sustainable economic development research paper

Digital Economy and Carbon Neutrality: Exploring the Pathways and Implications for China’s Sustainable Development

• Published: 13 April 2024

Cite this article

• Yumin Zhu 1 &
• Shan Lu 2  

Explore all metrics

China’s rapid economic growth over the past few decades has significantly increased energy consumption and carbon emissions, making it the world’s largest carbon emitter. However, in 2021, China unveiled ambitious goals to achieve peak carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060, marking a pivotal shift towards a low-carbon future. Concurrently, China’s digital economy has been on the rise, playing a crucial role in the country’s economic development. This research delves into the intricate relationship between digitalization and the journey towards carbon neutrality in China. We investigate whether the development of China’s digital economy can impact its carbon-neutral strategy and, if so, what the underlying economic mechanisms are. Additionally, we explore whether this relationship aligns with the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. The study also considers the micro-, meso-, and macro-level effects of the digital economy on carbon emissions, emphasizing the importance of industrial structure change, precise monitoring of emissions, and energy supply network transformation. A unique theoretical framework is constructed, focusing on how the digital economy influences the transformation and upgrading of industrial structures and, consequently, carbon emissions. Key contributions of this paper include a multi-dimensional analysis of urban carbon emission reduction through the digital economy, confirmation of the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in the Chinese context, and insights into the role of industrial structure adjustment in achieving emission reduction. The findings underscore the importance of continued investment in digital technologies for carbon neutrality, integration of digital carbon-neutral management technology in industrial digitization, and the promotion of regional industrial structure development. Moreover, fostering digital collaboration and network infrastructure is crucial for managing regional carbon emissions effectively, aligning with China’s commitment to a sustainable and low-carbon future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability

The dataset can be accessed upon request.

Allam, Z., & Jones, D. (2021). Future (post-COVID ) digital, smart and sustainable cities in the wake of 6G: Digital twins, immersive realities and new urban economies. Land Use Policy, 101 (2), 105201.

Article   Google Scholar  

Chao, Q. C. (2021). Scientific connotation of ‘carbon reach peak and carbon neutrality’ and policy measures in China. Environment and Sustainable Development, 706 (2), 14–19.

Google Scholar  

Chen, X. D., & Yang, X. X. (2021). The impact of digital economy development on industrial structure upgrading – a study based on grey correlation entropy and dissipative structure theory. Reform, 325 (3), 26–39.

Chen, Z. Y., Chen, S. M., Liu, C., Nguyen, L. T., & Hasan, A. (2020). The effects of circular economy on economic growth: A quasi-natural experiment in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 271 , 122558.

Dong, F., Hu, M., Gao, Y., Liu, Y., Zhu, J., & Pan, Y. (2022). How does digital economy affect carbon emissions? Evidence from global 60 countries. Science of the Total Environment, 852 , 158401.

Fu, H., Mao, Y. S., & Song, L. S. (2013). An empirical study on the influence of innovation on the upgrading of industrial structure – based on the inter-provincial panel data from 2000 to 2011. China Industrial Economics, 306 (9), 56–68.

Gu, R., Li, C., Yang, Y., Zhang, J., & Liu, K. (2023). Impact of digital economy development on carbon emission intensity in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region: A mechanism analysis based on industrial structure optimization and green innovation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30 (14), 41644–41664.

Guo, K M. (2019). Artificial intelligence development, industrial structure transformation and upgrading and labor income share change. Management World, 35 (7), 60–77+202–203.

Guo, Q. B., Wang, Y., & Dong, X. B. (2022). Effects of smart city construction on energy saving and CO2 emission reduction: Evidence from China. Applied Energy, 313 (5), 118879.

He, Z. Y., & Song, X. G. (2020). How the development of digital finance affects residents’ consumption. Finance and Trade Economics, 41 (8), 65–79.

Huang, Q. H., Yu, Y. Z., & Zhang, S. L. (2019). Internet development and manufacturing productivity improvement: Internal mechanism and Chinese experience. China Industrial Economics, 377 (8), 5–23.

Jing, W. J., & Sun, B. W. (2019). Digital economy promotes high-quality economic development: A theoretical analysis framework. The Economist, 242 (2), 66–73.

Kong, L., & Li, J. (2022). Digital economy development and green economic efficiency: Evidence from province-level empirical data in China. Sustainability, 15 (1), 3.

Li, X. Y., Liu, J., & Ni, P. J. (2021a). The impact of the digital economy on CO2 emissions: A theoretical and Empirical analysis. Sustainability, 13 (13), 7267.

Li, Y., Yang, X. D., Ran, Q. Y., Wu, H., Irfan, M., & Ahmad, M. (2021b). Energy structure, digital economy, and carbon emissions: Evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28 (45), 64606–64629.

Li, Z. G., Che, S., & Wang, J. (2021c). Development of Digital Economy and transformation and upgrading of industrial Structure – based on the heterogeneity test of 275 cities in China. Journal of Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, 178 (5), 27–40.

Tao, Z., Zhi, Z., & Shangkun, L. (2022). Digital economy, entrepreneurship, and high quality economic development: Empirical evidence from urban China. Frontiers of Economics in China, 17 (3).

Varian, H. R. (2010). Computer mediated transactions. American Economic Review, 100 (2), 1–10.

Wang, W. J., & Xiang, Q. F. (2014). China’s industrial structure adjustment and its energy saving and emission reduction potential assessment. China Industrial Economics, 1 , 44–56.

Wu, J. X., & Guo, Z. Y. (2016). Convergence analysis of China’s carbon emissions based on continuous dynamic distribution method. Journal of Statistical Research, 33 (1), 54–60.

Xie, F. L., Shen, Y., Zhang, H. X., & Guo, F. (2018). Can digital finance promote entrepreneurship? Evidence from China. Economic Quarterly, 70 (4), 1557–1580.

Xie, L. J., & Zhuang, Y. Q. (2019). New retail mechanism in internet and digital context – enlightenment and case analysis of Marx’s circulation theory. Finance and Trade Economics, 40 (3), 84–100.

Xie, Y. F. (2022). Effect and mechanism of digital economy on regional carbon emission intensity. Contemporary Economic Management, 44 (2), 68–78.

Xu, M., & Jiang, Y. (2015). Can China’s industrial structure upgrade narrow the urban-rural consumption gap? Journal of Quantitative and Technical Economics, 32 (3), 3–21.

Yang, X. M. (2017). Digital Economy: Economic logic of deep transformation of traditional economy. Journal of Shenzhen University (humanities and Social Sciences), 166 (4), 101–104.

Yu, B. B. (2017). How to improve regional energy efficiency through industrial restructuring? An empirical study based on magnitude and quality dimension. Journal of Finance and Economics, 422 (1), 86–97.

Zhang, Y. Z. (2018). The development thinking and main task of digital economy driving industrial structure towards middle and high end. Economic Longitudinal and Horizontal, 394 (9), 85–91.

Zhao, S., Peng, D., Wen, H., & Song, H. (2022). Does the digital economy promote upgrading the industrial structure of Chinese cities? Sustainability, 14 (16), 10235.

Zhao, T., Zhang, Z., & Liang, S. K. (2020). Digital economy, entrepreneurial activity and high-quality development: Empirical evidence from Chinese cities. Management World, 36 (10), 65–76.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of International Trade and Economics, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, 100029, China

Science and Technology Department, Xianning Vocational Technical College, Xianning, 437000, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Yumin Zhu was responsible for researching the conceptual design and interpretation of the results. Shan Lu was responsible for data collection and analysis and project management. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shan Lu .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Consent to Participate

The authors declare that all the authors have informed consent.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on  Innovation Management in Asia

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zhu, Y., Lu, S. Digital Economy and Carbon Neutrality: Exploring the Pathways and Implications for China’s Sustainable Development. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01931-y

Download citation

Received : 18 January 2024

Accepted : 22 March 2024

Published : 13 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01931-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital economy
• Carbon neutrality
• Energy consumption
• Carbon emissions
• Environmental Kuznets Curve
• Industrial structure
• Sustainable development

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Advisory Board
• Policy Dialogues
• Organigramme
• Intergovernmental Support
• Capacity Building
• Climate Action
• Global Partnerships
• Leaving No One Behind
• Science, Technology and Innovation
• Strengthening Institutions
• Publications
• Policy Briefs
• Working Papers
• Infographics
• UN DESA Voice
• Financing For Sustainable Development Report 2024

Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2024

The world is facing a sustainable development crisis. The 2024 Financing for Sustainable Development Report: Financing for Development at a Crossroads finds that financing challenges are at the heart of the crisis and imperil the SDGs and climate action. The window to rescue the SDGs and prevent a climate catastrophe is still open but closing rapidly.

Financing gaps for sustainable development are large and growing – the estimates by international organizations and others are coalescing around $4 trillion additional investment needed annually for developing countries. This represents a more than 50% increase over the pre-pandemic estimates. Meanwhile, the finance divide has not been bridged, with developing countries paying around twice as much on average in interest on their total sovereign debt stock as developed countries. Many countries lack access to affordable finance or are in debt distress.

Weak enabling environments are preventing progress. Average global growth has declined, while policy and regulatory frameworks still do not set appropriate incentives. Public budgets and spending is not fully aligned with SDGs. Private investors are not incentivised to invest enough in SDGs and climate action. 

The world is at a crossroads. This is the last chance to correct course if we want to achieve the SDGs by the 2030 deadline. Only an urgent, large-scale and sustainable investment push can help us achieve our global goals. Next year’s Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in 2025 will be a once in 80-year opportunity to support coherent transformation of financing. Four actions are needed:

• Close financing gaps for SDG/climate investments (both public and private) at scale and with urgency;
• Close policy and architecture gaps, and reform international institutions;
• Close credibility gaps and trust deficits both international and domestically; and 
• Formulate and finance new development pathways.

Related Sustainable Development Goals

Share This Publication

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 20 June 2022

Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals

• Frank Biermann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0292-0703 1 ,
• Thomas Hickmann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5072-7855 2 ,
• Carole-Anne Sénit   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2723-6091 1 ,
• Marianne Beisheim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0554-925X 3 ,
• Steven Bernstein   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0115-084X 4 ,
• Pamela Chasek 5 ,
• Leonie Grob 1 , 6 ,
• Rakhyun E. Kim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1308-6849 1 ,
• Louis J. Kotzé 7 , 8 ,
• Måns Nilsson 9 , 10 ,
• Andrea Ordóñez Llanos 11 ,
• Chukwumerije Okereke 12 ,
• Prajal Pradhan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0491-5489 13 ,
• Rob Raven 1 , 14 ,
• Yixian Sun   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2415-2327 15 ,
• Marjanneke J. Vijge 1 ,
• Detlef van Vuuren   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0398-2831 1 , 16 &
• Birka Wicke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0445-0984 17  

Nature Sustainability volume  5 ,  pages 795–800 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

60k Accesses

124 Citations

666 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Interdisciplinary studies

An Author Correction to this article was published on 27 June 2022

This article has been updated

In 2015, the United Nations agreed on 17 Sustainable Development Goals as the central normative framework for sustainable development worldwide. The effectiveness of governing by such broad global goals, however, remains uncertain, and we lack comprehensive meta-studies that assess the political impact of the goals across countries and globally. We present here condensed evidence from an analysis of over 3,000 scientific studies on the Sustainable Development Goals published between 2016 and April 2021. Our findings suggests that the goals have had some political impact on institutions and policies, from local to global governance. This impact has been largely discursive, affecting the way actors understand and communicate about sustainable development. More profound normative and institutional impact, from legislative action to changing resource allocation, remains rare. We conclude that the scientific evidence suggests only limited transformative political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals thus far.

Similar content being viewed by others

Governance in socioeconomic pathways and its role for future adaptive capacity

Marina Andrijevic, Jesus Crespo Cuaresma, … Carl-Friedrich Schleussner

Assessing progress towards sustainable development over space and time

Zhenci Xu, Sophia N. Chau, … Jianguo Liu

Citizen science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

Steffen Fritz, Linda See, … Sarah West

In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to guide public policies and inspire societal actors to promote sustainable development worldwide. The core of this programme is 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 specific targets, most of them to be achieved by 2030. Although the SDGs are not the first effort to set global goals (and they have been criticized earlier on, for example, ref. 1 ), they are still by far the most comprehensive and detailed attempt by the United Nations to advance sustainable development 2 , 3 , 4 . After six years of implementation, the question arises whether these 17 SDGs have had any political impact within national and global governance to address pressing challenges such as poverty eradication, social justice and environmental protection.

In this Article, we offer the results of a meta-analysis of the available scientific evidence about the political impact of the SDGs since 2015. The assessment covers over 3,000 studies, analysed by a team of 61 scholars. Most studies assessed are peer-reviewed academic research papers, along with a few studies from the ‘grey literature’ that were consulted when the scientific literature was scarce, such as policy studies from think tanks, research institutes and non-governmental organizations. The majority of studies assessed in depth were empirical policy analyses by experts in political science and related fields of study, including analyses of the political impact of the SDGs over time; single or comparative case studies of individual SDGs or of specific countries; systematic assessments of expert opinions, for example, through broader surveys or series of systematic interviews; and a few quantitative datasets that assess the political impact of the SDGs.

Drawing on earlier research programmes on international institutions (for example, refs. 5 , 6 ), we searched for three types of effects: discursive, normative and institutional changes. Discursive effects we define as changes in global and national debates that make them more aligned with the SDGs, for example, through explicit references to goals, targets or the general provisions of the 2030 Agenda. We define normative effects as adjustments in legislative and regulatory frameworks and policies in line with, and because of, the SDGs. Institutional effects we define as evidence for the creation of new departments, committees, offices or programmes linked to the achievement of the SDGs or the realignment of existing institutions. The presence of all three types of effects throughout a political system we define as transformative impact, which is the eventual goal of the 2030 Agenda 7 .

The assessment has been organized around five dimensions, which we derived from the core ambitions expressed in the overarching United Nations document, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: the political impact of the SDGs on (1) global governance, (2) domestic political systems, (3) the integration and coherence of institutions and policies, (4) the inclusiveness of governance from local to global levels and (5) the protection of ecological integrity.

We find that the SDGs thus far have had mainly discursive effects but also have led to some isolated normative and institutional reforms. However, effects are often diffuse, and there is little evidence that goal-setting at the global level leads directly to political impacts in national or local politics 8 , 9 , 10 . Overall, our assessment indicates that although there are some limited effects of the SDGs, they are not yet a transformative force in and of themselves.

Here we present in more detail the insights of our assessment related to the political impact of the SDGs since their launch in 2015, organized around the five dimensions identified in the preceding. Note that the few literature references we provide are merely illustrative examples of larger trends in the hundreds of studies that we analysed in depth.

Impact on global governance

First, regarding the global governance system, we find that the political impact of the SDGs has been mostly discursive, for example, through their adoption as a reference point in international policy pronouncements and in a changed discourse within global institutions. While the governance principles that underpin the SDGs—such as universality, coherence, integration and ‘leaving no one behind’—have become part of mainstream discourses in multilateral institutions, actual reforms in the operations of these organizations since 2015 have been modest, and there is no strong evidence that the SDGs have had a transformative impact on the mandates, practices or resource allocation of international organizations and institutions within the United Nations system (for example, refs. 11 , 12 ). The literature thus suggests a mismatch between the formal aspirations of the United Nations to promote the SDGs as central guidelines in global governance and their limited transformative impact.

Moreover, observable changes often reflect longer trajectories in global governance that had started well before the launch of the SDGs. It is difficult to identify in the literature robust change in such long-term trends that can be causally related to the launch of the SDGs in 2015. There is rarely any clear and unidirectional causality that a major reform process has been initiated because of the SDGs.

Studies also suggest that the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development has not lived up to expectations of becoming an effective ‘orchestrator’ 13 in global sustainability governance. This forum, created after the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, is meant to serve as a regular meeting place for governments and non-state representatives to review the implementation of the SDGs and to assess global progress towards sustainable development. There is evidence that the High-Level Political Forum is serving as a platform for voluntary reporting and peer learning among governments. For example, the voluntary national reviews process has helped to disseminate best practices of SDG implementation across countries and actors 14 , and the forum has offered new opportunities for non-state and sub-national actors to become involved in global policy processes (for example, ref. 15 ). Yet there is no robust evidence that such peer learning, reporting and broad participation have steered governments and other actors towards structural and transformative change for sustainable development. The forum has not provided political leadership and effective guidance for achieving the SDGs (for example, ref. 16 ), and it has failed to promote system-wide coherence, largely because of its broad and unclear mandate combined with a lack of resources and divergent national interests (for example, refs. 15 , 17 , 18 ).

Likewise, parallel reforms in the United Nations system for development cooperation have not been transformational, mostly because of governments’ incoherent signals in the governing bodies and funding practices that impede integrated approaches (for example, refs. 19 , 20 , 21 ). As for environmental policy, the United Nations Environment Programme, mandated to catalyse international action and cooperation, has not been able to expand its leadership after the adoption of the SDGs. The fragmented nature of global environmental governance continues to limit institutional change and produces inconsistencies and inefficiencies (for example, refs. 22 , 23 , 24 ).

Impact on domestic politics

The SDGs must eventually be implemented in domestic political contexts through policies and programmes enacted by governments and public agencies with the support and engagement of non-state actors.

We find some evidence that state and non-state actors have started to implement the SDGs at the national and local levels. Many countries have begun to integrate SDGs into their administrative systems, and some governments have designated bodies or formed new units for goal implementation. Yet the performance of national governments varies, and most countries lag behind in implementing the SDGs. Observable institutional change often merely replicates existing priorities, trajectories and government agendas, and governments tend to selectively implement those SDGs that support policies they have already prioritized (for example, refs. 25 , 26 ). For instance, Paraguay’s current 2030 National Development Plan was adopted in 2014, a year before the adoption of the SDGs, and the two processes were never merged 27 .

There is scant evidence that governments have substantially reallocated funding to implement the SDGs, either for national implementation or for international cooperation. The SDGs do not seem to have changed public budgets and financial allocation mechanisms in any important way, except for some local governance contexts (for example, ref. 28 ). The lack of substantial funding could prevent stronger political impact of the SDGs and indicate that the discursive changes that we have identified will not lead to transformative change in terms of policy reform or resource allocation.

Some evidence suggests that sub-national authorities, and especially cities, are often more pioneering and progressive than their central governments in building coalitions for implementing the SDGs 29 . In several national political systems, civil society actors have begun to hold public actors accountable for their commitments to realize the vision of leaving no one behind. In particular, some studies in African countries 30 , 31 highlight the role that civil society organizations play in mobilizing participation and bringing the voices of those on the front lines of poverty, inequality and vulnerability into the implementation and progress review on specific SDGs, such as SDG 15. This growing role of actors beyond national governments suggests an emerging multi-faceted and multi-layered approach to implementing the 2030 Agenda (for example, refs. 28 , 32 , 33 ).

There is also evidence of increased interest and participation from corporate actors in sustainable development through public–private partnerships, even though the effectiveness of such arrangements is uncertain 34 . Some corporate actors, including banks and investors, increasingly engage with and invest in sustainability practices, promote green finance, facilitate large-scale sustainable infrastructure projects or expand their loan portfolios to include environmental and social loans (for example, refs. 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ). Such practices are often discursively linked to the SDGs. Some studies, however, warn of ‘SDG washing’ by corporate actors, selective implementation of SDGs and political risks linked to private investments in the context of continued shortage of public funding. For example, while one study found that 70% of CEOs see the SDGs as a powerful framing to accelerate sustainability-related efforts of their companies, the SDGs could also be used to camouflage business-as-usual by disguising it using SDG-related sustainability rhetoric 39 . Overall, fundamental changes in incentive structures to guide public and private funding towards more sustainable pathways seem to be lacking.

We conclude that the domestic political impact of the SDGs has remained mostly discursive. Governments increasingly refer to the SDGs in policy documents, and 176 countries have presented their voluntary national reviews at the High-level Political Forum (for example, ref. 40 ). Sub-national authorities refer to the SDGs in their communications as well, and many have offered voluntary local reviews of their initiatives. In addition, several corporate actors and civil society organizations use the language of the 2030 Agenda. All these references to the SDGs in the political debate could be seen as a first step towards more far-reaching transformational changes. Yet it is uncertain whether these discursive effects of the SDGs signal the beginning of a deep transformation towards sustainable development or whether their impact will remain mostly discursive until and beyond 2030.

Impact on domestic institutional integration and policy coherence

The 17 SDGs and their 169 targets form a complex mesh of normative aspirations that seek to address all areas of human activity. Some studies suggest that synergies among SDGs can be achieved by designing policies in a holistic way (for example, ref. 41 ). Others argue, however, that inherent trade-offs in the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs are too often neglected in academic research and require more attention (for example, ref. 42 ). Overall, the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs are expected to provide guidance and resolve normative conflicts, institutional fragmentation and policy complexity.

We find that substantial academic work has been devoted to the conceptualization of governance fragmentation, institutional interlinkages and integration. Yet limited empirical research has studied how these concepts play out in national implementation of the SDGs. Several case studies, for example, on Bangladesh, Belgium, Colombia, Germany, India, the Netherlands, Sri Lanka and small island developing states indicate that synergies and trade-offs in the 2030 Agenda manifest differently across political systems and governmental levels (for example, ref. 43 ). Broader comparative assessments of the impacts of SDG interlinkages on national politics are lacking.

Several governments have taken first steps to align their institutions towards the SDGs. Some countries, such as the Netherlands, have established coordination bodies within central agencies (for example, ref. 44 ), and others, such as Germany, have promoted inter-ministerial exchanges to bring their public-administrative systems in line with the SDGs (for example, ref. 45 ). These attempts, however, differ from country to country, leading to large variations in institutional SDG-inspired integration. For example, the responsibility for the SDGs lies with one or two ministries in some countries and with the head of state or government in others. The impact of either strategy remains uncertain and warrants further investigation.

Overall, governments still fall short of enhancing policy coherence to implement the SDGs, despite modest advances in some countries. Where we see evidence of integrating SDGs into national strategies and action plans, this has not yet led to new or adjusted cross-sectoral policies and programmes that cohere with one another (for example, ref. 46 ). Experts are divided in their expectations as to whether stronger policy coherence for the SDGs will emerge before 2030.

Several studies point to remaining barriers to institutional integration and policy coherence in administrative systems (for example, ref. 47 ). These include cumbersome bureaucracies, lack of political interest, short-term political agendas and waning ownership of the SDGs. Studies agree that breaking down such barriers will take time and require political leadership, continuous efforts by policymakers and pressure by civil society organizations. So far, there are few indications that the adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs has helped to greatly reduce such barriers.

Impact on inclusiveness

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs are meant to address inequalities within and among countries and to ensure that no one is left behind. Vulnerable groups and countries are extensively mentioned in the 2030 Agenda and in several SDGs and their targets. In addition, two SDGs are dedicated to the reduction of inequality within and between countries (Goal 10) and the promotion of equality for women and girls (Goal 5). However, evidence suggests a mismatch between rhetoric and action. On the one hand, vulnerable people and countries are often discursively prioritized in the implementation of the SDGs, as evidenced by the broad uptake of the principle of leaving no one behind in pronouncements by policymakers and civil society activists. On the other hand, the normative or institutional effects of such discursive prioritization remain limited.

Within countries, the political impact of the SDGs in reducing inequalities varies considerably and seems to be determined by domestic politics. The literature indicates that the SDGs have not stimulated new forms of normative or institutional steering that promotes inclusiveness. The SDGs have been leveraged, if at all, as an overarching international normative framework to legitimize existing national policies and institutions for the promotion of inclusiveness (for example, refs. 48 , 49 , 50 ). In some cases, we see counterproductive effects when political elites use the SDG discourse to overlay the existing non-inclusive institutional settings or to add legitimacy to entrenched marginalization. For example, a study on Paraguay found that the government cooperates in the framework of SDG implementation mostly with agribusiness companies, while civil society organizations were not offered any avenues for meaningful participation 27 .

Internationally, there is no evidence that the adoption of the SDGs has advanced the position of the world’s most vulnerable countries in global governance and in the global economy. For one, there are hardly any indications that the SDGs have steered global governance structures towards more inclusiveness, especially regarding least developed countries (for example, refs. 51 , 52 ). Studies doubt whether the SDGs will ever be able to transform legal frameworks towards increased political participation of these countries in global governance. In addition, continued lack of compliance with long-standing norms that seek to support the least developed countries, such as special commitments on aid from the Global North, further indicates the limited steering effect of the SDGs on the ability of poorer countries to fully participate in and benefit from the global economy.

There is evidence, however, that emerging economies in the Global South increasingly frame their aid and investment commitments to poorer countries as promoting the SDGs. For example, China has in recent years increased its aid and investments under the Belt and Road Initiative, claiming that this would promote the SDGs 53 . Similarly, the literature suggests that civil society organizations use the SDGs as a reference framework to hold governments to account (for example, ref. 54 ), pointing to advantages of granting larger roles to civil society organizations in shaping and implementing policy initiatives such as the SDGs. This trend might be important to prevent policy backlash against inclusiveness, especially in countries that are less welcoming to civil society influence.

Impact on ecological integrity at the planetary scale

The SDGs pronounce their ambition to resolve the fundamental concerns of both people and the planet and to ensure life-sustaining conditions on Earth. However, there is widespread doubt that the SDGs can steer societies towards more ecological integrity at the planetary scale. There is also little evidence that any normative and institutional change in this direction has materialized because of the SDGs.

Studies on international governance indicate a limited role of the SDGs in facilitating the clustering of international agreements by serving as a set of collective ‘headlines’. While the SDGs seem to have influenced discussions around the climate and biodiversity regimes (for example, ref. 55 ) and have consolidated support for specific concerns and interlinkages, many such changes had been part of these negotiations well before 2015 (for example, refs. 56 , 57 ). At the regional level, the SDGs have fed into policies and programmes of regional governance bodies and steered the creation of new institutions, although even here the political impact of the SDGs towards better environmental protection remains limited (for example, refs. 58 , 59 , 60 ). Within countries, there is also little evidence that the SDGs have strengthened environmental policies (for example, refs. 61 , 62 ). For example, the South African Integrated Resource Plan, which defines the country’s energy mix and was adopted four years after the SDGs, projects that coal power will still account for 59% of South Africa’s electricity supply by 2030, potentially bringing about adverse impacts on other goals related to health, water, climate and life on land.

Many studies concur that the SDGs lack ambition and coherence to foster a transformative and focused push towards ecological integrity at the planetary scale (for example, refs. 63 , 64 , 65 ). There are indications that this lack of ambition and coherence results partially from the design of the SDGs (for example, ref. 66 ), for example, global economic growth as envisaged in SDG 8 (notwithstanding regional development needs) might be incompatible with some environmental protection targets under SDGs 6, 13, 14 and 15 (for example, ref. 1 ). Certain studies also argue that the focus of the SDGs on neoliberal sustainable development is detrimental to planetary integrity and justice (for example, ref. 67 ). As a result, experiences from the implementation of the SDGs in domestic, regional and international contexts provide little evidence of political impact towards advancing ecological integrity, as countries in both the Global South and the Global North largely prioritize the more socioeconomic SDGs over the environmentally oriented ones, which is in alignment with their long-standing national development policies (for example, refs. 68 , 69 ). Overall, scholars argue that while the SDGs may help to highlight environmental protection as an important concern, parts of their targets are structurally incompatible with efforts to steer towards a more ambitious programme for ecological integrity at the planetary scale.

The adoption of the 2030 Agenda with its SDGs is often seen as a major accomplishment in global sustainability governance. While many SDGs build on earlier agreements, the full set of 17 SDGs and 169 targets is breathtaking in its ambition, scope and comprehensiveness. And yet, we conclude that the 2030 Agenda and the 17 SDGs have thus far had only a limited political impact on global, national and local governance since their adoption in 2015.

The effects of the SDGs, limited as they are, are also neither linear nor unidirectional. While the 17 SDGs constitute a strong set of normative guidelines, their national and local implementation and dissemination across societal sectors remain political. The SDGs are a non-legally binding and loose script, purposefully designed to provide much leeway for actors to interpret the goals differently and often according to their interests. Hence, many actors seem to use the SDGs for their own purposes by interpreting them in specific ways or by implementing them selectively. This finding challenges the aspiration shared by some scholars and policy experts that the SDGs could underpin the ‘orchestration’ of global sustainability policy, or even global social, environmental and economic policy more generally (for example, ref. 13 ). Rather, the SDGs can be seen as a set of musical scores played by different actors and subject to multiple interpretations. There is little evidence that the United Nations system has been able to serve as a central conductor to ensure that actors cohere around a harmonious melody and unite towards achieving sustainable development worldwide.

Our assessment suggests that more research in this field is urgently needed. Research on the political impact of the SDGs has employed two broad sets of methods so far: those that explore the detailed effects of the SDGs on political, societal and economic actors and their institutions and those that seek to measure whether societies are on track to achieve the SDGs. Both sets of methods are needed for a comprehensive understanding of the political impact of the SDGs, and it is important to build bridges across methodological communities that often work in isolation. In addition, we still lack data on the implementation and impact of the SDGs (see for example, refs. 70 , 71 ), particularly regarding local governance and the least developed countries (for example, ref. 72 ). Comparative in-depth studies of the political impact of the SDGs in local governance are laborious, time consuming and require adequate funding. Yet insights from such field research are of utmost importance to assessing the relevance of the SDGs.

Similarly, studies still tend to focus on a limited number of the 17 SDGs and only some of their interactions. Certain SDGs are under-researched as a result, such as SDGs 10 and 12, and comprehensive integrated studies that cover all 17 SDGs and their interactions are rare. Stronger efforts are needed in particular to understand the interlinkages between SDGs, the steering of the SDGs on national and global inclusiveness and the variation in the effects of the SDGs on different actors and institutions and how this influences overall progress towards sustainable development.

In summary, this assessment of over 3,000 scientific articles, mainly from the social sciences, provides sound evidence that the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs have had some impact from global governance to local politics. While this impact has so far been largely discursive, the SDGs have had some normative and institutional effects as well. The SDGs have fostered mutual learning among governments about sustainable development policies and strategies. In certain contexts, they have offered new instruments for local political and societal actors to organize around, to gain more support from governments or to mobilize international funding. The SDGs have also enabled non-governmental organizations to hold governments accountable and in some cases to counter the interests of powerful actors.

Overall, however, there is only limited evidence of transformative impact. There is little evidence that institutions are substantially realigned, that funding is (re-)allocated for sustainable development, that policies are becoming more stringent or that new and more demanding laws and programmes are being established because of the SDGs. Proposals to strengthen the role of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development—the entity in the United Nations system to regularly review the SDGs—are not supported by all governments (for example, ref. 73 ). Accordingly, the global reporting system on the SDGs remains a weak peer-learning mechanism of governments; it might even lead to uncontested and unwarranted endorsements of national performances if governments and civil society organizations fail to act as watchdogs in policy implementation.

The SDGs are incrementally moving political processes forward, with much variation among countries and sectors and across levels of governance. Yet we are far from the ambition expressed by the United Nations General Assembly of ‘free[ing] the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and heal[ing] and secur[ing] our planet’. More fundamental change is needed for the SDGs to become ‘the bold and transformative steps … to shift the world on to a sustainable and resilient path’ 74 that the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations has promised.

Search protocol

This assessment is based on a meta-analysis of the scientific literature on the political impact of the SDGs. The assessment covers over 3,000 studies, analysed by a team of 61 lead authors and contributing scholars. The studies that we included in this assessment were identified through a keyword search with the reference software Scopus, with search strings as provided in the Supplementary Information (see also the PRISMA diagram added as Supplementary Fig. 1 ).

The contributing authors were divided into five teams, each covering one of the following assessment dimensions: the political impacts of SDGs on global governance, domestic implementation, institutional integration and policy coherence, inclusiveness and ecological integrity at the planetary level. All author teams met virtually to define search terms associated with their assessment dimension. While most reviewed research addresses the implementation of the SDGs since January 2016, we included evidence from the 2012–2015 negotiations of the SDGs as well because the SDGs were already prominent in policy circles at that time. The quantity of literature per dimension varied greatly, which indicates research trends and under-researched issues. See Supplementary Table 1 for a full list of search terms and search strings used to collect data on each assessment dimension.

Screening process and data analysis

The five author teams first analysed the relevance of articles identified in the Scopus search by scanning their titles, keywords and abstracts (or if in doubt, introduction and conclusion) to decide whether to include them in the in-depth assessment. They excluded in this step studies that did not substantially engage with the political impact of the SDGs (for example, studies that addressed SDGs only marginally) as well as purely programmatic, descriptive, conceptual or theoretical studies, even though the teams kept non-empirical studies that convincingly argued for the effects of SDGs.

The remaining studies were analysed in depth by smaller teams. Supplementary Table 1 lists the number of studies reviewed for each assessment dimension. (Note that there are a few double counts, as some sources were relevant for more than one dimension of this assessment. These double counts—which essentially signify that a study has been used for two assessment dimensions—are unlikely to impact the results.) The relative number of articles assessed in depth across assessment dimensions differs because some dimensions (for example, implementation and global governance) have been more extensively researched from a political perspective than others (for example, inclusiveness and planetary integrity). Authors screened and coded the articles according to the possible political impact of the SDGs, drawing on the typology of discursive, normative and institutional effects. They then analysed and interpreted this material. This analysis was guided by specific questions agreed upon in teams responsible for investigating the political impact of the SDGs in the different areas and based on our analytical framework (Supplementary Table 2 ). When literature was very scarce on a specific dimension, the interpretation from the qualitative content research was complemented by findings from grey literature and the authors’ own more recent research and expertise.

Methodological limitations

While this assessment of the literature established common search protocols across author teams and their associated assessment dimension to reduce bias, there are limitations.

First, the approach of a meta-analysis of existing work, covering over 3,000 studies, necessarily required the assessment of studies that were all independently conducted by different authors and at different times, with varied approaches to assessing causality and with no overarching research design. This limits, for example, the assessment of causality for the impacts of SDGs, that is, whether an observed change in alignment with the SDGs is evidence for causation or correlation. We had to rely on the judgement made in each study around whether a causal link has been identified between the launch of the SDGs in 2015 and observed changes. Many studies followed a chronological approach, assuming that any discursive, normative and institutional alignments with the SDGs after 2015 are causally related to the SDGs, which appears to be a plausible assumption.

Second, the study relied on literature research using the Scopus database. We are reproducing, thus, the limitations of Scopus, which does not cover all scientific literature but focuses on journal publications. Scopus covers over 39,000 journals but only 1,628 book series, 514 conference proceedings and no books that are published outside an established series 75 . This biases our research in favour of science communities that rely more on journal publications as opposed to books, including chapters in edited volumes. We have corrected this bias to some extent by adding other sources when the overall literature in a certain field was very scarce.

As a third limitation, despite the growing number of researchers who study the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, we still lack data. This is particularly evident for data on the local level and data on the least developed countries.

Fourth, we have relied mainly on publications and data published in English, which under-reports findings from regions where English is not the common working language.

Fifth, the results may be limited due to the period of the assessment. Scientific studies published in 2020 or 2021 usually report on research conducted several months or even years before, and therefore we do not take the most recent empirical developments into account. For the same reason, the results do not account for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of the SDGs.

Data availability

The underlying data are scientific articles that are copyrighted and are available with the respective publishers.

Change history

27 june 2022.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00938-0

Hickel, J. The contradiction of the Sustainable Development Goals: growth versus ecology on a finite planet. Sustain. Dev. 27 , 873–884 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

French, D. & Kotzé, L. J. (eds) Sustainable Development Goals: Law, Theory and Implementation (Edward Elgar, 2018).

Biermann, F., Kanie, N. & Kim, R. E. Global governance by goal-setting. The novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26-27 , 26–31 (2017).

Kamau, M., Chasek, P. & O’Connor, D. Transforming Multilateral Diplomacy: The Inside Story of the Sustainable Development Goals (Routledge, 2018).

Young, O. R., King, L. A. & Schroeder, H. (eds) Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers (MIT Press, 2008).

Biermann, F. & Siebenhüner, B. (eds) Managers of Global Change. The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies (MIT Press, 2009).

Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Doc. A/RES/70/1 (United Nations General Assembly, 2015).

Fukuda-Parr, S. Global goals as a policy tool: intended and unintended consequences. J. Human Dev. Capabil. 15 , 118–131 (2014).

Merry, S. E. Measuring the world: indicators, human rights, and global governance. Curr. Anthropol. 52 , S83–S94 (2011).

Biermann, F., Kanie, N. & Kim, R. E. Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26-27 , 26–31 (2017).

Kloke-Lesch, A. in The Palgrave Handbook of Development Cooperation for Achieving the 2030 Agenda: Contested Collaboration (eds Chaturverdi, S. et al.) 127-163 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021).

Pérez-Pineda, J. A. & Wehrmann, D. in The Palgrave Handbook of Development Cooperation for Achieving the 2030 Agenda: Contested Collaboration (eds Chaturverdi, S. et al.) 649–670 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021).

Bernstein, S. in Governing Through Goals: Sustainable Development Goals as Governance Innovation (eds Kanie, N. and Biermann, F.) 213–239 (MIT Press, 2017).

Beisheim, M. & Bernstein, S. in Governance for Sustainable Development Volume 4: Challenges and Opportunities for Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (eds Dodds, F. et al.) 138–145 (New World Frontiers, 2020).

Amanuma, N. et al. Assessing the HLPF Four Years On: Enhancing Integration, Linking Processes and Strengthening Political Leadership (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2019).

Hege, E., Chabason, L. & Barchiche, D. Review of the High-Level Political Forum: Towards a Pivotal Institution Coordinating the Decade of Action and Delivery Policy Brief No. 2/2020 (Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, 2020).

Monkelbaan, J. Governance for the Sustainable Development Goals: Exploring an Integrative Framework of Theories, Tools, and Competencies (Springer, 2019).

Beisheim, M. & Bernstein, S. Matching the HLPF’s Ambition to Performance: Prospects for the Review (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2020).

Baumann, M.-O. & Weinlich, S. in Routledge Handbook on the UN and Development (eds Browne, S. and Weiss, T. G.) 151–164 (Routledge, 2021).

Golding, R. in Routledge Handbook on the UN and Development (eds Browne, S. and Weiss, T. G.) 221–234 (Routledge, 2021).

Samarasinghe, N. in Routledge Handbook on the UN and Development (eds Browne, S. and Weiss, T. G.) 80–95 (Routledge, 2021).

Elder, M. & Olsen, S. H. The design of environmental priorities in the SDGs. Glob. Policy 10 , 70–82 (2019).

Urho, N., Ivanova, M., Dubrova, A. & Escobar-Pemberthy, N. International Environmental Governance: Accomplishments and Way Forward (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2019).

Chasek, P. S. & Downie, D. L. Global Environmental Politics (Routledge, 2021).

Tosun, J. & Leininger, J. Governing the interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals: approaches to attain policy integration. Glob. Chall. 1 , 1700036 (2017).

Morita, K., Okitasari, M. & Masuda, H. Analysis of national and local governance systems to achieve the SDGs: case studies of Japan and Indonesia. Sustain. Sci. 15 , 179–202 (2020).

Siegel, K. M. & Bastos Lima, M. G. When international sustainability frameworks encounter domestic politics: the Sustainable Development Goals and agri-food governance in South America. World Dev. 135 , 105053 (2020).

Valencia, S. C. et al. Adapting the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda to the city level: initial reflections from a comparative research project. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 11 , 4–23 (2019).

Hickmann, T. Locating cities and their governments in multi-level sustainability governance. Politics Gov. 9 , 211–220 (2021).

Van Haren, N., Fleiner, R., Liniger, H. & Harari, N. Contribution of community-based initiatives to the sustainable development goal of land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy 94 , 211–219 (2019).

Bridgewater, P., Régnier, M. & Cruz García, R. Implementing SDG 15: can large-scale public programs help deliver biodiversity conservation, restoration and management, while assisting human development? Nat. Resour. Forum 39 , 214–223 (2015).

Horn, P. & Grugel, J. The SDGs in middle-income countries: setting or serving domestic development agendas? Evidence from Ecuador World Dev. 109 , 73–84 (2018).

Björkdahl, A. & Somun-Krupalija, L. in Governance for Urban Services: Access, Participation, Accountability, and Transparency (ed. Cheema, S.) 107–126 (Springer, 2020).

Mawdsley, E. ‘From billions to trillions’: Financing the SDGs in a world ‘beyond aid’. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 8 , 191–195 (2018).

Liaw, S. T., Marcelo, A., Narasimhan, P., Ashraf, M. M. & Ray, P. Global eHealth, social business and citizen engagement: a natural convergence? Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 245 , 773–777 (2017).

Google Scholar  

Consolandi, C., Phadke, H., Hawley, J. & Eccles, R. G. Material ESG outcomes and SDG externalities: evaluating the health care sector’s contribution to the SDGs. Organ. Environ. 33 , 511–533 (2020).

Lee, J. W. Green finance and SDGs: the case of China. J. Asian Finance Econ. Bus. 7 , 577–586 (2020).

Banik, D. & Lin, K. Business and morals: corporate strategies for sustainable development in China. Bus. Politics 21 , 514–539 (2019).

Bebbington, J. & Unerman, J. Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: an enabling role for accounting research. Account. Audit. Account. J. 31 , 2–24 (2018).

Bexell, M. & Jönsson, K. Country reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals: the politics of performance review at the global–national nexus. J. Hum. Dev. Capabil. 20 , 403–417 (2019).

Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. & Visbeck, M. Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534 , 320–322 (2016).

Brand, A., Furness, M. & Keijzer, N. Policy coherence within the SDG framework: externalities, trade-offs and illusions of manageability. Politics Gov. 9 , 108–118 (2021).

Scobie, M. in Dealing with Climate Change on Small Islands: Towards Effective and Sustainable Adaptation (eds Klöck, C. and Fink, M.) 101–122 (Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2019).

Yunita, A., Biermann, F., Kim, R. E. & Vijge, M. J. The (anti-)politics of policy coherence for sustainable development in the Netherlands: logic, method, effects. Geoforum 128 , 92–102 (2022).

Breuer, A., Leininger, J. & Tosun, J. Integrated Policymaking: Choosing an Institutional Design for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Discussion Paper No. 14/2019 (German Development Institute, 2019).

De Zoysa, U., Gunawardena, A. & Gunawardena, P. Localising the Transformation in the New Normal: A Domestic Resource Mobilization Framework for Sustainable Development Goals in Sri Lanka (Janathakshan (GTE) Ltd and the Centre for Environment and Development, 2020).

Allen, C., Metternicht, G. & Wiedmann, T. Prioritising SDG targets: assessing baselines, gaps and interlinkages. Sustain. Sci. 14 , 421–438 (2019).

Abualghaib, O., Groce, N., Simeu, N., Carew, M. T. & Mont, D. Making visible the invisible: why disability-disaggregated data is vital to ‘leave no-one behind’. Sustainability 11 , 3091 (2019).

Dhar, S. Gender and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Indian J. Gend. Stud. 25 , 47–78 (2018).

Banks, L. M., Hameed, S., Kawsar Usman, S. & Kuper, H. No one left behind? Comparing poverty and deprivation between people with and without disabilities in the Maldives. Sustainability 12 , 2066 (2020).

Fioretos, O. & Heldt, E. C. Legacies and innovations in global economic governance since Bretton Woods. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 26 , 1089–1111 (2019).

Choer Moraes, H. Beyond a seat at the table. Glob. Gov. 25 , 563–586 (2019).

Banik, D. in Leaving No One Behind: SDGs and South–South Cooperation (eds Dwivedi, D. and Pandey, P.) (Crossbill, 2018).

Chancel, L., Hough, A. & Voituriez, T. Reducing inequalities within countries: assessing the potential of the Sustainable Development Goals. Glob. Policy 9 , 5–16 (2018).

Deprez, A., Vallejo, L. & Rankovic, A. Towards a Climate Change Ambition that (Better) Integrates Biodiversity and Land Use (Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, 2019).

Johnsson, F., Karlsson, I., Rootzén, J., Ahlbäck, A. & Gustavsson, M. The framing of a Sustainable Development Goals assessment in decarbonizing the construction industry: avoiding ‘greenwashing’. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 131 , 110029 (2020).

Rantala, S., Iacobuta, G., Minestrini, S. & Tribukait, J. in 2019 International Environmental Law-Making and Diplomacy Review (eds Honkonen, T. and Romppanen, S.) 58–99 (University of Eastern Finland, 2020).

Páez Vieyra, J. C. Una agenda común sobre desarrollo sostenible en América Latina. InterNaciones 18 , 121–143 (2019).

Corrado, S., Rydberg, T., Oliveira, F., Cerutti, A. & Sala, S. Out of sight out of mind? A life cycle-based environmental assessment of goods traded by the European Union. J. Clean. Prod. 246 , 118954 (2020).

Hirons, M. How the Sustainable Development Goals risk undermining efforts to address environmental and social issues in the small-scale mining sector. Environ. Sci. Policy 114 , 321–328 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

De la Mothe Karoubi, E. et al. Africa SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2019 (SDG Centre for Africa and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2019).

Haywood, L. K., Funke, N., Audouin, M., Musvoto, C. & Nahman, A. The Sustainable Development Goals in South Africa: investigating the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships. Dev. South. Afr. 36 , 555–569 (2019).

Adelman, S. in Sustainable Development Goals: Law, Theory and Implementation (eds French, D. and Kotzé, L. J.) 15–40 (Edward Elgar, 2018).

Craig, R. K. & Ruhl, J. in Environmental Law Beyond 2020 University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 319 (eds Owley, J. and Hirokawa, K.) 1-20 (ELI Press, 2020).

Eisenmenger, N. et al. The Sustainable Development Goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: a critical reflection on the SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective. Sustain. Sci. 15 , 1101–1110 (2020).

Gasper, D., Shah, A. & Tankha, S. The framing of sustainable consumption and production in SDG 12. Glob. Policy 10 , 83–95 (2019).

Kotzé, L. J. in Sustainable Development Goals: Law, Theory and Implementation (eds French, D. and Kotzé, L. J.) 41–65 (Edward Elgar, 2018).

Forestier, O. & Kim, R. E. Cherry-picking the Sustainable Development Goals: goal prioritization by national governments and implications for global governance. Sustain. Dev. 28 , 1269–1278 (2020).

Zeng, Y. et al. Environmental destruction not avoided with the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 3 , 795–798 (2020).

MacFeely, S. The 2030 Agenda: An Unprecedented Statistical Challenge (Friedrich–Ebert–Stiftung and Global Policy and Development, 2018).

Fukuda‐Parr, S. & McNeill, D. Knowledge and politics in setting and measuring the SDGs: introduction to special issue. Glob. Policy 10 , 5–15 (2019).

Engström, R. E. et al. Cross-scale water and land impacts of local climate and energy policy. A local Swedish analysis of selected SDG interactions. Sustainability 11 , 1847 (2019).

Beisheim, M. Conflicts in UN Reform Negotiations: Insights into and from the Review of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (German Institute for International and Security Affairs, 2021).

Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development UN Doc. A/RES/70/1 (United Nations General Assembly, 2015).

Wilder, E. I. & Walters, W. H. Using conventional bibliographic databases for social science research: Web of Science and Scopus are not the only options. Sch. Assess. Rep. 3 , 1–17 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This Article synthesizes the core findings of the ‘SDG Impact Assessment’, a larger study that involved 61 scholars from all over the world. The complete assessment with author and reference lists and about 100,000 words of analysis will be published by Cambridge University Press in 2022 ( The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals: Transforming Governance through Global Goals? , edited by F. Biermann, T. Hickmann and C.A. Sénit). F.B., L.G., T.H. and C.A.S. received funding from the European Research Council for the project GlobalGoals (grant no. 788001, advanced grant F.B.). P.P. received funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for the BIOCLIMAPATHS project (grant no. 01LS1906A) under Axis-ERANET. D.v.V. received funding from the European Research Council under grant no. 819566 (PICASSO).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Frank Biermann, Carole-Anne Sénit, Leonie Grob, Rakhyun E. Kim, Rob Raven, Marjanneke J. Vijge & Detlef van Vuuren

Department of Political Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Thomas Hickmann

German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin, Germany

Marianne Beisheim

Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Steven Bernstein

Political Science Department, Manhattan College, Bronx, New York, USA

Pamela Chasek

Cities Alliance/UNOPS, Brussels, Belgium

Leonie Grob

Faculty of Law, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Louis J. Kotzé

Lincoln Law School, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom

Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Måns Nilsson

Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Southern Voice, Quito, Ecuador

Andrea Ordóñez Llanos

Centre for Climate Change and Development, Alex-Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike, Abakaliki, Nigeria

Chukwumerije Okereke

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

Prajal Pradhan

Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

Department of Social and Policy Sciences & Centre for Development Studies, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands

Detlef van Vuuren

Radboud Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Birka Wicke

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

F.B., T.H. and C.A.S. conceptualized the research, led the assessment process and wrote the article. M.B., S.B., P.C., L.G., R.E.K., L.J.K., M.N., A.O.L., C.O., P.P., R.R., Y.S., M.J.V., D.v.V. and B.W. co-led parts of the assessment and contributed to the analysis of data and to the writing of the article.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Frank Biermann , Thomas Hickmann or Carole-Anne Sénit .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Sustainability thanks Ryan Wong and Carina Wyborn for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary tables and figure.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Biermann, F., Hickmann, T., Sénit, CA. et al. Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Sustain 5 , 795–800 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00909-5

Download citation

Received : 15 September 2021

Accepted : 05 May 2022

Published : 20 June 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00909-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Dyadic risk mechanisms–a nomenclature for 36 proto-cascading effects determining humanity’s future.

• Trond Arne Undheim

European Journal of Futures Research (2024)

Assessing the sustainability of the European Green Deal and its interlin kages with the SDGs

• Phoebe Koundouri
• Angelos Alamanos
• Stathis Devves

npj Climate Action (2024)

Intranational synergies and trade-offs reveal common and differentiated priorities of sustainable development goals in China

• Chaoyang Wu

Nature Communications (2024)

Transformative localization to accelerate the 2030 Agenda

• Shirin Malekpour
• Brett Bryan

Nature Sustainability (2024)

Suffizienz – Psychische Ressourcen – Transformation

• Andreas Ch. Braun

Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Visualizing the sustainable development goals and natural resource utilization for green economic recovery after COVID-19 pandemic

Shikun zhang.

a College of Economics and Management, Shangqiu Normal University, Shangqiu, China

Muhammad Khalid Anser

b Faculty of Business and Management Sciences, The Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan

c Putra Business School, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia

Michael Yao-Ping Peng

d School of Economics and Trade, Fujian Jiangxia University, Fuzhou, China

f Stamford International University, Bangkok, Thailand

Chunchun Chen

e School of Management, Beijing Union University, Beijing, 100101, China

After the COVID-19 outbreak, this study examines the influence of modifications in China's Sustainable Growth Goals (SDGs) and economic development goals on Chinese enterprises' energy conservation and emissions reduction behavior. Meanwhile, the COVID-19 epidemic has erupted, displacing the flimsy traditional techniques. As a result, the post-COVID-19 pandemic emphasizes the need for a long-term sustainable development method compatible with the local and regional environmental systems. The main objective of this study is used as a roadmap to steer the post-COVID-19 pandemic on a sustainable green path by emphasizing sustainable energy strategies to connect in SDG-related efforts. The investigation in this paper begins with examining significant impacts in the energy industry and their impact on progress toward sustainability. The empirical findings that the CO 2 emissions reduction objectives in long-term development plans had a considerable impact on energy saving and emissions reduction, lowering energy consumption intensity by 3.33% and carbon emission intensity by 4.23% between 2010 and 2019. Besides, the results and long and short run techniques are built to describe the Sustainable Development Goals interface, with the result revealing that Sustainable Development Goals enhance the green economic recovery performance. Furthermore, this study recommends that the key natural resources and green economic recovery policies to overcome the climate change impacts by COVID-19 pandemic.

1. Introduction

Authorities have implemented a wide range of green innovation strategies around the world in response to climate change and growing public concern about environmental issues( Shang et al., 2021 ), including policies to promote green brands, environmentally friendly innovations, and green finance such as green bonds( Xu et al., 2022 ). The increasing externality of environmental contamination necessitates green innovation in public administration( Qiu et al., 2022 ). Green innovation and green financing go hand in hand when it comes to protecting the environment, with the former providing funding for R&D into new clean energy technologies and ecologically friendly processes and goods( Li et al., 2021 ). Although governments' attitudes and attempts to safeguard the environment are reflected in green finance, green innovation reflects a more holistic approach to tackling environmental deterioration and innovation in the production and use of green energy. While conventional climate-related environmental quality solutions have received much attention, academia has mostly ignored one growing field: climate finance( Hu et al., 2021 ). To meet the Paris Agreement's net-zero carbon reduction targets and promote environmentally sound development, the term "climate finance" refers to capital flows for low-carbon and weather growth that have either direct or indirect effects on reducing GHG emissions or adapting to climate change(H. Gao et al., 2021 ). Nations provide beneficiary emerging economies with multipurpose assistance via climate financing, which funds low-emissions and environmental preservation programs and investments. It's possible to split climate financing into two classifications: adaptability and mitigation( Jin et al., 2022 ). Climate finance has been the subject of a growing number of studies. Fairness in climate change responses has been studied extensively( Liu et al., 2021 ), but climate financing has also been learned about recipient nations' adaptation ability to climate change. About climate finance and carbon dioxide emissions, little is known to date, and the connection between climate finance and emissions reductions is confusing at best.

Using assets and carbon-demanding development models has elevated green innovation and green financing to essential assessments in past years, and experts generally agree that they have a favorable impact on environmental quality. According to, earlier research( Qin et al., 2022 ) on green innovation focused mostly on financial assistance for clean energy R&D and environmental preservation expenditures. There is a dearth of research documenting environmental management-related green trademarks or patent requests, the ultimate barometer of green innovation. Few studies have also examined if ecological effectiveness, green finance, and green technology do not have unidirectional cointegration linkages, nor have they experimentally evaluated if environmental energy and green finance may affect green innovation ( Han et al., 2022 ). have not been explored. There may be opportunities for green goods and procedures based on existing ecological quality effectiveness and green finance growth if the nexus between quality environmental efficiency, green finance, and innovation can be identified. These issues can be addressed by authorities to enhance environmental performance and financial growth by implementing strategies to stimulate green innovation and improve the distribution of financial resources, which can ultimately better encourage the whole world to advance in a sustainable, green, and environmentally friendly manner( Dong et al., 2021 ). Consequently, this research is attempting to reveal the link between these three factors and to determine how environmental performance, green financing, and green innovation all affect each other in the short- and long-term( Zhao et al., 2020a , Zhao et al., 2020b ).

These studies examine the changes that have occurred throughout this time, from renewable energy transition and energy affordability to presenting holistic ideas and practical solutions for energy sustainability from the perspective of governments and policymakers. Nevertheless, the new study considers the Covid-19 pandemic, which could have a significant economic impact on green developments and increase the growth of the green investment.

2. Literature review

2.1. nexus among economic performance and innovation.

Long-term balance between environmental performance, green financing, and innovation in emerging nations. One of the most obvious benefits of green innovation is its ability to increase the use of renewable energy sources while simultaneously enhancing efficiency in energy use ( Zhao et al., 2020a , Zhao et al., 2020b ).For one thing, greater eco-innovation and the potential to produce more clean energy might attract more global financial assistance for clean energy R&D and renewable energy manufacturing, which in turn improves the environmental protection of green financing. Businesses are more likely to invest in green technology if there is more green innovation. This leads to greater global financial support and improved ecological effectiveness. In light of the above, we believe green innovation is essential to green finance and environmental efficiency( Lu et al., 2022 ).

The following illustrates the relationship between environmental effectiveness, green funding, and innovation. There are several ways in which higher environmental productivity might encourage people to live in more environmentally friendly surroundings. Second, according to( Ullah et al., 2020 ), higher environmental effectiveness is generally associated with the adoption of more environmentally friendly technology. This trend will likely continue as long as green innovation projects are designed to be long-term. Even more importantly, governments are spending more on clean and renewable energy manufacturing R&D due to increased financial support for green initiatives. We may deduce from this that ecological effectiveness and green funding have an impact on green innovation( Zhang et al., 2022 ). Through the selection of technical initiatives with high success possibilities, the financial sector discovers the finest possible technologies and accelerates technological innovation( Xiuzhen et al., 2022 ). Financial institutions help people save more money and use their money more effectively, resulting in greater efficiency in the use of resources and the development of new technologies. Banks and share prices harm economic development, but found that the financial sector has an overall positive impact, indicating that the financial industry is a growth engine regardless of the nation's bank or market structure.

2.2. Green finance and natural resources development

Investments in green technologies are essential for boosting green growth rates. Natural resources and capabilities mostly influence the effectiveness of green economic and social development via green technical advances. Since "innovation" and "introduction" are the primary means of technological advancement, we employ these two lenses to rationally examine the connection between endowed natural resources and green interest rates( Sun et al., 2019 , Sun et al., 2019 ).

According to one school of thought, there is a "crowding out" impact of the endowment of natural resources on technical innovation in the renewable energy industry. The phenomenon of "crowding out" shows itself in four distinct ways. First, regions brimming with natural resources are more likely to have an economic structure predicated on extracting those resources, resulting in the extraction sectors "crowding out" industrialization( Sun et al., 2019 ). To some degree, the development rate of the green economy is stifled by the fact that the steel industry typically has a greater technical level and more frequent innovations and R&D actions than the renewable extractive industries sector. Second, there is a larger outflow of intellectual resources that might be used to innovate in the resource extraction industry from places that are wealthy in resources but fail to invest in talent acquisition. Economies in the area may be lacking in renewable technology creativity expertise since the natural resource industry's prevalence as the major product sector with low productivity and increased and the diversion of potentially inventive human capital to the core business sector( Iram et al., 2020 ).

Thirdly, technical innovations to increase resource and manufacturing efficiency are discouraged in mineral resource locations due to fewer resource restrictions and fewer opportunities for such gains in economic growth. Finally, the immediate advantages of exploiting natural resources are substantial, and these resources might be seen as "windfalls" in some sense. Because of this, areas wealthy in natural resources would likely prioritize the development of sectors based on these resources, even if these industries rely on a relatively low level of technical input for the growth of their economy( Abbas et al., 2022 ). Consequently, innovation and economic growth funding suffer in the long run. Recent research has revealed proof of the effects of Covid-19 pandemic on petroleum variability, adding to data from previous worldwide catastrophes. A recent study ( Getis and Ord, 2010 )examined this topic by comparing economic growth and asset price volatility before and after the Covid-19 pandemic. The research ( Ikram et al., 2019 )which used innovative wavelet parameters, found that during the Covid-19 outbreak in China, commodities prices for land and resources exhibited more volatility. Natural resources are claimed to have a medium-term, causal relationship with economic expansion, but only in one direction. Also, using this method, reveal that crude prices for natural assets were unstable before and after the development of the Covid-19 pandemic( Mohsin et al., 2019 ). The opposite conclusion was drawn from this research, which concluded that the cost of commodities derived from natural resources does not affect the economy's health.

The impact of Covid-19 on the variability of mineral wealth (oil prices in particular) has also been experimentally examined in research by( Xia et al., 2020 ). It has been shown through these analyses that Covid-19 spread significantly and favorably affects the liquidity of Earth's resources and oil stock prices. In addition, the demand for and supply of these resources have a substantial and beneficial impact on driving up natural resource prices, even in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic. Shocks to either the demand or supply in an area may significantly impact the market's volatility. Moreover, it has been shown ( Jayanthakumaran et al., 2012 ) that a 4% decline in OPEC oil output dramatically raises oil prices in the gas nations, which may have a major influence on the fluctuation of natural resource prices in the oil-importing industries. Covid-19 active cases, its mortality ratio, and reports of negative oil prices all contribute to natural resource inflationary pressures, according to a study of the pandemic's propagation( Mohsin et al., 2021 ).Despite this, the studies all agreed on the significance of the link between various events and crises and the unpredictability of natural assets. Nonetheless, a significant part of the business prosperity of the nations and regions has been overlooked in these analyses.

A barrier for emerging nations is their degree of financial growth since this might limit their ability to benefit from technological transfers that would otherwise help them accelerate their economic progress( Rohr et al., 2022 ). Despite some conflicting views, the research has debated the role of finance in the economy over various time horizons and situations( Wang and Zhang, 2021 ). Green finance is predicted to influence long-term economic development because of its role in the financial system. In light of past research, this effect is achieved via various pathways. Sustainable economic growth may be completed by the use of renewable energy, according to several studies ( Taghizadeh-Hesary and Taghizadeh-Hesary, 2020 ) points out that using nonrenewable energy leads to uncontrolled environmental deterioration and diminishes organic assets, making it impossible to maintain a system.( DILANCHIEV & TAKTAKISHVILI, 2021 ). Green bonds exclusively support low-carbon projects that affect climate change management or adaptability, natural resource and wildlife protection, and pollution avoidance. In terms of energy expenditures, fossil fuels take the lead. ( Ahamd, 2019 )( Chang et al., 2022 ). It is possible to indirectly participate in clean energy or green technology initiatives via bonds since the responsibility is dispersed across a wide range of investors. A secondary market gives investors liquidity and a means of exiting the company. Those with short-term investing views are likewise drawn to this trait. There are several reasons why green bonds should be promoted to increase investments in clean energy and environmentally friendly technologies( Saboori et al., 2017 ).

Furthermore, the impact of new technologies on achieving sustainability, along with their role in the electricity system, digitalisation, and economics, is examined. The Econometric technique is employed in Section four to examine and quantify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and dangers of achieving energy sustainability. To be more pragmatic, one must examine these ideas from the perspective of political bodies and policies. As a result, a pre-COVID approach to energy sustainability from political China, Eurasia, Australasia, Africa, and Latin America is investigated. This interaction results from a careful examination of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)' aims and selected indicators. In addition, the current study takes into account both the pre-and post-Covid-19 pandemic periods, which is one of the article's groundbreaking roles following the Covid-19 pandemic spread.

3. Econometric investigation

3.1. theoretical background.

( Perch-Nielsen et al., 2010 )and( Gössling and Lund-Durlacher, 2021 ) identified increases in production and income as critical reasons for rising energy demand. According to the aforementioned theoretical framework, econmic development(GDP), investment in alternative energy(IRE),wind energy output and green finance were all presented as control variables by( Munir et al., 2020 ). Because of this, we may represent the relationship between green economic growth and natural resources development:

Methodologically, this study employed a total of five variables derived from the theoretical assumption: economy (proxied by GDP) estimated in constant US$ 2010, investment in alternative energy (IRE), green economic recovery(GER) wind energy output (REL), and green finance (GF). The research of( Sovacool et al., 2021 ) inspired the present study, which focuses on the nexus between the volatility of crude oil prices for natural materials and economic effectiveness. As the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic continues to be felt most severely in China. This paper analyzes the impact of NRV on China's economic performance both before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, in part because of the current trend in China demonstrating policies targeting environmental protection. The effects of IRE, REL, and GF on China's economy during the COVD19 pandemic have also been analyzed. The above framework calculates the impact of rising income and living standards on energy use. How do natural resource and sustainable development goals contribute to green economic growth, and what are the processes behind this relationship? We use the dynamic threshold model further to understand the nature of their interplay (8). Through these two routes, finance may boost output: by encouraging the accumulation of capital and the development of innovative technologies and by facilitating the allocation of resources to projects with the potential for comparatively significant profits. That means that rising energy costs may be affected by economic prosperity via a multiplier effect on increased production. With this in mind, this research builds a dynamic panel threshold model with total natural resources development and sustainable development goals. It examines a rise in green economic growth in the context of varying levels of financial development.

3.2. Model development

This paper uses the novel Difference-in-Difference(DID) type method to estimate this paper's econometric models to see if low-energy-consuming enterprises' tax reduction policies can help them innovate and assess the dynamic impact of tax reduction policies. Our econometric models are presented as follows:

Where the dependent variable G r e e n p r o c e s s i n n o v a t i o n t ( G P I ) i , t is the innovation spending as a percentage of total assets. In terms of our independent variables, P O S T C O V I D t is a dummy variable that is either 1 or 0 following the execution of the tax reduction strategy? e n e r g y r e s o u r c e s T r e a t i Showing the dummy variables, we set it to 1 if the company consumes little energy and to 0 otherwise. β 3 Parameters are to figure out the primary variable.

3.3. Variable description

The main reason is that we are particularly interested in the nations that are still emerging. First and foremost, emerging economies in the early phases of modernization focus on climate strategy and ecological conservation regarding international justice( Sueyoshi and Goto, 2012 ). Second, developing nations have fewer financial and technological resources to deal with weather change and ecological damage than industrialized ones( Akpolat and Bakirtas, 2020 ). For the third time, emerging economies are the primary receivers of climate funding because of the trade-off between manufactured goods and environmental deterioration due to economic concentration( Hanssen et al., 2018 ).

Carbon dioxide emissions (metric tons per capita) are a key source of GHG and may be used to track environmental deterioration caused by human activities associated with economic development. Because it is one of the most significant factors in the climate-related environmental decline, such a measure has long been employed as a proxy for environmental quality( Zhu et al., 2018 ). If we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we need to reduce the amount of CO2 we produce. This is a big factor in both global warming and the degradation of the environment. To quantify environmental sustainability, we focus on the World Development Indicators (WDI) generated carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate financing is quantified by comparing the GDP of the receiving nation to three kinds of global climate money: overall climate funds, international climate management funds, and climate adaptability funds. Annually, the OECD Development Aid Committee (DAC) compiles official growth advisory data, and other resource flows from regional and transnational growth collaboration sources( Scarpellini et al., 2019 ). To avert hazardous human interference with the climate system, mitigation funding primarily tries to stabilize GHG concentrations in the environment. Investing in renewable energy, such as solar photovoltaics and wind turbines is the most common form of mitigation funding. On the other hand, finance for climate change( Munda and Nardo, 2009 ) adaptability focuses on enhancing natural systems' capacity to withstand the present and future effects of climate change by boosting their adaptive capacity and raising their durability. This is a total of mitigation and adaptability banking, which refers to expenditure and funding operations that support additional money for climate change mitigation and low-carbon growth objectives.

A two-period averaging method is utilized to cope with climate money's dynamic impact, given that recipient nations require many years to complete projects. The planning process may be broken down into three stages( McCartney et al., 2021 ): It is possible to determine whether or not the same recipient got climate financing in the year (t) by utilizing a technique known as the variations; and if the recipient nation obtained climate finance in the year (t), the funds are shared evenly among years (t) and (t + 1). In other words, if climate funding is not received in a given year, it would not be included; (iii) we aggregate the total amount of climate finance flows, which provides for monies received in t and t-1 years. Other methods of smoothing out periods have the same effect.

Recipient nation population (POP), industrial value added (IVA), foreign direct investment (FDI), and energy intensity are all elements that might impact ecological sustainability at a country level (EI). It has long been recognized in the research that population has a significant impact on environmental quality( Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2021 ). However, some believe that a growing population harms environmental quality because it leads to higher levels of energy use and carbon emissions(H. W. Chen et al., 2010 ), while others believe the opposite, arguing that a growing population can help to reduce energy use and emissions by increasing the productivity of public services and fostering commercial coalescence( Vasylieva et al., 2019 ).

4. Data and descriptive statistics

4.1. data source.

This study uses the China energy Market & Accounting Research Database to obtain the from energy industrial firms Statistics data collected by regional confirmed Covid-19 cases instances in China from 2021 to 2022. The dataset includes detailed information about each firm's basic features and a diverse set of financial metrics from the cash flow energy markets, financial announcement, and financial equilibrium sheet, respectively. The post-COVID-19 world necessitates long-term growth, but the recovery period focuses on the economy. Because the benefits of energy sustainability are aligned with both economic and sustainable development, we are compelled to promote it. The elements influencing energy sustainability from post-COVID-19 situation perspectives are examined.

4.2. Descriptive statists

Descriptive results.

Note: ***, ** and * is for level of significance at 1%, 5% and 10%.

shows descriptive data for the paper's primary variables, including renewable energy development, green economic and natural resources policy-related variables, financial intermediation, and basic business characteristics. Regarding innovation measurement, the percentage of enterprises engaged in innovation is approximately 39.3 percent, and the mean clean energy investment in innovation is around 0.031. The difference between indicators is that low-energy-consumption businesses are more inventive. Furthermore, the program helped 70.5 percent of China's publicly traded companies. Furthermore, enterprises that have experienced financial limitations show substantial variability in both the KZ and SA indexes. .As evaluated by the firm, ROA and ROE are around 2.2 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively. These study areas still using renewable energy-consuming very low-level enterprises had higher financial status indicators, such as coverage energy and economic ratio, liquidity, and markets cash flow, with mean values of 3.433%, 0.766%, and 0.031%, respectively. Furthermore, the overall sales growth rate is 49.4 percent, and Tobin's Q is at 3.399. Lastly the firm size is approximately 30.455, and the age is approximately 3.344.

For Eq. (1) , we estimate the influence of green-finance-system standards on greenwashing by adding fixed effects and firm- and industry-level control variables in Columns 1–3. No doubt, the findings in Column 3 are more accurate than those in Columns 1 and 2 since they include all the control variables and fixed effects. Post and Treat's combined effects on greenwash are positive and important, as shown in Table 1 , with a correlation of 0.214 at the 1 percentage importance level, indicating that ( Rempel and Gupta, 2021 )a one-unit standard deviation in the pollution-control target causes a 21.3percentage increase in greenwashing for heavily polluting firms. Using the results to support our hypothesis, we may conclude that green financing standards enable greenwashing by polluting companies.

4.3. Main results

4.3.1. renewable and sustainable energy transitions.

Green efficiency, and green innovation are all negatively affected by green credit regulation due to financial limitations( Bai and Dahl, 2018 ). Firms make a variety of options in response to varying degrees of financial restriction. High liquidity helps provide regular operations and output for companies with fewer financial constraints, even though they may incur non-compliance expenses due to environmental control policy. As a result, enterprises in this category are less inclined to seek outside funding sources like green loans or engage in green washing practices to minimize the credit effect. Environmental control policies may significantly impact businesses that are already under financial pressure, but this can be alleviated by enterprises that are already under financial pressure and have a strong motivation to ease the impact of such limitations( Neralić and Kedžo, 2019 ). As a result, they may have a strong reason to green wash to fulfill strategy criteria and get easier access to green finance (see Table 4 ).

Results of model 1 to 9 testing.

Note: in parentheses ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Financial restrictions have a major impact on green washing, according to Table 2 , which indicates how businesses' green washing actions are influenced by the green finance standards depending on the extent of financial limitations. In Table 2 , Index both reveal that financial burdens have a positive and substantial influence on greenwashing. Financial limitations have a negligible effect of 0.4 percent ( Gürlek and Tuna, 2018 ) on the WW and SA indices, according to columns 3–4, but the 2017 Guidelines dramatically increase the financial restrictions. When it comes to the second state, we examine the link between economic conditions and strategy shocks and greenwashing. Results are provided in Table 5 Panel B, and we discover that green financing standards greatly influence companies in groups with high financial restrictions but have no effect on those in groups with minimal financial limits( Kaakeh et al., 2021 ).

Results of probit test and OLS testing.

Results of GMM analysis for strengths factor.

When it comes to job prospects, an IRENA analysis shows that the jobs gained from the energy transition outnumber the jobs lost from fossil fuels globally (three times more job chances). The level of employment varies depending on the technology. For both models, provide insignificant estimates. Furthermore, at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, the empirical estimates of EG-J and EG-J-Ba-Bo yield highly statistically significant estimates. The null hypothesis of no co integration relationship between the under-discussion variable is thus rejected. Furthermore, the altered energy sector demands improved market architecture that encourages short-term flexibility via appropriate pricing signals( Steffen et al., 2020 ). And cross-border electricity trade is a favoured upgrade for improving market stability.

Furthermore, the energy transition will ensure that the climate targets are met, and governments and energy policies will play a larger role in this process. Installing carbon capture devices would be capital demanding, and after COVID-19, it is nearly impossible to market quickly ( Quitzow et al., 2021 ). However, by adopting an eco-friendly approach, it is feasible to RE recourses that produce clean and cheap energy for the country. In such circumstances, integrated modelling evaluation would be beneficial ( Pappas, 2021 ). In light of Model-1's findings, all three FMOLS, Random effect, and CCR estimators show that total natural resources have a negative impact on world economic performance over the given time period. Alternative sustainable means of manufacturing renewable energy from natural gas from the trash can be studied in light of a lack of money and renewable resources ( Raza et al., 2021 ).

Furthermore, the quickening of the transition would push the research scholar to use much more of the pre/post-COVID-19 pandemic period's short-run relationship between natural resource commodity price volatility and economic performance. In addition, the scientific community might make a significant contribution by estimating the geographical renewable energy potential. Studies for China and other regions, as well as challenges and policy requirement( Gumashta and Gumashta, 2021 ; Kenny and Mallon, 2021 ; Padhan and Prabheesh, 2021 ), Accelerating the review and approval of new projects, as well as the issue of licenses, At a 1% level, TNR considerably affects economic performance by 0.633 (FMOLS), 0.687 (DOLS), and 0.698 (CCR). The magnitude of influence fluctuates significantly, but the direction of influence remains constant. Furthermore, from a policy standpoint, we require creative policy mechanisms that promote sustainable growth while being cost-effective ( Rivera-Ferre et al., 2021 ).

4.4. Global energy sustainability

Once the results were obtained, AMG and CCEMG estimation methods were tested for their resilience. Our findings are shown in Table 3 using the FMOLS method, which is a completely altered ordinary least squares (FMOLS).( Gumashta and Gumashta, 2021 ). According to FMOLS results, external variables' effects on economic growth are similar to those found by the AMG and CCEMG estimation method. On the other hand, a little shift in the amplitude of the correlation coefficients has been discovered. A rise of one percent in green finance, resources and energy expenditure, nation resource taxation, and technological innovation raises the economy's performance by 0.162, 1.545, 0.662, and 1.496%. The projected findings are statistically significant at all three stages (1%, 5%, and 10%)( Falagiarda et al., 2020 ; Melo-Oliveira et al., 2021 ; Rivera-Ferre et al., 2021 ).

Baseline estimations.

4.4.1. RE sources into the energy transition

It is necessary to mobilize green financial possessions to fully utilize renewable energy sources and achieve satisfactory energy efficiency. Simultaneously, associated financial and economic hurdles that cause the Group of the eight-nation energy sector to lag behind other regions must be overcome(S. Gao, 2020 ) are not important and are all near 0, inferring that there was no important variation in green technology innovation among the therapy group and that of the control group before that year. Since 2017, columns (1) and (2) show significant positive coefficients, indicating that following the policymaking, there were important variations among firms in the therapy and control groups, which meets the concept of parallel trends based on temporal trends. This is because the spread of current technologies and the creation of new ones take time. It is also important to note that the impact of communications architecture on green technology innovation is influenced by( Shahrestani and Rafei, 2020 ) factors such as regional factor flow, economic growth, and human capital.

Even though they were chosen at random in terms of geographic allocation and economic growth, the pilot towns are still being scrutinized because of concerns about other possible contradicting variables that may influence the results of SDG dynamics relations in Table 2 . This research uses IV estimate as a robustness test to address the issue of strategic endogeneity. The two-stage least squares approach is used to assess the robustness of the benchmark findings based on the IV method, which ( Hanif et al., 2019 ) adopted (2SLS).

4.5. Financial modelling

The findings are congruent with those of ( Gumashta and Gumashta, 2021 ), who identified a favorable association between green money and renewable energy investment. Green bonds have little impact on renewable energy investments in the first year of COVID-19. Except for Model 7, the ADF test boosts renewable energy sources by 0.4356 and 0.4576. Green finance encourages investments in solar, wind, and hydro energy. The energy transition is a terrific approach to accelerate progress toward sustainability, but it can only be done by emphasizing the affordability issue at the consumer level. The perception of energy affordability is frequently based on an individual's perspective rather than societal considerations ( Melo-Oliveira et al., 2021 ). From the standpoint of energy production, affordability is defined as the prospective economic profitability in relation to the investments made. Governmental approaches and energy policies, on the other hand, can be effective in achieving cleaner energy goals but ineffective in promoting energy affordability due to the uncertainties involved. Overall, energy affordability is a complicated issue that necessitates multifaceted climate change problems facing both developing and non developing world, and RE sources must modify their perceptions of energy affordability. The rate of global electrification is also influenced by affordability. Electrification has numerous advantages for both producers and consumers( Aramburu and Pescador, 2019 ; Y. Chen et al., 2019 ; Diao et al., 2019 ; Turner and Schlecht, 2019 ). Consumer affordability is only attainable while the energy cost decreases with app effects. As a result, reducing poverty will aid in the resolution of these complex affordability concerns.

The standard deviation of each city's height is employed as an experimental variable in the first stage of the experiment. As a purely operational variable( Filippini and Greene, 2016 ), terrain relief meets the relevance requirement. When it comes to building telecommunications structures, higher terrain relief impacts both the cost and signal quality of such architecture, which in turn affects the effectiveness with which the system as a whole operates ( Lang et al., 2021 ). The empirical findings of the study, on the other hand, support the use of effective techniques to increase RE. Lack of legislative reforms and poorly performed and implemented reforms targeted at boosting electrification.

The empirical data for the major indicator of post-COVID-19 and green economic variables in Table 3 . We employ three alternative estimating methodologies depending on the dependent variables. In particular, the FMOLS findings show that a one percent increases in natural resource volatility affects economic performance by 0.255 percent. A 1% increase in improving sustainability, renewable power output, and green finance, on the other hand, improves economic performance by 0.544, 0.355, and 0.677 percent, respectively. At the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, the results were highly statistically significant. Our findings highlight the importance of Using the probit and Tobit approach; this fills a vacuum in the literature addressing the pre and post Covid-19 conditions of China's natural resources, commodity pricing volatility and economic performance ( Ulucak et al., 2020 ).

4.6. Pre-COVID pandemic testing

All UN member states endorsed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 ASD) in 2015, including 17 SDGs. 'Clean and cheap energy (SDG 7) and 'climate change mitigation (SDG 13) were major global challenges. It reflect comparable conclusions to those previously mentioned. Nonetheless, varying magnitudes are recorded. In particular, a 1% increase in natural resource volatility reduces China's economic performance by 0.83 percent. A 1% rise in Model 1(DEF), Model 2, or Model 3 boosts economic performance by 0.657, 0.7687, and 0.8746 percent. At all levels of significance, i.e., 1%, 5%, and 10%, the estimated results are highly statistically significant. As a result, the Robust regression findings corroborate the empirical results obtained using FMOLS, DOLS, and CCR. Furthermore, the obtained results were consistent with previous empirical studies conducted in various regions of China.

The Breitung-Candelon (BC) spectral Granger causality test finds the causal link in all runs, including the long, medium, and short runs. On the other hand, the horizontal red line suggests a 5 percent level of a significant relationship between the variables that better understand dynamic situations and change directions in Table 5 . The scenarios described in the next paragraphs are based on a qualitative approach and scenario analysis( Reilly, 2012 ), a foresight methodology. The ramifications of the pandemic for political stability are explored both at the domestic (intrastate) and international (global) levels in the scenarios presented here( Gielen et al., 2019 ).

4.7. Green financial results

We used financial constraints mechanism to build interaction terms between instrumental factors and time for 2SLS regression since using time-invariant instrumental variables in fixed-effects models is difficult( He and Guo, 2021 ). Using terrain relief as the instrumental variable, rows 1, 2, and 3 in Table 6 show the findings; rows 4, 5, and 6 in Table 6 show the results using fixed-line penetration as an instrumental variable. The impact of the Broadband China strategy on business green technology innovation is still considerable after accounting for exogenous variables via these parameters( Taghizadeh-Hesary et al., 2021 ). The first frame's instrumental variable's F-value is much over 10, suggesting that weak equipment is not a concern. This supports the hypothesis that improved telecommunications infrastructure encourages the development of environmentally friendly new technologies. To summarize, the Broadband China program supported green technology innovation in pilot regions of both high and poor quality. The policy had a stronger effect on encouraging low-quality green technology innovation than on encouraging high-quality green technology innovation. Because of China's lack of green technology, enterprises may be more difficult to achieve high-value levels in its green technology innovation( Kamyk et al., 2021 ).

Financial constraints mechanism investigation.

The negative and significant correlations for fiscal decentralization, renewable energy R&D, and institutional quality indicate that strengthening these characteristics lowered CO 2 emissions in the sample countries. Three alternative models are estimated in this investigation. The impact of Tobin's Q, Financial constraint = WW, Financial constraint = KZ, and RE on CO 2 emissions is estimated in the first model. Natural resource rent and income (GDP), on the other hand, have a positive relationship with CO2 emissions. Long-run elasticities for fiscal decentralization, GDP, natural resource rent, institutional quality, and renewable energy R&D are 0.026, 0.801, 0.129, 0.142, and 0.043, respectively, in Model 1.

FDI is also regarded as capturing possible technological spillover effects from other sources of expenditure since emerging nations cannot finance expensive abatement programs aimed at reducing emissions, combating climate change, and protecting the ecosystem without foreign help. Last but not least, we take into consideration EI since nations with intensive energy sources generally depend on fossil fuels to maintain their economic growth, making climate financing renewable energy investment more difficult to undertake( Yoshino et al., 2021 ).

4.8. COVID-19 related cases check

The global interconnectivity is 20.17 percent in the pre-COVID-19 period and 22.77 percent in the post-COVID-19 period. That after COVID-19 infection, total spillover effects increased dramatically, with approximately 34.58 percent of interconnectedness in all sectors.

On the other hand, the horizontal red line suggests a 5 percent level of a significant relationship between the variables. Table 8 depicts the imagined bureaucratic politics mechanism. China renewable energy preference might differ from one country to the next, and are impacted by leadership and a variety of other political issues. To engage in sustainable development at this point, a system to incorporate environmental and societal advantages into climatic goals is critical. The action frame specifies the goal's many targets. The green financial market is better integrated with copper RE and fossil fuels during the COVID-19 pandemic period. This stage entails all actions necessary to formulate solid policy and political approaches before execution. The highest spillovers between pairs occur when switching from RE markets (2.39 percent, 4.33 percent) to fossil fuel energy (1.30 percent, 3.60 percent) (4.77 percent, 09.03 percent). Furthermore, a proper feedback mechanism is required to modify tactics and improve implementation efficacy.

Robustness check.

In the COVID-19 pandemic period, the spillover effects across these three markets are greater than in the pre-COVID-19 period. Meanwhile, RE and green recovery have the largest spillover effects, implying that the metal market contributes more to overall connectedness. Before the COVID-19 outbreak, the value of net connectivity alternated between positive and negative. This suggests that the importance of these eight variables shifts throughout time. However, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, financial variable and RE are the main net communicators of overflow. The function and prominence of international organisations must be strengthened, since a return to the multilateral paradigm for addressing global concerns appears to be the most sensible course of action. The analysis found that green financial allocation for renewable energy investment is 98% significant. In addition to typical climate change activities, lowering global emissions and promoting renewable energy investment with green financial energy can provide better results.

When renewable energy investments are combined and regressed for 2021, the results are favorable. Green bonds have little impact on renewable energy investments in the first year of COVID-19. Except for Model 7, green funding favors renewable energy sources with factors of 0.3956 and 0.67545. Green finance encourages investment in solar, wind, and hydro. The mentioned findings are congruent with ( Mohammadi et al., 2015 ), who found substantial and good results. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are key to any energy policy adjustment.

Green standards encourage solar, wind, and hydro energy investment sources with 0.423, 0.6754, and 0.7654, respectively. More green regulations, such environmental levies, can stimulate greener energy sources in China. This is due to a change in renewable and clean energy investment sources, an environmental panacea.

There is a complicated relationship between several SDGs, with one influencing the other in a synergic or trade-off impact ( Reghenzani et al., 2019 ). As a result, knowing the connections between the SDGs is critical for determining the best path to achieving the objective with the least amount of work. The authors provide a fresh quantitative analysis to demonstrate the SDGs connection. Interaction between SDGs can be seen in two ways. Progress on one goal can impact other goals, and progress on one goal can depend on progress on another.

The term implies the aim affects others. According to dynamic-wind energy, Green bonds and green rules have a big, positive influence on wind energy investment. Green bonds and green standards have a big influence, as according them. Table 8 shows the moderating influence of green regulation on Inv3, with the interaction term (GPR*GREENREG) being significantly negative but lower than the direct negative impact of GPR, which was 0.138, significant at 1%.

Although green bonds are appealing, equity financing may also be used to invest in clean energy and green technologies( Callens and Tyteca, 1999 ). In recent years, it has been shown that many stockholders are unwilling to participate in sin-stocks that are hazardous to the ecosystem and human health or exploit social well-being, regardless of their gains. Over several generations, there has been a boom in environmental and socially conscious share expenditures. These expenditures concentrate on the company's policies on environmental and social issues such as climate change, as well as corporate governance. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, sustainable spending throughout the world totaled USD 36.3 trillion, a 15percentage increase in two years. Several studies have shown that the shares in the Environmental and Social Accountability Index can withstand market downturns, such as the international financial crisis, commodities price shocks, or the COVID-19 outbreak( Ponce and Khan, 2021 ). Using stock markets to finance clean energy and green technology initiatives has several benefits. Investors benefit from this market's disclosure standards because it creates a more secure environment and allows for more investment. In addition, the company's ownership is distributed among( Sigala, 2020 ) stakeholders, which suggests that these stockholders will have different viewpoints on the initiatives, which might lead to a better appraisal.

The relationship of SDG with other targets is depicted in Table 8 . The shift to a low-carbon economy is the first and most important. Furthermore, the sample size for this study was limited to 25 energy companies operating in China; this produces a lot of job possibilities and reduces energy importation, which helps the economy grow( Khan et al., 2021 ). As renewable energy grows, companies will be under increased pressure to support the energy transition, and innovations in renewable will have piled up as a result of improved collaborative circles throughout the accelerated transition period.

After evaluating and discussing the results of the Markov-Switching models, Table 7 shows evidence of post estimation diagnostics( Zahid et al., 2022 ). Breusch-Godfrey test, Durbin Watson test, heteroskedasticity, skewness, and kurtosis all show up in the results. . These studies, conducted before the Covid-19, show that natural resource commodity price volatility has no impact on a country's macroeconomic performance. On the other hand, uncertainty causes panic and has a negative impact on economic and manufacturing activity. This has a negative impact on the country's economic success. Focusing on energy transition while keeping environmental limits in mind will result in pollution-free energy generation and job possibilities and economic growth( Khan et al., 2022 ). This also entails addressing poverty issues to some level, such as energy availability and affordability issues, which can be gradually addressed with the help of quality education. With the rapid spread of clean energy, green techniques in SDG 9 will be well-established, and innovations, particularly in recycling, reusing, turning waste energy to useful energy, and boosting efficiency, will all contribute to instilling sustainability in every action. Plastic usage and disposal are two further adjustments that the world requires ( Sharaunga et al., 2019 ).

Covid-19 correlation exploration.

5. Conclusions and policy implications

After the COVID-19 outbreak, this study examines the influence of modifications in China's Sustainable Growth Goals (SDGs)development goals and natural resources utilization for green economic recovery on Chinese enterprises' by employing econometric estimation on the period of 2010–2020.As a result, the post-COVID world emphasizes the necessity for long-term development and methods compatible with the ecosystem. We proposed that this study be used as a roadmap to steer the post-pandemic scenario onto a sustainable development goals and development of green economic recovery by emphasizing energy sustainability as a strategy to engage in SDG-related efforts.

Including sustainability development goals and green economic recovery objectives in long-term development plans had a considerable impact on energy saving and emissions reduction, lowering energy consumption intensity by 3.33 percent and carbon emission intensity by 4.23 percent. A growing trend toward such techniques could yield even better outcomes for renewable energy investment. Furthermore, during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the correlation between the two sets of indicators increased dramatically. Our findings also imply that investors who choose to go green will not lose money in terms of risk-adjusted returns. It is easier for firms to direct their operations now that investors may convert to green investments without sacrificing financial rewards. Renewable and sustainable energy transitions are more important than ever before, as help to boost employment prospects and influence market dynamics in a unique way. The ideas for accelerating the transition are presented through the eyes of the power plant, transportation, and construction industries. The importance of prioritising investment and the employment picture and labor market developments that are significantly influenced (in a favorable way) by the energy transition are stressed. The energy sector's digital transformation benefits the sustainable energy sector in various ways. To determine the prioritised strategy in light of current pandemic consequences, green policies play an important role in lowering the negative impact of geopolitical risk on hydro energy investment.

On the other hand, when it comes to determining the political viability of energy sustainability, both developing and industrialized countries use a variety of methodologies. Unilateral approaches are represented in one extreme scenario, whereas multilateral approaches are highlighted in the other. Furthermore, the reality appears to be less encouraging, given the lacklustre response to the pandemic and the plan for a rapid increase of fossil fuel use even in affluent countries, both of which exposed multilateralism's flaws and emphasised a general preference for self-interested acts.

5.1. Policy implications

Overall, this article serves as a reminder that a well-designed, environmentally friendly fiscal policy can aid post-pandemic economic recovery and the transition to long-term growth. These results point to two major policy consequences. First, corporate managers must adopt a green approach to financial liquidity management in terms of management dynamics. As a result, resolving all of these constraints will be a helpful approach for future investigations. Identifying and implementing common ground remains beneficial during the recovery period, but after a normal situation has been restored, much attention must be paid to long-term development. Whether or not the SDGs can be achieved by 2030, putting out the greatest effort to do so is what matters most and should be the top priority. The authors of this study propose that sustainable development be viewed through the lens of energy sustainability.

Beijing Municipal Philosophy and Social Science Planning Office "Research on the Coordinated Development of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Financial Agglomeration and Industrial Structure Upgrading" (16YJB037).

Author statement

Shikun Zhang: In the process of writing the article, the first author participated in the idea of the article and the collation and analysis of data, and the; Muhammad Khalid Anser: carried out the design of relevant methods, project support, data collection and proofreading, Michael Yao-Ping Peng: Reviewing, Editing, Monitoring, Chunchun Chen: Editing, English check, reviewing and Supervision.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All of the authors consented to publish this manuscript.

• Abbas Q., Mohsin M., Iqbal S., Iram R. Does ownership change and traders behavior enhancing price fragility in green funds market. Pakistan J. Soc. Sci. 2022; 39 (4):1245–1256. http://pjss.bzu.edu.pk/index.php/pjss/article/view/750 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahamd M. State of the art compendium of macro and micro energies. Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J. 2019; 13 (1):88–109. doi: 10.12913/22998624/103425. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akpolat A.G., Bakirtas T. The relationship between crude oil exports, crude oil prices and military expenditures in some OPEC countries. Resour. Pol. 2020; 67 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101659. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aramburu I.A., Pescador I.G. The effects of corporate social responsibility on customer loyalty: the mediating effect of reputation in cooperative banks versus commercial banks in the Basque country. J. Bus. Ethics. 2019; 154 (3):701–719. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bai Y., Dahl C. Evaluating the management of U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve during oil disruptions. Energy Pol. 2018; 117 :25–38. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.034. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Callens I., Tyteca D. Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: a productive efficiency perspective. Ecol. Econ. 1999 doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00035-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang L., Baloch Z.A., Saydaliev H.B., Hyder M., Dilanchiev A. Resources Policy; 2022. Testing Oil Price Volatility during Covid-19: Global Economic Impact. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen H.W., Chang N. Bin, Chen J.C., Tsai S.J. Waste Management; 2010. Environmental Performance Evaluation of Large-Scale Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators Using Data Envelopment Analysis. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Y., Wang Z., Zhong Z. CO2 emissions, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy production and foreign trade in China. Renew. Energy. 2019; 131 :208–216. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diao X., McMillan M., Rodrik D. The Palgrave Handbook of Development Economics. Springer; 2019. The recent growth boom in developing economies: a structural-change perspective; pp. 281–334. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dilanchiev A., Taktakishvili T. Macroeconomic determinants of household consumptions in Georgia. Ann. Finan. Econ. 2021; 16 (4) doi: 10.1142/S2010495221500202. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dong C., Li Y., Gong H., Chen M., Li J., Shen Y., Yang M. A survey of natural language generation. ACM Comput. Surv. 2021; 1 :38. doi: 10.1145/3554727. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Falagiarda M., Prapiestis A., Rancoita E. Public loan guarantees and bank lending in the COVID-19 period. Econ. Bullet. Boxes. 2020; 6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Filippini M., Greene W. Persistent and transient productive inefficiency: a maximum simulated likelihood approach. J. Prod. Anal. 2016 doi: 10.1007/s11123-015-0446-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao H., Shi D., Zhao B. Does good luck make people overconfident? Evidence from a natural experiment in the stock market. J. Corp. Finance. 2021; 68 doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101933. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao S. The hot spot of coastal container transport port finance development mode. J. Coast Res. 2020; 103 (sp1):614–618. doi: 10.2112/SI103-125.1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Getis A., Ord J.K. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer International Publishing; 2010. The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics; pp. 127–145. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gielen D., Boshell F., Saygin D., Bazilian M.D., Wagner N., Gorini R. The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019; 24 :38–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gossling S., Lund-Durlacher D. Tourist accommodation, climate change and mitigation: an assessment for Austria. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2021.100367. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gumashta J., Gumashta R. COVID19 associated mucormycosis: is GRP78 a possible link? J. Infect. Publ. Health. 2021; 14 (10):1351–1357. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurlek M., Tuna M. Reinforcing competitive advantage through green organizational culture and green innovation. Serv. Ind. J. 2018; 38 (7–8):467–491. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2017.1402889. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Han Y., Tan S., Zhu C., Liu Y. Research on the emission reduction effects of carbon trading mechanism on power industry: plant-level evidence from China. Int. J. Clim. Change Strat. Manag. 2022 doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-06-2022-0074. ahead-of-p (ahead-of-print) [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanif I., Aziz B., Chaudhry I.S. Carbon emissions across the spectrum of renewable and nonrenewable energy use in developing economies of Asia. Renew. Energy. 2019; 143 :586–595. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanssen F., May R., Van Dijk J., Rod J.K. Spatial multi-criteria decision analysis tool suite for consensus-based siting of renewable energy structures. J. Environ. Assess. Pol. Manag. 2018 doi: 10.1142/S1464333218400033. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• He S., Guo K. What factors contribute to the mutual dependence degree of China in its crude oil trading relationship with oil-exporting countries? Energy. 2021; 228 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120547. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu T., Wang S., She B., Zhang M., Huang X., Cui Y., Khuri J., Hu Y., Fu X., Wang X., Wang P., Zhu X., Bao S., Guan W., Li Z. Human mobility data in the COVID-19 pandemic: characteristics, applications, and challenges. Int. J. Digit. Earth. 2021 doi: 10.1080/17538947.2021.1952324. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibn-Mohammed T., Mustapha K.B., Godsell J., Adamu Z., Babatunde K.A., Akintade D.D., Acquaye A., Fujii H., Ndiaye M.M., Yamoah F.A., Koh S.C.L. A critical review of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021; 164 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105169. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ikram M., Sroufe R., Mohsin M., Solangi Y.A., Shah S.Z.A., Shahzad F. Does CSR influence firm performance? A longitudinal study of SME sectors of Pakistan. J. Global Respons. 2019 doi: 10.1108/jgr-12-2018-0088. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iram R., Zhang J., Erdogan S., Abbas Q., Mohsin M. Economics of energy and environmental efficiency: evidence from OECD countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-07020-x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jayanthakumaran K., Verma R., Liu Y. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Pol. 2012; 42 :450–460. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jin C., Tsai F.S., Gu Q., Wu B. Does the porter hypothesis work well in the emission trading schema pilot? Exploring moderating effects of institutional settings. Res. Int. Bus. Finance. 2022; 62 doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101732. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaakeh M., Shirazi S.S., Gokmenoglu K.K. The extended GREEN-A framework: a gender comparison in consumer support for sustainable businesses practices. J. Environ. Assess. Pol. Manag. 2021; 23 doi: 10.1142/S1464333222500119. 01n02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamyk J., Kot-Niewiadomska A., Galos K. The criticality of crude oil for energy security: a case of Poland. Energy. 2021; 220 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119707. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenny G., Mallon P.W. COVID19-clinical presentation and therapeutic considerations. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2021; 538 :125–131. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan M.K., Ali S., Zahid R.M.A., Huo C., Nazir M.S. Does whipping tournament incentives spur CSR performance? An empirical evidence from Chinese sub-national institutional contingencies. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.841163. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan M.K., Zahid R.M.A., Saleem A., Sagi J. Board composition and social & environmental accountability: a dynamic model analysis of Chinese firms. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (19) doi: 10.3390/su131910662. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lang M., Lane R., Zhao K., Tham S., Woolfe K., Raven R. Systematic review: landlords' willingness to retrofit energy efficiency improvements. J. Clean. Prod. 2021; 303 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127041. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li J., Zhao Y., Zhang A., Song B., Hill R.L. Effect of grazing exclusion on nitrous oxide emissions during freeze-thaw cycles in a typical steppe of Inner Mongolia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021; 307 doi: 10.1016/J.AGEE.2020.107217. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu Z., Ying H., Chen M., Bai J., Xue Y., Yin Y., Batchelor W.D., Yang Y., Bai Z., Du M., Guo Y., Zhang Q., Cui Z., Zhang F., Dou Z. Optimization of China’s maize and soy production can ensure feed sufficiency at lower nitrogen and carbon footprints. Nature Food. 2021; 2 (6):426–433. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00300-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu S., Guo J., Liu S., Yang B., Liu M., Yin L., Zheng W. An improved algorithm of drift compensation for olfactory sensors. Appl. Sci. 2022; 12 (Issue 19) doi: 10.3390/app12199529. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCartney G., Pinto J., Liu M. City resilience and recovery from COVID-19: the case of Macao. Cities. 2021; 112 doi: 10.1016/J.CITIES.2021.103130. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melo-Oliveira M.E., Sa-Caputo D., Bachur J.A., Paineiras-Domingos L.L., Sonza A., Lacerda A.C., Mendonca V., Seixas A., Taiar R., Bernardo-Filho M. Reported quality of life in countries with cases of COVID19: a systematic review. Expet Rev. Respir. Med. 2021; 15 (2):213–220. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohammadi A., Rafiee S., Jafari A., Keyhani A., Dalgaard T., Knudsen M.T., Nguyen T.L.T., Borek R., Hermansen J.E. Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis for the benchmarking of environmental impacts in rice paddy production. J. Clean. Prod. 2015; 106 :521–532. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohsin M., Hanif I., Taghizadeh-Hesary F., Abbas Q., Iqbal W. Nexus between energy efficiency and electricity reforms: a DEA-Based way forward for clean power development. Energy Pol. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112052. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohsin M., Rasheed A.K., Sun H., Zhang J., Iram R., Iqbal N., Abbas Q. Developing low carbon economies: an aggregated composite index based on carbon emissions. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2019.08.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munda G., Nardo M. Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting. Appl. Econ. 2009; 41 (12):1513–1523. doi: 10.1080/00036840601019364. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munir Q., Lean H.H., Smyth R. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in the ASEAN-5 countries: a cross-sectional dependence approach. Energy Econ. 2020; 85 doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104571. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neralić L., Kedzo M.G. A survey and analysis of scholarly literature in DEA published by Croatian researchers: 1978 - 2018. Zagreb Int. Rev. Econ. Bus. 2019 doi: 10.2478/zireb-2019-0014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Padhan R., Prabheesh K.P. The economics of COVID-19 pandemic: a survey. Econ. Anal. Pol. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2021.02.012. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pappas N. COVID19: holiday intentions during a pandemic. Tourism Manag. 2021; 84 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perch-Nielsen S., Sesartic A., Stucki M. The greenhouse gas intensity of the tourism sector: the case of Switzerland. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2010; 13 (2):131–140. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponce P., Khan S.A.R. A causal link between renewable energy, energy efficiency, property rights, and CO2 emissions in developed countries: a road map for environmental sustainability. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 2021; 28 (28):37804–37817. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qin X., Liu Z., Liu Y., Liu S., Yang B., Yin L., Liu M., Zheng W. User OCEAN personality model construction method using a BP neural network. Electronics. 2022; 11 (Issue 19) doi: 10.3390/electronics11193022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qiu L., He L., Lu H., Liang D. Systematic potential analysis on renewable energy centralized co-development at high altitude: a case study in Qinghai-Tibet plateau. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022; 267 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115879. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quitzow R., Bersalli G., Eicke L., Jahn J., Lilliestam J., Lira F., Marian A., Susser D., Thapar S., Weko S. The COVID-19 crisis deepens the gulf between leaders and laggards in the global energy transition. Energy Res. Social Sci. 2021; 74 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raza S.S., Seth P., Khan M.A. Primed’mesenchymal stem cells: a potential novel therapeutic for COVID19 patients. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 2021; 17 (1):153–162. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reghenzani F., Massari G., Santinelli L., Fornaciari W. Statistical power estimation dataset for external validation GoF tests on EVT distribution. Data Brief. 2019; 25 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reilly J.M. Green growth and the efficient use of natural resources. Energy Econ. 2012; 34 :S85–S93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rempel A., Gupta J. Fossil fuels, stranded assets and COVID-19: imagining an inclusive & transformative recovery. World Dev. 2021; 146 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105608. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rivera-Ferre M.G., Lopez-i-Gelats F., Ravera F., Oteros-Rozas E., di Masso M., Binimelis R., El Bilali H. The two-way relationship between food systems and the COVID19 pandemic: causes and consequences. Agric. Syst. 2021; 191 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rohr V., Blakley J., Loring P. Food security assessment: an exploration of Canadian offshore petroleum SEA practice. J. Environ. Assess. Pol. Manag. 2022 doi: 10.1142/S1464333222500168. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saboori B., Rasoulinezhad E., Sung J. The nexus of oil consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in China, Japan and South Korea. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 2017; 24 (8):7436–7455. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-8428-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scarpellini S., Alexia Sanz Hernandez M., Moneva J.M., Portillo-Tarragona P., Rodriguez M.E.L. Measurement of spatial socioeconomic impact of energy poverty. Energy Pol. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahrestani P., Rafei M. The impact of oil price shocks on Tehran Stock Exchange returns: application of the Markov switching vector autoregressive models. Resour. Pol. 2020; 65 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101579. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shang K., Chen Z., Liu Z., Song L., Zheng W., Yang B., Liu S., Yin L. Haze prediction model using deep recurrent neural network. Atmosphere. 2021; 12 (Issue 12) doi: 10.3390/atmos12121625. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharaunga S., Mudhara M., Bogale A. Conceptualisation and measurement of women’s empowerment revisited. J. Hum. Dev. Capabil. 2019; 20 (1):1–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigala M. Tourism and COVID-19: impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and research. J. Bus. Res. 2020; 117 :312–321. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.015. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sovacool B.K., Griffiths S., Kim J., Bazilian M. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier Ltd; 2021. Climate change and industrial F-gases: a critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options for reducing synthetic greenhouse gas emissions. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steffen B., Egli F., Pahle M., Schmidt T.S. Navigating the clean energy transition in the COVID-19 crisis. Joule. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.joule.2020.04.011. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Efficiency-based rank assessment for electric power industry: a combined use of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and DEA-Discriminant Analysis (DA) Energy Econ. 2012; 34 (3):634–644. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun H., Ikram M., Mohsin M., Abbas Q. ENERGY SECURITY and ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY: EVIDENCE from OECD COUNTRIES. Singapore Econ. Rev. 2019 doi: 10.1142/S0217590819430033. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun H. ping, Tariq G., Haris M., Mohsin M. Evaluating the environmental effects of economic openness: evidence from SAARC countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 2019 doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-05750-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taghizadeh-Hesary F., Rasoulinezhad E., Shahbaz M., Vinh Vo X. How energy transition and power consumption are related in Asian economies with different income levels? Energy. 2021; 237 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.121595. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taghizadeh-Hesary F., Taghizadeh-Hesary F. The impacts of air pollution on health and economy in Southeast Asia. Energies. 2020 doi: 10.3390/en13071812. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner M.D., Schlecht E. Livestock mobility in sub-Saharan Africa: a critical review. Pastoralism. 2019; 9 (1):1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ullah K., Rashid I., Afzal H., Iqbal M.M.W., Bangash Y.A., Abbas H. SS7 vulnerabilities-A survey and implementation of machine learning vs rule based filtering for detection of SS7 network attacks. IEEE Communic. Surv. Tutor. 2020; 22 (2):1337–1371. doi: 10.1109/COMST.2020.2971757. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulucak R., Kassouri Y., Ilkay S.C., Altintas H., Garang A.P.M. Does convergence contribute to reshaping sustainable development policies? Insights from Sub-Saharan Africa. Ecol. Indicat. 2020; 112 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vasylieva, Lyulyov, Bilan, Streimikiene Sustainable economic development and greenhouse gas emissions: the dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption, GDP, and corruption. Energies. 2019; 12 (17):3289. doi: 10.3390/en12173289. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang Q., Zhang F. What does the China’s economic recovery after COVID-19 pandemic mean for the economic growth and energy consumption of other countries? J. Clean. Prod. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126265. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xia Z., Abbas Q., Mohsin M., Song G. Trilemma among energy, economic and environmental efficiency: can dilemma of EEE address simultaneously in era of COP 21? J. Environ. Manag. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111322. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiuzhen X., Zheng W., Umair M. Testing the fluctuations of oil resource price volatility: a hurdle for economic recovery. Resour. Pol. 2022; 79 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102982. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu X., Lin Z., Li X., Shang C., Shen Q. Multi-objective robust optimisation model for MDVRPLS in refined oil distribution. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022; 60 (22):6772–6792. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2021.1887534. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshino N., Rasoulinezhad E., Taghizadeh-Hesary F. Economic impacts of carbon tax in a general equilibrium framework: empirical study of Japan. J. Environ. Assess. Pol. Manag. 2021; 23 doi: 10.1142/S1464333222500144. 01n02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zahid R.M.A., Khurshid M., Khan W. Do chief executives matter in corporate financial and social responsibility performance nexus? A dynamic model analysis of Chinese firms. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.897444. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y., Huang Y., Zhang Z., Postolache O., Mi C. A vision-based container position measuring system for ARMG. Measur. Control. 2022 doi: 10.1177/00202940221110932. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao M., Zhou Y., Li X., Cheng W., Zhou C., Ma T., Li M., Huang K. Mapping urban dynamics (1992–2018) in Southeast Asia using consistent nighttime light data from DMSP and VIIRS. Rem. Sens. Environ. 2020; 248 doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2020.111980. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao M., Zhou Y., Li X., Zhou C., Cheng W., Li M., Huang K. Building a series of consistent night-time light data (1992–2018) in southeast asia by integrating DMSP-OLS and NPP-viirs. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens. 2020; 58 (3):1843–1856. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2019.2949797. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu K., Li X., Campana P.E., Li H., Yan J. Techno-economic feasibility of integrating energy storage systems in refrigerated warehouses. Appl. Energy. 2018; 216 :348–357. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.079. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]