Nowadays, achieving environmental sustainability has become the top global concern of economies. In prior literature, researchers focused on investigating factors of carbon emissions (CE), ecological footprint (EF), and greenhouse gas emissions, but all these proxies ignore the supply side of nature. Therefore, the present study utilizes the concept of the load capacity factor (LCF) to measure the quality of the environment comprehensively. This study explores the effect of green production practices (GPPs), geopolitical risk (GPR), renewable energy consumption (REC), and foreign direct investment (FDI) on LCF verifying the load capacity curve (LCC) notion for G7 economies for the period of 1990–2020. For this purpose, we use panel quantile regression (PQR) along with fully modified ordinary least squares and poled mean group method. The outcomes confirm the application of the LCC hypothesis in G7 economies. The outcomes also reveal that the GPR, REC, and FDI enhance the environmental quality; however, GPP negatively affects the environmental quality. Relying on findings, this study recommends an inclusive policy agenda, which can assist in securing SDG 07 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 08 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 12 (sustainability in manufacturing of goods and services), SDG 13 (climate action), and SDG 16 (political instability) for acquiring peace to make development sustainable. This study intends to add to the existing literature by being the first to comprehensively address the impact of GPR and the efficient application of GPPs on environmental sustainability in G7 countries.
IyiolaAOAkinrinadeAJAjayiFO. Effects of water pollution on biodiversity along the coastal regions. In: SylvesterI (ed.) Biodiversity in Africa: potentials, threats and conservation. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2022, pp.345–367.
3.
YinDZhaoL. Exploring the relationship among public strategies and natural resource efficiency for green economic recovery. Resour Policy2024; 92: 104919.
4.
UchiyamaK.Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Tokyo, Japan: Springer, 2016, pp.11–29.
5.
LiMBadeebRADoganE, et al.Ecological footprints and sustainable environmental management: a critical view of China's economy. J Environ Manag2023; 347: 118994.
6.
ZhuYJiaoLZhangY, et al. (2021). Sustainable development of urban metro system: perspective of coordination between supply and demand. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18, 10349.
7.
StöglehnerG. Ecological footprint—a tool for assessing sustainable energy supplies. J Cleaner Prod2003; 11: 267–277.
8.
SicheRPereiraLAgostinhoF, et al.Convergence of ecological footprint and emergy analysis as a sustainability indicator of countries: Peru as case study. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul2010; 15: 3182–3192.
9.
CaglarAEGönençSDestekMA. Toward a sustainable environment within the framework of carbon neutrality scenarios: evidence from the novel Fourier-NARDL approach. Sustainable Dev2024; 32: 6643–6655.
10.
DoganAPataUK. The role of ICT, RandD spending and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: Testing the LCC hypothesis for G7 countries. J Clean Prod2022; 380.
11.
PataUKKartalMT. Impact of nuclear and renewable energy sources on environment quality: testing the EKC and LCC hypotheses for South Korea. Nucl Eng Technol2023; 55: 587–594.
12.
SandsP. Environmental protection in the twenty-first century: sustainable development and international law. In: NormanJReginaS (eds) The global environment. Routledge, 2023, pp.116–137.
13.
XiaoMAbbasAHamidA, et al.Green production practices for sustainable development: impact of geopolitical risk, renewable energy, and foreign direct investment on environmental quality. Energy Environ2025: 0958305X251319369.
14.
MarhasovaVGarafonovaOPopeloO, et al.Environmentalization of production as a direction of ensuring the sustainability of production activities of enterprises and increasing their economic security. Int J Saf Secur Eng2022; 12: 159–166.
15.
SunYGaoPTianW, et al.Green innovation for resource efficiency and sustainability: empirical analysis and policy. Resour Policy2023; 81: 103369.
16.
AlolaAAAdebayoTS. Are green resource productivity and environmental technologies the face of environmental sustainability in the Nordic region?Sustainable Dev2023; 31: 760–772.
17.
ChenHYiJChenA. Green technology innovation and CO2 emission in China: evidence from a spatial-temporal analysis and a nonlinear spatial Durbin model. Energy Policy2023; 172: 113338.
18.
GuangFDengYWenL. Impact of regional energy allocation distortion on carbon emission efficiency: evidence from China. J Environ Manag2023; 342: 118241.
19.
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.
20.
AnserMKSyedQRApergisN. Does geopolitical risk escalate CO2 emissions? Evidence from the BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 48011–48021.
21.
CaijuanGDuraniFHamidA, et al. Navigating the green growth spectrum: exploring the synergy between geopolitical risk, environmental policy stringency, and green production practices. Energy Environ2024: 0958305X241248377.
22.
World Bank. World Development Indicators, Online Database. https://data.worldbank.org/ (Accessed 20 April, 2023). 2023.
23.
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.
24.
BaoZLuW. Applicability of the environmental Kuznets curve to construction waste management: a panel analysis of 27 European economies. Resour Conserv Recycl2023; 188: 106667.
25.
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.
26.
HussainMNLiZSattarA, et al.Evaluating the impact of energy and environment on economic growth in BRI countries. Energy Environ2023; 34: 586–601.
27.
HussainMAbbasAManzoorS, et al.Linkage of natural resources, economic policies, urbanization, and the environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 1451–1459.
28.
LeiXYangYAlharthiM, et al.Immense reliance on natural resources and environmental challenges in G-20 economies through the lens of COP-26 targets. Resour Policy2022; 79: 103101.
29.
PanXAshrafARazaSMF, et al.Exploring the asymmetric effects of urbanization and trade on CO2 emissions: fresh evidence from Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 89770–89783.
30.
VelayuthamE. Does clean energy reduce environmental pollution under the environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in Sri Lanka?Sustainability2023; 15: 10983.
31.
BeşeEKalayciS. Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC): empirical relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: evidence from 3 developed countries. Panoeconomicus2021; 68: 483–506.
32.
HuangYRazaSMFUsmanM. Asymmetric role of natural resources dependence, industrialization, and foreign direct investment in China’s economic growth. Resour Policy2023; 85: 103932.
33.
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.
34.
PataUKErtugrulHM. Do the Kyoto Protocol, geopolitical risks, human capital and natural resources affect the sustainability limit? A new environmental approach based on the LCC hypothesis. Resour Policy2023; 81: 103352.
35.
GulogluBCaglarAEPataUK. Analyzing the determinants of the load capacity factor in OECD countries: evidence from advanced quantile panel data methods. Gondwana Res2023; 118: 92–104.
36.
OzturkIAslanAAltinozB. Investigating the nexus between CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption and pilgrimage tourism in Saudi Arabia. Econ Res Ekonomska Istraživanja2022; 35: 3083–3098.
37.
MusahMOwusu-AkomeahMKumahEA, et al.Green investments, financial development, and environmental quality in Ghana: evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 31972–32001.
38.
DoğanBGhoshSHoangDP, et al.Are economic complexity and eco-innovation mutually exclusive to control energy demand and environmental quality in E7 and G7 countries?Technol Soc2022; 68: 101867.
39.
ChengYAwanUAhmadS, et al.How do technological innovation and fiscal decentralization affect the environment? A story of the fourth industrial revolution and sustainable growth. Technol Forecast Soc Change2021; 162: 120398.
40.
AhakwaIXuYTackieEA, et al.Do natural resources and green technological innovation matter in addressing environmental degradation? Evidence from panel models robust to cross-sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity. Resour Policy2023; 85: 103943.
41.
SantoshMGrovesDIYangCX. Habitable planet to sustainable civilization: global climate change with related clean energy transition reliant on declining critical metal resources. Gondwana Res2024; 130: 220–233.
42.
McKayRAJohnsSEBischofR, et al.Wind energy development can lead to guild-specific habitat loss in boreal forest bats. Wildl Biol2024; 2024: e01168.
43.
BošnjakovićMSantaRCrnacZ, et al.Environmental impact of PV power systems. Sustainability2023; 15: 11888.
44.
RehbeinJAWatsonJELaneJL, et al.Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas. Glb Chg Bio2020; 26: 3040–3051.
45.
VoumikLCGhoshSRashidM, et al.The effect of geopolitical risk and green technology on load capacity factors in BRICS. Util Policy2024; 88: 101757.
46.
IbekweKIEtukudohEANwokediegwuZQS, et al.Energy security in the global context: a comprehensive review of geopolitical dynamics and policies. Eng Sci Technol J2024; 5: 152–168.
47.
YuanHZhaoLUmairM. Crude oil security in a turbulent world: China's geopolitical dilemmas and opportunities. Extr Ind Soc2023; 16: 101334.
48.
KhanKKhurshidACifuentes-FauraJ. Is geopolitics a new risk to environmental policy in the European union?J Environ Manag2023; 345: 118868.
49.
AlNemerHAHkiriBTissaouiK. Dynamic impact of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on CO2 emission and economic growth in Saudi Arabia: fresh evidence from wavelet coherence analysis. Renewable Energy2023; 209: 340–356.
50.
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.
51.
EhigiamusoeKUDoganE. The role of interaction effect between renewable energy consumption and real income in carbon emissions: evidence from low-income countries. Renewable Sustain Energy Rev2022; 154: 111883.
52.
OzturkIFarooqSMajeedMT, et al.An empirical investigation of financial development and ecological footprint in South Asia: Bridging the EKC and pollution haven hypotheses. Geoscience Front2023; 15: 101588.
53.
OzturkIKhanSMajeedMT. Environmental impact of economic activities: decoupling perspective of Singapore using log mean Divisia index decomposition technique. Geol J2023; 58: 3720–3733.
54.
OzturkIRazzaqASharifA, et al.Investigating the impact of environmental governance, green innovation, and renewable energy on trade-adjusted material footprint in G20 countries. Resour Policy2023; 86: 104212.
55.
OzturkISavranlarBAslanA, et al.The dynamic simulation analysis of the impact of urbanization and globalization on environmental quality. Sustainability2023; 15: 11764.
56.
NanSHuangJWuJ, et al.Does globalization change the renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions nexus for OECD countries? New evidence based on the nonlinear PSTR model. Energy Strategy Rev2022; 44: 100995.
57.
PesaranMH. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Economet2007; 22: 265–312.
58.
PedroniP. Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat1999; 61(S1): 653–670.
59.
KaoC. Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. J Econom1999; 90: 1–44.
AlexanderMHardingMLamarcheC. Quantile regression for time-series-cross-section data. Int J Stat Manag Syst2011; 6: 47–72.
64.
DametteODelacoteP. On the economic factors of deforestation: what can we learn from quantile analysis?Econ Model2012; 29: 2427–2434.
65.
PedroniP. Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. In: BadiBThomasFCaterH (eds) Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels, Leeds, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2001, pp.93–130.
66.
PesaranMHShinYSmithRP. Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc1999; 94: 621–634.
67.
TutuncuACelikBSKahveciS. Do the political uncertainty and geopolitical risk indexes in the G-7 countries relate to stock prices? Fourier causality test evidence. Int Econ J2024; 38: 605–630.
68.
LiXINGAghazadehSLiaquatM, et al.Transforming Costa Rica's environmental quality: the role of renewable energy, rule of law, corruption control, and foreign direct investment in building a sustainable future. Renewable Energy2025; 239: 121993.
69.
XaisongkhamSLiuX. Institutional quality, employment, FDI and environmental degradation in developing countries: evidence from the balanced panel GMM estimator. Int J Emerging Mark2024; 19: 1920–1939.
70.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ1995; 110: 353–377.
71.
ZhengJDuJWangB, et al. A hybrid framework for forecasting power generation of multiple renewable energy sources. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2023; 172: 113046.
72.
ZhengRWuGChengY, et al. How does digitalization drive carbon emissions? The inverted U-shaped effect in China. Environ Impact Assess Rev2023; 102: 107203.
73.
DoganEUlucakRKocakE, et al.The use of ecological footprint in estimating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section dependence and heterogeneity. Sci Total Environ2020; 723: 138063.wang.
74.
KhanSYahongWChandioAA. How does economic complexity affect ecological footprint in G-7 economies: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumptions and testing EKC hypothesis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 47647–47660.
75.
Global Footprint Network online Database. Global Footprint Network online Database. Available online: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/2023 (Accessed 20 April, 2023). 2023.
76.
CaldaraDIacovielloM. Measuring geopolitical risk. Am Econ Rev2022; 112: 1194–1225.
77.
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Online Database. https://stats.oecd.org/2024 (Accessed 20 April, 2023). 2024.
78.
ZhaoSCaoYFengC, et al. How do heterogeneous RandD investments affect China's green productivity: revisiting the Porter hypothesis. Sci Total Environ2022; 825: 154090.
79.
ErdoganS. Linking green fiscal policy, energy, economic growth, population dynamics, and environmental degradation: empirical evidence from Germany. Energy Policy2024; 189: 114110.
80.
ErdoganS. Linking natural resources and environmental sustainability: a panel data approach based on the load capacity curve hypothesis. Sustainable Dev2024; 32: 3182–3194.
81.
AnwarAHamidASharifA, et al.Exploring the role of adaptation technologies and energy poverty on environmental quality: progress toward sustainable development goals. Humanit Soc Sci Commun2025; 12: 1–13.
82.
ErdoganSSarkodieSAAdedoyinFF, et al.Analyzing transport demand and environmental degradation: the case of G-7 countries. Environ Dev Sustainability2024; 26: 711–734.
83.
YangXAhmadLi NAhmadM, et al. Natural resources, population aging, and environmental quality: analyzing the role of green technologies. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 46665–46679.
84.
HouHZhuYWangJ, et al. Will green financial policy help improve China’s environmental quality? The role of digital finance and green technology innovation. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 10527–10539.
BerkhoutPHMuskensJCVelthuijsenJW. Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy2000; 28: 425–432.
87.
RahmanAFarrokOHaqueMM. Environmental impact of renewable energy source based electrical power plants: solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, tidal, ocean, and osmotic. Renewable Sustain Energy Rev2022; 161: 112279.
88.
Abu-RayashADincerI. Development and assessment of an integrated wind-solar based energy system for sustainable communities. Energy Convers Manage2023; 277: 116680.
89.
RosaLSanchezDLRealmonteG, et al.The water footprint of carbon capture and storage technologies. Renewable Sustainae Energy Rev2021; 138: 110511.
90.
Stratiotou EfstratiadisVMichailidisN. Sustainable recovery, recycle of critical metals and rare earth elements from waste electric and electronic equipment (circuits, solar, wind) and their reusability in additive manufacturing applications: a review. Metals (Basel)2022; 12: 794.
91.
SweidanOD. The geopolitical risk effect on the US renewable energy deployment. J Cleaner Prod2021; 293: 126189.
92.
RitiJSShuYRitiMKJ. Geopolitical risk and environmental degradation in BRICS: aggregation bias and policy inference. Energy Policy2022; 166: 113010.
93.
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.
94.
DagarVKhanMKAlvaradoR, et al.Impact of renewable energy consumption, financial development and natural resources on environmental degradation in OECD countries with dynamic panel data. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 18202–18212.
95.
KartalMTKılıç DeprenSAyhanF, et al.Impact of renewable and fossil fuel energy consumption on environmental degradation: evidence from USA by nonlinear approaches. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol2022; 29: 738–755.
96.
MuhammadBKhanMKKhanMI, et al.Impact of foreign direct investment, natural resources, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth on environmental degradation: evidence from BRICS, developing, developed and global countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 21789–21798.
97.
BhujabalPSethiNPadhanPC. ICT, foreign direct investment and environmental pollution in major Asia Pacific countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 42649–42669.
