Green growth (GGDP) is currently regarded as one of the most effective alternative approaches to sustainable development. The global economy must undergo a green revolution. Green total factor productivity assesses a nation or region's capacity to meet long-term targets for sustainable development. Even though environmental technologies are essential to green growth, more research is needed to close the significant gap by determining whether and how green production practices (GPP) along with stringent environmental policy (EPS) impact green growth in a panel of G8 economies. The study also takes into consideration the impact of capital formation (CAP), labor (LAB), and renewable energy consumption (REC) on the green growth of G8 economies. The study used annual data covering 1990–2020 and employed a panel quantile regression (PQR) technique. The empirical results of Model 1 of the study showed a negative association between GPP and GGDP. On the contrary, in model 2, green production practices (GPP) positively correlate with green growth (GGDP) when moderated with environmental policy stringency. Likewise, the findings also confirm that labor has a positive impact on green growth. Furthermore, the empirical result also shows that capital and renewable energy consumption harm GGDP. The study suggests a comprehensive policy framework based on empirical analysis for achieving the targets of sustainable development goals SDG 08 (decent economic growth), SDG 09 (innovations), and SDG 13 (climate change).
WangXShaoQ. Non-linear effects of heterogeneous environmental regulations on green growth in G20 countries: evidence from panel threshold regression. Sci Total Environ2019; 660: 1346–1354.
2.
HussainZMehmoodBKhanMK, et al.Green growth, green technology, and environmental health: evidence from high-GDP countries. Front Public Health2022; 9: 816697.
3.
DanishUlucakR. How do environmental technologies affect green growth? Evidence from BRICS economies. Sci Total Environ2020; 712: 136504.
4.
CaoJLawSHSamadARBA, et al.Impact of financial development and technological innovation on the volatility of green growth—evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 48053–48069.
5.
WangKHUmarMAkramR, et al.Is technological innovation making world” Greener"? An evidence from changing growth story of China. Technol Forecast Soc Change2021; 165: 120516.
6.
AfshanSYaqoobTHoWK, et al.Achieving sustainable growth in emerging economies: insights from advance method moment of quantile regression. Gondwana Res2024; 127: 182–198.
7.
GuoLQuYTsengML. The interaction effects of environmental regulation and technological innovation on regional green growth performance. J Cleaner Prod2017; 162: 894–902.
8.
SandbergMKlockarsKWilénK. Green growth or degrowth? Assessing the normative justifications for environmental sustainability and economic growth through critical social theory. J Cleaner Prod2019; 20
9.
6: 133–141.
10.
KhanSARYuZUmarM. A road map for environmental sustainability and green economic development: an empirical study. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 16082–16090.
ChenCLanQGaoM, et al.Green total factor productivity growth and its determinants in China’s industrial economy. Sustainability2018; 10: 1052–1054.
13.
SongMWangSZhangH. Could environmental regulation and R&D tax incentives affect green product innovation?J Cleaner Prod2020; 258: 120849.
14.
HuCWangCLuoY, et al.Green financing and technological innovation influence on e-commerce industry green environment. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 104886–104900.
15.
HuYHaoYRazaA. Association between the stock market and green economic growth: green recovery from BRICS economics. Econ Change Restructuring2023; 56: 3861–3884.
16.
ZhangJOuyangYPhilbinSP, et al.Green dynamic capability of construction enterprises: role of the business model and green production. Corporate Soc Responsibil Environ Manage2020; 27: 2920–2940.
17.
ThompsonBS. Payments for ecosystem services and corporate social responsibility: perspectives on sustainable production, stakeholder relations, and philanthropy in Thailand. Bus Strategy Environ2019; 28: 497–511.
18.
BansalPRothK. Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad Manage J2000; 43: 717–e748.
19.
de Oliveira SantosHAlvesJLSde MeloFJC, et al.An approach to implement cleaner production in services: integrating quality management process. J Cleaner Prod2019; 246: 118985.
20.
BaahCOpoku-AgyemanDAcquahISK, et al.Examining the correlations between stakeholder pressures, green production practices, firm reputation, environmental and financial performance: evidence from manufacturing SMEs. Sustainable Prod Consumption2021; 27: 100–114.
21.
GovindanKKaliyanMKannanD, et al.Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ2014; 147: 555–568.
22.
AhmedKAhmedS. A predictive analysis of CO2 emissions, environmental policy stringency, and economic growth in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 16091–16100.
23.
NevesSAMarquesACPatrícioM. Determinants of CO2 emissions in European union countries: does environmental regulation reduce environmental pollution?Econ Anal Policy2020; 68: 114–125.
24.
CohenMATubbA. The impact of environmental regulation on firm and country competitiveness: a meta-analysis of the porter hypothesis. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ2018; 5: 371–399.
25.
LagreidOMPovitkinaM. Do political institutions moderate the GDP-CO2 relationship?Ecol Econ2018; 145: 441–450.
26.
ScoonesILeachMNewellP. The politics of green transformations. Taylor & Francis, 2015, p.238.
27.
MehmoodUTariqSAslamMU, et al.Evaluating the impact of digitalization, renewable energy use, and technological innovation on load capacity factor in G8 nations. Sci Rep2023; 13: 9131.
28.
NihalGMouniaCHussainM, et al.Impact of innovation on economic growth of G8 countries-analysis over 1996-2020. Int J Prof Bus Rev2023; 8: e01413–e01413.
29.
GereffiG. Global value chains and international development policy: bringing firms, networks and policy-engaged scholarship back in. J Int Bus Pol Int Bus Pol2019; 2: 195–210.
30.
IreneBM. Indicators and metrics for social business: a review of current approaches. J Soc Entrepreneurship2016; 7: 1–24.
31.
AbidAMehmoodUTariqS, et al.The effect of technological innovation, FDI, and financial development on CO2 emission: evidence from the G8 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 1–9.
32.
OnodaT. IEA Policies—G8 recommendations and an afterwards. Energy Pol2009; 37: 3823–3831.
ChurchillSAInekweJIvanovskiK, et al.The environmental kuznets curve in the OECD: 1870–2014. Energy Econ2018; 75: 389–399.
35.
ManisalidisIStavropoulouEStavropoulosA, et al.Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: a review. Front Public Health2020; 8: 505570.
36.
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.
37.
SarkodieSAOwusuPATadenJ. Comprehensive green growth indicators across countries and territories. Sci Data2023; 10: 413.
38.
DuMZWangBWuYR. Sources of China’s economic growth: an empirical analysis based on the BML index with green growth accounting. Sustainability2014; 6: 5983–6004.
39.
JasonHGiorgosK. Is green growth possible?New Polit Econ2020; 25: 469–486.
40.
NosheenMIqbalJAbbasiMA. Do technological innovations promote green growth in the European union?Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 21717–21729.
41.
SohagKTaşkınFDNasirM. Green economic growth, cleaner energy and militarization: evidence from Turkey. Resour Policy2019; 63: 101407.
JacobsM. Green growth: Economic theory and political discourse, vol. 108. London.: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 2012.
44.
DechezleprêtreASatoM. The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. Rev Environ Econ policy2017; 11: 183–206.
45.
HossainB. Do government spending on pollution abatement and targeted environmental policies promote green growth in Canada?J Cleaner Prod2024; 434: 140391.
46.
Ben LahouelBTalebLManagiS, et al.Inclusive green growth in OECD countries: what are the impacts of stringent environmental and employment regulations?Environ Econ Pol Stud2023: 1–29.
47.
LuoZWDubeyRGunasekaranA, et al.Sustainable production framework for cement manufacturing firms: a behavioural perspective. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017; 78: 495–502.
48.
PeattieK. Environmental marketing management: Meeting the green challenge. London, UK: Pitman Publishing, 1995.
Augusto de OliveiraJLopes SilvaDADevós GangaGM, et al.Cleaner production practices, motivators and performance in the Brazilian industrial companies. J Cleaner Prod2019; 231: 359–369.
51.
SarkisJGonzalez-TorrePAdenso-DiazB. Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: the mediating effect of training. J Oper Manage2010; 28: 163–176.
52.
VelevaVHartMGreinerT, et al.Indicators of sustainable production. J Clean Prod2001; 9: 447–452.
53.
NiemannWTKFAKotzeTAdamoF. Drivers and barriers of green supply chain management implementation in the mozambican manufacturing industry. J Contemp Manage2016; 13: 977–1013.
54.
AnwarASharifA. Can effective environmental policies reduce the burden of natural resources exploitation in emerging economies? Evidence from quantile regression. Gondwana Res2025; 140: 181–193.
55.
D’AlessandroSCieplinskiADistefanoT, et al.Feasible alternatives to green growth. Nat Sustainability2020; 3: 329–335.
56.
SolowRM. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat1957; 39: 312–320.
57.
TopcuEAltinozBAslanA. Global evidence from the link between economic growth, natural resources, energy consumption, and gross capital formation. Resources Policy2020; 66: 101622.
58.
CapassoMHansenTHeibergJ, et al.Green growth–A synthesis of scientific findings. Technol Forecast Soc Change2019; 146: 390–402.
59.
XuLWangDDuJ. The heterogeneous influence of infrastructure construction on China’s urban green and smart development—the threshold effect of urban scale. Land (Basel)2021; 10: 1015.
60.
LiYZhangJLyuY. Toward inclusive green growth for sustainable development: a new perspective of labor market distortion. Bus Strategy Environ2023; 32: 3927–3950.
61.
LiRWangQLiL, et al.Do natural resource rent and corruption governance reshape the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint? Evidence from 158 countries. Resour Policy2023; 85: 103890.
62.
PacalaSSocolowR. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science2004; 305: 968–972.
63.
JohnstoneNHascicIOstertagK. OECD studies on environmental innovation: environmental policy, technological innovation and patents. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2008.
64.
YooSHeshmatiA. The effects of environmental regulations on the manufacturing industry’s performance: a comparison of green and non-green sectors in Korea. Energies2019; 12: 2296.
65.
SongMXieQ. How does green talent influence China’s economic growth?Int J Manpow2020; 41: 1119–1134.
66.
CobbCWDouglasPH. A theory of production. Am Econ Rev1928; 18: 139–165.
67.
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: 101652.
68.
OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Online Database, https://stats.oecd.org/ (2024).
69.
AkramRChenFKhalidF, et al.Heterogeneous effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy on economic growth of BRICS countries: a fixed effect panel quantile regression analysis. Energy2021; 215: 119019.
70.
CanayIA. A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. Econom J2011; 14: 368–386.
71.
XuRXuLXuB. Assessing CO2 emissions in China's iron and steel industry: evidence from quantile regression approach. J Cleaner Prod2017; 152: 259–270.
72.
KoenkerRBassettJr G. Regression quantiles. Econometrica1978: 33–50.
73.
BeraAKGalvao JrAFMontes-RojasGV, et al.Asymmetric laplace regression: maximum likelihood, maximum entropy and quantile regression. J Econom Methods2016; 5: 79–101.
74.
NeymanJScottEL. Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations. Econometrica J Econom Soc1948; 16: 1–32.
AlexanderMHardingMLamarcheC. Quantile regression for time-series-cross-section data. Int J Stat Manag Syst2011; 6: 47–72.
77.
ImKSPesaranMHShinY. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econ2003; 115: 53–74.
78.
MaddalaGSWuS. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf Bull Econ Stat1999; 61: 631–652.
79.
DametteODelacoteP. On the economic factors of deforestation: what can we learn from quantile analysis?Econ Model2012; 29: 2427–2434.
80.
SöderstenCJWoodRHertwichEG. Environmental impacts of capital formation. J Ind Ecol2018; 22: 55–67.
81.
UllahAAhmedMRazaSA, et al.A threshold approach to sustainable development: nonlinear relationship between renewable energy consumption, natural resource rent, and ecological footprint. J Environ Manag2021; 295: 113073.
82.
MakiPL. Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution. Routledge, 2023.
83.
WenSJiaZ. A penny saved is a penny earned: exploring the synergistic effect between carbon trading and energy carbon-content tax. J Cleaner Prod2023; 430: 139618.
84.
SternerTRobinsonEJ. Selection and design of environmental policy instruments. In Handbook of environmental economics. 4th ed. Elsevier, 2018, 231–284.
