Modelling the Macroeconomic Determinants of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the G-7 Countries: The Roles of Technological Innovation and Institutional Quality Improvement
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2025
Modelling the Macroeconomic Determinants of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the G-7 Countries: The Roles of Technological Innovation and Institutional Quality Improvement
The group of seven (G-7) countries are seven of the most advanced global nations. Yet, these nations have not been able to achieve environmentally sustainable economic growth (EG) in the past. Consequently, despite growing economically, the environmental quality in the G-7 countries has persistently deteriorated. Hence, the present study examined the environmental impacts associated with EG, technological innovation, institutional quality (IQ), renewable energy consumption (RENE) and population using the carbon dioxide emission figures to measure environmental quality in the G-7 economies for the period 1996–2018. The econometric analyses involved the application of different estimation techniques that control the cross-sectional dependency and slope heterogeneity issues in the data. Overall, the results indicated that greater EG and higher population size increase environmental pollution by boosting the carbon dioxide emission levels. In contrast, technological innovation, IQ improvement, and greater RENE were found to impede the carbon dioxide emission levels. In line with these key findings, several environmental development-related policies are recommended.
AdebayoT. S., & KirikkaleliD. (2021). Impact of renewable energy consumption, globalization, and technological innovation on environmental degradation in Japan: Application of wavelet tools. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01322-2
2.
AhmadM., JiangP., MurshedM., ShehzadK., AkramR., CuiL., & KhanZ. (2021). Modelling the dynamic linkages between eco-innovation, urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprints for G7 countries: Does financial globalization matter?Sustainable Cities and Society, 70, 102881.
3.
AlamM. S., ApergisN., ParamatiS. R., & FangJ. (2020). The impacts of R&D investment and stock markets on clean-energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD economies. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2049
4.
AliS., YusopZ., KaliappanS. R., & ChinL. (2020). Dynamic common correlated effects of trade openness, FDI, and institutional performance on environmental quality: Evidence from OIC countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 11671–11682.
5.
AlvesM. R., & MoutinhoV. (2013). Decomposition analysis and innovative accounting approach for energy-related CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions intensity over 1996–2009 in Portugal. Energy, 57, 775–787.
6.
AndrewsD. (2020). The reception of Malthus’s essay on population in the United States. In FaccarelloG., IzumoM., & MorishitaH. (Eds.), Malthus Across Nations (pp. 53–82). Edward Elgar Publishing.
7.
AnwarA., SharifA., FatimaS., AhmadP., SinhaA., KhanS. A. R., & JermsittiparsertK. (2021a). The asymmetric effect of public private partnership investment on transport CO2 emission in China: Evidence from quantile ARDL approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 288, 125282.
8.
AnwarA., SiddiqueM., DoganE., & SharifA. (2021b). The moderating role of renewable and non-renewable energy in environment-income nexus for ASEAN countries: Evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Renewable Energy, 164, 956–967.
9.
AnwarA., SinhaA., SharifA., SiddiqueM., IrshadS., AnwarW., & MalikS. (2021). The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy consumption, financial development, and CO2 emissions: evidence from selected Asian countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01716-2
10.
Aragón-CorreaJ. A., Hurtado-TorresN., SharmaS., & García-MoralesV. J. (2008). Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(1), 88–103.
11.
AsonguS., IheonuC. O., & OdoK. O. (2019). The conditional relationship between renewable energy and environmental quality in sub-Saharan Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(36), 1–8.
12.
AyresR. U., AyresL. W., & WarrB. (2003). Exergy, power and work in the US economy, 1900–1998. Energy, 28(3), 219–273.
13.
BhattacharyaM., ChurchillS. A., & ParamatiS. R. (2017). The dynamic impact of renewable energy and institutions on economic output and CO2 emissions across regions. Renewable Energy, 111, 157–167.
14.
BoserupE. (1981). Population and technology (Vol. 255). Blackwell.
15.
Brandão SantanaN., RebelattoD. A. D. N., PéricoA. E., MorallesH. F., & FilhoW. L. (2015). Technological innovation for sustainable development: An analysis of different types of impacts for countries in the BRICS and G7 groups. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 22(5), 425–436.
16.
ReviewBristish Petrolium (BP) Statistical (2020). Statistical review of world energy. Bristish Petrolium.
17.
ChekouriS. M., ChibiA., & BenbouzianeM. (2020). Examining the driving factors of CO2 emissions using the STIRPAT model: The case of Algeria. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 39(10), 927–940.
18.
ChenY., & LeeC. C. (2020). Does technological innovation reduce CO2 emissions? Cross-country evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121550.
19.
ChengC., RenX., & WangZ. (2019). The impact of renewable energy and innovation on carbon emission: An empirical analysis for OECD countries. Energy Procedia, 158, 3506–3512.
20.
ChengY., AwanU., AhmadS., & TanZ. (2021). How do technological innovation and fiscal decentralization affect the environment? A story of the fourth industrial revolution and sustainable growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120398
21.
ChienF., AnwarA., HsuC. C., SharifA., RazzaqA., & SinhaA. (2021). The role of information and communication technology in encountering environmental degradation: Proposing an SDG framework for the BRICS countries. Technology in Society, 65, 101587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101587
22.
CloyneJ. (2013). Discretionary tax changes and the macroeconomy: new narrative evidence from the United Kingdom. American Economic Review, 103(4), 1507–28.
23.
ColeM. A. (2007). Corruption, income and the environment: An empirical analysis. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 637–647.
24.
Zhang DanishB., WangB., & WangZ. (2017). Role of renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: Evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 855–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.203
25.
DaudaL., LongX., MensahC. N., & SalmanM. (2019). The effects of economic growth and innovation on CO2 emissions in different regions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(15), 15028–15038.
26.
DechezleprêtreA., & MartinR. (2010). Low carbon innovation in the UK: Evidence from patent data(Report for the UK Committee on Climate Change). Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
27.
DuY., PanK., YuC., LuoB., GuW., SunH. ... ChangJ. (2018). Plant diversity decreases net global warming potential integrating multiple functions in microcosms of constructed wetlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 718–726.
28.
DuttK. (2009). Governance, institutions and the environment-income relationship: A cross-country study. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(4), 705–723.
29.
EberhardtM., & TealF. (2010). Productivity analysis in global manufacturing production (Economics Series Working Papers 515). Department of Economics, University of Oxford. https://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/materials/papers/4729/paper515.pdf
30.
FernandezY. F., LópezM. F., & BlancoB. O. (2018). Innovation for sustainability: The impact of R&D spending on CO2 emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3459–3467.
31.
GarroneP., & GrilliL. (2010). Is there a relationship between public expenditures in energy R&D and carbon emissions per GDP? An empirical investigation. Energy Policy, 38(10), 5600–5613.
32.
GodilD. I., SharifA., AghaH., & JermsittiparsertK. (2020). The dynamic nonlinear influence of ICT, financial development, and institutional quality on CO2 emission in Pakistan: New insights from QARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(19), 24190–24200.
33.
HaoL. N., UmarM., KhanZ., & AliW. (2021). Green growth and low carbon emission in G7 countries: How critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and human capital is?Science of The Total Environment, 752, 141853.
34.
HassanM. N. A., JaramilloP., & GriffinW. M. (2011). Life cycle GHG emissions from Malaysian oil palm bioenergy development: The impact on transportation sector’s energy security. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2615–2625.
HunjraA. I., TayachiT., ChaniM. I., VerhoevenP., & MehmoodA. (2020). The moderating effect of institutional quality on the financial development and environmental quality nexus. Sustainability, 12(9), 3805.
37.
International Energy Agency (2019). World energy outlook. IEA.
38.
JunW., MughalN., ZhaoJ., ShabbirM. S., NiedbałaG., JainV., & AnwarA. (2021). Does globalization matter for environmental degradation? Nexus among energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission. Energy Policy, 153, 112230.
39.
KangY., & HeX. (2018). Institutional forces and environmental management strategy: Moderating effects of environmental orientation and innovation capability. Management and Organization Review, 14(3), 577–605.
40.
KatirciogluS., GokmenogluK. K., & ErenB. M. (2018). Testing the role of tourism development in ecological footprint quality: Evidence from top 10 tourist destinations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(33), 33611–33619.
41.
KhanZ., AliS., UmarM., KirikkaleliD., & JiaoZ. (2020). Consumption-based carbon emissions and international trade in G7 countries: The role of environmental innovation and renewable energy. Science of the Total Environment, 730, 138945.
42.
KhanZ., MurshedM., DongK., & YangS. (2021). The roles of export diversification and composite country risks in carbon emissions abatement: Evidence from the signatories of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. Applied Economics. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.1907289
43.
KhattakS. I., AhmadM., KhanZ. U., & KhanA. (2020). Exploring the impact of innovation, renewable energy consumption, and income on CO2 emissions: New evidence from the BRICS economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(12), 13866–13881.
44.
LanneM., & NybergH. (2016). Generalized forecast error variance decomposition for linear and nonlinear multivariate models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 78(4), 595–603.
45.
LauL. S., ChoongC. K., & &EngY. K. (2014). Carbon dioxide emission, institutional quality, and economic growth: Empirical evidence in Malaysia. Renewable Energy, 68, 276–281.
46.
LeH. P., & OzturkI. (2020). The impacts of globalization, financial development, government expenditures, and institutional quality on CO 2 emissions in the presence of environmental Kuznets curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(18), 22680–22697.
47.
LeeK. H., & MinB. (2015). Green R&D for eco-innovation and its impact on carbon emissions and firm performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 534–542.
48.
LiM., & WangQ. (2017). Will technology advances alleviate climate change? Dual effects of technology change on aggregate carbon dioxide emissions. Energy for Sustainable Development, 41, 61–68.
49.
LiR., & JiangR. (2020). Investigating effect of R&D investment on decoupling environmental pressure from economic growth in the global top six carbon dioxide emitters. Science of The Total Environment, 740, 140053.
50.
LiZ. Z., LiR. Y. M., MalikM. Y., MurshedM., KhanZ., & UmarM. (2021). Determinants of carbon emission in China: How good is green investment?Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.008
51.
LiuJ. L., MaC. Q., RenY. S., & ZhaoX. W. (2020). Do real output and renewable energy consumption affect CO2 emissions? Evidence for selected BRICS countries. Energies, 13(4), 960.
52.
LongX., ChenY., DuJ., OhK., HanI., & YanJ. (2017). The effect of environmental innovation behavior on economic and environmental performance of 182 Chinese firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 1274–1282.
53.
MaQ., MurshedM., & KhanZ. (2021). The nexuses between energy investments, technological innovations, R&D expenditure, emission taxes, tertiary sector development, and carbon emissions in China: A roadmap to achieving carbon-neutrality. Energy Policy, 155, 112345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112345
54.
MalthusT. R. (1967). Essay on the principle of population (7th ed.). J. M. Dent & Sons.
55.
MarutaA. A., BanerjeeR., & CavoliT. (2020). Foreign aid, institutional quality and economic growth: Evidence from the developing world. Economic Modelling, 89, 444–463.
56.
MasoudiN., NazarD. G., & EsfandiariM. (2020). Investigating the impacts of technological innovation and renewable energy on environmental pollution in countries selected by the International Renewable Energy Agency: A quantile regression approach. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 18(2), 97–107.
57.
MeoM. S., NathanielS. P., KhanM. M., NisarQ. A., & FatimaT. (2020). Does temperature contribute to environment degradation? Pakistani experience based on nonlinear bounds testing approach. Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919858490
58.
MertM., BölükG., & ÇağlarA. E. (2019). Interrelationships among foreign direct investments, renewable energy, and CO2 emissions for different European country groups: a panel ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(21), 21495–21510.
59.
MurshedM. (2021a). LPG consumption and environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in South Asia: A time-series ARDL analysis with multiple structural breaks. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(7), 8337–8372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356–020-10701–7
60.
MurshedM. (2021b). Modeling primary energy and electricity demands in Bangladesh: An autoregressive distributed lag approach. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27(C), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.035
61.
MurshedM. (2021c). Can regional trade integration facilitate renewable energy transition to ensure energy sustainability in South Asia?Energy Reports, 7(C), 808–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.01.038
62.
MurshedM., & DaoN. T. T. (2020). Revisiting the CO2 emission-induced EKC hypothesis in South Asia: The role of export quality improvement. GeoJournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10270-9
63.
MurshedM., & AlamM. S. (2021). An estimation of the macroeconomic determinants total, renewable and non-renewable energy demands in Bangladesh: The role of technological innovations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(23), 30176–30196. https://doi.org.10.1007/s11356–021-12516–6
64.
MurshedM., & TanhaM. M. (2021). Oil price shocks and renewable energy transition: Empirical evidence from net oil-importing South Asian economies. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 6, 183–203.
65.
MurshedM., ChadniM. H., & &FerdausJ. (2020a). Does ICT trade facilitate renewable energy transition and environmental sustainability? Evidence from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Maldives. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 5(6), 470–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974–020-00190–2
66.
MurshedM., NurmakhanovaM., ElheddadM., & AhmedR. (2020b). Value addition in the services sector and its heterogeneous impacts on CO2 emissions: Revisiting the EKC hypothesis for the OPEC using panel spatial estimation techniques. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(31), 38951–38973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356–020-09593–4
67.
MurshedM., AlamR., & AnsarinA. (2021a). The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Bangladesh: The importance of natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas and hydropower consumption. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(14), 17208–17227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356–020-11976–6
68.
MurshedM., RahmanM. A., AlamM. S., AhmadP., & DagarV. (2021b). The nexus between environmental regulations, economic growth, and environmental sustainability: Linking environmental patents to ecological footprint reduction in South Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13381-z
69.
NathanielS., NwodoO., SharmaG., & ShahM. (2020). Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint linkage in CIVETS. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 19616–19629.
70.
NathanielS. P., MurshedM., & BassimM. (2021). The nexus between economic growth, energy use, international trade and ecological footprints: The role of environmental regulations in N11 countries. Energy, Ecology and Environment. https://doi.org.10.1007/s40974-020-00205-y
71.
OzcanB., & UlucakR. (2021). An empirical investigation of nuclear energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in India: Bridging IPAT and EKC hypotheses. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 53(6), 2056–2065.
72.
PanX., XuH., SongM., LuY., & &ZongT. (2021). Forecasting of industrial structure evolution and CO2 emissions in Liaoning Province. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124870.
73.
PedroniP. (2001). Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels (Department of Economics Working Papers No 2001–01). Department of Economics, Williams College.
74.
PesaranM. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312.
75.
PesaranM. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60, 13–50.
76.
PesaranM. H., & YamagataT. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93.
77.
PoppD. (2006). International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies: The effects of NOX and SO2 regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51(1), 46–71.
78.
QinL., RaheemS., MurshedM., MiaoX., KhanZ., & KirikkaleliD. (2021). Does financial inclusion limit carbon dioxide emissions? Analyzing the role of globalization and renewable electricity output. Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2208
79.
RehmanA., MaH., OzturkI., MurshedM., & DagarV. (2021a). The dynamic impacts of CO2 emissions from different sources on Pakistan’s economic progress: A roadmap to sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01418-9
80.
RehmanA., UlucakR., MurshedM., MaH., & IsikC. (2021b). Carbonization and atmospheric pollution in China: The asymmetric impacts of forests, livestock production, and economic progress on CO2 emissions. Journal of Environmental Management, 294, 113059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113059
81.
RizkR., & SlimaneM. B. (2018). Modelling the relationship between poverty, environment, and institutions: A panel data study. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(31), 31459–31473.
82.
SalmanM., LongX., DaudaL., & MensahC. N. (2019). The impact of institutional quality on economic growth and carbon emissions: Evidence from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118331.
83.
SaudiM. H. M., SinagaO., & JabarullahN. H. (2019). The role of renewable, non-renewable energy consumption and technology innovation in testing environmental Kuznets curve in Malaysia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(1), 299–307.
84.
ShaariM. S., KarimZ. A., & AbidinN. Z. (2020). The effects of energy consumption and national output on CO2 emissions: New evidence from OIC countries using a panel ARDL analysis. Sustainability, 12(8), 3312.
85.
ShahW. U. H., YasmeenR., & PaddaI. U. H. (2019). An analysis between financial development, institutions, and the environment: A global view. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(21), 21437–21449.
86.
ShahbazM. (2012). Does trade openness affect long run growth? Cointegration, causality and forecast error variance decomposition tests for Pakistan. Economic Modelling, 29(6), 2325–2339.
87.
ShahbazM. (2019). Globalization–emissions nexus: Testing the EKC hypothesis in Next-11 countries. Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920916653
88.
ShahbazM., NasirM. A., & RoubaudD. (2018). Environmental degradation in France: The effects of FDI, financial development, and energy innovations. Energy Economics, 74, 843–857.
89.
ShahbazM., RaghutlaC., SongM., ZameerH., & JiaoZ. (2020). Public-private partnerships investment in energy as new determinant of CO2 emissions: The role of technological innovations in China. Energy Economics, 86, 104664.
90.
SharifA., MishraS., SinhaA., JiaoZ., ShahbazM., & AfshanS. (2020). The renewable energy consumption-environmental degradation nexus in Top-10 polluted countries: Fresh insights from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Renewable Energy, 150, 670–690.
91.
SharifA., RazaS. A., OzturkI., & AfshanS. (2019). The dynamic relationship of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: A global study with the application of heterogeneous panel estimations. Renewable Energy, 133, 685–691.
92.
SiddiqueM., AnwarA., & QuddusM. A. (2020). The impact of real effective exchange rate on revealed comparative advantage and trade balance of Pakistan. Economic Journal of Emerging Markets, 12(2), 193–207.
93.
SolarinS. A., Al-MulaliU., & OzturkI. (2017). Validating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in India and China: The role of hydroelectricity consumption. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 1578–1587.
94.
SukonoS., AlbraW., ZulhamT., MajidI., SaputraJ., SubartiniB., & ThaliaF. (2019). The effect of gross domestic product and population growth on CO2 emissions in Indonesia: An application of the ant colony optimisation algorithm and Cobb–Douglas model. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(4), 313.
95.
TamazianA., & RaoB. B. (2010). Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Economics, 32(1), 137–145.
96.
TengJ. Z., KhanM. K., KhanM. I., ChishtiM. Z., & KhanM. O. (2021). Effect of foreign direct investment on CO2 emission with the role of globalization, institutional quality with pooled mean group panel ARDL. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(5), 5271–5282.
97.
TiwariA. K., & ShahbazM. (2014). Revisiting purchasing power parity for India using threshold cointegration and nonlinear unit root test. Economic Change and Restructuring, 47(2), 117–133.
98.
UddinG. A., AlamK., & &GowG. (2016). Estimating the major contributors to environmental impacts in Australia. International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics, 37(1), 1–14.
99.
WangZ., & ZhuY. (2020). Do energy technology innovations contribute to CO2 emissions abatement? A spatial perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 726, 138574.
100.
WangC., CardonP. W., LiuJ., & &MadniG. R. (2020). Social and economic factors responsible for environmental performance: A global analysis. Plos One, 15(8), e0237597.
101.
WesterlundJ. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748.
102.
World Bank. (2020). World development indicators (WDI). Online Database, World Bank.
103.
XueL., HaseebM., MahmoodH., AlkhateebT. T. Y., & MurshedM. (2021). Renewable energy use and ecological footprints mitigation: evidence from selected South Asian economies. Sustainability, 13(4), 1613. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041613
104.
YiiK. J., & GeethaC. (2017). The nexus between technology innovation and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: Evidence from granger causality test. Energy Procedia, 105, 3118–3124.
105.
ZakariaM., & BibiS. (2019). Financial development and environment in South Asia: The role of institutional quality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(8), 7926–7937.
106.
ZameerH., YasmeenH., ZafarM. W., WaheedA., & SinhaA. (2020). Analyzing the association between innovation, economic growth, and environment: Divulging the importance of FDI and trade openness in India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 29539–29553.
107.
ZeraibiA., Balsalobre-LorenteD., & MurshedM. (2021). Nexus between renewable electricity generation capacity, technological innovations, financial development, economic growth and ecological footprints in selected ASEAN countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14301-x
108.
ZhangS. (2019). Environmental Kuznets curve revisit in Central Asia: The roles of urbanization and renewable energy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(23), 23386–23398.
109.
ZhangY. J., PengY. L., MaC. Q., & ShenB. (2017). Can environmental innovation facilitate carbon emissions reduction? Evidence from China. Energy Policy, 100, 18–28.
