The climate mitigation potential of green trade (GTD) is often constrained by the global green divide and weak resource governance in carbon-intensive countries. This study investigates how effective natural resource governance (NRG) mediates and enhances the impact of GTD on environmental sustainability from 2001 to 2022 in alignment with the sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly SDG-7, SDG-12, and SDG-13. Guided by ecological modernization theory, the empirical approach applies a two-step system generalized method of moments estimator, supported by Driscoll–Kraay and Panel-Corrected Standard Errors robustness checks, to evaluate both the direct effects of GTD and the governance-mediated mechanisms shaping environmental performance. The results show that while GTD contributes to emission reductions, its decarbonization effect becomes substantially stronger under robust governance structures. Effective NRG directs trade-related gains toward green industrial upgrading, efficient energy use, sustainable resource management, and clean-technology diffusion. These findings underscore that achieving low-carbon transitions in carbon-intensive countries requires pairing expanded green trade with strengthened natural resource governance capable of channeling trade benefits toward sustainable development and SDG-aligned climate objectives.
UsmanMMakhdumMSAKousarR. Does financial inclusion, renewable and non-renewable energy utilization accelerate ecological footprints and economic growth? Fresh evidence from 15 highest emitting countries. Sustainable Cities Soc2021; 65: 102590.
2.
RenHQifengXYongjunG, et al.Supply chain performance, information and communication technology capital formation, and green growth in top carbon emitter economies. Energy Environ2025; 36: 2836–2855.
3.
BP. Energy Outlook. British Petroleum, 2024.
4.
EI. 73rd edition Statistical Review of World Energy. London: Energy Institute, 2024.
5.
AshrafMZWeiWUsmanM, et al.How can natural resource dependence, environmental-related technologies and digital trade protect the environment: redesigning SDGs policies for sustainable environment?Resour Policy2024; 88: 104456.
6.
BacchettaMBekkersESollederJ-M, et al.The potential impact of environmental goods trade liberalization on trade and emissions. Energy Econ2025; 141: 108051.
7.
GandaF. Investigating the relationship and impact of environmental governance, green goods, non-green goods and eco-innovation on material footprint and renewable energy in the BRICS group. Sustainability2024; 16: 1602.
8.
FelbermayrGPetersonSWannerJ. Trade and the environment, trade policies and environmental policies—how do they interact?J Econ Surv2025; 39: 1148–1184.
9.
KuangZYLiangQYuF, et al.Rethinking digital finance and information and communication technology (ICT) capital impacts on environmental goods trade under carbon neutrality targets. In: Natural Resources Forum. Wiley Online Library, 2025, pp.2579–2593.
10.
MatthewsLSilvaMEFigueiredoMD, et al.Towards environmentally just supply chains: from harm reduction to transformative sustainability actions. Int J Oper Prod Manage2025; 45: 733–755.
11.
PhamDTTNguyenHT. Effects of trade openness on environmental quality: evidence from developing countries. J Appl Econ2024; 27: 2339610.
12.
KhanHWeiliLKhanI. Environmental innovation, trade openness and quality institutions: an integrated investigation about environmental sustainability. Environ Dev Sustainability2022; 24: 3832–3862.
13.
BaiJHanZRizviSKA, et al.Green trade or green technology? The way forward for G-7 economies to achieve COP 26 targets while making competing policy choices. Technol Forecast Soc Change2023; 191: 122477.
14.
CanMAhmedZMercanM, et al.The role of trading environment-friendly goods in environmental sustainability: does green openness matter for OECD countries?J Environ Manag2021; 295: 113038.
15.
LeeCCOlasehinde-WilliamsGGyamfiBA. The synergistic effect of green trade and economic complexity on sustainable environment: a new perspective on the economic and ecological components of sustainable development. Sustainable Dev2023; 31: 976–989.
16.
PorterME. The competitive advantage of nations: with a new introduction, 1998.
17.
Olasehinde-WilliamsGFolorunshoA. Environmental policy, green trade and sustainable development in Europe: new perspective on the Porter hypothesis. Energy Environ2023; 36: 1443–1461.
18.
ShaheenFLodhiMSRosak-SzyrockaJ, et al.Cleaner technology and natural resource management: an environmental sustainability perspective from China. Clean Technologies2022; 4: 584–606.
19.
PasqualJSoutoG. Sustainability in natural resource management. Ecol Econ2003; 46: 47–59.
20.
TsaniS. Natural resources, governance and institutional quality: the role of resource funds. Resour Policy2013; 38: 181–195.
GokmenogluKKRustamovB. The role of the natural resource abundance in the short and long run: the case of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Resour Policy2022; 77: 102699.
23.
ArslanHMKhanILatifMI, et al.Understanding the dynamics of natural resources rents, environmental sustainability, and sustainable economic growth: new insights from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 58746–58761.
24.
DaiSDuX. Discovering the role of trade diversification, natural resources, and environmental policy stringency on ecological sustainability in the BRICST region. Resour Policy2023; 85: 103868.
25.
MolAPSonnenfeldDA. Ecological modernisation around the world: an introduction, 2000.
26.
FisherDRFreudenburgWR. Ecological modernization and its critics: assessing the past and looking toward the future. Soc Nat Resour2001; 14: 701–709.
27.
TariqMXuYUllahK, et al.Toward low-carbon emissions and green growth for sustainable development in emerging economies: do green trade openness, eco-innovation, and carbon price matter?Sustainable Dev2024; 32: 959–978.
28.
AbdullahiAIbrahimAS. The role of Nigeria in building sustainable development through green trade initiatives within the BRICS and AFCFTA framework. Br J Interdiscip Res2025; 2: 118–133.
29.
RamizoDMCabaluHHarrisM, et al.The environmental impact of green trade and circular trade: does urbanization matter?Cleaner Prod Lett2025; 8: 100086.
30.
RoyA. Does carbon tax promote green trade and comparative advantages: evidence from panel difference-in-difference (DID) causal experiment. Environ Econ Policy Stud2025; 27: 331–352.
31.
FengYHuJAfshanS, et al.Bridging resource disparities for sustainable development: a comparative analysis of resource-rich and resource-scarce countries. Resour Policy2023; 85: 103981.
32.
AbbasSXuDYunaG, et al.The contribution of resource-based taxation, green innovation, and minerals trade toward ecological sustainability in resource-rich economies. Resour Policy2024; 93: 105092.
33.
NwaniCUllahAOjeyinkaTA, et al.Natural resources, technological innovation, and eco-efficiency: striking a balance between sustainability and growth in Egypt. Environ Dev Sustainability2025; 27: 1467–1498.
34.
YorkRRosaEADietzT. Ecological modernization theory: Theoretical and empirical challenges. In: The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, Second Edition. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010.
35.
DhayalKSZakaRKhanMK, et al.Examining the role of green finance, trade-adjusted carbon emissions and major green economic variables for the BRICST economies. Discover Sustainability2025; 6: 543.
36.
ZhangTChoiCH. The dual effects of green trade on boosting sustainability and challenging productivity. J Asian Afr Stud2025. DOI: 10.1177/00219096251345404
37.
CanBAhmedZAhmadM, et al.Do renewable energy consumption and green trade openness matter for human well-being? Empirical evidence from European Union countries. Soc Indic Res2022; 164: 1043–1059.
38.
KhademiTFarajnezhadM. How to calculate the ecological carbon dioxide footprint?J Environ Treat Tech2023; 11: 109–115.
39.
RehmanMAAbbasSArshadZ, et al.Green trading mechanisms, carbon taxation, and technology integration: achieving the carbon neutrality ambition in OECD countries. Clean Technol Environ Policy2025; 27: 7141–7158.
40.
van HinsbergNCanM. The impact of green trade openness on air quality. Ekonomikalia J Econ2024; 2: 105–118.
41.
XiaoKWangGYiH, et al.Dynamic common correlated effects of green innovation funding and green trade on environmental quality in OECD countries. Problemy Ekorozwoju2025; 20: 270–283.
42.
WeiSJiandongWSaleemH. The impact of renewable energy transition, green growth, green trade and green innovation on environmental quality: evidence from top 10 green future countries. Front Environ Sci2023; 10: 1076859.
43.
WangZZhuP. Trade of eco-friendly products and CO2 emissions in China: a spatial spillover analysis within the EKC framework. J Cleaner Prod2025; 516: 145734. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145734
44.
MaoXLiuHGuiJ, et al.Toward inclusive list-making for trade liberalization in environmental goods to reduce carbon emissions. Geogr Sustainability2023; 4: 200–212.
45.
Zugravu-SoilitaN. Trade in environmental goods and air pollution: a mediation analysis to estimate total, direct and indirect effects. Environ Resour Econ2019; 74: 1125–1162.
46.
AliEBShayanmehrSRadmehrR, et al.Investigating environmental quality among G20 nations: the impacts of environmental goods and low-carbon technologies in mitigating environmental degradation. Geosci Front2024; 15: 101695.
47.
LiuCNiCSharmaP, et al.Does green environmental innovation really matter for carbon-free economy? Nexus among green technological innovation, green international trade, and green power generation. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 67504–67512.
48.
AlviSAhmadIRehmanA. Trade of environmental versus non-environmental goods and carbon emissions in high and middle-income countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 65283–65295.
49.
PottsR. Disconnected dots? A systematic review of governance challenges for natural resource management. J Environ Planning Manage2020; 63: 1356–1374.
50.
AsonguSAOdhiamboNM. Governance quality and trade performance in sub-Saharan Africa. World Affairs2024; 187: 78–93.
51.
GhazouaniTMaktoufS. Impact of natural resources, trade openness, and economic growth on CO2 emissions in oil-exporting countries: A panel autoregressive distributed lag analysis. In: Natural resources forum. Wiley Online Library, 2024, pp.211–231.
52.
InuwaNRejSOnweJC, et al.Do clean energy and dependence on natural resources stimulate environmental sustainability? A new approach with load capacity factor and temperature. In: Natural resources forum. Wiley Online Library, 2025, pp.800–823.
53.
ErdoğanSÇakarNDUlucakR, et al.The role of natural resources abundance and dependence in achieving environmental sustainability: evidence from resource-based economies. Sustainable Dev2021; 29: 143–154.
54.
TingliLIshtiaqMSaudS, et al.Achieving sustainable development in emerging economies: interplay between markets, resources, and environment. Renew Energy2025; 238: 121941.
55.
DekaA. The role of natural resources rent, trade openness and technological innovations on environmental sustainability–evidence from resource-rich African nations. Resour Policy2024; 98: 105364.
56.
AhakwaITackieEA. Natural resources as a double-edged sword towards ecological quality: can environmental regulations and green human capital rectify the adverse impacts?J Cleaner Prod2024; 457: 142436.
57.
SohailADuJAbbasiBN, et al.The nonlinearity and nonlinear convergence of CO2 emissions: evidence from top 20 highest emitting countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 59466–59482.
58.
ZhangMHouJLiuY. Achieving development goals via digital government strategies for a sustainable digital economy that integrate natural resource governance and energy security. Resour Policy2025; 101: 105330.
59.
WDI. World Development Indicators, 2024.
60.
IMF. International Monetary Fund, 2024.
61.
ArellanoMBondS. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud1991; 58: 277–297.
62.
BeckNKatzJN. What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. Am Polit Sci Rev1995; 89: 634–647.
PesaranMH. Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econom Rev2015; 34: 1089–1117.
65.
PesaranMH. General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empir Econ2021; 60: 13–50.
66.
JuodisA. A regularization approach to common correlated effects estimation. J Appl Econom2022; 37: 788–810.
67.
FanJLiaoYYaoJ. Power enhancement in high-dimensional cross-sectional tests. Econometrica2015; 83: 1497–1541.
68.
PesaranMHXieY. A bias-corrected CD test for error cross-sectional dependence in panel data models with latent factors. arXiv preprint arXiv:210900408 2021.
69.
PesaranMH. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econom2007; 22: 265–312.
70.
SotoGHBalsalobre-LorenteDMartinez-CobasX. Environmental legislative shaping or green competitive advantages? The role of FDI among environmental regulations. Energy Econ2025; 145: 108445.
71.
EhigiamusoeKUChenDDoganE, et al.Unravelling the moderating roles of environmental regulations on the impact of foreign direct investment on environmental sustainability. J Environ Manag2025; 375: 124175.
72.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ1995; 110: 353–377.
73.
MutascuM. Beyond the EKC: economic development and environmental degradation in the US. Ecol Econ2025; 232: 108567.
74.
SaqibNUsmanMOzturkI, et al.Harnessing the synergistic impacts of environmental innovations, financial development, green growth, and ecological footprint through the lens of SDGs policies for countries exhibiting high ecological footprints. Energy Policy2024; 184: 113863.
75.
ShaikhSSAminNShabbirMS, et al.Going green in ASEAN: assessing the role of eco-innovation, green energy, industrialization, and environmental taxes in achieving carbon neutrality. Sustainable Dev2025; 33: 3596–3614.
76.
ZakaRDhayalKSYingTY, et al.Green finance, financial inclusion, and trade adjusted carbon emissions: Unravelling the path to sustainable development in the BRICST region. Energy Environ2025. DOI: 10.1177/0958305X251322895
77.
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.
