The role of green finance is to develop green industry mechanisms in areas including transportation, building, water preservation, clean energy production, storage, and distribution, which ultimately results in emissions and waste reduction, biodiversity habitat protection, and pollution control. Therefore, recognizing the significance of green finance, this research investigates the asymmetric role of green finance and clean energy in the reduction of carbon emissions along with economic growth, foreign direct investment, and urbanization as control antecedents using the econometric model of “non-linear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL)” for the period 2000–2020 in ASEAN nations. According to the NARDL outcomes, green finance, and clean energy positive shock enhances the ecological quality and negative shocks harm environmental quality. In addition, economic growth, and urbanization contribute to harmful pollutants. Therefore, the results recommend ASEAN nations’ governments, environmentalists, and policymakers, devise strong financial mechanisms, and develop long-term green investment strategies to attract green finance and investment opportunities to bridge the gap in clean energy.
JahangerAHossainMROnweJC, et al.Analyzing the N-shaped EKC among top nuclear energy generating nations: a novel dynamic common correlated effects approach. Gondwana Res2023; 116: 73–88.
2.
NgoQTTranHATranHTT. The impact of green finance and COVID-19 on economic development: capital formation and educational expenditure of ASEAN economies. China Fin Rev Int2022; 12: 261–279.
3.
AdebayoTS. Trade-off between environmental sustainability and economic growth through coal consumption and natural resources exploitation in China: new policy insights from wavelet local multiple correlation. Geol J2023; 4: 12–25.
4.
IrfanMUllahSRazzaqA, et al.Unleashing the dynamic impact of tourism industry on energy consumption, economic output, and environmental quality in China: a way forward towards environmental sustainability. J Cleaner Prod2023; 387: 135778.
5.
JahangerAOzturkIOnweJC, et al.Do technology and renewable energy contribute to energy efficiency and carbon neutrality? Evidence from top ten manufacturing countries. Sustain Energy Technol Assess2023; 56: 103084.
6.
UllahSLuoRAdebayoTS,et al.Dynamics between environmental taxes and ecological sustainability: evidence from top-seven green economies by novel quantile approaches. Sustain Dev2023; 4. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2423
7.
WangCRazaSAAdebayoTS, et al.The roles of hydro, nuclear and biomass energy towards carbon neutrality target in China: a policy-based analysis. Energy2023; 262: 125303.
8.
UsmanMJahangerA. Heterogeneous effects of remittances and institutional quality in reducing environmental deficit in the presence of EKC hypothesis: a global study with the application of panel quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 37292–37310.
ChiuYBLeeCC. Effects of financial development on energy consumption: the role of country risks. Energy Econ2020; 90: 104833.
11.
JahangerAZamanUHossainMR,et al.Articulating CO2 emissions limiting roles of nuclear energy and ICT under the EKC hypothesis: an application of non-parametric MMQR approach. Geosci Front2023; 101589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101589
12.
UsmanMBalsalobre-LorenteDJahangerA,et al.Are Mercosur economies going green or going away? An empirical investigation of the association between technological innovations, energy use, natural resources and GHG emissions. Gondwana Res2023; 113: 53–70.
13.
JahangerAChishtiMZOnweJC,et al.How far renewable energy and globalization are useful to mitigate the environment in Mexico? Application of QARDL and spectral causality analysis. Renew Energy2022; 201: 514–525.
14.
AwanAAlnourMJahangerA,et al.Do technological innovation and urbanization mitigate carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector?Technol Soc2022; 71: 102128.
15.
YangSJahangerAHossainMR. How effective has the low-carbon city pilot policy been as an environmental intervention in curbing pollution? Evidence from Chinese industrial enterprises. Energy Economics2023; 106523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106523
16.
JiangTYuYJahangerA,et al.Structural emissions reduction of China’s power and heating industry under the goal of “double carbon”: a perspective from input–output analysis. Sustain Product Consump2022; 31: 346–356.
17.
JahangerAUsmanMMurshedM, et al.The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: the moderating role of technological innovations. Resour Pol2022; 76: 102569.
18.
ZeraibiAJahangerAAdebayoTS, et al.Greenfield investments, economic complexity, and financial inclusion-environmental quality nexus in BRICS Countries: does renewable energy transition matter?Gondwana Res2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.12.020
19.
WuLWanXJahangerA, et al.Does the digital economy reduce air pollution in China? A perspective from industrial agglomeration. Energy Rep2023; 9: 3625–3641.
20.
JahangerAYuYHossainMR, et al.Going away or going green in NAFTA nations? Linking natural resources, energy utilization, and environmental sustainability through the lens of the EKC hypothesis. Resour Pol2022; 79: 103091.
21.
ZeraibiARadulescuMKhanMK, et al.Analyzing the linkage between public debt, renewable electricity output, and CO2 emissions in emerging economies: does the N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve exist?Energy Environ2023; 0958305X231151678, https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231151678.
ChenXChenZ. Can green finance development reduce carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from 30 Chinese provinces. Sustainability2021; 13: 12137.
28.
ZhouHXuG. Research on the impact of green finance on China’s regional ecological development based on system GMM model. Resour Pol2022; 75: 102454.
29.
ZakariAKhanI. The introduction of green finance: a curse or a benefit to environmental sustainability?Energy Res Lett2022; 3. Accessed at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id = 44182305. 2020.
30.
TranQH. The impact of green finance, economic growth and energy usage on CO2 emission in Vietnam–a multivariate time series analysis. China Finan Rev Int2022; 12: 280–296.
31.
ChienFSadiqMKamranHW, et al.Co-movement of energy prices and stock market return: environmental wavelet nexus of COVID-19 pandemic from the USA, Europe, and China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 32359–32373.
32.
ChakrabortyIMaityP. COVID-19 outbreak: migration, effects on society, global environment and prevention. Sci Total Environ2020; 728: 138882.
33.
ZhangDMohsinMRasheedAK, et al.Public spending and green economic growth in BRI region: mediating role of green finance. Energy Policy2021; 153: 112256.
34.
MohsinMTaghizadeh-HesaryFPanthamitN, et al.Developing low carbon finance index: evidence from developed and developing economies. Finan Res Lett2021; 43: 101520.
35.
YoshinoNTaghizadeh-HesaryFOtsukaM. COVID-19 and optimal portfolio selection for investment in sustainable development goals. Finan Res Lett2021; 38: 101695.
36.
NaderipourAAbdul-MalekZAhmadNA, et al.Effect of COVID-19 virus on reducing GHG emission and increasing energy generated by renewable energy sources: a brief study in Malaysian context. Environ Technol Innov2020; 20: 101151.
37.
YangSJahangerAHossainMR. Does China’s low-carbon city pilot intervention limit electricity consumption? An analysis of industrial energy efficiency using time-varying DID model. Energy Econ2023; 121: 106636.
38.
MuganyiTYanLSunHP. Green finance, fintech and environmental protection: evidence from China. Environ Sci Ecotechnol2021; 7: 100107.
39.
HuangYChenC. The spatial spillover and threshold effect of green finance on environmental quality: evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16892-x
40.
WangFCaiWElahiE. Do green finance and environmental regulation play a crucial role in the reduction of CO2 emissions? An empirical analysis of 126 Chinese cities. Sustainability2021; 13: 13014.
41.
MngumiFShaorongSShairF,et al.Does green finance mitigate the effects of climate variability: role of renewable energy investment and infrastructure. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 59287–59299.
42.
KhanMARiazHAhmedM,et al.Does green finance really deliver what is expected? An empirical perspective. Borsa Istanbul Rev2022; 22: 586–593.
43.
AdebayoTSSamourA. Renewable energy, fiscal policy and load capacity factor in BRICS countries: novel findings from panel nonlinear ARDL model. Environ Dev Sustain2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02888-1
44.
LeeCCLeeCC. How does green finance affect green total factor productivity? Evidence from China. Energy Econ2022; 107: 105863.
45.
AbbasSKousarSPervaizA. Effects of energy consumption and ecological footprint on CO2 emissions: an empirical evidence from Pakistan. Environ Dev Sustain2021; 23: 13364–13381.
46.
NawazMAHussainMSKamranHW, et al.Trilemma association of energy consumption, carbon emission, and economic growth of BRICS and OECD regions: quantile regression estimation. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 16014–16028.
47.
MartinsTBarretoACSouzaFM,et al.Fossil fuels consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in G7 countries: empirical evidence from ARDL bounds testing approach. Environ Pollut2021; 291: 118093.
48.
BekunFVAlolaAASarkodieSA. Toward a sustainable environment: nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Sci Total Environ2019; 657: 1023–1029.
49.
AbaidooRAgyapongEK. Trade liberalization and environmental sustainability risk: do governance and regulatory structures influence the dynamics?Int Trade J2022; 36: 353–376.
50.
AlolaAABekunFVSarkodieSA. Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Sci Total Environ2019; 685: 702–709.
51.
LiKHuEXuC, et al.A heterogeneous analysis of the nexus between energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from the group of twenty (G20) countries. Energy Explor Exploit2021; 39: 815–837.
52.
NathanielSPAdeleyeN. Environmental preservation amidst carbon emissions, energy consumption, and urbanization in selected African countries: implication for sustainability. J Cleaner Prod2021; 285: 125409.
53.
SherazMDeyiXAhmedJ, et al.Moderating the effect of globalization on financial development, energy consumption, human capital, and carbon emissions: evidence from G20 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 35126–35144.
54.
BekunFVGyamfiBABamideleRO,et al.Tourism-induced emission in Sub-Saharan Africa: a panel study for oil-producing and non-oil-producing countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 41725–41741.
55.
JoofFIsiksalAZ. Do human capital and export diversification decline or augment CO2 emissions? Empirical evidence from the MINT countries. Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management2021; 9(02): 111–125. https://doi.org/10.5890/JEAM.2021.06.002
56.
MusahMKongYMensahIA, et al.Modelling the connection between energy consumption and carbon emissions in North Africa: evidence from panel models robust to cross-sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity. Environ Dev Sustain2021: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01294-3
57.
LiDWuSLiangZ, et al. The impacts of urbanization and climate change on urban vegetation dynamics in China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening2020; 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126764
58.
NathanielSPYalçinerKBekunFV. Assessing the environmental sustainability corridor: linking natural resources, renewable energy, human capital, and ecological footprint in BRICS. Resour Pol2021; 70: 101924.
59.
YuYHouJJahangerA, et al.Decomposition analysis of China’s chemical sector energy-related CO2 emissions: from an extended SDA approach perspective. Energy Environ2023; 0958305X231151682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231151682
60.
NguyenDKHuynhTLDNasirMA. Carbon emissions determinants and forecasting: evidence from G6 countries. J Environ Manag2021; 285: 111988.
61.
YükselSDinçerHKarakuşH,et al.The negative effects of carbon emission on FDI: a comparative analysis between E7 and G7 countries. In: Handbook of research on sustainable supply chain management for the global economy. IGI Global, 2020, pp.20–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4601-7.ch002
62.
FaisalFPervaizROzatacN,et al.Exploring the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions, urbanisation and financial deepening for Turkey using the symmetric and asymmetric causality approaches. Environ Dev Sustainabil2021; 23: 17374–17402.
63.
NathanielSPNwuluNBekunF. Natural resource, globalization, urbanization, human capital, and environmental degradation in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 6207–6221.
64.
LiSSamourAIrfanM,et al.Role of renewable energy and fiscal policy on trade adjusted carbon emissions: evaluating the role of environmental policy stringency. Renewable Energy2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.01.047
65.
PataUKSamourA. Assessing the role of the insurance market and renewable energy in the load capacity factor of OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25747-6
66.
MeoMSAbd KarimMZ. The role of green finance in reducing CO2 emissions: an empirical analysis. Borsa Istanbul Rev2022; 22: 169–178.
YupingLRamzanMXinchengL, et al.Determinants of carbon emissions in Argentina: the roles of renewable energy consumption and globalization. Energy Reports2021; 7: 4747–4760.
69.
DoğanBDrihaOMBalsalobre LorenteD,et al.The mitigating effects of economic complexity and renewable energy on carbon emissions in developed countries. Sustainable Development2021; 29: 1–12.
70.
HasanovFJKhanZHussainM,et al.Theoretical framework for the carbon emissions effects of technological progress and renewable energy consumption. Sustain Dev2021; 29: 810–822.
71.
JahangerABalsalobre-LorenteDSamourA, et al.Do renewable energy and the real estate market promote environmental quality in South Africa: evidence from the bootstrap ARDL approach. Sustainability2022; 14: 16466.
72.
JoofFSamourATursoyT,et al.Climate change, insurance market, renewable energy, and biodiversity: double-materiality concept from BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24068-4
73.
AdedoyinFFAlolaAABekunFV. An assessment of environmental sustainability corridor: the role of economic expansion and research and development in EU countries. Sci Total Environ2020; 713: 136726.
74.
MujtabaAJenaPKBekunFV,et al.Symmetric and asymmetric impact of economic growth, capital formation, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on environment in OECD countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2022; 160: 112300.
75.
DingruLRamzanMIrfanM, et al.The role of renewable energy consumption towards carbon neutrality in BRICS nations: does globalization matter?Front Environ Sci2021; 569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.796083
76.
ZafarMWSinhaAAhmedZ, et al.Effects of biomass energy consumption on environmental quality: the role of education and technology in Asia-Pacific economic cooperation countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2021; 142: 110868.
77.
HeXAdebayoTSKirikkaleliD,et al.Consumption-based carbon emissions in Mexico: an analysis using the dual adjustment approach. Sustain Product Consump2021; 27: 947–957.
78.
MajeedMTTauqirAMazharM,et al.Asymmetric effects of energy consumption and economic growth on ecological footprint: new evidence from Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 32945–32961.
79.
AliMUGongZAliMU, et al.Fossil energy consumption, economic development, inward FDI impact on CO2 emissions in Pakistan: testing EKC hypothesis through ARDL model. Int J Fin Econ2021; 26: 3210–3221.
80.
AsonguSAAgboolaMOAlolaAA,et al.The criticality of growth, urbanization, electricity and fossil fuel consumption to environment sustainability in Africa. Sci Total Environ2020; 712: 136376.
81.
TalbiBRamzanMIqbalHA,et al.Appraisal of CO2 emission in Tunisia’s industrial sector: a dynamic vector autoregression method. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 38464–38477.
82.
AdebayoTSRamzanMIqbalHA, et al.The environmental sustainability effects of financial development and urbanization in Latin American countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 57983–57996.
PesaranMH. Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econom Rev2015; 34: 1089–1117.
86.
PesaranMHYamagataT. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. J Econom2008; 142: 50–93.
87.
ImKSPesaranMHShinY. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econom2003; 115: 53–74.
88.
ShinYYuBGreenwood-NimmoM. Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric Methods and Applications2014: 281–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9
89.
PesaranMHShinYSmithRJ. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econometr2001; 16: 289–326.
90.
RahmanZUAhmadM. Modeling the relationship between gross capital formation and CO 2 (a) symmetrically in the case of Pakistan: an empirical analysis through NARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2019; 26: 8111–8124.
91.
AyadHSari-HassounSEUsmanM,et al.The impact of economic uncertainty, economic growth and energy consumption on environmental degradation in MENA countries: fresh insights from multiple thresholds NARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 1806–1824.
92.
ChudikAMohaddesKPesaranMH,et al.Long-run effects in large heterogeneous panel data models with cross-sectionally correlated errors. In: Essays in honor of Aman Ullah. Vol. 36. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2016, pp.85–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0731-905320160000036013
93.
DingruLRamzanMIrfanM, et al.The role of renewable energy consumption towards carbon neutrality in BRICS nations: does globalization matter?Front Environ Sci2021; 569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.796083
94.
IrfanMChenZAdebayoTS,et al.Socio-economic and technological drivers of sustainability and resources management: demonstrating the role of information and communications technology and financial development using advanced wavelet coherence approach. Resour Pol2022; 79: 103038.
95.
FareedZRehmanMAAdebayoTS, et al.Financial inclusion and the environmental deterioration in Eurozone: the moderating role of innovation activity. Technol Soc2022; 69: 101961.
96.
GaoBOzturkIUllahS. A new framework to the green economy: asymmetric role of public-private partnership investment on environment in selected Asian economies. Econ Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja2022: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2094441
97.
AdebayoTS. Environmental consequences of fossil fuel in Spain amidst renewable energy consumption: a new insights from the wavelet-based granger causality approach. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol2022; 29: 579–592.
98.
AlolaAAAdebayoTS. Are green resource productivity and environmental technologies the face of environmental sustainability in the Nordic region?Sustain Dev2022; 2(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2417
99.
GyamfiBAAdebayoTSBekunFV, et al.Another look at the nexus between economic growth trajectory and emission within the context of developing country: fresh insights from a nonparametric causality-in-quantiles test. Environ Dev Sustainabil2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02533-x
100.
BilgiliFKoçakEBulutÜ. The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited environmental Kuznets curve approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2016; 54: 838–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.080
101.
MoYUllahSOzturkI. Green investment and its influence on green growth in high polluted Asian economies: do financial markets and institutions matter?Econ Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja2022: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2140302
102.
LiLLiGOzturkIUllahS. Green innovation and environmental sustainability: do clean energy investment and education matter?Energy Environ2022; 0958305X221115096. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X221115096
103.
AdebayoTS. Towards unlocking the chain of sustainable development in the BRICS economies: analysing the role of economic complexity and financial risk. Geol J2023; 2(6): 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.4694
