from the BRIICS. Sci Total Environ2019; 668: 1328–1338.
37.
RaiserKNaimsHBruhnT. Corporatization of the climate? Innovation, intellectual property rights, and patents for climate change mitigation. Energy Res Soc Sci2017; 27: 1–8.
38.
KivyiroPArminenH. Carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and foreign direct investment: causality analysis for sub-saharan Africa. Energy2014; 74: 595–606.
39.
SolarinSAAl-MulaliUMusahI,et al.Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: an empirical investigation. Energy2017; 124: 706–719.
40.
CaglarAE. The importance of renewable energy consumption and FDI inflows in reducing environmental degradation: bootstrap ARDL bound test in selected 9 countries. J Cleaner Prod2020; 264: 121663.
41.
FaheemMHussainSSafdarN,et al.Does foreign direct investment asymmetrically affect the mitigation of environmental degradation in Malaysia?Environ Sci Pollut Res2021: 1–13.
42.
MertMBölükG. Do foreign direct investment and renewable energy consumption affect the CO2 emissions? New evidence from a panel ARDL approach to kyoto annex countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2016; 23: 21669–21681.
43.
LiuHKimH. Ecological footprint, foreign direct investment, and gross domestic production: evidence of belt & road initiative countries. Sustainability2018; 10: 3527.
44.
Balsalobre-LorenteDGokmenogluKKTaspinarN,et al.An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2019; 26: 23010–23026.
45.
DestekMASinhaA. Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: evidence from organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. J Cleaner Prod2020; 242: 118537.
46.
TangCFTanBW. The impact of energy consumption, income and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Energy2015; 79: 447–454.
47.
SarkodieSAStrezovV. Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Sci Total Environ2019; 646: 862–871.
48.
DoganESekerFBulbulS. Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: a panel study of OECD countries. Curr Issues Tour2017; 20: 1701–1719.
49.
Al-MulaliUOzturkI. The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and north African) region. Energy2015; 84: 382–389.
50.
Asumadu-SarkodieSOwusuPA. Carbon dioxide emissions, GDP, energy use, and population growth: a multivariate and causality analysis for Ghana, 1971–2013. Environ Sci Pollut Res2016; 23: 13508–13520.
51.
GamboSLSuryatiBIHalliruAM. Impact of energy used, economic growth on environment: an empirical analysis of Malaysia. J Environ Agric Sci2018; 15: 1–10.
52.
OzcanBTzeremesPGTzeremesNG. Energy consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation in OECD countries. Econ Model2020; 84: 203–213.
53.
OmriA. Entrepreneurship, sectoral outputs and environmental improvement: international evidence. Technol Forecast Soc Change2018; 128: 46–55.
54.
RitiJSDankumoAMGubakHD. Entrepreneurship and environmental sustainability: evidence from Nigeria. 2015.
55.
SunHPofouraAKMensahIA,et al.The role of environmental entrepreneurship for sustainable development: evidence from 35 countries in sub-saharan Africa. Sci Total Environ2020; 741: 140132.
56.
ShepherdDAPatzeltH. The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed”. Entrep Theory Pract2011; 35: 137–163.
57.
RaihanATuspekovaA. Role of economic growth, renewable energy, and technological innovation to achieve environmental sustainability in Kazakhstan. Curr Res Environ Sustain2022; 4: 100165.
58.
AdebayoTSRjoubHAkinsolaGD. The asymmetric effects of renewable energy consumption and trade openness on carbon emissions in Sweden: new evidence from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 1875–1886.
59.
AcheampongAODzatorJDzatorM, et al. Unveiling the effect of transport infrastructure and technological innovation on economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 182: 121843.
60.
GuWWangJHuaX, et al. Entrepreneurship and high-quality economic development: Based on the triple bottom line of sustainable development. Int Entrep Manag J2021; 17: 1–27.
61.
OmriA. How can entrepreneurship and educational capital lead to environmental sustainability. Struct Chang Econ Dyn2020; 54: 1–10.
62.
Hao Y, Yerui W, Haitao W, et al. How do FDI and technical innovation affect environmental quality? Evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 7835–7850.
63.
PhilipLDEmirF. Investigating of achieving sustainable development goals through renewable energy, technological innovation, and entrepreneur: a study of global best practice policies. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 60302–60313.
64.
SabooriHMehrjerdiH. Triobjective optimization of a synergistic wind-photovoltaic plant for water desalination addressing sustainable development goals. Sustain Dev2022; 30: 1811–1822.
65.
Mikayilov JI, Galeotti M and Hasanov FJ. The impact of economic growth on CO2 emissions in Azerbaijan. J Clean Prod2018; 197: 1558–1572.
66.
DhahriSOmriA. Entrepreneurship contribution to the three pillars of sustainable development: what does the evidence really say. World Dev2018; 106: 64–77.
67.
ZhangJWangSPradhanP, et al. Mapping the complexity of the food-energy-water nexus from the lens of Sustainable Development Goals in China. Resour Conserv Recycl2022; 183: 106357.
68.
Dickey DA and Fuller WA. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc1979; 74: 427–431.
69.
PerronP. Testing for a unit root in a time series with a changing mean. J Bus Econ Stat1990; 8: 153–162.
70.
ShinYYuBGreenwood-NimmoM. Modeling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric Methods and Applications2014: 281–314.
71.
HackerS. A bootstrap test for causality with endogenous lag length choice: theory and application in finance. J Econ Stud2012; 39: 144–160.
72.
PesaranMHShinY. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ2001; 16: 289–326.
