Green finance serves as a bridge between development and ecological sustainability. It provides a roadmap for countries to accomplish sustainable development goals by simultaneously curbing their ecological footprint. Green financing prioritizes eco-friendly technologies, sustainable behaviors, renewable energy, and green infrastructure, promoting positive changes. This study examines the role of green finance on the ecological footprint of 11 East Asian and Pacific countries from 2000 to 2023. This study uses different diagnostic tests to prove the existence of cross-sectional dependency, non-normality, and slope heterogeneity. The coefficients are estimated using the fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS) approach and panel quantile regression at different quantiles. The results show the validity of an inverted U-shaped relationship between green finance and the ecological footprint. Further analysis explores that at the middle quantile, all selected countries except Mongolia and the Philippines, while the FMOLS approach shows that all countries’ green finance reduces their ecological footprint. Additionally, globalization reduces the ecological footprint, while economic growth, industrialization, and urbanization increase the ecological footprint. This study recommends that to fight against climate change, the selected countries should focus more on green finance. Financial institutions should provide funds only for environment-friendly technologies.
WangZTengYPXieL. Innovation for renewable energy and energy related greenhouse gases: evaluating the role of green finance. Sustain Energy Technol Assess2023; 57: 103279.
2.
SialMHArshedNAmjadMA, et al.Nexus between fossil fuel consumption and infant mortality rate: a non-linear analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 58378–58387.
3.
WangHAmjadMAArshedN, et al.Fossil energy demand and economic development in BRICS countries. Front Energy Res2022; 10: 1–15.
4.
XiongYGuoHNorDDMM, et al.Mineral resources depletion, environmental degradation, and exploitation of natural resources: COVID-19 aftereffects. Resour Policy2023; 85: 103907.
5.
AmjadMA. Moderating the role of social progress with greenhouse gases to determine the health vulnerability in developing countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 92123–92134.
6.
IPCC. Climate CHANGE 2022: Mitigation of climate change by intergovernmental panel on climate change, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ (2022, accessed 27 July 2022).
7.
EcksteinDKünzelVSchäferL. Global climate risk index 2021. Germanwatch eV2021; 28: 1–52.
8.
TengZHeYQiaoZ. Exploring the synergistic effects of digitalization and economic uncertainty on environmental sustainability: an investigation from China. Sustainability2023; 15: 11997.
9.
SuSQamruzzamanMKarimS. Charting a sustainable future: the impact of economic policy, environmental taxation, innovation, and natural resources on clean energy consumption. Sustainability2023; 15: 13585.
10.
SadiqMAmayriMAParamaiahC, et al.How green finance and financial development promote green economic growth: deployment of clean energy sources in south Asia. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 65521–65534.
UN. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/energy/ (2015, accessed 24 September 2023).
14.
KhanZAliSDongK, et al.How does fiscal decentralization affect CO2 emissions? The roles of institutions and human capital. Energy Econ2021; 94: 105060.
15.
RahmanMMAlamKVelayuthamE. Reduction of CO2 emissions: the role of renewable energy, technological innovation and export quality. Energy Rep2022; 8: 2793–2805.
16.
AroraNKMishraI. COP26: More challenges than achievements. Environ Sustainability2021; 4: 585–588.
17.
MohsinMNaseemSZia-ur-RehmanM, et al.The crypto-trade volume, GDP, energy use, and environmental degradation sustainability: an analysis of the top 20 crypto-trader countries. Int J Finance Econ2023; 28: 651–667.
18.
AmjadMAAsgharNRehmanHU. Can financial development help in raising sustainable economic growth and reduce environmental pollution in Pakistan? Evidence from non linear ARDL model. Rev Econ Dev Stud2021; 7: 475–491.
19.
SahooMSethiN. The dynamic impact of urbanization, structural transformation, and technological innovation on ecological footprint and PM2.5: evidence from newly industrialized countries. Environ Dev Sustain2022; 24: 4244–4277.
20.
XinDZhangY. Threshold effect of OFDI on China’s provincial environmental pollution. J Clean Prod2020; 258: 120608.
21.
WackernagelMReesW. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, 1998, pp. 1–3.
22.
KongbuamaiNBuiQYousafHMAU, et al.The impact of tourism and natural resources on the ecological footprint: a case study of ASEAN countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 19251–19264.
23.
AsgharNAmjadMAUr RehmanH, et al.Causes of higher ecological footprint in Pakistan. Does energy consumption contribute? Evidence from the non-linear ARDL model. Sustainability2023; 15: 3013.
24.
AgrawalRAgrawalSSamadhiyaA, et al.Adoption of green finance and green innovation for achieving circularity: an exploratory review and future directions. Geosci Front2023: 101669. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101669
25.
LöfflerKUPetreskiAStephanA. Drivers of green bond issuance and new evidence on the “greenium”. Eurasian Economic Rev2021; 11: 1–24.
26.
Saeed MeoMKarimMZA. The role of green finance in reducing CO2 emissions: an empirical analysis. Borsa Istanbul Rev2022; 22: 169–178.
27.
KhanMARiazHAhmedM, et al.Does green finance really deliver what is expected? An empirical perspective. Borsa Istanbul Rev2022; 22: 586–593.
28.
MadniGR. Meditation for role of productive capacities and green investment on ecological footprint in BRI countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 72308–72318.
29.
KoseogluAYucelAGUlucakR. Green innovation and ecological footprint relationship for a sustainable development: evidence from top 20 green innovator countries. Sustainable Dev2022; 30: 976–988.
30.
KirikkaleliDSofuoğluEOjekemiO. Does patents on environmental technologies matter for the ecological footprint in the USA? Evidence from the novel Fourier ARDL approach. Geosci Front2023; 14: 101564.
31.
UdeaghaMCMuchapondwaE. Green finance, fintech, and environmental sustainability: fresh policy insights from the BRICS nations. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol2023; 30: 633–649.
32.
YeJDelaE. The effect of green investment and green financing on sustainable business performance of foreign chemical industries operating in Indonesia: the mediating role of corporate social responsibility. Sustainability2023; 15: 11218.
33.
BeheraBBeheraPSethiN. Decoupling the role of renewable energy, green finance and political stability in achieving the sustainable development goal 13: empirical insight from emerging economies. Sustainable Dev2024; 32: 119–137.
34.
YangXKhanI. Dynamics among economic growth, urbanization, and environmental sustainability in IEA countries: the role of industry value-added. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 4116–4127.
35.
WuG. Research on the spatial impact of green finance on the ecological development of Chinese economy. Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 1–13.
Balsalobre-LorenteDTopalogluEENurT, et al.Exploring the linkage between financial development and ecological footprint in APEC countries: a novel view under corruption perception and environmental policy stringency. J Clean Prod2023; 414: 137686.
39.
DestekMA. Deindustrialization, reindustrialization and environmental degradation: evidence from ecological footprint of Turkey. J Clean Prod2021; 296: 126612.
40.
BashirMADengfengZFilipiakBZ, et al.Role of economic complexity and technological innovation for ecological footprint in newly industrialized countries: does geothermal energy consumption matter?Renew Energy2023; 217: 119059.
41.
SaqibNOzturkIUsmanM. Investigating the implications of technological innovations, financial inclusion, and renewable energy in diminishing ecological footprints levels in emerging economies. Geosci Front2023; 14: 101667.
42.
ZhanYWangYZhongY. Effects of green finance and financial innovation on environmental quality: new empirical evidence from China. Econ Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja2023; 36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2164034
43.
AhmadMJiangPMajeedA, et al.The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: an advanced panel data estimation. Resour Policy2020; 69: 101817.
44.
DestekMAMangaM. Technological innovation, financialization, and ecological footprint: evidence from BEM economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 21991–22001.
45.
JavedARapposelliAKhanF, et al.The impact of green technology innovation, environmental taxes, and renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Italy: fresh evidence from novel dynamic ARDL simulations. Technol Forecast Soc Change2023; 191: 122534.
46.
KahouliBHamdiBNaflaA, et al.Investigating the relationship between ICT, green energy, total factor productivity, and ecological footprint: empirical evidence from Saudi Arabia. Energy Strategy Rev2022; 42: 100871.
47.
MakhdumMSUsmanMKousarR, et al.How do institutional quality, natural resources, renewable energy, and financial development reduce ecological footprint without hindering economic growth trajectory? Evidence from China. Sustainability2022; 14: 13910.
48.
WangQZhangFLiR, et al.The impact of renewable energy on decoupling economic growth from ecological footprint – an empirical analysis of 166 countries. J Clean Prod2022; 354: 131706.
49.
NathanielSAnyanwuOShahM. Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint in the Middle East and North Africa region. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 14601–14613.
50.
KeHDaiSYuH. Effect of green innovation efficiency on ecological footprint in 283 Chinese cities from 2008 to 2018. Environ Dev Sustain2022; 24: 2841–2860.
51.
ChunlingLMemonJAThanhTL, et al.The impact of public-private partnership investment in energy and technological innovation on ecological footprint: the case of Pakistan. Sustainability2021; 13: 10085.
52.
FengSChongYYuH, et al.Digital financial development and ecological footprint: evidence from green-biased technology innovation and environmental inclusion. J Clean Prod2022; 380: 135069.
53.
RadulescuMBalsalobre-LorenteDJoofF, et al.Exploring the impacts of banking development, and renewable energy on ecological footprint in OECD: new evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Energies2022; 15: 9290.
54.
WangZChenHTengYP. Role of greener energies, high tech-industries and financial expansion for ecological footprints: implications from sustainable development perspective. Renew Energy2023; 202: 1424–1435.
55.
LiuRWangDZhangL, et al.Can green financial development promote regional ecological efficiency? A case study of China. Nat Hazards2019; 95: 325–341.
56.
OmokePCNwaniCEffiongEL, et al.The impact of financial development on carbon, non-carbon, and total ecological footprint in Nigeria: new evidence from asymmetric dynamic analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 21628–21646.
57.
KhanYKhanMAZafarS. Dynamic linkages among energy consumption, urbanization and ecological footprint: empirical evidence from NARDL approach. Manage Environ Q2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-10-2022-0278/FULL/XML
58.
Danish, UlucakRKhanSUD. Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustain Cities Soc2020; 54: 101996.
59.
PoncePÁlvarez-GarcíaJÁlvarezV, et al.Analysing the influence of foreign direct investment and urbanization on the development of private financial system and its ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 9624–9641.
60.
DadaJTAdeizaAIsmailNA, et al.Financial development–ecological footprint nexus in Malaysia: the role of institutions. Manage Environm Q2022; 33: 913–937.
61.
WenlongZNawazMASibghatullahA, et al.Impact of coal rents, transportation, electricity consumption, and economic globalization on ecological footprint in the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 43040–43055.
62.
HassanSTBatoolBWangP, et al.Impact of economic complexity index, globalization, and nuclear energy consumption on ecological footprint: first insights in OECD context. Energy2023; 263: 125628.
63.
SunQMaRXiZ, et al.Nonlinear impacts of energy consumption and globalization on ecological footprint: empirical research from BRICS countries. J Clean Prod2023; 396: 136488.
64.
LeeJW. Lagged effect of exports, industrialization and urbanization on carbon footprint in Southeast Asia. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol2019; 26: 398–405.
65.
KongbuamaiNBuiQNimsaiS. The effects of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption on the ecological footprint: the role of environmental policy in BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 27885–27899.
66.
UsmanMJahangerAMakhdumMS, et al.An empirical investigation of ecological footprint using nuclear energy, industrialization, fossil fuels and foreign direct investment. Energies2022; 15: 6442.
67.
RaimoNVitollaFMalandrinoO, et al.Can renewable energy and export help in reducing ecological footprint of India? Empirical evidence from augmented ARDL co-integration and dynamic ARDL simulations. Sustainability2022; 14: 15494.
68.
LiaoJLiuXZhouX, et al.Analyzing the role of renewable energy transition and industrialization on ecological sustainability: can green innovation matter in OECD countries. Renew Energy2023; 204: 141–151.
69.
OpokuEEOAlukoOA. Heterogeneous effects of industrialization on the environment: evidence from panel quantile regression. Struct Change Econ Dynam2021; 59: 174–184.
70.
QuitoBdel Río-Rama M de laCÁlvarez-GarcíaJ, et al.Impacts of industrialization, renewable energy and urbanization on the global ecological footprint: a quantile regression approach. Bus Strategy Environ2023; 32: 1529–1541.
71.
ZeraibiABalsalobre-LorenteDMurshedM. The influences of renewable electricity generation, technological innovation, financial development, and economic growth on ecological footprints in ASEAN-5 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 51003–51021.
72.
MagazzinoC. Ecological footprint, electricity consumption, and economic growth in China: geopolitical risk and natural resources governance. Empir Econ2024; 66(1): 1–25.
73.
UsmanMKousarRYaseenMR, et al.An empirical nexus between economic growth, energy utilization, trade policy, and ecological footprint: a continent-wise comparison in upper-middle-income countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 38995–39018.
74.
MurshedMNurmakhanovaMAl-TalR, et al.Can intra-regional trade, renewable energy use, foreign direct investments, and economic growth mitigate ecological footprints in South Asia?Energy Sources Part B2022; 17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2022.2038730
75.
WangRZhaoXZhangL. Research on the impact of green finance and abundance of natural resources on China’s regional eco-efficiency. Resour Policy2022; 76: 102579.
76.
SampeneAKLiCKhanA, et al.The dynamic nexus between biocapacity, renewable energy, green finance, and ecological footprint: evidence from South Asian economies. Int J Environ Sci Technol2023; 20: 8941–8962.
77.
ZhangSChenK. Green finance and ecological footprints: natural resources perspective of China’s growing economy. Resour Policy2023; 85: 103898.
78.
KuznetsS. Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev1955; 45: 1–28.
79.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly J Econ1995; 110: 353–377.
80.
BulutU. Environmental sustainability in Turkey: an environmental Kuznets curve estimation for ecological footprint. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol2021; 28: 1–11.
81.
AhmadMMuslijaASatrovicE. Does economic prosperity lead to environmental sustainability in developing economies? Environmental Kuznets curve theory. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 22588–22601.
82.
SultanaNRahmanMMKhanamR. Environmental kuznets curve and causal links between environmental degradation and selected socioeconomic indicators in Bangladesh. Environ Dev Sustain2022; 24: 5426–5450.
83.
DietzTRosaEA. Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1997; 94: 175–179.
84.
SardarMSRehmanH. Transportation moderation in agricultural sector sustainability — a robust global perspective. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 60385–60400.
85.
CopelandBRTaylorMS. North-South trade and the environment. Q J Econ1994; 109: 755–787.
AmjadMARehmanHAsgharN. The long-run dynamics of green technology, ecological footprint, and health vulnerability in developed and developing countries. iRASD J Econ2023; 5: 364–376.
88.
ChenYLeeC-CChenM. Ecological footprint, human capital, and urbanization. Energy Environ2021; 33(3): 487–510.
89.
KOF Index. Startseite – KOF Konjunkturforschungsstelle | ETH Zürich, https://kof.ethz.ch/ (2022, accessed 2 January 2023).
90.
RaniTAmjadMAAsgharN, et al.Revisiting the environmental impact of financial development on economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from South Asian economies. Clean Technol Environ Policy2022; 24: 2957–2965.
91.
RaniTAmjadMAAsgharN, et al.Exploring the moderating effect of globalization, financial development and environmental degradation nexus: a roadmap to sustainable development. Environ Dev Sustain2023; 25: 14499–14517.
92.
ShapiroSSWilkMB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika1965; 52: 591–611.
93.
ShapiroSSFranciaRS. An approximate analysis of variance test for normality. J Am Stat Assoc1972; 67: 215–216.
94.
PesaranMH. Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econom Rev2015; 34: 1089–1117.
95.
JuodisAReeseS. The incidental parameters problem in testing for remaining cross-section correlation. J Bus Econ Stat2022; 40: 1191–1203.
96.
PesaranMHXieY. A bias-corrected CD test for error cross-sectional dependence in panel data models with latent factors. SSRN Electronic Journal2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4198155
97.
PesaranHYamagataT. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. J Econom2008; 142: 50–93.
98.
SwamyPAVB. Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica1970; 38: 11.
99.
ImKSPesaranMHShinY. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econom2003; 115: 53–74.
100.
LevinALinCFChuCSJ. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econom2002; 108: 1–24.
101.
WesterlundJ. New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econom Rev2005; 24: 297–316.
102.
AbbasJBalsalobre-LorenteDAmjidMA, et al.Financial innovation and digitalization promote business growth: the interplay of green technology innovation, product market competition and firm performance. Innovation Green Dev2024; 3: 100111.
103.
AsgharNAmjadMARehmanH. Analyzing the impact of access to electricity and biomass energy consumption on infant mortality rate: a global perspective. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 29550–29565.
104.
AsgharNAmjadMARehmanH, et al.Achieving sustainable development resilience: poverty reduction through affordable access to electricity in developing economies. J Clean Prod2022; 376: 30.
105.
AmjadMARehmanH. The long run dynamics of sustainable economic development on ecological footprint in developed and developing countries: panel quantile regression. Rev Educ Adm Law2023; 6: 191–210.
106.
DawsonJF. Moderation in management research: what, why, when, and how. J Bus Psychol2014; 29: 1–19.
107.
HaansRFJPietersCHeZL. Thinking about U: theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strateg Manage J2016; 37: 1177–1195.
108.
NathanielSNwodoOSharmaG, et al.Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint linkage in CIVETS. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 19616–19629.
109.
LiLAliALiS, et al.A dynamic relationship between renewable energy, agriculture, globalization, and ecological footprint of the five most populous countries in Asia. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 2023: 1–14.
