As global concerns about climate change intensify, understanding the determinants of Green Total Factor Productivity (GTFP) in emerging economies has become essential. This study examines the drivers of Green Total Factor Productivity (GTFP) in BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) from 2000 to 2022, focusing on institutional quality, climate policy stringency, energy consumption, human capital, and sectoral growth. Using the Pooled Mean Group-Autoregressive Distributed Lag (PMG-ARDL) model, supported by panel causality tests and robustness checks, the study reveals a positive long-term relationship between GDP and GTFP (coefficient = 0.67), with bidirectional causality. Institutional quality (elasticity = 0.42) and human capital (elasticity = 0.25) significantly enhance GTFP, while climate policy stringency initially reduces GTFP (–0.60) but becomes neutral over time. Sectoral contributions show that industry (0.18) and services (0.13) have the most significant impacts on GTFP. The study contributed to an integrated approach combining macroeconomic, institutional, and environmental factors. Policy implications emphasize the need for stronger institutions and energy efficiency. Future research should explore broader geographic contexts and micro-level dynamics to strengthen GTFP models.
NgoTQ. Natural resource rents, clean energy, and green total factor productivity. Evidence from Vietnam in pre-post COVID era. Resour Policy2024; 88: 104401.
2.
AminNShabbirMSPanY, et al.Beyond growth: the triple green strategy (green energy, green innovation, and green finance) for sustainable emissions reduction in BRICS countries. Sustain Develop 2025; 33: 5567–5586.
3.
LiHLeiX. The impact of climate change on the development of circular economy in China: a perspective on green total factor productivity. Global Nest J2024; 26: 1–7.
4.
RehmanFUIslamMM. Financial infrastructure—total factor productivity (TFP) nexus within the purview of FDI outflow, trade openness, innovation, human capital and institutional quality: evidence from BRICS economies. Appl Econ2023; 55: 783–801.
5.
RenXZhangXYanC, et al.Climate policy uncertainty and firm-level total factor productivity: evidence from China. Energy Econ2022; 113: 106209.
6.
DaiZZhuH. Climate policy uncertainty and urban green total factor productivity: evidence from China. Intern Rev Financ Anal2024; 96: 103593.
7.
Brøns-PetersenOGjedstedSH. Climate change and institutional change: what is the relative importance for economic performance?Environ Econ Pol Stud2021; 23: 333–360.
8.
HuangJ. Resources, innovation, globalization, and green growth: the BRICS financial development strategy. Geosci Front2024; 15: 101741.
9.
KumarSManagiS. Carbon-sensitive productivity, climate and institutions. Environ Dev Econ2016; 21: 109–133.
10.
JiangRDongYBaiL, et al.Predicting urban residents’ climate change risk perceptions: the role of heat and green space exposure indicators in Harbin's residential environment. Sustain Cities Soc2025; 134: 106882.
11.
WeiJKhanS. Climate risk, natural resources, and climate change mitigation options in BRICS: implications for green recovery. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 29015–29028.
12.
LinX. The spatial impact of innovative human capital on green total factor productivity in Chinese regions based on quantity and quality dimensions. Sustainability2024; 16: 9358.
13.
SunJTangDKongH, et al.Impact of industrial structure upgrading on green total factor productivity in the Yangtze river economic belt. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022; 19: 3718.
14.
AllardATakmanJUddinGS, et al.The N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical evaluation using a panel quantile regression approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 5848–5861.
15.
SteffenWGrinevaldJCrutzenP, et al.The anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philoso Trans R Soc A2011; 369: 842–867.
16.
Ul-HaqJVisasHUmairM, et al.Does economic fitness matter in carbon emissions mitigation in BRICS countries?Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 55112–55131.
17.
ÖzokcuS. Özdemir Ö. Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renew Sustaina Energy Rev2017; 72: 639–647.
18.
FakherH-AAhmedZAcheampongA, 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.
19.
ÖzokcuS. Özdemir Ö. Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017; 72: 639–647.
20.
ShehzadKZeraibiAZamanU. Testing the N-shaped environmental Kuznets Curve in Algeria: an imperious role of natural resources and economic globalization. Resources Policy2022; 77: 102700.
21.
BanoSLiuLKhanA. Dynamic influence of aging, industrial innovations, and ICT on tourism development and renewable energy consumption in BRICS economies. Renew Energy2022; 192: 431–442.
22.
HeJOsabohienRYinW, et al.Green economic growth, renewable energy and food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Strategy Reviews2024; 55: 101503.
23.
JahangerAHossainMRUsmanM, et al.Recent scenario and nexus between natural resource dependence, energy use and pollution cycles in BRICS region: does the mediating role of human capital exist?Resourc Policy2023; 81: 103382.
24.
AbbasiKRHussainKRadulescuM, et al.Asymmetric impact of renewable and non-renewable energy on the industrial sector in Pakistan: fresh evidence from Bayesian and non-linear ARDL. Renew Energy2022; 187: 944–957.
25.
DoganEMajeedMTLuniT. Revisiting the nexus of ecological footprint, unemployment, and renewable and non-renewable energy for south Asian economies: evidence from novel research methods. Renew Energy2022; 194: 1060–1070.
26.
LiHChenCUmairM. Green finance, enterprise energy efficiency, and green total factor productivity: evidence from China. Sustainability2023; 15: 11065.
27.
ChanP. Cambodian Green economy transition: background, progress, and SWOT analysis. World2024; 5: 413–452.
28.
DaiZZhuH. Climate policy uncertainty and urban green total factor productivity: evidence from China. Intern Rev Finan Anal2024; 96: 103593.
29.
LimeiCAnatholeUSareYA, et al.Harnessing innovation for a greener future: unpacking the interplay of natural resources, institutional quality, and green productivity in OECD and BRICS nations. J Knowl Econ2025: 1–35.
30.
ChenZSongPWangB. Carbon emissions trading scheme, energy efficiency and rebound effect–evidence from China’s provincial data. Energy Policy2021; 157: 112507.
31.
MengQZuGGeL, et al.Dispatching strategy for low-carbon flexible operation of park-level integrated energy system. Appl Sci2022; 12: 12309.
32.
UllahSYushiJMiaoM. Climate policy uncertainty and economic growth, a moderating role of crude oil price changes: evidence from the Asian economies. Int J Energy Sect Manage2025; 19: 523–550.
33.
LaswaiRBSenadjkiAChooWKS. The Dynamic Intricacies of External Debt and FDI Moderated by Rule of Law, Voice and Accountability Economic Growth Nexus in EAC Partner States: A Panel NARDL Analysis. In: 12th International Conference on Business, Accounting, Finance and Economics (BAFE 2024), 2025, pp. 474–504.
34.
DavisBde la O CamposAPFarraeM, et al.Whither the agricultural productivity-led model? Reconsidering resilient and inclusive rural transformation in the context of agrifood systems. Glob Food Sec2024; 43: 100812.
35.
TrakemVFanHSamD. The influence of agricultural trade liberalization on agricultural total factor productivity growth: empirical evidence from ASEAN countries. J Int Trade Econ Dev2024; 35: 280–318.
36.
ZhouXPatelGMahalikMK, et al.Effects of green energy and productivity on environmental sustainability in BRICS economies: the role of natural resources rents. Resources Policy2024; 92: 105026.
37.
AddisAK. The impact of renewable energy on CO2 emissions in Middle Eastern and BRICS economies. Humanit Soc Sci Commun2026; 13: 1941.
38.
JiKHouQYuY, et al.Rural E-commerce and agricultural carbon emission reduction: a quasi-natural experiment from China’s rural E-commerce demonstration county program based on 355 cities in ten years. Agriculture2023; 14: 75.
39.
WuBRenKFuY, et al.Institutional investor ESG activism and green supply chain management performance: exploring contingent roles of technological interdependences in different digital intelligence contexts. Technol Forecast Soc Change2024; 209: 123789.
40.
TokpahJ-TSerajMOzdeserH. Panel examination of the impact of economic growth on carbon emissions—case of 15 emerging and advanced economies. Univ J Carbon Res2023: 43–55.
41.
ZhangSXuGShuY, et al.Comparing developed and emerging nations’ economic development with environmental footprint for low-carbon competitiveness. Heliyon2024; 10: e34039.
42.
VermaBBhardwajMAroraS, et al.Unveiling the impact of remittances on productive efficiencies: investigating productivity growth of prominent remittance-receiving developing nations. Int J Product Perform Manag2025; 74: 1101–1124.
43.
KeJJahangerAYangB, et al.Digitalization, financial development, trade, and carbon emissions; implication of pollution haven hypothesis during globalization mode. Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 873880.
44.
UdeaghaMCMuchapondwaE. Achieving green environment in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa economies: do composite risk index, green innovation, and environmental policy stringency matter?Sustain Develop2023; 31: 3468–3489.
45.
UdeaghaMCNgepahN. Striving towards carbon neutrality target in BRICS economies: assessing the implications of composite risk index, green innovation, and environmental policy stringency. Sustain Environ2023; 9: 2210950.
46.
UdeaghaMCNgepahN. Achieving decarbonization goals in BRICS economies: revisiting the joint role of composite risk index, green innovation, and environmental policy stringency. Cogent Soc Sci2023; 9: 2234230.
47.
JiangSYuanX. Does green credit promote real economic development? Dual empirical evidence of scale and efficiency. PloS one2025; 20: e0326961.
48.
RaufAAliNSadiqMN, et al.Foreign direct investment, technological innovations, energy use, economic growth, and environmental sustainability nexus: new perspectives in BRICS economies. Sustainability2023; 15: 14013.
49.
AliNPhoungthongKTechatoK, et al.FDI, green innovation and environmental quality nexus: new insights from BRICS economies. Sustainability2022; 14: 2181.
50.
AbbasSGuiPChenA, et al.The effect of renewable energy development, market regulation, and environmental innovation on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 59483–59501.
51.
LiuHLiuY. Agricultural carbon footprints, renewable energy and sustainable development in Asia. Sci Rep2025; 15: 34429.
52.
SongYZhangBWangJ, et al.The impact of climate change on China’s agricultural green total factor productivity. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 185: 122054.
53.
XuHDengH. Short-term impact of climate change on labor market in China: quantitative spatial analysis based on an oligopsony model. China Econ Rev2024; 84: 102142.
54.
RahmanZUAhmadSKhanA. Bridging the EPC and IPAT in the presence of natural resources in China: considering asymmetries in environmental-related technologies and unemployment. Resources Policy2025; 103: 105523.
55.
ChoJSGreenwood-NimmoMShinY. Recent developments of the autoregressive distributed lag modelling framework. J Econ Surv2023; 37: 7–32.
56.
PesaranMShinYSmithR. Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc1999; 94: 621–634.
TanveerAFarooqFFaheemM, et al.Assessment of green total factor productivity on the environmental sustainability of Pakistan: insights through growth accounting framework. Rev Appl Manag Soc Sci2022; 5: 413–422.
59.
WangWImranMAliK, et al.Green policies and financial development in G7 economies: an in-depth analysis of environmental regulations and green economic growth. Nat Resour Forum2024; 49: 1081–1107.
60.
XuKZhaoP. Does green finance promote green total factor productivity? Empirical evidence from China. Sustainability2023; 15: 11204.
61.
LiuLYangXMengY, et al.Does the construction of national eco-industrial demonstration parks improve green total factor productivity? Evidence from prefecture-level cities in China. Sustainability2021; 14: 26.
62.
DuanN. The quest for balance: the journey of energy, environment and sustainable development. Energy Environ Sustain2025; 1: 100001.
63.
LuoYMensahCNLuZ, et al.Environmental regulation and green total factor productivity in China: a perspective of porter’s and compliance hypothesis. Ecol Indic2022; 145: 109744.
64.
ChenCLanQGaoM, et al.Green total factor productivity growth and its determinants in China’s industrial economy. Sustainability2018; 10: 1052.
65.
ZhangJLuGSkitmoreM, et al.A critical review of the current research mainstreams and the influencing factors of green total factor productivity. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 35392–35405.
66.
ChenWYaoL. Evaluating the carbon total factor productivity of China: based on Cobb–Douglas production function. Environ Sci Pollut Res2024; 31: 13722–13738.
67.
Vasyl’YevaO. Assessment of factors of sustainable development of the agricultural sector using the Cobb-Douglas production function. Baltic J Econ Stud2021; 7: 37–49.
68.
CoelliTJPrasada RaoDSO’DonnellCJ, et al.An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. New York, NY: Springer, 2005.
69.
Addis AK. Sustainability and efficiency analysis of 42 countries: super SBM-DEA model and the GML productivity index with undesirable outputs. Ecological Indicators 2025; 177: 113767.
70.
ChungYHFäreRGrosskopfS. Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manage1997; 51: 229–240.
71.
FengJYanJTaoX. Exposing the effects of environmental regulations on China's green total factor productivity: results from econometrics analysis and machine learning methods. Front Environ Sci2021; 9: 779358.
72.
ZhongSLiYLiJ, et al.Measurement of total factor productivity of green agriculture in China: analysis of the regional differences based on China. PLoS ONE2021; 16: e0257239.
73.
YangHChenQ. Material balance and correction for the measurement of green total factor productivity growth. Energy Econ2025; 148: 108647.
74.
ChenXChenYHuangW, et al.A new Malmquist-type green total factor productivity measure: an application to China. Energy Econ2022; 117: 106408.
75.
WangSZhengYYangH. Digital economy and green total factor productivity in China. PLoS ONE2024; 19: e0299716.
76.
FäreRGrosskopfSPasurkaCA. Accounting for air pollution in measures of productivity growth. J Environ Manag2001; 62: 1–10.
77.
OhDH. A global Malmquist-Luenberger productivity index. J Environ Econ Manage2010; 59: 274–289.
78.
LiuPLuoZ. A measurement and analysis of the growth of urban green total factor productivity—based on the perspective of energy and land elements. Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 838748.
79.
PesaranMHShinYSmithRJ. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econometr2001; 16: 289–326.
80.
AyoungmanFZShawonAHSohailA. Analyzing the impact of financial development, human capital and industrial structure on ecological footprints: a PMG-ARDL approach. Human Soc Sci Commun2025; 12: 1284.
81.
IsiksalAZAssiAF. Determinants of sustainable energy demand in the European economic area: evidence from the PMG-ARDL model. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 183: 121901.
82.
SultanaMRahmanMHZimonG. The impact of external debt and exchange rate on foreign direct investment in emerging investment markets: new evidence using a PMG-ARDL panel data analysis. Cogent Econom Finan2024; 12: 2362780.
83.
MitićPFedajevARadulescuM, et al.The relationship between CO2 emissions, economic growth, available energy, and employment in SEE countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 30: 16140–16155.
84.
WangSLiGFangC. Urbanization, economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: empirical evidence from countries with different income levels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2018; 81: 2144–2159.
85.
ZafarMWSaleemMMDestekMA, et al.The dynamic linkage between remittances, export diversification, education, renewable energy consumption, economic growth, and CO2 emissions in top remittance-receiving countries. Sustain Develop2022; 30: 165–175.
86.
PesaranMH. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Economet2007; 22: 265–312.
87.
DumitrescuE-IHurlinC. Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model2012; 29: 1450–1460.
88.
OsumaGBonga-BongaL. The effects of foreign direct investment and technological innovation on renewable energy consumption under varying market conditions in the EU. Energies (Basel)2025; 18: 1353.
89.
AminNSharifATayyabM, et al.Green technological advances and resource rents as levers for carbon reduction in BRICS: implications for SDGs 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13. Sustain Develop2025; 33: 3171–3195.
90.
XiMChenYJiangK. All roads lead to Rome? A contingent configurational perspective of HRM systems and organizational effectiveness.Pers Psychol.
91.
LiWPangW. The impact of digital inclusive finance on corporate ESG performance: based on the perspective of corporate green technology innovation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2023; 30: 65314–65327.
92.
SongYWangCWangZ. Climate risk, institutional quality, and total factor productivity. Technol Forecast Soc Change2023; 189: 122365.
93.
YongshengXYingquanL. Global sustainable supply chain governance, effectiveness of social responsibility, and performance in emergent markets: an exploratory multiple case study. Revista de Administracao de Empresas2025; 65: e2024–e2587.
94.
HeQRahmanMUHuJ, et al.Dynamic relationship between carbon trading system resilience and low-carbon stock market returns using time-varying granger causality. Fractals2025: 2540181.
95.
DaiYTongXJiaX. Executives’ legal expertise and corporate innovation. Corp Govern Intern Rev2024; 32: 954–983.
