Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Analysis of disaggregated level energy use,income,geopolitical risk,energy transition,and energy price impact on decarbonization of main sectors in BRICS countries by marginal analysis
This study analyzes the impact of critical factors (i.e., energy consumption (EC), income (GDP), geopolitical risk (GPR), energy transition, and energy prices). In doing this, the study focuses on Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) countries, which are the leading emerging countries, considers carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions industry, power, and transport sectors, uses yearly data from 2000 to 2022, and performs a kernel-based regularized least squares (KRLS) approach to uncover the marginal impact of the factors. The outcomes demonstrate that (a) the impacts of the factors on sectoral CO2 emissions vary marginally across economic sectors, factors used, and levels of the variables; (b) the statistical significance of the factors considered differentiate, which implies that some factors are much more critical than others across countries and sectors; (c) for industry sector CO2 emissions, Brazil can benefit from the marginal decreasing impact of gas and renewable EC, GDP, and GPR, whereas it is valid in Russia (South Africa) for gas (GPR and energy prices) impact; (d) for power sector CO2 emissions, Brazil can use nuclear EC, energy transition, and energy prices, whereas nuclear and renewable EC, as well as GDP and GPR (renewable EC and GPR), is beneficial for Russia (South Africa); (e) for transport sector CO2 emissions, GPR (renewable EC) can be relied on in Brazil (Russia); and (f) the KRLS approach has a superior prediction capacity reaching 99.8%. Overall, the study empirically shows the varying marginal impacts of the factors on the decarbonization of the sectors.
KartalMT. Impact of environmental tax on ensuring environmental quality: quantile-based evidence from G7 countries. J Cleaner Prod2024; 440: 140874.
2.
WangQLiYLiR. Ecological footprints, carbon emissions, and energy transitions: the impact of artificial intelligence (AI). Human Soc Sci Commun2024; 11: 1–18.
3.
BorowskiPF. Efforts of the transport and energy sectors toward renewable energy for climate neutrality. Transp Probl2024; 19: 177–190.
4.
WangQSunTLiR. Does artificial intelligence (AI) enhance green economy efficiency? The role of green finance, trade openness, and R&D investment. Human Soc Sci Commun2025; 12: 1–22.
5.
RzayevaUHuseynovaR. Corporate responsibility in the context of conflicting environmental and economic interests: consequences of an imperfect legal environment. In: GigauriIKhanAJ (eds) Navigating corporate social responsibility through leadership and sustainable entrepreneurship. Hershey PA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2025, pp. 27–56. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/109318/1/MPRA_paper_109318.pdf.
6.
MadalenoMDoğanETaşkinD. A step forward on sustainability: the nexus of environmental responsibility, green technology, clean energy and green finance. Energy Econ2022; 109: 105945.
7.
YangJHaoYFengC. A race between economic growth and carbon emissions: what play important roles towards global low-carbon development?Energy Econ2021; 100: 105327.
8.
ZhangXChengX. Energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth in China. Ecol Econ2009; 68: 2706–2712.
9.
GillARViswanathanKKHassanS. The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) and the environmental problem of the day. Renewable Sustain Energy Rev2017; 81: 1636–1642.
10.
NasirMRehmanFU. Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: an empirical investigation. Energy Policy2011; 39: 1857–1864.
11.
Caviglia-HarrisJLChambersDKahnJR. Taking the “U” out of Kuznets. Ecol Econ2009; 68: 1149–1159.
12.
KaikaDZervasE. The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory—part A: concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case. Energy Policy2013; 62: 1392–1402.
13.
ÖzcanBKiliç DeprenSKartalMT. Impact of nuclear energy and hydro electricity consumption in achieving environmental quality: evidence from load capacity factor by quantile based non-linear approaches. Gondwana Res2024; 129: 412–424.
WangYDuanFMaX,et al.Carbon emissions efficiency in China: key facts from regional and industrial sector. J Cleaner Prod2019; 206: 850–869.
16.
BakirtasTAkpolatAG. The relationship between energy consumption, urbanization, and economic growth in new emerging-market countries. Energy2018; 147: 110–121.
17.
XuXChenY. Air emissions from the oil and natural gas industry. Int J Environ Stud2016; 73: 422–436.
18.
JinTKimJ. What is better for mitigating carbon emissions—renewable energy or nuclear energy? A panel data analysis. Renewable Sustain Energy Rev2018; 91: 464–471.
19.
WangQLiYLiR. Integrating artificial intelligence in energy transition: a comprehensive review. Energy Strat Rev2025; 57: 101600.
20.
AzamMHunjraAITaşkinD,et al.Role of ethnic conflicts, regularization and natural resource abundance in sustainable development. Resour Policy2023; 85: 103936.
21.
LauCKSolimanAMAlbasuJ,et al.Dependence structures among geopolitical risks, energy prices, and carbon emissions prices. Resour Policy2023; 83: 103603.
22.
ShanSAhmadMTanZ, et al.The role of energy prices and non-linear fiscal decentralization in limiting carbon emissions: tracking environmental sustainability. Energy2021; 234: 121243.
23.
BorowskiPF. Economic and technological challenges in zero-emission strategies for energy companies. Energies2025; 18: 98.
24.
TaşkinDDoğanEMadalenoM. Analyzing the relationship between energy efficiency and environmental and financial variables: a way towards sustainable development. Energy2022; 252: 124045.
25.
QingLDagestaniAAShinwariR,et al.Novel research methods to evaluate renewable energy and energy-related greenhouse gases: evidence from BRICS economies. Econ Res-Ekon Istraž2022; 36: 960–976.
26.
ErdoğanSPataUKKartalMT. Assessing decarbonization: a comparison of the green sacrifice ratio for China and India. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol2024; 31: 411–420.
27.
BanerjeeAKSensoyAGoodellJW. Connectivity and spillover during crises: highlighting the prominent and growing role of green energy. Energy Econ2024; 129: 107224.
28.
AqeeqMATahirMAHaiderWA, et al.Energy transition for sustainable economic development in developing countries (DCs)—the case of utility-scale solar (USS) investments in Pakistan. Energy Econ2023; 122: 106696.
29.
AnserMKSyedQRApergisN. Does geopolitical risk escalate CO2 emissions? Evidence from the BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 48011–48021.
30.
ZhaoWZhongRSohailS, et al.Geopolitical risks, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions in BRICS: an asymmetric analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 39668–39679.
31.
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.
32.
KartalMTMagazzinoCPataUK. Marginal effect of electricity generation on CO2 emissions: disaggregated level evidence from China by KRLS method and high-frequency daily data. Energy Strat Rev2024; 53: 101382.
33.
GrossmanGM. Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. NBER Working Paper, No. 3914. 1991.
34.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ1995; 110: 353–377.
35.
SternDI. The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev2004; 32: 1419–1439.
36.
DindaS. A theoretical basis for environmental Kuznets curve. Kolkata: Economic Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute. 2002.
ApergisNPayneJE. CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy Policy2009; 37: 3282–3286.
39.
YorkRRosaEADietzT. STIRPAT, IPAT and IMPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol Econ2003; 46: 351–365.
40.
KraftJKraftA. On the relationship between energy and GNP. J Energy Dev1978; 3: 401–403.
41.
AdamsSAdedoyinFOlaniranE,et al.Energy consumption, economic policy uncertainty and carbon emissions; causality evidence from resource rich economies. Econ Anal Policy2020; 68: 179–190.
42.
AdebayoTSOladipupoSDAdesholaI,et al.Wavelet analysis of impact of renewable energy consumption and technological innovation on CO2 emissions: evidence from Portugal. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 23887–23904.
43.
NarayanPKNarayanS. Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy2010; 38: 661–666.
44.
PaoHTTsaiCM. Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy2011; 36: 685–693.
45.
WangSLiQFangC,et al.The relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: empirical evidence from China. Sci Total Environ2016; 542: 360–371.
46.
Al-MulaliUÖztürkİ. The investigation of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in the advanced economies: the role of energy prices. Renewable Sustain Energy Rev2016; 54: 1622–1631.
47.
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.
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.
MaWNasriddinovFHaseebM, et al.Revisiting the impact of energy consumption, foreign direct investment, and geopolitical risk on CO2 emissions: comparing developed and developing countries. Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 985384.
50.
DuYWangW. The role of green financing, agriculture development, geopolitical risk, and natural resource on environmental pollution in China. Resour Policy2023; 82: 103440.
51.
KartalMTPataUK. The function of geopolitical risk on carbon neutrality under the shadow of Russia–Ukraine conflict: evidence from Russia's sectoral CO2 emissions by high-frequency data and quantile-based methods. J Sustain Dev Issues2023; 1: 1–12.
52.
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.
53.
NawazMZGuoJNawazS,et al.Sustainable development goals perspective: nexus between Christians’ religious tourism, geopolitical risk, and CO2 pollution in Italy. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 62341–62354.
54.
CuiXWangWIşikC, et al.Do geopolitical risk and economic policy uncertainty cause CO2 emissions in BRICS? The role of institutional quality and energy productivity. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess2024; 38: 1685–1699.
55.
FengYPanYLuS,et al.Identifying the multiple nexus between geopolitical risk, energy resilience, and carbon emissions: evidence from global data. Technol Forecast Soc Change2024; 208: 123661.
56.
ParamatiSRSafiullahMSoytasU. Does geopolitical risk increase carbon emissions and public health risk?Energy Econ2025: 108235.
57.
ApergisNPayneJEMenyahK,et al.On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecol Econ2010; 69: 2255–2260.
58.
BilgiliFKoçakEBulutÜ. The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited environmental Kuznets curve approach. Renewable Sustain Energy Rev2016; 54: 838–845.
59.
JebliMBYoussefSBÖztürkİ. Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecol Indic2016; 60: 824–831.
60.
BhattacharyaMChurchillSAParamatiSR. The dynamic impact of renewable energy and institutions on economic output and CO2 emissions across regions. Renewable Energy2017; 111: 157–167.
61.
DanishZBWangBWangZ. Role of renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: evidence from Pakistan. J Cleaner Prod2017; 156: 855–864.
62.
ZoundiZ. CO2 emissions, renewable energy and the environmental Kuznets curve, a panel cointegration approach. Renewable Sustain Energy Rev2017; 72: 1067–1075.
63.
WaheedRChangDSarwarS,et al.Forest, agriculture, renewable energy, and CO2 emission. J Cleaner Prod2018; 172: 4231–4238.
64.
AdamsSAcheampongAO. Reducing carbon emissions: the role of renewable energy and democracy. J Cleaner Prod2019; 240: 118245.
65.
AkramRChenFKhalidF, et al.Heterogeneous effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy on carbon emissions: evidence from developing countries. J Cleaner Prod2020; 247: 119122.
66.
MahmoodNWangZHassanST. Renewable energy, economic growth, human capital, and CO2 emission: an empirical analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2019; 26: 20619–20630.
67.
LeitãoNCLorenteDB. The linkage between economic growth, renewable energy, tourism, CO2 emissions, and international trade: the evidence for the European Union. Energies2020; 13: 4838.
68.
PiłatowskaMGeiseAWłodarczykA. The effect of renewable and nuclear energy consumption on decoupling economic growth from CO2 emissions in Spain. Energies2020; 13: 2124.
69.
SaidiKOmriA. Reducing CO2 emissions in OECD countries: do renewable and nuclear energy matter?Prog Nucl Energy2020; 126: 103425.
70.
HasanovFJKhanZHussainM,et al.Theoretical framework for the carbon emissions effects of technological progress and renewable energy consumption. Sustain Dev2021; 29: 810–822.
71.
AliMKirikkaleliD. The asymmetric effect of renewable energy and trade on consumption-based CO2 emissions: the case of Italy. Integr Environ Assess Manag2022; 18: 784–795.
72.
HasanovFJMukhtarovSSuleymanovE. The role of renewable energy and total factor productivity in reducing CO2 emissions in Azerbaijan. Fresh insights from a new theoretical framework coupled with autometrics. Energy Strat Rev2023; 47: 101079.
73.
MukhtarovSAliyevFAliyevJ,et al.Renewable energy consumption and carbon emissions: evidence from an oil-rich economy. Sustainability2023; 15: 34.
74.
HasanovFJMukhtarovSSuleymanovE. The role of renewable energy and total factor productivity in reducing carbon emissions: a case of top-ranked nations in the renewable energy country attractiveness index. J Environ Manag2024; 361: 121220.
75.
MukhtarovSKaracanRHumbatovaS. The long-run effect of financial development on carbon emissions in Kazakhstan. Energy Effic2024; 17: 17.
76.
KartalMTShahbazMTaşkinD, et al.How are energy transition and energy-related R&D investments effective in enabling decarbonization? Evidence from Nordic Countries by novel WLMC model. J Environ Manag2024; 365: 121664.
77.
KartalMTTaşkinDShahbazM, et al.Role of energy transition in easing energy security risk and decreasing CO2 emissions: disaggregated level evidence from the USA by quantile-based models. J Environ Manag2024; 359: 120971.
78.
KartalMTMukhtarovSDeprenÖ, et al.Uncovering the role of stringent environmental policies and energy transition in the achievement of SDG-13: evidence from BRICS countries by WLMC model. Energy Environ2025: 0958305X241293737. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X241293737
79.
BalaguerJCantavellaM. Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for Spain by considering fuel oil prices (1874–2011). Ecol Indic2016; 60: 853–859.
80.
NwaniC. Causal relationship between crude oil price, energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Ecuador. OPEC Energy Rev2017; 41: 201–225.
81.
AgbanikeTFNwaniCUwazieUI, et al.Oil price, energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions: insight into sustainability challenges in Venezuela. Lat Am Econ Rev2019; 28: 1–26.
82.
AbumunsharMAgaMSamourA. Oil price, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions in Turkey. New evidence from a Bootstrap ARDL Test. Energies2020; 13: 5588.
83.
ChaudhryISAzaliMFaheemM,et al.Asymmetric dynamics of oil price and environmental degradation: evidence from Pakistan. Rev Econ Dev Stud2020; 6: 1–12.
84.
LiKFangLHeL. The impact of energy price on CO2 emissions in China: a spatial econometric analysis. Sci Total Environ2020; 706: 135942.
85.
MalikMYLatifKKhanZ, et al.Symmetric and asymmetric impact of oil price, FDI and economic growth on carbon emission in Pakistan: evidence from ARDL and non-linear ARDL approach. Sci Total Environ2020; 726: 138421.
86.
AljadaniAToumiHToumiS, et al.Investigation of the N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve for COVID-19 mitigation in the KSA. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 29681–29700.
87.
GhazouaniT. Impact of FDI inflow, crude oil prices, and economic growth on CO2 emission in Tunisia: symmetric and asymmetric analysis through ARDL and NARDL approach. Environ Econ, 2021; 12: 1–13.
88.
MujtabaAJenaPK. Analyzing asymmetric impact of economic growth, energy use, FDI inflows, and oil prices on CO2 emissions through NARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 30873–30886.
89.
AliMTursoyTSamourA, et al.Testing the impact of the gold price, oil price, and renewable energy on carbon emissions in South Africa: novel evidence from bootstrap ARDL and NARDL approaches. Resour Policy2022; 79: 102984.
90.
EbaidALeanHHAl-MulaliU. Do oil price shocks matter for environmental degradation? Evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve in GCC countries. Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 860942.
91.
HabeşoğluOSamourATursoyT, et al.A study of environmental degradation in Turkey and its relationship to oil prices and financial strategies: novel findings in context of energy transition. Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 876809.
92.
RasheedMQHaseebAAdebayoTS, et al.The long-run relationship between energy consumption, oil prices, and carbon dioxide emissions in European countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 24234–24247.
93.
SreenuN. Impact of FDI, crude oil price and economic growth on CO2 emission in India: symmetric and asymmetric analysis through ARDL and non-linear ARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 42452–42465.
94.
Barrales-RuizJNeudörferP. The oil price (Ir)relevance for global CO2 emissions. Energy Rep2024; 11: 3016–3021.
95.
ChenJWuWNgueaSM. Combining the effects of industrialization and oil prices on CO2 emissions: what role do renewable energy, urbanization and financial crisis play?Sustain Dev2025; 33: 2780–2796.
96.
UlusseverTKartalMTKiliç DeprenS. Effect of income, energy consumption, energy prices, political stability, and geopolitical risk on the environment: evidence from GCC countries by novel quantile-based methods. Energy Environ2023; 36: 979–1004.
KartalMTMukhtarovSDeprenÖ, et al.How can SDG-13 be achieved by energy, environment, and economy-related policies? Evidence from five leading emerging countries. Sustain Dev2025. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3391
103.
BroockWAScheinkmanJADechertWD,et al.A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econom Rev1996; 15: 197–235.
104.
HainmuellerJHazlettC. Kernel regularized least squares: reducing misspecification bias with a flexible and interpretable machine learning approach. Polit Anal2014; 22: 143–168.
105.
SinhaAGhoshVHussainN, et al.Green financing of renewable energy generation: capturing the role of exogenous moderation for ensuring sustainable development. Energy Econ2023; 126: 107021.
106.
RifkinRYeoGPoggioT. Regularized least-squares classification. Nato Sci Ser Sub Ser III Comput Syst Sci2003; 190: 131–154.
107.
EvgeniouTPontilMPoggioT. Regularization networks and support vector machines. Adv Comput Math2000; 13: 1–50.
108.
SaundersCGammermanAVovkV. Ridge regression learning algorithm in dual variables. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on machine learning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1998.
TychonoffAN. Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and regularization method. Dok Akad Nauk SSSR1963; 151: 501–504. Translated in Soviet Mathematics, 4, 1035–1038.
111.
FerwerdaJHainmuellerJHazlettC. Kernel-based regularized least squares in R (KRLS) and Stata (krls). J Stat Softw2014; 79: 1–26.
112.
DongKSunRHochmanG. Do natural gas and renewable energy consumption lead to less CO2 emission? Empirical evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. Energy2017; 141: 1466–1478.
113.
LiHAliMSEAyubB,et al.Analysing the impact of geopolitical risk and economic policy uncertainty on the environmental sustainability: evidence from BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2024; 31: 46148–46162.
114.
LimaMAMendesLFRMothéGA, et al.Renewable energy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions: reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement in Brazil. Environ Dev2020; 33: 100504.
115.
RaihanATuspekovaA. Dynamic impacts of economic growth, energy use, urbanization, tourism, agricultural value-added, and forested area on carbon dioxide emissions in Brazil. J Environ Stud Sci2022; 12: 794–814.
116.
KaracanRMukhtarovSBarişİ, et al.The impact of oil price on transition toward renewable energy consumption? Evidence from Russia. Energies2021; 14: 2947.
117.
IsahADiohaMODebnathR, et al.Financing renewable energy: policy insights from Brazil and Nigeria. Energy Sustain Soc2023; 13: 2.
118.
AhmedMShuaiCAhmedM. Analysis of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions trend in China, India, the USA, and Russia. Int J Environ Sci Technol2023; 20: 2683–2698.
119.
LeitãoNC. The effects of corruption, renewable energy, trade and CO2 emissions. Economies2021; 9: 62.
120.
YangJRizviSKATanZ, et al.The competing role of natural gas and oil as fossil fuel and the non-linear dynamics of resource curse in Russia. Resour Policy2021; 72: 102100.
121.
LiXLepourDHeymannF,et al.Electrification and digitalization effects on sectoral energy demand and consumption: a prospective study towards 2050. Energy2023; 279: 127992.
122.
YangHYAhnYH. Analysis of electrification and its greenhouse gas reduction potential in the industrial sector of Korea using mixed methods. J Cleaner Prod2023; 419: 138160.
123.
FelícioLHenriquesSTGuevaraZ,et al.From electrification to decarbonization: insights from Portugal’s experience (1960–2016). Renewable Sustain Energy Rev2024; 198: 114419.
124.
KumarGMSCaoS. Conversion of metro railway into smart charging zero-emission transportation hub for supporting electric train, shuttle bus, cars and public EV charging station. Energy Convers Manage: X2024; 22: 100552.
125.
SanchezOMKuznetsovONAlakaysheeAS. Modernization and development of the electrical power system of the Isla de la Juventud. In: 2024 6th international youth conference on radio electronics, electrical and power engineering (REEPE), 2024; pp. 1–7. IEEE.
126.
ChenLGozgorGLauCKM, et al.The impact of geopolitical risk on CO2 emissions inequality: evidence from 38 developed and developing economies. J Environ Manag2024; 349: 119345.
127.
KartalMTTaşkinDKiliç DeprenS. Dynamic relationship between green bonds, energy prices, geopolitical risk, and disaggregated level CO2 emissions: evidence from the globe by novel WLMC approach. Air Qual Atmos Health2024; 17: 1763–1775.
128.
ShuYHossainMRTillaguangoB, et al.Geo-political risks, uncertainty, financial development, renewable energy, and carbon intensity: empirical evidence from countries at high geo-political risks. Appl Energy2024; 376: 124321.
129.
WangQSunTLiR. Does artificial intelligence promote green innovation? An assessment based on direct, indirect, spillover, and heterogeneity effects. Energy Environ2025; 36: 1005–1037.
130.
WangQZhangFLiR. Artificial intelligence and sustainable development during urbanization: perspectives on AI R&D innovation, AI infrastructure, and AI market advantage. Sustain Dev2025; 33: 1136–1156.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
