Rapidly evolving innovation and digitalization have captured the focus of policymakers and scholars regarding their potent role in influencing environmental quality. The present research analyzes the impact of these variables on the carbon emissions of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa economies from 1990 to 2021. This research also explores the impact of economic growth, quadratic green innovation, and green energy on carbon emissions. Using several panel diagnostic tests, this research validates heterogeneous slopes, the presence of cross-sectional dependence, and significant cointegration. Due to the mixed integration order, this research uses a cross-sectional augmented autoregressive distributed lag model, and the results show that economic expansion and green innovation are significant drivers of emissions in both the short and long run. However, digitalization, quadratic green innovation, environmental policy stringency, and green energy are significant in improving environmental quality and sustainability. The long-term results are tested by employing a series of parametric and nonparametric regressions. This research recommends further investment in environmental research and development, digital technologies, green innovation, and the strengthening of environmental policies to attain sustainable development.
RamanathanVMolinaMJZaelkeD, et al.Well under 2 degrees Celsius. Fast action policies to protect people and the planet from extreme climate change. Report of the Committee to Prevent Extreme Climate Change. 2017.
4.
YangZGaoWHanQ, et al.Digitalization and carbon emissions: how does digital city construction affect China’s carbon emission reduction?Sustainable Cities Soc2022; 87: 104201.
5.
NizamHAZamanKKhanKB, et al.Achieving environmental sustainability through information technology: “digital Pakistan” initiative for green development. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 10011–10026.
6.
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.
7.
KhanIHanLZhongR, et al.Income inequality, economic growth, renewable energy usage, and environmental degradation in the belt and road initiative countries: dynamic panel estimation. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 57142–57154.
8.
KivimaaPKauttoP. Making or breaking environmental innovation? Technological change and innovation markets in the pulp and paper industry. Manage Res Rev2010; 33: 289–305. doi:10.1108/01409171011030426
9.
WuHXuLRenS, et al.How do energy consumption and environmental regulation affect carbon emissions in China? New evidence from a dynamic threshold panel model. Resour Policy2020; 67: 101678.
10.
KallisGPaulsonSD’AlisaG,et al.The case for degrowth. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2020.
11.
da MottaRSSrivastavaLMarkandyaA. The CDM and sustainable development: case studies from Brazil and India. In: Climate change and sustainable development. London, UK: Routledge, 2021, pp.247–284.
12.
WangHZhangR. Effects of environmental regulation on CO2 emissions: an empirical analysis of 282 cities in China. Sustainable Prod Consumption2022; 29: 259–272.
13.
JenkinsKMcCauleyDHeffronR, et al.Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Res Soc Sci2016; 11: 174–182.
14.
RasiahRMcFarlaneBKuruvillaS. Globalization, industrialization and labor markets. In: Journal of the Asia pacific economy. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis, 2015, pp.2–13.
15.
AcemogluDAghionPBursztynL,et al.The environment and directed technical change. Am Econ Rev2012; 102: 131–166.
16.
KuangHAkmalZLiF. Measuring the effects of green technology innovations and renewable energy investment for reducing carbon emissions in China. Renewable Energy2022; 197: 1–10.
17.
SternN. Why are we waiting?: The logic, urgency, and promise of tackling climate change. Massachusetts, USA: MIT press, 2015.
PaoH-TTsaiC-M. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in BRIC countries. Energy Policy2010; 38: 7850–7860.
20.
AlamMMMuradMWNomanAHM,et al.Relationships among carbon emissions, economic growth, energy consumption and population growth: testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Brazil, China, India and Indonesia. Ecol Indic2016; 70: 466–479.
21.
Balsalobre-LorenteDNurTTopalogluEE,et al.The dampening effect of geopolitical risk and economic policy uncertainty in the linkage between economic complexity and environmental degradation in the G-20. J Environ Manag2024b; 351: 119679.
22.
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 Policy2022; 79: 103091.
23.
OzturkIAl-MulaliU. Investigating the validity of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Cambodia. Ecol Indic2015; 57: 324–330.
24.
Zambrano-MonserrateMASilva-ZambranoCADavalos-PenafielJL, et al.Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Peru: the role of renewable electricity, petroleum and dry natural gas. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2018; 82: 4170–4178.
25.
ZhangHXuLZhouP, et al.Coordination between economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from 178 cities in China. Econ Anal Policy2024; 81: 164–180.
26.
MitićPKojićMMinovićJ, et al.An EKC-based modeling of CO2 emissions, economic growth, electricity consumption and trade openness in Serbia. Environ Sci Pollut Res2024; 31: 5807–5825. doi:10.1007/s11356-023-31617-y
27.
JebabliILahianiAMefteh-WaliS. Quantile connectedness between CO2 emissions and economic growth in G7 countries. Resour Policy2023; 81: 103348.
28.
WahabSImranMAhmedB, et al.Navigating environmental concerns: unveiling the role of economic growth, trade, resources and institutional quality on greenhouse gas emissions in OECD countries. J Cleaner Prod2024; 434: 139851.
29.
González-ÁlvarezMAMontañésA. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth: determining the stability of the 3E relationship. Econ Model2023; 121: 106195.
30.
AzzeddineBBen, HossainiF, et al.Greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth in Morocco: a decoupling analysis. J Cleaner Prod2024;450: 141857. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141857
31.
ZhaoYSuQLiB, et al.Have those countries declaring “zero carbon” or “carbon neutral” climate goals achieved carbon emissions-economic growth decoupling?J Cleaner Prod2022; 363: 132450.
32.
ZhangXGuoXZhangX. Assessing and prospecting decoupling effect of carbon emissions from economic growth: empirical studies from Chinese provinces. Energy Environ2023; 34: 2044–2071.
33.
GaoCGeHLuY, et al.Decoupling of provincial energy-related CO2 emissions from economic growth in China and its convergence from 1995 to 2017. J Cleaner Prod2021; 297: 126627.
34.
ChenYLeeC-C. Does technological innovation reduce CO2 emissions? Cross-country evidence. J Cleaner Prod2020; 263: 121550.
35.
ChengCRenXWangZ,et al.Heterogeneous impacts of renewable energy and environmental patents on CO2 emission-evidence from the BRIICS. Sci Total Environ2019; 668: 1328–1338.
36.
GandaF. The impact of innovation and technology investments on carbon emissions in selected organization for economic co-operation and development countries. J Cleaner Prod2019; 217: 469–483.
37.
MensahCNLongXBoamahKB, et al.The effect of innovation on CO2 emissions of OCED countries from 1990 to 2014. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 29678–29698.
38.
AdebayoTSBekunFVRjoubH, 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 Sustainability2023; 25: 11397–11419.
39.
AhakwaITackieEATackieFK, et al.Greening the path to carbon neutrality in the post-COP26 era: embracing green energy, green innovation, and green human capital. Innov Green Dev2024; 3: 100134.
40.
ZengQDestekMAKhanZ, et al.Green innovation, foreign investment and carbon emissions: a roadmap to sustainable development via green energy and energy efficiency for BRICS economies. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol2024; 31: 191–205.
41.
Balsalobre-LorenteDNurTTopalogluEE,et al.Assessing the impact of the economic complexity on the ecological footprint in G7 countries: fresh evidence under human development and energy innovation processes. Gondwana Res2024a; 127: 226–245.
42.
Balsalobre-LorenteDdos Santos ParenteCCLeitãoNC,et al.The influence of economic complexity processes and renewable energy on CO2 emissions of BRICS. What about industry 4.0?Resour Policy2023; 82: 103547.
43.
KoseogluAYucelAGUlucakR. Green innovation and ecological footprint relationship for a sustainable development: evidence from top 20 green innovator countries. Sustainable Dev2022; 30: 976–988.
44.
XiaoJChenSHanJ, et al.The carbon emission reduction effect of renewable resource utilization: from the perspective of green innovation. Atmos Pollut Res2024; 15: 102121. doi:10.1016/j.apr.2024.102121
45.
LiLLiGOzturkI,et al.Green innovation and environmental sustainability: do clean energy investment and education matter?Energy Environ2023; 34: 2705–2720.
46.
AbbasiKRZhangQOzturkI, et al.Energy transition, fossil fuels, and green innovations: paving the way to achieving sustainable development goals in the United States. Gondwana Res2024; 130: 326–341. doi:10.1016/j.gr.2024.02.005
47.
ShenNWangYPengH,et al.Renewable energy green innovation, fossil energy consumption, and air pollution—spatial empirical analysis based on China. Sustainability2020; 12: 6397.
48.
TariqMXuYUllahK,et al.Toward low-carbon emissions and green growth for sustainable development in emerging economies: do green trade openness, eco-innovation, and carbon price matter?Sustainable Dev2024; 32: 959–978. doi:10.1002/sd.2711
49.
ZhangCLiuC. The impact of ICT industry on CO2 emissions: a regional analysis in China. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2015; 44: 12–19.
50.
HigónDAGholamiRShiraziF. ICT and environmental sustainability: a global perspective. Telemat Inform2017; 34: 85–95. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.01.001
51.
AvomDNkengfackHFotioHK,et al.ICT and environmental quality in sub-Saharan Africa: effects and transmission channels. Technol Forecast Soc Change2020; 155: 120028.
52.
YaoWLiuLFujiiH,et al.Digitalization and net-zero carbon: the role of industrial robots toward carbon dioxide emission reduction. J Cleaner Prod2024; 450: 141820. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141820
53.
MaRZhangZJLinB. Evaluating the synergistic effect of digitalization and industrialization on total factor carbon emission performance. J Environ Manag2023; 348: 119281.
54.
WangYChenXIbrahimRL,et al.Unveiling the criticality of digitalization, eco-innovation, carbon tax, and environmental regulation in G7 quest for carbon footprint mitigation: insights for sustainable development. Nat Resour Forum Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2024.
55.
UllahSNiuBMeoMS. Digital inclusion and environmental taxes: a dynamic duo for energy transition in green economies. Appl Energy2024; 361: 122911.
56.
LuLChenQHuangR,et al.Education and its impact on renewable energy demand, carbon intensity, and green growth: do digital financial inclusion and environmental policy stringency matter in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 12020–12028. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-22759-6
57.
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.
58.
FrohmED’ArcangeloFMKruseT, et al.Environmental policy stringency and CO2 emissions: Evidence from cross-country sector-level data. 2023.
59.
AlbulescuCTBoatca-BarabasM-EDiaconescuA. The asymmetric effect of environmental policy stringency on CO2 emissions in OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 27311–27327.
60.
LiSSamourAIrfanM,et al.Role of renewable energy and fiscal policy on trade adjusted carbon emissions: evaluating the role of environmental policy stringency. Renewable Energy2023; 205: 156–165.
61.
Wolde-RufaelYMulat-WeldemeskelE. Effectiveness of environmental taxes and environmental stringent policies on CO2 emissions: the European experience. Environ Dev Sustainability2023; 25: 5211–5239.
PesaranMH. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. SSRN Electron J2021; 60: 13–50. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
64.
Hashem PesaranMYamagataT. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. J Econom2008; 142: 50–93.
65.
WeiJRahimSWangS. Role of environmental degradation, institutional quality, and government health expenditures for human health: evidence from emerging seven countries. Front Public Health2022; 10: 870767.
66.
PesaranMH. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econometrics2007; 22: 265–312.
67.
PesaranMH. Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica2006; 74: 967–1012.
68.
WesterlundJ. Panel cointegration tests of the fisher effect. J Appl Econometrics2008; 23: 193–233.
69.
YaoYIvanovskiKInekweJ,et al.Human capital and energy consumption: evidence from OECD countries. Energy Econ2019; 84: 104534.
70.
ChudikAPesaranMH. Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. J Econom2015; 188. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.007
71.
LiddleB. Consumption-based accounting and the trade-carbon emissions nexus. Energy Econ2018; 69. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2017.11.004
72.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ1995; 110(2): 353–377. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
73.
NordhausW. Climate change: the ultimate challenge for economics. Am Econ Rev2019; 109: 1991–2014.
GhiselliniPCialaniCUlgiatiS. A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Cleaner Prod2016; 114: 11–32.
76.
BibriSEKrogstieJ. Smart sustainable cities of the future: an extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities Soc2017; 31: 183–212.
77.
HiltyLMAebischerB. ICT for sustainability: an emerging research field. In: Hilty L and Aebischer B (eds) ICT innovations for sustainability. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol. 310. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09228-7_1
78.
FrenkenKSchorJ. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. In: A research agenda for sustainable consumption governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019, pp.121–135.
79.
OckwellDSagarADe ConinckH. Collaborative research and development (R&D) for climate technology transfer and uptake in developing countries: toward a needs driven approach. Clim Change2015; 131: 401–415.
80.
CookeP. Green governance and green clusters: regional & national policies for the climate change challenge of central & eastern Europe. J Open Innov: Technol Market Complexity2015; 1: 1–17.
81.
MetcalfGEWeisbachD. Linking policies when tastes differ: global climate policy in a heterogeneous world. Rev Environ Econ Policy2012; 6: 110–129. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rer021
82.
PerdanSAzapagicA. Carbon trading: current schemes and future developments. Energy Policy2011; 39: 6040–6054.
83.
Leal-ArcasRAl ZarkaniMJbaraL, et al.The BRIC and climate change mitigation. In: International trade and sustainability: perspectives from developing and developed countries. New York City, USA: Springer, 2022, pp.229–280.
