This study examines the relationships among technological innovation, energy efficiency, and reductions in carbon emissions, while accounting for the moderating effects of energy- and carbon-intensive sectors. Using longitudinal panel data from South Korea spanning 2011 to 2023, this study provides evidence that general patents and green patents, as a proxy for technological innovation, significantly increase energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. The results of this study also confirm that energy efficiency partially mediates the association between technological innovation and emissions reductions. Notably, these positive effects are stronger in energy- and carbon-intensive sectors. This study is novel in that it explores the interplay among patents, energy efficiency, and carbon emissions by simultaneously considering mediation and moderation mechanisms. Our findings provide managerial and policy implications for enhancing corporate competitiveness when transitioning to a low-carbon economy.
International Energy Agency (IEA). World Energy Outlook 2019. 2019.
2.
PapieżMŚmiechSFrodymaK, et al.Decoupling is not enough - evidence from fossil fuel use in over 130 countries. J Cleaner Prod2022; 379: 134856.
3.
ApeaningRW. Technological constraints to energy-related carbon emissions and economic growth decoupling: a retrospective and prospective analysis. J Cleaner Prod2021; 291: 125706.
4.
AgyekumEBAliEB. Impact of technological innovation on carbon neutrality: systematic and bibliometric review of two decades of research. Carbon Res2025; 4: 30.
5.
DuKLiJ. Towards a green world: how do green technology innovations affect total-factor carbon productivity. Energy Policy2019; 131: 240–250.
6.
ZhangYJPengYLMaCQ, et al.Can environmental innovation facilitate carbon emissions reduction? Evidence from China. Energy Policy2017; 100: 18–28.
7.
PorterMELindeCVD. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect.1995; 9: 97–118.
8.
FanLWYouJZhangW. How does technological progress promote carbon productivity? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing industries. J Environ Manag2021; 277: 111325.2.
9.
PanXAiBLiC, et al.Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, technological innovation and energy efficiency based on large scale provincial panel data in China. Technol Forecast Soc Change2019; 144: 428–435.
10.
ErdoganS. Dynamic nexus between technological innovation and building sector carbon emissions in the BRICS countries. J Environ Manag2021; 293: 112780.
11.
FethiSRahumaA. The impact of eco-innovation on CO2 emission reductions: evidence from selected petroleum companies. Structu Change Econ Dyn2020; 53: 108–115.
12.
WangQWangXLiR. Does urbanization redefine the environmental Kuznets curve? An empirical analysis of 134 countries. Sustain Cities Soc2022; 76: 103382.
13.
MoJY. Do environmental policy and innovation improve carbon productivity? Evidence from the Korean emission trading scheme. Energy Environ2023; 34: 445–462.
14.
SunHEdziahBKSunC, et al.Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency. Energy Policy2019; 135: 111002.
15.
WeinaDGilliMMazzantiM, et al.Green inventions and greenhouse gas emission dynamics: a close examination of provincial Italian data. Environ Econ Policy Studies2016; 18: 247–263.
16.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Research Center. Korean Emissions Trading System Report. 2022.
17.
MoJY. Technological innovation and its impact on carbon emissions: evidence from Korea manufacturing firms participating emission trading scheme. Technol Anal Strateg Manage2022; 34: 47–57.
18.
FanLWPanSJLiuGQ, et al.Does energy efficiency affect financial performance? Evidence from Chinese energy-intensive firms. J Cleaner Prod2017; 151: 53–59.
19.
LiuCPadhanHRekhaV, et al.The path to green growth in OECD economies: the role of energy transition and education. Energy Econ2025; 145: 108419.
20.
LiZHuBBaoY, et al.Supply chain digitalization, green technology innovation and corporate energy efficiency. Energy Econ2025; 142: 108153.
21.
SunHEdziahBKKporsuAK, et al.Energy efficiency: the role of technological innovation and knowledge spillover. Technol Forecast Soc Change2021; 167: 120659.
22.
WurlodJDNoaillyJ. The impact of green innovation on energy intensity: an empirical analysis for 14 industrial sectors in OECD countries. Energy Econ2018; 71: 47–61.
23.
HuXLiuC. Carbon productivity: a case study in the Australian construction industry. J Cleaner Prod2016; 112: 2354–2362.
24.
Garcia-QuevedoJJove-LlopisE. Environmental policies and energy efficiency investments: an industry-level analysis. Energy Policy2021; 156: 112461.
25.
BhattacharyyaSC. Energy economics: concepts, issues, markets and governance. 2nd ed. London: Springer Nature, 2019.
26.
AngBWXuXYSuB. Multi-country comparisons of energy performance: the index decomposition analysis approach. Energy Econ2015; 47: 68–76.
27.
LeeCCWenH. Global value chain embedding and enterprise energy efficiency: a worldwide firm-level analysis. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2025; 207: 114955.
28.
SuBAngBW. Multiplicative decomposition of aggregate carbon intensity change using input-output analysis. Appl Energy2015; 154: 13–20.
29.
ZhouPAngBHanJ. Total factor carbon emission performance: a malmquist index analysis. Energy Econ2010; 32: 194–201.
30.
ChenKHChengJCLeeJM, et al.Energy efficiency: indicator, estimation, and a new idea. Sustainability2020; 12: 4944.
MolAPJSonnenfeldDA. Ecological modernisation around the world: an introduction. Env Polit2000; 9: 1–14.
33.
JänickeM. Ecological modernisation: new perspectives. J Cleaner Prod2008; 16: 557–565.
34.
OseiAAmoahJO. Pathways to sustainable competitive advantage: Integrating firm-level sustainability targets, eco-innovation, and sustainable governance for circular business transformation. Bus Strategy Environ2026. 10.1002/bse.70531. Early View.
35.
RogersEM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003.
36.
CaoQChiCShanJ. Can artificial intelligence technology reduce carbon emissions? A global perspective. Energy Econ2025; 143: 108285.
37.
JiangYDingXZhangJ. Toward environmental efficiency: analyzing the impact of green innovation initiatives in enterprises. MDE Manage Decis Econ2025; 46: 1206–1223.
38.
SaudiMHMSinagaORoespinoedjiD, et al.The impact of technological innovation on energy intensity: evidence from Indonesia. Inte J Energy Econ Policy2019; 9: 11.
39.
AhmedUMozammelSZamanF. Impact of ecological innovation, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on environmental performance and energy efficiency. Inte J Energy Econ Policy2020; 10: 289–295.
40.
Demircan CakarNGedikliAErdoganS, et al.A comparative analysis of the relationship between innovation and transport sector carbon emissions in developed and developing Mediterranean countries. Environ Sci Pollu Res2021; 28: 45693–45713.
41.
LeeS. Existing and anticipated technology strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Korea's petrochemical and steel industries. J Cleaner Prod2013; 40: 83–92.
42.
AkramRChenFKhalidF, et al.Heterogeneous effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy on carbon emissions: Evidence from developing countries. J Cleaner Prod2020; 247: 119122.
43.
PengLZengXWangY, et al.Analysis of energy efficiency and carbon dioxide reduction in the Chinese pulp and paper industry. Energy Policy2015; 80: 65–75.
44.
WorrellEBernstteinLRoyJ, et al.Industrial energy efficiency and climate change mitigation. Energy Effic2009; 2: 109–123.
45.
JungHSongSAhnY, et al.Effects of emission trading schemes on corporate carbon productivity and implications for firm-level responses. Sci Rep2021; 11: 11679.
46.
ZhuRZhaoRSunJ, et al.Temporospatial pattern of carbon emission efficiency of China's energy-intensive industries and its policy implications. J Cleaner Prod2021; 286: 125507.
47.
LiuZQiuCZhuL. Dynamic role of green energy efficiency and climate technologies in realizing environmental sustainability: fresh insights from China. Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 908470.
48.
KennedyDLakonishokJShawWH. Accommodating outliers and nonlinearity in decision models. J Acc, Aud Finan1992; 7: 161–190.
49.
LeeSYimJ. The Porter Hypothesis revisited: the cross-border spillover effects of foreign environmental regulations on national competitiveness. Hitotsubashi J Econ2025; 66: 28–45.
50.
XieXHuoJZouH. Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate financial performance: a content analysis method. J Bus Res2019; 101: 697–706.
51.
BaronRMKennyDA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual strategic and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol1986; 51: 1173–1182.
52.
CharnesACooperWWThrallRM. A structure for classifying and characterizing efficiency and inefficiency in data envelopment analysis. J Product Anal1991; 2: 197–237.
HendersonRBReinertSAOsegueraM. Climate change in 2020: Implications for business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Case, 2020, 9-320-087.
55.
Howard-GrenvilleJBuckleSJHoskinsBJ, et al.Climate change and management. Acad Manage J2014; 57: 615–623.
56.
LeeSChoiDK. Does corporate carbon risk management mitigate the cost of debt capital? Evidence from South Korean climate change policies. Emerg Markets Finan Trade2021; 57: 2138–2151.
57.
KabirMNRahmanSRahmanMA, et al.Carbon emission and default risk: international evidence from firm-level data. Econ Model2021; 103: 105617.
