Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Green production practices for sustainable development: Impact of geopolitical risk,renewable energy,and foreign direct investment on environmental quality
The latest progress summary of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 2023 reveals that the ongoing growth pattern of Asian economies is inadequate. Asian countries are facing several challenges in securing the targets of SDGs, and environmental degradation is one of the major issues among them. Hence, urgent actions are required to attain SDG targets. Several studies in the available literature have considered multiple determinants of environmental degradation. However, the impact of green production practices (GPP) and geopolitical risk (GPR) is relatively ignored particularly in the framework of Asian economies. Therefore, it is needed to propose an extensive policy framework for attaining the objectives of SDGs and raising environmental quality. Moreover, this study is a pioneering attempt that scrutinizes the eclectic influence of green production practices and geopolitical risk on carbon emissions. The study follows the model based on the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis for selected Asian countries. The study has utilized the Panel Quantile Regression (PQR) technique to analyze the facts from selected Asian economies from 1990 to 2020. The long-run evaluations reveal the EKC hypothesis proves valid in the preferred Asian economies. Moreover, green production practices play a crucial role in controlling the rising levels of carbon emissions in the selected Asian countries whereas, geopolitical risk and foreign direct investments are proven constructive elements in raising carbon emissions. Lastly, based on the empirical outcomes, this study provides policy implications for achieving the targets of SDG 07, SDG 09, SDG 12, SDG 13, SDG 15, SDG 16, and SDG 17.
AbokyiEAppiah-KonaduPAbokyiF, et al.Industrial growth and emissions of CO2 in Ghana: the role of financial development and fossil fuel consumption. Energy Reports2019; 5: 1339–1353.
2.
AcheampongAOOpokuEEO. Environmental degradation and economic growth: investigating linkages and potential pathways. Energy Econ2023; 123: 106734.
3.
AdamsSAdedoyinFOlaniranE, et al.Energy consumption, economic policy uncertainty and carbon emissions; causality evidence from resource rich economies. Econ Anal Policy2020; 68: 179–190.
4.
AdebayoTSAkadiriSSRjoubH. On the relationship between economic policy uncertainty, geopolitical risk and stock market returns in South Korea: a quantile causality analysis. Ann Fin Econ2022; 17: 2250008.
5.
AdebayoTSUllahSKartalMT, et al.Endorsing sustainable development in BRICS: the role of technological innovation, renewable energy consumption, and natural resources in limiting carbon emission. Sci Total Environ2023; 859: 160181.
6.
AghabalayevFAhmadM. Does innovation in ocean energy generations-related technologies in G7 countries reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Role of international collaboration in green technology development and commercial and monetary policies. Environ Sci Poll Res2023; 30: 14545–14564.
7.
AhmedZCaryMShahbazM, et al.Asymmetric nexus between economic policy uncertainty, renewable energy technology budgets, and environmental sustainability: evidence from the United States. J Cleaner Prod2021; 313: 127723.
8.
AlexanderMHardingMLamarcheC. Quantile regression for time-series-cross-section data. Int J Stat Manag Syst2011; 6: 47–72.
9.
AliEAgbozoEAboagyeE, et al.Investigating the research trends on the determinants of environmental degradation: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Environ Sci Technol2024; 21: 7775–7796.
10.
AlolaAAAdebayoTS. The potency of resource efficiency and environmental technologies in carbon neutrality target for Finland. J Cleaner Prod2023; 389: 136127.
11.
AminNSongH. The role of renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, trade, economic growth, and urbanization in achieving carbon neutrality: a comparative study for South and East Asian countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 12798–12812.
12.
AnserMKSyedQRApergisN. Does geopolitical risk escalate CO2 emissions? Evidence from the BRICS countries. Environl Sci Pollut Res2021a; 28: 48011–48021.
13.
AnserMKSyedQRLeanHH, et al.Do economic policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk lead to environmental degradation? Evidence from emerging economies. Sustainability2021b; 13: 5866.
14.
AnwarABarutAPalaF, et al.A different look at the environmental Kuznets curve from the perspective of environmental deterioration and economic policy uncertainty: evidence from fragile countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 31(34): 46235–46254.
15.
ApergisNPinarMUnluE. How do foreign direct investment flows affect carbon emissions in BRICS countries? Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis using bilateral FDI flows from OECD to BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 14680–14692.
16.
BadulescuDBadulescuASimutR, et al.Exploring environmental Kuznets curve. An investigation on EU economies. Technol Econ Dev Econ2020; 26: 1–20.
17.
BaoZLuW. Applicability of the environmental Kuznets curve to construction waste management: a panel analysis of 27 European economies. Resour Conserv Recycl2023; 188: 106667.
18.
BeşeEKalayciS. Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC): empirical relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: evidence from 3 developed countries. Panoeconomicus2021; 68: 483–506.
19.
BibriSEKrogstieJ. Environmentally data-driven smart sustainable cities: applied innovative solutions for energy efficiency, pollution reduction, and urban metabolism. Energy Inf2020; 3: 1–59.
20.
BildiriciME. Terrorism, environmental pollution, foreign direct investment (FDI), energy consumption, and economic growth: evidences from China, India, Israel, and Turkey. Energy Environ2021; 32: 75–95.
21.
BildiriciMGokmenogluSM. The impact of terrorism and FDI on environmental pollution: evidence from Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Syria, Somalia, Thailand and Yemen. Environ Impact Assess Rev2020; 81: 106340.
22.
CaiAZhengSCaiL, et al.How does green technology innovation affect carbon emissions? A spatial econometric analysis of China’s provincial panel data. Front Environ Sci2021; 9: 813811.
23.
CaijuanGDuraniFHamidA, et al.Navigating the green growth spectrum: exploring the synergy between geopolitical risk, environmental policy stringency, and green production practices. Energy Environ2024: 0958305X241248377.
24.
CaldaraDIacovielloM. Measuring geopolitical risk. Am Econ Rev2022; 112: 1194–1225.
25.
ChenHYiJChenA, et al.Green technology innovation and CO2 emission in China: evidence from a spatial-temporal analysis and a nonlinear spatial durbin model. Energy Policy2023; 172: 113338.
26.
ChuLKDoğanBAbakahEJA, et al.Impact of economic policy uncertainty, geopolitical risk, and economic complexity on carbon emissions and ecological footprint: an investigation of the E7 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 34406–34427.
27.
DametteODelacoteP. On the economic factors of deforestation: what can we learn from quantile analysis?Econ Model2012; 29: 2427–2434.
28.
DingTLiHTanR, et al.How does geopolitical risk affect carbon emissions?: an empirical study from the perspective of mineral resources extraction in OECD countries. Resour Policy2023; 85: 103983.
29.
FakherHAAhmedZAcheampongAO, et al.Renewable energy, nonrenewable energy, and environmental quality nexus: an investigation of the N-shaped Environmental Kuznets Curve based on six environmental indicators. Energy2023; 263: 125660.
30.
FangZ. Assessing the impact of renewable energy investment, green technology innovation, and industrialization on sustainable development: a case study of China. Renew Energy2023; 205: 772–782.
31.
FrodymaKPapieżMŚmiechS. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in the European Union countries. Energy2022; 241: 122899.
32.
FuadyM. I. N.IshakN. (2023). Green restorative justice approach in environmental issues to attain the sustainable development. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Indonesia.
33.
GhosnFZreikMAwadG, et al.Energy transition and sustainable development in Malaysia: steering towards a greener future. Int J Renew Energy Dev2024; 13: 362–374.
34.
GodilDIYuZSharifA, et al.Investigate the role of technology innovation and renewable energy in reducing transport sector CO2 emission in China: a path toward sustainable development. Sustainable Dev2021; 29: 694–707.
GokmenogluKKTaspinarNRahmanMM. Military expenditure, financial development and environmental degradation in Turkey: a comparison of CO2 emissions and ecological footprint. Int J Finance Econ2021; 26: 986–997.
37.
GormusSAydinM. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis using innovation: new evidence from the top 10 innovative economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 27904–27913.
38.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ1995; 110: 353–377.
39.
GürTM. Carbon dioxide emissions, capture, storage and utilization: review of materials, processes and technologies. Prog Energy Combust Sci2022; 89: 100965.
40.
HaseebAXiaEDanish, et al.Financial development, globalization, and CO 2 emission in the presence of EKC: evidence from BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 31283–31296.
41.
HashmiSMBhowmikRInglesi-LotzR, et al.Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis amidst geopolitical risk: global evidence using bootstrap ARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 24049–24062.
42.
HuangYXuFAbbasA, et al.Empirical impact of China-Pak business cycle synchronization on environmental degradation in Pakistan. Front Environ Sci2023; 10: 1030408.
43.
HussainMAbbasAManzoorS, et al.Linkage of natural resources, economic policies, urbanization, and the environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 1451–1459.
44.
ImKSPesaranMHShinY. Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Mimeo: Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge, 1997.
45.
IşıkCOnganSÖzdemirD. Testing the EKC hypothesis for ten US states: an application of heterogeneous panel estimation method. Environ Sci Pollut Res2019; 26: 10846–10853.
46.
JanaSKLiseW. Carbon Emissions from Energy Use in India: Decomposition Analysis. 2023.
47.
JiaJXinLLuC, et al.China's CO2 emissions: a systematical decomposition concurrently from multi-sectors and multi-stages since 1980 by an extended logarithmic mean divisia index. Energy Strategy Rev2023; 49: 101141.
48.
KaoC. Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. J Econom1999; 90: 1–44.
49.
KarAK. Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions in Baltic countries: an empirical investigation. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 47189–47208.
50.
KaurKVyasP. Microbes for sustainable development of environmental issues. In: Microbial applications for environmental sustainability. Springer, 2024, pp.1–20.
51.
KhanKAHamidASharifA, et al.Impact of adaptation technologies and green energy on environmental quality: evidence from G8 economies. Gondwana Res2025; 139: 230–242.
52.
KhanKKhurshidACifuentes-FauraJ. Investigating the relationship between geopolitical risks and economic security: empirical evidence from central and Eastern European countries. Resources Policy2023; 85: 103872.
KukharykVLiubytovetsO. Analysis of the state, trends of economic development and China's position in the global economy. Sci Opin: Econ Manage2023; 1: 81.
56.
KumarSSinghPVermaK, et al.Environmental issues and their possible solutions for sustainable development, India: a review. Curr World Environ2022; 17: 531–541.
57.
LeT-HNguyenCP. Determinants of greenhouse gas emissions revisited: a global perspective. Singapore Econ Rev2024; 69: 141–167.
58.
LiWQiaoYLiX, et al.Energy consumption, pollution haven hypothesis, and Environmental Kuznets Curve: examining the environment–economy link in belt and road initiative countries. Energy2022; 239: 122559.
59.
LiZ. Do geopolitical risk, green finance, and the rule of law affect the sustainable environment in China? Findings from the BARDL approach. Resour Policy2023; 81: 103403.
60.
LuJWZhouX. Event space and firm value: Chinese listed firms in the US–China trade war. J Manage2023: 01492063231162089.
61.
LuoHSunY. Effects of geopolitical risk on environmental sustainability and the moderating role of environmental policy stringency. Sci Rep2024; 14: 10747.
62.
MaddalaGSWuS. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf Bull Econ Stat1999; 61: 631–652.
63.
MahmoodH. Trade, FDI, and CO2 emissions nexus in Latin America: the spatial analysis in testing the pollution haven and the EKC hypotheses. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 14439–14454.
64.
MassagonyABudiono. Is the environmental kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis valid on CO2 emissions in Indonesia?Int J Environ Stud2023; 80: 20–31.
65.
MoradlouHReefkeHSkipworthH, et al.Geopolitical disruptions and the manufacturing location decision in multinational company supply chains: a delphi study on brexit. Int J Oper Prod Manage2021; 41: 102–130.
66.
NeymanJScottEL. Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations. Econom: J Econom Soc1948; 16: 1–32.
67.
OberthürSKhandekarGWynsT. Global governance for the decarbonization of energy-intensive industries: great potential underexploited. Earth Syst Governance2021; 8: 100072.
68.
OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Database. 2023. https://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed May 2023).
69.
PanagariyaA. Indian Economy: Performance, Policies, Politics, and Prospects and Challenges. Asian Econ Policy Rev2025; 20(1): 81–96.
70.
PataUKAydinM. Testing the EKC hypothesis for the top six hydropower energy-consuming countries: evidence from Fourier bootstrap ARDL procedure. J Cleaner Prod2020; 264: 121699.
71.
PataUKKartalMTErdoganS, et al.The role of renewable and nuclear energy R&D expenditures and income on environmental quality in Germany: scrutinizing the EKC and LCC hypotheses with smooth structural changes. Appl Energy2023; 342: 121138.
72.
RashidZRashidS. Political instability causes & affects. Pak J Humanit Social Sci2024; 12: 294–303.
73.
RazzaqASharifAAfshanS, et al.Do climate technologies and recycling asymmetrically mitigate consumption-based carbon emissions in the United States? New insights from quantile ARDL. Technol Forecast Soc Change2023; 186: 122138.
74.
RehmanAAlamMMOzturkI, et al.Globalization and renewable energy use: how are they contributing to upsurge the CO2 emissions? A global perspective. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 9699–9712.
75.
RoyAMandalMDasS, et al.Non-exhaust particulate pollution in Asian countries: A comprehensive review of sources, composition, and health effects. Environ Eng Res2024; 29(3): 230384.
76.
SofuoğluEAyA. The relationship between climate change and political instability: the case of MENA countries (1985: 01–2016: 12). Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 14033–14043.
77.
SoltaniHTrikiMBGhandriM, et al.Does geopolitical risk and financial development matter for economic growth in MENA countries?J Int Stud (2071-8330)2021; 14(1): 103–116.
78.
TangCDuX. Geopolitical risk and ownership decision in green overseas investment: dual moderation of corporate green technology capability and host green governance. Sustainability2024; 16: 5452.
79.
UdeaghaMCBreitenbachMC. Exploring the moderating role of financial development in environmental Kuznets curve for South Africa: fresh evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Financ Innovation2023; 9: 5.
80.
UllahSAndlibZMajeedMT, et al.Asymmetric effects of militarization on economic growth and environmental degradation: fresh evidence from Pakistan and India. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 9484–9497.
81.
VelayuthamE. Does clean energy reduce environmental pollution under the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Sri Lanka?Sustainability2023; 15: 10983.
82.
WangCGuJMartinezOS, et al.Economic and environmental impacts of energy efficiency over smart cities and regulatory measures using a smart technological solution. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess2021; 47: 101422.
83.
WangFRaniTRazzaqA. Environmental impact of fiscal decentralization, green technology innovation and institution’s efficiency in developed countries using advance panel modelling. Energy & Environment2023; 34: 1006–1030.
84.
WangQZhangFLiR. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in 208 counties: the roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent. Environ Res2023; 216: 114637.
XiaQ. Does green technology advancement and renewable electricity standard impact on carbon emissions in China: role of green finance. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 6492–6505.
87.
ZengSLiGWuS, et al.The impact of green technology innovation on carbon emissions in the context of carbon neutrality in China: evidence from spatial spillover and nonlinear effect analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022; 19: 730.
88.
ZhangSShinwariRZhaoS. Energy transition, geopolitical risk, and natural resources extraction: a novel perspective of energy transition and resources extraction. Resour Policy2023; 83: 103608.
89.
ZhengHGeL. Carbon emissions reduction effects of sustainable development policy in resource-based cities from the perspective of resource dependence: theory and Chinese experience. Resour Policy2022; 78: 102799.
90.
ZhongK. Does the digital finance revolution validate the Environmental Kuznets Curve? Empirical findings from China. Plos one2022; 17: e0257498.
91.
GongXXuJ. Geopolitical risk and dynamic connectedness between commodity markets. Energy Econ2022; 110.
92.
ObobisaESChenHMensahI A. The impact of green technological innovation and institutional quality on CO2 emissions in African countries. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 180: 121670.
93.
KuznetS. Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev1955; 45: 1–28.
94.
GrossmanGM. Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. 1991.
95.
LevinALinCFChuCSJ. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econom2002; 108(1): 1–24.
96.
ShahWUHZhangXYasmeenR, et al. Green transition and economic growth in G20 countries: evidence from disaggregated energy sources. Environ Sci Pollut2023; 30: 92206–92223.
97.
ShahWUHZhangXYasmeenR, et al. Green transition and economic growth in G20 countries: evidence from disaggregated energy sources. Environ Sci Pollut2023; 30: 92206–92223.
