Many countries have increased their commitments to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement and the European Green Budgeting Reference Framework (GBRF) by improving their green budgeting. Based on a review of budgetary documents across the 27 EU Member countries, this study utilizes the methodology of coding countries’ green budgeting regulations and environmental practices based on the GBRF. This study found similarities in the practices pursued in EU countries: (a) the country’s political conditions strongly influence the green budgeting process in all countries, (b) all countries have made significant progress in green budgeting since 2000, (c) the green rating system requires an abundance of data and detailed information that cannot be generated within the “traditional” institutional budget structure. We found that the main challenges for applying green budgeting include a lack of a modern performance budgeting framework, a methodology for assessing environmental impacts, and relevant expertise.
AgranoffR.RadinB. A. (1991). The comparative case study approach in public administration. In PerryJ. L. (Ed.), Research in public administration (Vol. 1, pp. 203–231). JAI Press.
2.
AgtheD.BillingsB.MarchandJ. (1996). Socioeconomic and political determinants of state spending on environmental programs. The American Economist, 40(1), 24–30.
3.
AidtT. (1998). Political internalization of economic externalities and environmental policy. Journal of Public Economics, 69(1), 1–16.
4.
AllegrettiG.Hartz-KarpJ. (2017). Participatory budgeting: A methodological approach to address sustainability challenges. In Hartz-KarpJ.MarinovaD. (Eds.), Methods for sustainability research (pp. 1–46). Edward Elgar.
5.
AydinM.SogutY.AltundemirM. E. (2023). Moving toward the sustainable environment of European Union countries: Investigating the effect of natural resources and green budgeting on environmental quality. Resources Policy, 83(1), 103–137.
6.
BacotH.DawesR. (1997). State expenditures and policy outcomes in environmental program management. Policy Studies Journal, 25(3), 355–370.
7.
BiermannF.StevensC.BernsteinS.GuptaA.KabiriN.KanieN.LevyM.NilssonM.PintérL.ScobieM. (2014). Integrating governance into the sustainable development goals. Policy Brief, 4(1), 1–24.
8.
BlairE. (2015). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6(1), 14–29.
9.
BlazeyA.LelongM. (2022). Green budgeting: A way forward, OECD Journal on Budgeting, 22(2), 12–34.
10.
BosselH. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development: Theory, method, applications. International Institute for Sustainable Development.
11.
BovaE. (2021). Green budgeting practices in the EU: A first review (European Economy Discussion Papers, No. 140). Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission.
12.
CabannesY. (2021). Contributions of participatory budgeting to climate change adaptation and mitigation. current local practices around the world and lessons from the field. Environment and Urbanization, 33(2), 13–34.
13.
ClarkB.WhitfordA. (2011). Does more federal environmental funding increase or decrease states’ efforts?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(1), 136–152.
14.
CrottyP. (1987). The new federalism game: Primacy implementation of environmental policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 17(2), 53–67.
15.
DalyH. E. (1990). Sustainable development: From concept and theory to operational principles. Population and Development Review, 16(2), 25–43.
16.
DavisC.FeiockR. (1992). Testing theories of state hazardous waste regulation. American Politics Quarterly, 20(1), 501–511.
17.
DavisC.LesterJ. (1987). Decentralizing federal environmental policy: A research note. Western Political Quarterly, 40(3), 555–565.
18.
DernbachJ. C. (2003). Achieving sustainable development: The Centrality and multiple facets of integrated decision making. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 10(1), 247–285.
19.
DownesR.Von TrappL.NicolS. (2017). Gender budgeting in OECD countries. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 16(3), 1–17.
20.
DugganA.CarrD.YanW. (2022). Conditional impacts of political and fiscal factors on state environmental budgets. Public Budgeting & Finance, 42(2), 127–147.
21.
DunlapR.XiaoC.McCrightA. (2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10(4), 23–48.
22.
EngelJ. (1990). Introduction: The ethics of sustainable development. In EngelJ. R.EngelJ. G. (Eds.), Ethics of environment and development: Global challenge, international response (pp. 10–11). Belhaven Press; University of Arizona Press.
FowlerL.BreenJ. (2013). The impact of political factors on states’ adoption of renewable portfolio standards. The Electricity Journal, 26(2), 79–94.
29.
GarsonG. D. (2002). Case study research in public administration and public policy: Standards and strategies. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 8(3), 209–216.
30.
HemmingR. (2013). The macroeconomic framework for managing public finances. In AllenR.HemmingR.PotterB. (Eds.), The international handbook of public financial management (pp. 13–47). Palgrave Macmillan.
JabareenY. (2004). A knowledge map for describing variegated and conflict domains of sustainable development. Journal of Environment Planning and Management, 47, 623–642.
33.
JabareenY. (2006). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environmental Development Sustainability, 10(1), 179–192.
34.
JinI. (2025). Aligning green budgeting with nationally determined contributions. Climate Policy, 1(1), 1–14.
35.
JordanA. J.TurnpennyJ. (Eds.). (2015). The tools of policy formulation: Actors, capacities, venues, and effects. Edward Elgar.
36.
KumarA. (2020). The role of green budgeting. TerraGreen, 13(1), 12–17.
37.
LehtonenM. (2007). Environmental policy integration through OECD peer reviews: Integrating the economy with the environment or the environment with the economy?Environmental Politics, 16(1), 15–35.
38.
MensahJ. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 165–175.
39.
MoriK. (2014). Global justice in the Anthropocene: The fourth pillar debate in sustainable development. Journal of Social Science, 2(1), 101–122.
40.
Moser-PlautzB.KoracS. (2025). New development: Green budgeting—Integrating environmental goals into the resource allocation process. Public Money & Management, 45(1), 770–775.
41.
NathanR. P. (1982). The methodology for field network evaluation studies. In WilliamsW. (Ed.), Studying implementation (pp. x13–47). Chatham House.
42.
NorthD. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112.
43.
NyikosG.ErmasovaN. (2021). Public capital infrastructure management: Cases of Germany, Hungary and the USA, International Journal of Public Administration, 45(12), 869–893.
44.
NyikosG.KondorZ. (2022a). National Development Banks in Europe—A contribution to sustainable finance. Central European Public Administration Review, 20(1), 135–165.
45.
NyikosG.KondorZ. (2022b). The involvement of national development banks promoting sustainable finance. Deturope: The Central European Journal Of Regional Development And Tourism, 14(1), 147–163.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021a). Green budget tagging: Introductory guidance & principles. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/fe7bfcc4-en
PattenD. (1998). The impact of the EPA’s TRI disclosure program on state environmental and natural resource expenditures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 17(4), 367–82.
54.
PaxtonL. (1993). Enviro facts 3: Sustainable development. Environmental Education Association of Southern Africa.
PetrieM. (2021). The evolution of green budgeting. In PetrieM. (Ed.), Environmental governance and greening fiscal policy (Palgrave Studies in Impact Finance, pp. 61–108). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
57.
PojarS. (2022). Environmental assessments within green budgeting (European Economy—Discussion Papers 2015—175). Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
58.
PotoskiM.WoodsN. (2002). Dimensions of state environmental policies: Air pollution regulation in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 30(2), 208–26.
59.
PrimcK.ZabavnikD.DominkoM.Slabe-ErkerR. (2024). Green financing for cutting emissions and simultaneous economic upturn in the European Union: Myth or reality?Sustainable Futures, 1(1), 10–35.
60.
RabeB. (2007). Environmental policy and the bush era: The collision between the administrative presidency and state experimentation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 37(3), 413–431.
61.
RabeB. (2017). Contested federalism and fracking. in environmental governance reconsidered. In DurantR. F.FiorinoD. J.O’LearyR. (5th ed., pp. 133–64). The MIT Press.
62.
RaginC. R. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
63.
RingquistE. (1994). Policy influence and policy responsiveness in state pollution control. Policy Studies Journal, 22(1), 25–43.
64.
RingquistE.ClarkD. (2002). Issue definition and the politics of state environmental justice policy adoption. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(2), 351–389.
65.
RusselD.BensonD. (2014). Green budgeting in an age of austerity: A transatlantic comparative perspective, Environmental Politics, 23(2), 243–262.
66.
RyuJ.BowlingC.ChoC.WrightD. (2008). Exploring explanations of state agency budgets: Institutional budget actors or exogenous environment?Public Budgeting & Finance, 28(3), 23–47
67.
SchoutA.JordanA. (2005). Coordinated European governance: Self-organizing or centrally steered?Public Administration, 83(1), 201–220.
68.
ShiL.HanL.YangF.GaoL. (2019). The evolution of sustainable development theory: Types, goals, and research prospects. Sustainability, 11(24), 71–78.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.
71.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Sage Publications.
72.
TátraiT. (2018). Public procurement culture after accession to the EU: The case of a Central European transition country. EuropeanJournal of Public Procurement Markets, 1(1), 52–61.
73.
TerryG.HayfieldN.ClarkeV.BraunV. (2017). Thematic analysis. In WilligC.RogersW. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 17–37). Sage Publications.
VinogradovaT. (2022). Improving green budget decisions and transparency through public participation: Evidence from Russia. Public Sector Economics, 46(3), 385–401.
77.
VolaP.GelminiL.RossaS.FalvoC.HruškováM.PlačekM. (2025). Innovating public food procurement: A case study of Dordogne’s path to sustainability. Review of Policy Research, 42(1), 1450–1462. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.70026
78.
World Bank Group. (2014). Moving toward climate budgeting (Policy Note 93383).
79.
World Bank. (2021). Climate change budget tagging: A review of international experience [Equitable Growth, Finance and Institutions Insight].
WurzelR.ZitoA.JordanA. J. (2013). Environmental governance in Europe: A comparative analysis of new environmental policy instruments. Edward Elgar.
82.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
83.
ZareiH.YazdifarH.GhalenoM. D.NamaziN. (2022). National culture and public-sector budgeting: The mediating role of country-level institutions using a structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 23(3), 686–714.
84.
ZhaoJ. (1991). The theoretical analysis of sustainable development. Ecology Economics, 9(1), 12–15.
