The deepening understanding of the environment has heightened our perception of the causes of environmental damage, promoting a shift from combating pollution to preventing it with a core emphasis on environmental protection. Academicians and governance authorities have shifted their focus from traditional production practices to green production practices (GPP). The current body of literature has explored the impact of GPP on environmental quality. Whereas, the implications of geopolitical risk (GPR) and environmental policy stringency (EPS) on GPP are still unexplored. Keeping in view these gaps in existing research, this research is the earliest endeavor to examine the impact of GPR and EPS on GPP for the group of seven (G-7) countries from 1990 to 2020. In this regard, we have applied panel quantile regression (PQR) which allows for a more flexible treatment of heterogeneity and is robust to deal with outliers and skewed distributions compared to traditional panel data techniques. The empirical findings reveal that GPR has a significant destructive impact on GPP whereas, the EPS upsurge the GPP in G-7 countries. Founded on the factual outcomes, we recommend policy recommendations to achieve the objectives of SDG 07 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 08 (exports for decent economic growth), SDG 09 (industry innovation and infrastructure), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and societies), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG 13 (environmental policies for climate action), and SDG 16 (conflict, peace, and justice strong institutions).
LuoZDubeyRGunasekaranA, et al.Sustainable production framework for cement manufacturing firms: a behavioural perspective. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017; 78: 495–502.
2.
de Oliveira SantosHAlvesJLSde MeloFJC, et al.An approach to implement cleaner production in services: integrating quality management process. J Cleaner Prod2020; 246: 118985.
3.
AsadiSNilashiMSamadS, et al.A proposed adoption model for green IT in manufacturing industries. J Cleaner Prod2021; 297: 126629.
4.
GereffiG. The global economy: organization, governance, and development. The Handbook of Economic Sociology2005; 2: 160–182.
5.
ChegeSMWangD. Information technology innovation and its impact on job creation by SMEs in developing countries: an analysis of the literature review. Technol Anal Strateg Manag2020; 32: 256–271.
6.
XuCZhangBGuC, et al.Are we underestimating the sources of microplastic pollution in terrestrial environment?J Hazard Mater2020; 400: 123228.
7.
HashimHRamlanMRShiunLJ, et al.An integrated carbon accounting and mitigation framework for greening the industry. Energy Procedia2015; 75: 2993–2998.
8.
ByrkaKJȩdrzejewskiASznajd-WeronK, et al.Difficulty is critical: the importance of social factors in modeling diffusion of green products and practices. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2016; 62: 723–735.
9.
BansalPRothK. Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad Manage J2000; 43: 717–736.
10.
Murillo-LunaJLGarcés-AyerbeCRivera-TorresP. Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strateg Manage J2008; 29: 1225–1240.
11.
HallegatteSHealGFayM, et al.From growth to green growth-a framework. 2012.
12.
KhoshnavaSMRostamiRZinRM, et al.Green efforts to link the economy and infrastructure strategies in the context of sustainable development. Energy2020; 193: 116759.
13.
RaoP. Greening production: a south-east Asian experience. Int J Oper Prod Manage2004; 24: 289–320.
14.
ZhangJOuyangYPhilbinSP, et al.Green dynamic capability of construction enterprises: role of the business model and green production. Corp Soc Resp Environ Manag2020; 27: 2920–2940.
15.
SubramanianNGunasekaranA. Cleaner supply-chain management practices for twenty-first-century organizational competitiveness: practice-performance framework and research propositions. Int J Prod Econ2015; 164: 216–233.
16.
ZhangPDuanNDanZ, et al.An understandable and practicable cleaner production assessment model. J Cleaner Prod2018; 187: 1094–1102.
17.
RitiJSShuYRitiM-KJ. Geopolitical risk and environmental degradation in BRICS: aggregation bias and policy inference. Energy Policy2022; 166: 113010.
18.
GongXXuJ. Geopolitical risk and dynamic connectedness between commodity markets. Energy Economics2022; 110: 106028.
19.
AlsagrNvan HemmenS. The impact of financial development and geopolitical risk on renewable energy consumption: evidence from emerging markets. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 25906–25919.
20.
CaldaraDIacovielloM. Measuring geopolitical risk. Am Econ Rev2022; 112: 1194–1225.
21.
WangQRenFLiR. Exploring the impact of geopolitics on the environmental Kuznets curve research. Sustain Dev2023.
22.
ZhaoZGozgorGLauMCK, et al.The impact of geopolitical risks on renewable energy demand in OECD countries. Energy Econ2023; 122: 106700.
23.
HassanSTKhanDBalochMA, et al.The heterogeneous impact of geopolitical risk and environment-related innovations on greenhouse gas emissions: the role of nuclear and renewable energy in the circular economy. Gondwana Res2023; 127.
24.
GozgorG. Are shocks to renewable energy consumption permanent or transitory? An empirical investigation for Brazil, China, and India. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2016; 66: 913–919.
25.
BloomN. The impact of uncertainty shocks. Econometrica2009; 77: 623–685.
26.
XiaofangLSyedQRAhmedZ. Green growth, geopolitical risk, and economic policy uncertainty: Evidence from China. Nat Resour Forum2023.
27.
JaffeABNewellRGStavinsRN. A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ2005; 54: 164–174.
28.
LiuLPangLWuH, et al.Does environmental policy stringency influence CO2 emissions in the Asia Pacific region? A nonlinear perspective. Air Qual Atmos Health2023; 16: 2499–2508.
29.
NevesSAMarquesACPatrícioM. Determinants of CO2 emissions in European Union countries: does environmental regulation reduce environmental pollution?Econ Anal Policy2020; 68: 114–125.
30.
HicksJR. Marginal productivity and the principle of variation. Economica1932: 79–88.
31.
AhmedK. Environmental policy stringency, related technological change and emissions inventory in 20 OECD countries. J Environ Manage2020; 274: 111209.
32.
JohnstoneNHaščičIPoirierJ, et al.Environmental policy stringency and technological innovation: evidence from survey data and patent counts. Appl Econ2012; 44: 2157–2170.
33.
DestekMAAslanA. Disaggregated renewable energy consumption and environmental pollution nexus in G-7 countries. Renewable Energy2020; 151: 1298–1306.
34.
AdebayoTSAkadiriSSAkpanU, et al.Asymmetric effect of financial globalization on carbon emissions in G7 countries: fresh insight from quantile-on-quantile regression. Energy Environ2023; 34: 1285–1304.
35.
BP-Statistics. Bristish Petrolium (BP) Statistical Review. Statistical review of world energy. Bristish Petrolium. 2020. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics.html
36.
World Bank. World development indicators (WDI). Online Database. 2021. https://data.worldbank.org/
37.
ChurchillSAInekweJIvanovskiK, et al.The environmental Kuznets curve in the OECD: 1870–2014. Energy Econ2018; 75: 389–399.
38.
IbrahimRLAjideKB. Nonrenewable and renewable energy consumption, trade openness, and environmental quality in G-7 countries: the conditional role of technological progress. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2021; 28: 45212–45229.
39.
PapastamouA. How safe are we? Shaping european economy by geopolitical shocks. 2023.
40.
KhanZAliSUmarM, et al.Consumption-based carbon emissions and international trade in G7 countries: the role of environmental innovation and renewable energy. Sci Total Environ2020; 730: 138945.
41.
AnwarAChaudharyARMalikS. Modeling the macroeconomic determinants of environmental degradation in E-7 countries: the role of technological innovation and institutional quality. J Public Affairs2023; 23: e2834.
42.
JiakuiCAbbasJNajamH, et al.Green technological innovation, green finance, and financial development and their role in green total factor productivity: empirical insights from China. J Cleaner Prod2023; 382: 135131.
43.
GovindanKAzevedoSGCarvalhoH, e al. Lean, green and resilient practices influence on supply chain performance: interpretive structural modeling approach. IJEST2015; 12: 15–34.
44.
WangQWangLLiR. Trade openness helps move towards carbon neutrality—Insight from 114 countries. Sustain Dev2023c; 32(1).
45.
BaahCOpoku-AgyemanDAcquahISK, et al.Examining the correlations between stakeholder pressures, green production practices, firm reputation, environmental and financial performance: evidence from manufacturing SMEs. Sustain Prod Consum2021; 27: 100–114.
46.
ZameerHWangYYasmeenH. Reinforcing green competitive advantage through green production, creativity and green brand image: implications for cleaner production in China. J Cleaner Prod2020; 247: 119119.
47.
AnserMKSyedQRApergisN. Does geopolitical risk escalate CO2 emissions? Evidence from the BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 48011–48021.
48.
HusnainMIUSyedQRBashirA, et al.Do geopolitical risk and energy consumption contribute to environmental degradation? Evidence from E7 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 41640–41652.
49.
AcheampongAOOpokuEEOAlukoOA. The roadmap to net-zero emission: Do geopolitical risk and energy transition matter?J Public Aff2023; 23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2882.
50.
OwjimehrSEmami MeybodiMJamshidiN. Can geopolitical risk improve energy efficiency in European countries?Energy Strat Rev2023; 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101145.
51.
SweidanOD. The effect of geopolitical risk on environmental stress: evidence from a panel analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2023; 30: 25712–25727.
52.
SyedQRBhowmikRAdedoyinFF, et al.Do economic policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk surge CO2 emissions? New insights from panel quantile regression approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 27845–27861.
53.
ZhangDChenXHLauCKM, et al.The causal relationship between green finance and geopolitical risk: implications for environmental management. J Environ Manag2023; 327: 116949.
54.
NygaardA. The geopolitical risk and strategic uncertainty of green growth after the Ukraine invasion: how the circular economy can decrease the market power of and resource dependency on critical minerals. Circular Economy and Sustainability2023; 3: 1099–1126.
55.
XiePXuYTanX, et al.How does environmental policy stringency influence green innovation for environmental managements?J Environ Manag2023; 338: 117766.
56.
LiRLiuZLiS, et al.Geopolitical risk, green finance and natural resources: a novel analysis of China’s national level data. Resources Policy2023a; 86: 104221.
57.
LiRWangQLiL, et al.Do natural resource rent and corruption governance reshape the environmental kuznets curve for ecological footprint? Evidence from 158 countries. Resources Policy2023b; 85: 103890.
58.
WangQWangXLiR, et al.Reinvestigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) of carbon emissions and ecological footprint in 147 countries: a matter of trade protectionism. c2024; 11: 1–17.
59.
Wolde-RufaelYWeldemeskelEM. Environmental policy stringency, renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions: panel cointegration analysis for BRIICTS countries. Int J Green Energy2020; 17: 568–582.
60.
LinM-XLeeT-YChouK-T. The environmental policy stringency in Taiwan and its challenges on green economy transition. Dev Soc2018; 47: 477–502.
61.
Gebre BorojoDYushiJHongyuZ, et al.A pathway to the green revolution in emerging economies: how does green technological innovation affect green growth and ecological sustainability?Econ Res-Ekon Istraž2023; 36(1).
62.
ChangJ-JHuangC-YWongCY, et al.Environmental regulation stringency and allocation between R&D and physical capital: a two-engine growth model. J Econ Behav Organ2023; 216: 733–753.
63.
CrawfordNGordonDF. The geopolitics of greenflation. In: Survival: October–November 2022. Routledge, 2023, pp.91–112.
64.
SohagKHammoudehSElsayedAH, et al.Do geopolitical events transmit opportunity or threat to green markets? Decomposed measures of geopolitical risks. Energy Econ2022; 111: 106068.
65.
PesaranMH. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Available at SSRN 572504. 2004.
66.
WesterlundJ. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf Bull Econ Stat2007; 69: 709–748.
FriedmanM. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. JASA1937; 32(200): 675–701.
69.
DoganESekerF. The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2016; 60: 1074–1085.
70.
AhmadMJiangPMajeedA, et al.The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: An advanced panel data estimation. Resources Policy2020; 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101817.
71.
PesaranMH. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ2007; 22: 265–312.
PhillipsPCBHansenBE. Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. Rev Econ1990; 57: 99–125.
74.
SaikkonenP. Estimation and testing of cointegrated systems by an autoregressive approximation. Econom Theory1992; 8: 1–27.
75.
StockJHWatsonM. A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica1993; 61: 783–820.
76.
KaoCChiangM-H. On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. In: Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2001, pp.179–222.
77.
ChienFAnwarAHsuC-C, et al.The role of information and communication technology in encountering environmental degradation: Proposing an SDG framework for the BRICS countries. Technol Soc2021; 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101587.
78.
IqbalATangXRasoolSF. Investigating the nexus between CO2 emissions, renewable energy consumption, FDI, exports and economic growth: evidence from BRICS countries. Environ Dev Sustain2023; 25: 2234–2263.
79.
ZwaneTTUdimalTBPakmoniL. Examining the drivers of agricultural carbon emissions in Africa: an application of FMOLS and DOLS approaches. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 56542–56557.
80.
AnwarAMalikS. Cogitating the role of technological innovation and institutional quality on environmental degradation in G-7 countries. Int J Green Econ2021; 15: 213–232.
81.
JiangYSharifAAnwarA, et al.Does green growth in E-7 countries depend on economic policy uncertainty, institutional quality, and renewable energy? Evidence from quantile-based regression. Geosci Front2023; 14(6): 101652.
82.
LiuHAnwarARazzaqA, et al.The key role of renewable energy consumption, technological innovation and institutional quality in formulating the SDG policies for emerging economies: evidence from quantile regression. Energy Rep2022; 8: 11810–11824.
83.
CanayIA. A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. Econom J2011; 14: 368–386.
84.
XuRXuLXuB. Assessing CO2 emissions in China’s iron and steel industry: evidence from quantile regression approach. J Cleaner Prod2017; 152: 259–270.
85.
BeraAKGalvaoAFJrMontes-RojasGV, et al.Asymmetric Laplace regression: maximum likelihood, maximum entropy and quantile regression. J Econ Methods2016; 5: 79–101.
86.
SherwoodBWangL. Partially linear additive quantile regression in ultra-high dimension. 2016.
87.
AdebayoTSAkadiriSSRitiJS, et al.Interaction among geopolitical risk, trade openness, economic growth, carbon emissions and its implication on climate change in India. Energy Environ2023b; 34: 1305–1326.
88.
OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) Database. 2023. https:// stats. oecd. org/ (accessed 2 Jun, 2023).
89.
World Bank. World development indicators (WDI). Online Database. 2023. https://data.worldbank.org/.
90.
UddinIUsmanMSaqibN, et al.The impact of geopolitical risk, governance, technological innovations, energy use, and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in the BRICS region. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30(29): 1–16.
91.
Olasehinde-WilliamsGFolorunshoA. Environmental policy, green trade and sustainable development in Europe: new perspective on the Porter hypothesis. Energy Environ2023: 0958305X231193870.
92.
HaoL-NUmarMKhanZ, et al.Green growth and low carbon emission in G7 countries: how critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and human capital is?Sci Total Environ2021; 752: 141853.
93.
CevikEIYıldırımDÇDiboogluS. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth in the US: a Markov-Switching VAR analysis. Energy Environ2021; 32: 519–541.
94.
SöderstenCJWoodRHertwichEG. Environmental impacts of capital formation. J Ind Ecol2018; 22: 55–67.
95.
WangRQiZShuY. Research on multiple effects of fixed-asset investment on energy consumption—by three strata of industry in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 41299–41313.
96.
KobayakawaT. The carbon footprint of capital formation: an empirical analysis on its relationship with a country’s income growth. J Ind Ecol2022; 26: 522–535.
97.
BartelmusP. The cost of natural capital consumption: accounting for a sustainable world economy. Ecol Econ2009; 68: 1850–1857.
98.
CaoXDengQLiX, et al.Fine me if you can: fixed asset intensity and enforcement of environmental regulations in China. Regul Gov2022; 16: 983–1004.
99.
CanMAhmadMKhanZ. The impact of export composition on environment and energy demand: evidence from newly industrialized countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 33599–33612.
100.
YangXLiC. Industrial environmental efficiency, foreign direct investment and export—evidence from 30 provinces in China. J Cleaner Prod2019; 212: 1490–1498.
101.
WeiHZhangY. Analysis of impact of urbanization on environmental quality in China. China World Econ2017; 25: 85–106.
102.
OchoaJJTanYQianQK, et al.Learning from best practices in sustainable urbanization. Habitat Int2018; 78: 83–95.
