This study examines the non-linear relationship between environmental policy stringency (EPS) and green innovation (GI), and its impact on the green bond market, measured by the S&P Green Bond Index (GBI) and iBoxx Global Green Bonds Select Index. Using monthly data from 2014 to 2024 and an autoregressive distributed lag-error correction mechanism model, we find an inverted U-shaped relationship where moderate EPS fosters GI but excessive stringency hinders it. The optimal EPS level for maximizing GI is approximately 133—an indicative benchmark rather than a prescriptive policy target—suggesting that current global policy stringency (averaging 89) still falls within an innovation-enhancing range. Mitigation-related policies exhibit higher thresholds than adaptation-focused measures, emphasizing the need for balanced strategies. Results also reveal that while moderate EPS strengthens the positive impact of GI on GBI, overly stringent policies constrain this relationship. Rising interest rates negatively affect green bonds, highlighting sensitivity to macroeconomic conditions. These findings provide critical insights for designing effective environmental regulations that stimulate innovation while avoiding over-regulation, ultimately supporting sustainable finance and climate goals.
ReboredoJC. Green bond and financial markets: co-movement, diversification and price spillover effects. Energy Econ2018; 74: 38–50.
2.
JankovicIVasicVKovacevicV. Does transparency matter? Evidence from panel analysis of the EU government green bonds. Energy Econ2022; 114: 112–126.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106325
3.
SchumacherK. Green bonds: the shape of green fixed income investing to come. J Environ Investing2020; 10: 164–178. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3663308http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3663308 or https://ssrn.com/abstract=3663308HYPERLINK "http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3663308\"http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3663308\.
4.
Climate Bonds Initiative and HSBC. Bonds and Climate Change: State of the Market in 2017. Annual Report. London: Climate Bonds Initiative, 2017, https://www.climatebonds.net/resources/ reports/bonds-and-climate-change-state-market-2017.
5.
PorterMEVan der LindeC. Toward a new conception of the environment competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect1995; 9: 97–118.
6.
AmbecSCohenMAElgieS, et al. The Porter Hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness?Rev Environ Econ Policy2013; 78: 211–225.
7.
IraldoFTestaFMelisMFreyM. A literature review on the links between environmental regulation and competitiveness. Environ Policy Governance2011; 21: 210–222.
8.
NewigJ. Does public participation in environmental decisions lead to improved environmental quality?: towards an analytical framework. Commun Cooperation, Participation (Int J Sustain Commun)2007; 1(1): 51–71.
9.
YirongQ. Does environmental policy stringency reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from high-polluted economies. J Cleaner Prod2022; 341: 130648.
10.
YahyaFLeeCC. Disentangling the asymmetric effect of financialization on the green output gap. Energy Econ2023; 125: 106899.
11.
LukenR. The effect of environmental regulations on industrial competitiveness of selected industries in developing countries. Green Manag Int1997; 14: 67–77.
12.
JenkinsR. Environmental regulation and international competitiveness: a review of literature and some European evidence (Vol. 9801). Maastricht, The Netherlands: United Nations University, Institute of Technologies, 1998.
13.
CliftRWrightL. Relationships between environmental impacts and added value along the supply chain. Technol Forecast Soc Change2000; 65: 281–295.
14.
KalamovaMJohnstoneN. Environmental policy stringency and foreign direct investment. A handbook of globalisation and environmental policy: national government interventions in a global arena, 34–56. 2012.
15.
BeheraPSethiN. Nexus between environment regulation, FDI, and green technology innovation in OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 52940–52953.
16.
ShaoXLiuSRanR, et al.Environmental regulation, market demand, and green innovation: spatial perspective evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 63859–63885.
17.
ZhengHWuSZhangY, et al.Environmental regulation effect on green total factor productivity in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. J Environ Manag2023; 325: 304–318. Article 116465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116465
18.
LiSShaoQ. How do financial development and environmental policy stringency affect renewable energy innovation? The Porter Hypothesis and beyond. J Innov Knowledge2023; 8: 100369.
19.
ShahSSMurodovaGKhanA. Achieving zero emission targets: the influence of green bonds on clean energy investment and environmental quality. J Environ Manag2024; 364: 121485.
20.
LiuCZhangJWangC, et al.How Green Finance Policy Catalyzes Innovation in Industrial Clusters: Lessons from China’s New Energy Vehicle Sector. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2025.
21.
KellerWLevinsonA. Pollution abatement costs and foreign direct investment inflows to US states. Rev Econ Stat2002; 84: 691–703.
22.
GrayWBShadbegianRJ. Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation. J Environ Econ Manage2003; 46: 384–402.
23.
KruseTDechezleprêtreASaffarR, et al.Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: an update of the OECD composite EPS indicator. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1703, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/90ab82e8-en. 2022.
24.
GreenstoneMListJASyversonC. The effects of environmental regulation on the competitiveness of U.S. Manufact Am Econ Rev2012; 102: 3672–3704.
25.
RubashkinaYGaleottiMVerdoliniE. Environmental regulation and competitiveness: empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors. Energy Policy2015; 83: 288–300.
26.
DechezleprêtreASatoM. The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. Rev Environ Econ Policy2017; 11: 183–206.
27.
HorbachJRammerCRenningsK. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact—the role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecol Econ2012; 78: 112–122.
28.
Martínez-ZarzosoIBengochea-MoranchoAMorales-LageR. Does environmental policy stringency foster innovation and productivity in OECD countries?Energy Policy2019; 134: 110982.
29.
WangYSunXGuoX. Environmental regulation and green productivity growth: empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from OECD industrial sectors. Energy Policy2019; 132: 611–619.
30.
MaghyerehABoulanouarZEssidL. The dynamics of green innovation and environmental policy stringency in energy transition investments. J Cleaner Prod2025; 487: 144649.
31.
AliSKartalMTUllahS. Pathways to environmental sustainability: the asymmetric effects of green technology innovation, policy stringency, and industrialization in the United States. J Cleaner Prod2025; 502: 145376.
32.
ÇetinkayaOAÇatikANBalliE, et al.Assessing the influence of green innovation and environmental policy stringency on CO2 emissions in BRICS. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-21. 2024.
33.
SohagKHusainSSoytasU. Environmental policy stringency and ecological footprint linkage: mitigation measures of renewable energy and innovation. Energy Econ2024a; 136: 107721.
34.
SohagKIslamMMHammoudehS. From policy stringency to environmental resilience: unraveling the dose-response dynamics of environmental parameters in OECD countries. Energy Econ2024b; 134: 107570.
35.
BoLChaoTChengboD, et al.Environmental innovation and green entrepreneurship in China: a non-linear perspective. J Knowledge Econ2024; 17: 1–21.
36.
ZerbibOD. The effect of pro-environmental preferences on bond prices: evidence from green bonds. J Bank Financ2019; 98: 39–60.
37.
FlammerC. Corporate green bond issuance: an international analysis. J Financ Econ2021; 142: 1093–1112.
38.
GalemaRPlantingaAJScholtensB. The stocks at stake: return and risk in socially responsible investment. J Bank Financ2008; 32: 2646–2654.
39.
UllahAPingluCIftikharH. Mitigating Risks for Climate Change: The Role of Digital Financial Policy, Innovation, Carbon Tax, and Macroeconomic Conditions on Sustainable Green Bonds. Sustainable Development. 2025.
40.
Chavarría-FloresAWarrenP. Sovereign climate bonds: policy innovation for just transitions in developing countries. J Clim Finance2024; 7: 100041.
41.
MasoudN. Driving green innovation: assessing the impact of environmental tax policies and green finance on heavily polluting industries. Soc Transf Chinese Soc2024; 23: 25–39.
42.
KumarPTanejaSOzenE. Exploring the influence of green bonds on sustainable development through low-carbon financing mobilization. Int J Law Manage2025; 67: 249–270.
43.
HermanKSXiangJ. Induced innovation in clean energy technologies from foreign environmental policy stringency?Technol Forecast Soc Change2019; 147: 198–207.
44.
Olasehinde-WilliamsGAkadiriSS. Environmental policy stringency and carbon leakages: a case for carbon border adjustment mechanism in the European Union. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2024, 1–22.
45.
AlolaAASaint AkadiriS. Clean energy development in the United States amidst augmented socioeconomic aspects and country-specific policies. Renew Energy2021; 169: 221–230.
46.
WuYZhangY. The impact of environmental technology and environmental policy strictness on China’s green growth and analysis of development methods. J Environ Public Health2022; 54: 13–27.
47.
GorusMS. Do tight environmental regulations cause economic contraction? Panel evidence from the European countries. In: Natural Resources Forum. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2024, pp.663–680.
48.
HassanMKouzezMLeeJY, et al.Can increasing environmental policy stringency promote financial development? Evidence from developed economies. Ann Oper Res2023; 89: 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05190-z
49.
LeeCCWangCWHongPH, et al.Environmental policy stringency and bank risks: does green economy matter?Int Rev Financial Analysis2024; 91: 103040.
50.
SauterC. How should we measure environmental policy stringency? A new approach, IRENE Working Paper, No. 14-01, University of Neuchâtel, Institute of Economic Research (IRENE), Neuchâtel. 2014.
51.
GaleottiMSaliniSVerdoliniE. Measuring environmental policy stringency: approaches, validity, and impact on environmental innovation and energy efficiency. Energy Policy2020; 136: 111052.
52.
MensiWSelmiRAl-KharusiS, et al.Connectedness between green bonds, conventional bonds, oil, heating oil, natural gas, and petrol: new evidence during bear and bull market scenarios. Resourc Policy2024; 91: 104888.
UmarZHadhriSAbakahEJA, et al.Return and volatility spillovers among oil price shocks and international green bond markets. Res Int Business Finance2024; 69: 102254.
55.
BondiaRGhoshSKanjilalK. International crude oil prices and the stock prices of clean energy and technology companies: evidence from non-linear cointegration tests with unknown structural breaks. Energy2016; 101: 558–565.
56.
ZhangZKarimiMSWeerasingheNM, et al.Interplay between economic progress, carbon emissions and energy prices on green energy adoption: evidence from USA and Germany in context of sustainability. Renew Energy2024; 232: 121038.
57.
AdebayoTSKartalMT. Effect of green bonds, oil prices, and COVID-19 on industrial CO2 emissions in the USA: evidence from novel wavelet local multiple correlation approach. Energy Environ2024; 35: 3273–3296.
58.
BaltasKNMannR. What drives the performance and causality of green bond indices?Europ J Finance2024; 30: 269–287.
59.
CremersMFleckensteinMGandhiP. Treasury yield implied volatility and real activity. J Financ Econ2021; 140: 412–435.
60.
XiangXLiuCYangM. Who is financing corporate green innovation?Int Rev Econ Finance2022; 78: 321–337.
61.
TolliverCFujiiHKeeleyAR, et al.Green innovation and finance in Asia. Asian Econ Policy Rev2021; 16: 67–87.
62.
KaneSShogrenJF. Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Clim Change2000; 45: 75–102.
63.
ZivotEAndrewsDWK. Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat2002; 20: 25–44.
64.
EngleRFGrangerCW. Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: J Econ Soc1987; 17: 251–276.
65.
BanerjeeADoladoJJGalbraithJW, et al.Co-integration, error correction, and the econometric analysis of non-stationary data. Oxford (UK): Oxford university press, 1993.
66.
PesaranMHShinYSmithRP. Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc1999; 94: 621–634.
67.
PesaranMHShinYSmithR. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ2001; 16: 289–326.
68.
StockJHWatsonMW. A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica: J Econ Soc1993; 15: 783–820.
69.
Bahmani-OskooeeMNasirABM. ARDL approach to test the productivity bias hypothesis. Rev Dev Econ2004; 8: 483–488.
70.
NarayanPK. The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Appl Econ2005; 37: 1979–1990.
71.
DropsyV. Real exchange rates and structural breaks. Appl Econ1996; 28: 209–219.
72.
ReboredoJCUgoliniAAiubeFAL. Network connectedness of green bonds and asset classes. Energy Econ2020; 86: 104629.
