Science of the Total Environment 712 (2020) 136504

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

How do environmental technologies affect green growth? Evidence from

BRICS economies
Danish a, Recep Ulucak b,⁎
a
School of Economics and Trade, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou 510006, China
b
Erciyes University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Economics, Kayseri, Turkey

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Investigates the role of environmental-

related technologies on green growth
• Employs total and production-based
carbon dioxide emissions
• Controls renewable and non-renewable
energy consumption
• Conducts advanced panel data estima-
tion techniques
• Determines positive impact of
environmental-related technologies

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Green growth has become one of the best alternative strategies for sustainable development. Although environ-
Received 15 October 2019 mental technologies play a fundamental role in green growth, further investigations are required to understand
Received in revised form 28 December 2019 whether and how environmental technologies affect green growth. Therefore, this study explores the role of en-
Accepted 2 January 2020
vironmental technologies in green growth by controlling renewable and non-renewable energy consumption for
Available online 7 January 2020
BRICS countries. To this end, the study conducts advanced panel data estimation techniques that produce robust
Editor: Jay Gan results against endogeneity, heteroskedasticity, and cross-sectional dependence issues. Empirical results show
that environmental-related technologies positively contribute to green growth. Results also confirm that renew-
Keywords: able energy promotes green growth, but non-renewable energy is detrimental to green growth. BRICS countries
Green growth need to improve innovations in the energy sector for achieving green growth and sustainability targets.
Environmental technologies © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Renewable energy
Non-renewable energy
Panel data
BRICS

1. Introduction chain (Wiebe and Yamano, 2016), and environmental technologies

concerning energy generation and transmission are important determi-
Green growth refers to production and demand based emissions via nants of green growth (Mensah et al., 2019b). Green growth is also a
the green technologies' innovation for cleaner production and supply plausible strategy for energy saving and carbon emissions reduction
(Guo et al., 2017) and is a widely accepted solution to control the dete-
⁎ Corresponding author. rioration of the environment (Sandberg et al., 2019). Green growth re-
E-mail address: r.ulucak@erciyes.edu.tr (R. Ulucak). lies on technological and market innovations, in particular, to improve

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136504
0048-9697/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 Danish, R. Ulucak / Science of the Total Environment 712 (2020) 136504

production efficiency and hence distinguish the natural resources con- this study extends the current literature by focusing on the role of envi-
sumption and environmental impacts from limitless growth (UNEP, ronmental technologies, renewable and non-renewable energy usage
2011). Green technology is an effective method for encouraging green on the green growth process through newly developed econometric
economic growth (Sohag et al., 2019b), and cleaner technological im- techniques for long-term estimation.
plementation significantly reduces carbon emissions (Yin et al., 2015). The rest of the study is organized as follows. Section 2 explains the
For consistent and effective CO2 reduction, improvement of techni- methodology performed in the study; Section 3 conducts empirical in-
cal efficiency is essential (Kwon et al., 2017) and this inference is backed vestigation; Section 4 illustrates and discusses the obtained results. Fi-
up by literature findings (Chen and Lei, 2018; Ganda, 2019; Gu et al., nally, Section 5 concludes the study with policy recommendations
2019; Jordaan et al., 2017; Mensah et al., 2018; Nikzad and Sedigh, based on empirical findings.
2017; Sohag et al., 2019a; Wang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2017) coupled
with the role of renewable energy technologies in pollution reduction 2. Material and methods
(Gu et al., 2019; Lin and Zhu, 2019a, 2019b; Sarkodie and Strezov,
2018) that are vital for generating clean energy and consequently less 2.1. Study area
external cost and hence less environmental pollution (Alam and
Murad, 2020; Sarkodie and Adom, 2018). So, technological innovation The study area in this paper includes five BRICS countries, including
is an important factor that reduces energy consumption and increase Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Over the last three decades,
energy efficiency (Sohag et al., 2015). the GDP of BRICS economies increased from the US $2187 billion (con-
Meanwhile, the world's economic growth has increased resource stant in 2010) to the US $16,266 billion with an average annual growth
scarcity and environmental issues and diverted the focus of the coun- rate of nearly 6.5% (World Bank, 2017). The BRICS nations comprise 40%
tries from traditional economic growth towards sustainable develop- world's population, share nearly 21% gross domestic product (GDP) of
ment. In this respect, contrary to traditional growth theories, modern the world, consume almost 40% of the world's energy, and contribute
economic growth literature has focused on directed technological to a substantial amount of global CO2 emissions (WEF, 2016). BRICS
change to be able to achieve green transformation (Acemoglu et al., countries are emerging as an economic superpower and capable of be-
2016, 2012; Aghion et al., 2016) since traditional approach, laissez- coming the world leader but draw a concern related to climate change
faire equilibrium will probably result in an environmental disaster and carbon emissions due to the higher economic growth rates
(Acemoglu et al., 2012). Based on the motivation that “can directed (Balsalobre-Lorente et al., 2019; Santra, 2017). So, green growth is of
technological change be used to combat climate change?”, Aghion importance for BRICS countries to challenge serious environmental
et al. (2016) underline the importance of environmental taxes and pat- threats.
ents to direct technological change so as to decrease non-renewable
source usage and increase renewables for emission mitigation. Simi- 2.2. Data
larly, mitigation of carbon emissions is the focal point of Acemoglu
et al. (2016) as well in the understanding of green growth. On the For the empirical investigation on the role of environmental technol-
other hand, the rising green awareness has encouraged many countries ogies, and green growth in the five BRICS countries, a set of data was
to establish the infrastructure of green economic growth for resources gathered from 1992 to 2014 consistent with available data. Data for
and environmental protection especially in terms of energy transforma- CO2 emissions measured in per capita, production-based CO2 emissions,
tion (Song et al., 2019). Therefore, green technological innovation, re- and environmental-related technologies are obtained from OECD statis-
newable and non-renewable energy usage are of importance to tics (OECD, 2019). Renewable energy includes hydro, geothermal, solar,
explain the green growth path. wind, tide, and wave sources, and non-renewable energy consist of coal,
Based on the premises above, understanding the role of environ- gas, petroleum, and others. Both renewable and non-renewable energy
mental technologies in green growth in the wide spectrum is crucial usage is calculated as a ton of oil equivalent. The data for renewable and
for designing policies and decision-making. Most of the earlier work non-renewable energy is retrieved from the databank of Energy Infor-
has focused on the role of technologies in environmental pollution mation Administration (EIA). All the data was taken in per capita values
(see Table 1). This study, however, presents a unique inquiry on the re- and converted to their natural logarithmic form to get more efficient es-
lationship between environmental technologies, renewable and non- timations by eliminating scaling differences of series and normalizing
renewable energy consumption and green growth in Brazil, Russia, them.
India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) countries. As underlined above, Modern economic growth literature has inspired us to investigate
although this relationship has been remarked by modern economic the effects of environmental technologies, renewable and non-
growth theories as well, there is a gap in the current literature since renewable energy usage on the green growth process, and select data
available research has focused on the role of technology in pollution for them. For instance, Aghion et al. (2016) underline the importance
mitigation but not green growth. So, the study is expected to contribute of environmental taxes and patents to direct technological change so
to the literature in several ways. First, among existing studies none of as to decrease non-renewable source usage and increase renewables
them have considered the role of environmental technologies in green for emission mitigation. Similarly, mitigation of carbon emissions is
growth for BRICS countries in particular, to the best of author's knowl- the focal point of Acemoglu et al. (2016) as well in the understanding
edge, this study is first of its kind that synthesizes the role of environ- of green growth.
mental technologies, renewable energy and non-renewable energy in
explaining green growth. Second, previous studies, have employed tra- 2.3. Model
ditional econometric approaches to investigate research hypotheses
and traditional methodologies may produce biased, inconsistent, and The study of Grossman and Krueger (1995) agrees that endogenous
inefficient results due to serial correlation, heteroscedasticity, cross- change in the technology will minimize the costs of reaching targets of
sectional dependence, endogeneity, and presence of regressors with dif- carbon emission reduction. Modern growth theories as well, have re-
ferent integration levels, i.e., I(1), I(0) (Choi, 2015). The econometric vealed the role of directed technological change through patents, inno-
tools adopted in the study, such as Cup-FM and Cup-BC approaches, ac- vations, and taxes to establish a sustainable growth path (Acemoglu
count for the issue of cross-sectional dependence, serial correlation, et al., 2016, 2012; Aghion et al., 2016). So, the technological innovation
endogeneity, heteroscedasticity, and they produce unbiased, consistent, level is contemplated as a crucial aspect that influences CO2 emissions
and efficient estimations. They also produce robust results in the pres- (Wang and Wei, 2019). On the other hand, the assessment of the envi-
ence of I(1) and I(0) factors and/or regressors (Bai et al., 2009). So, ronmental impact of technologies on environmental pollution is vague.
 Danish, R. Ulucak / Science of the Total Environment 712 (2020) 136504 3

Table 1
List of studies on technological development and CO2 emissions.

Authors Country Time Methods Key findings

Ganda (2019) 25 OECD 2000–2014 GMM approach Renewable energy and R&D reduce carbon emissions
countries
Jordaan et al. (2017) Canada 1974–2014 Review of literature Spending in R&D via capital expenditure mainly emphasized on
non-renewable energy.
Lin and Zhu (2019a) China's 30 2000–2015 The dynamic panel Intensive CO2 emissions encourage technological innovation in the renewable
provinces regression model energy sector meaning that innovation is determinantal to climate change.
Gu et al. (2019) China's 30 2005–2016 GMM approach An inverted U-shaped relationship is found between technological progress
provinces and CO2 emissions and between energy consumption and CO2 emissions.
J. Chen et al. (2019) China's 30 2005–2014 Logarithmic mean Divisa Overall China's technological progress ate the domestic level lessen CO2
provinces index method, emissions.
W. Chen and Lei (2018) Global 30 1980–2014 Panel quantile regression Technological innovation influence CO2 emission in high emitting countries
countries
Yin et al. (2015) China 2000–2012 GLS method of random Strict environmental regulation control emission and technological
effect advancement tend to reduce carbon emission over time.
Balsalobre et al. (2015) 28 OECD 1994–2010 Panel fixed effect R&D reduces GHGs
countries
Sohag (2019a) OECD 1987–2017 Cross-sectional The effect of technological innovation on carbon emissions is marginal
countries autoregressive distributed
lags method
Lin and Zhu (2019b) China 2000–2015 Linear regression method Renewable energy technological innovation has a positive role in climate
change mitigation
S. Wang et al. (2019) China 2001–2013 Quantile regression The heterogeneous effect of technological progress in various sector on CO2
approach emission is observed
Jiao, Jiang, & Yang (2018) 29 Provinces of 2000–2013 Fixed effect method R&D technology spill overs inhibit CO2 emissions
China
Alvarez-Herranz, 17 OECD 1990–2012 Panel Least Squares Method The energy innovation process has positive effect on pollution reduction
Balsalobre-Lorente, Shahbaz, & countries
Cantos (2017a)
Koçak & Ulucak (2019) 19 OECD 2003–2015 Pooled OLS and The disaggregate effect of energy innovation on pollution reduction is
countries system-GMM concluded
Alvarez-Herranz, Balsalobre, 28 OECD 1990–2014 Generalized least square Energy innovation measures correct pollution over time
Cantos, & Shahbaz (2017b) countries method
Mensah et al. (2018) 28 OECD 1990–2014 STIRPAT & ARDL Innovation plays an important role in mitigation of carbon emissions
countries
Dauda, Long, Mensah, & Salman BRICS, G-6 & 1990–2016 FMOLS & DOLS Innovation reduces CO2 emissions in G-6 countries, but increases in MENA and
(2019) MENA BRICS countries
countries
Mensah, Long, Dauda, Boamah, & OECD 1990–2015 ARDL & OLS Trade mark and eco-patents lessen CO2 emissions
Salman (2019a) countries

Note: RE = Renewable energy; R&D = research and development; ARDL = Auto-regressive distributive lag model; FMOLS = Fully modified ordinary least square; DOLS = Dynamic or-
dinary least square; OLS = Ordinary least square.

Technological progress reduces carbon emissions by increasing energy as a dependent variable in Model 2.
efficiency, but efficiency improvements increase resources and energy
demand, resulting in that technological development increases CO2 ln ðPbCO2it Þ ¼ β0 þ β1 ln ðERTit Þ þ β2 ln ðREC it Þ þ β3 ln ðNREC it Þ
emissions through the rebound effect (Wang and Wei, 2019). Generally, þ ε it ð2Þ
technological progress is considered to efficient tool in emission mitiga-
tion but one should consider that technological improvement may in- where PbCO2 is production-based carbon dioxide emissions and ε is a
crease carbon emission through the rebound effect (Gu et al., 2019). random error term.
Therefore, the effect of technological innovation on carbon emission re-
duction is slightly marginal via energy efficiency (Sohag et al., 2019a). 2.4. Methods
Following the empirical model constructed by Mensah et al. (2019b),
the essence is to explore the role of environmental-related technologies Before proceeding the estimation of Models 1 and 2, some prelimi-
that have promoted green growth in totality and production based- nary tests such as cross-correlation, unit root, and cointegration should
emissions. be applied to select an appropriate estimator (Choi, 2015). During the
analysis process of panel data, the issue of cross-sectional dependence
is commonly observed, and it should be initially checked (Pesaran,
ln ðCO2it Þ ¼ α 0 þ α 1 ln ðERT it Þ þ α 2 ln ðRECit Þ þ α 3 ln ðNRECit Þ 2015). So, this study starts to analyse by employing a bias-adjusted
þ μ it ð1Þ type of Breusch and Pagan's (1980) Lagrange multiplier and Pesaran's
(2004) methods to observe cross-sectional dependence (CSD). The
null hypothesis of each test implies no CSD. Next, to check whether
where CO2 is carbon dioxide emission, ERT refers to environmental- the data series has unit root or not, the study applies the CIPS unit
related technologies, REC shows renewable energy consumption, and root test proposed by Pesaran (2007a, 2007b), which accounts for the
NREC is non-renewable energy consumption in time t for i cross- CSD issue. Later cointegration test developed by Westerlund (2007) is
sections. Finally, μ is a random error term. used to investigate whether there is a long-run relationship between
Model 1 reconstructed as in Eq. (2) to track the impacts of explana- study variables. This method tests the null hypothesis of “no-
tory variables on production-based carbon dioxide emission since green cointegration” relationship among variables and takes the CSD issue
growth is measured by total and production-based emissions (Mensah into account. Based on the existence of long-run relationship, long-run
et al., 2019b). To this end, production-based emissions are employed parameters in Models 1 and 2 can be estimated through long-run
4 Danish, R. Ulucak / Science of the Total Environment 712 (2020) 136504

coefficient estimators. To his end, the study conducts new estimators has unit root, that is, series is not stationary. Results indicate that all the
developed by Bai et al. (2009) that produce robust estimation, continu- variables have unit root at the level but they turn to be stationary at first
ously updated fully modified (CUP-FM) and continuously updated bias- difference, thereby series is integrated at first order.
corrected (CUP-BC).
The pattern of cross-sectional dependence through the error term 3.2. Panel cointegration results
using panel regression is as in Eq. (3), and assumed to follow a factor
model, i.e., where εit is the stationary error, Table 3 reports the results from the Westerlund's (2007) panel
cointegration test; results reveal that the null hypothesis of no
yit ¼ α i þ βxi;t þ εit ; εit ¼ λ0 F t þ μ it ð3Þ cointegration can be rejected for both Models 1 and 2, signifying the
presence of the long-run equilibrium relationship between green
Ft shows a vector of common factors, λi means corresponding factor growth and its determinants. The confirmation of co-integration allows
loadings, and uit is the idiosyncratic component of the error term. for measuring elasticities of regressors to green growth.
The suggested Cup-FM estimator is developed by estimating the pa-
rameters, covariance matrix, and factor loadings recursively until con- 3.3. CUP-FM and CUP-BC results
vergence is reached. The Cup-FM is defined as:
" !# Table 4 shows that CUP-FM and CUP-BC estimations are consistent
XN X
T   0  0  þ  þ
 
^ ¼
β ^it þ β
y ^ x i;t −X i −T λ ^
β ^
Δ ^
β þ ^
Δ β^ with negligible differences. Results indicate that environmental tech-
cup cup i cup Fεi cup uεi cup
" i¼1 t¼1
#−1 nology has a negative and statistically significant impact on both carbon

N T  0 emission in total and production-based carbon emissions. Considering
 ∑ ∑ xi;t −X i xi;t −X i
i¼1 t¼1 the size of the coefficients, it can be commented as that a percentage in-
ð4Þ crease in environmental-related technology would decrease total car-
bon emissions and production-based carbon emissions by 0.072% and
where ΔFεi and Δuεi are estimated one-sided covariance. 0.060%. Similarly, renewable energy as well contributes to the green
The CUP-FM and CUP-BC methods give a consistent estimator in the growth path. The total carbon emission and production-based carbon
essence of exogenous regressors. Also, CUP-FM and CUP-BC estimator emission will reduce by 0.050% and 0.652% in the case of an increase
applicable in case of mixed integration order, I(1)/I(0) factors, and re- in 1% of renewable energy consumption. The green growth is improved
gressors and generate robust estimation. These approaches are also ro- by renewable energy consumption in BRICS countries. The expected
bust in the presence of endogeneity (Bai et al., 2009) autocorrelation negative sign of renewable energy consumption (ln REC) in both
and heteroskedasticity since they are based on FM-OLS and they follow Models 1 and 2, reveals that renewable energy consumption mitigates
Barlett Kernel procedures (Kiefer and Vogelsang, 2002). Furthermore, carbon emission in totality and production-based carbon emissions as
these estimators have good size and power values for our samples. well. On the other hand, non-renewable energy might not be an alterna-
Due to the best fit for a small sample, the Cup-FM is the most appropri- tive in the green growth path. A 1% increase in non-renewable energy
ate method for this study. Also, these estimators are widely preferred to consumption leads to 0.079% and 0.017% increase in total carbon emis-
perform long-run estimations (Fang and Chang, 2016; Fang and Chen, sions and production-based carbon emissions. This finding corroborates
2017; Ulucak and Bilgili, 2018). the negative role of economic growth that is one of the main reasons ac-
celerating carbon emissions.
3. Analysis of results
3.4. Robustness check
3.1. CD-test and CIPS unit root test
For the purpose of robustness check in the study, we use another
Panel data analysis has both strengths and weaknesses, and empiri- proxy for green growth, that is measured as to decouple economic
cal investigation that employs panel data may face the CSD issue, homo- growth from negative externalities like carbon dioxide damage, net for-
geneity, and serial correlation. To deal with the issue mentioned above, est depletion, natural resource depletion, and emission damage (Sohag
this study uses advanced panel data econometric approaches that han- et al., 2019b) and this alternative presentation of green growth measure
dle CSD, endogeneity and serial correlation. Initially, CD-test is used for is given below:
screening the CSD issue, and results are shown in Table 2. Results are ev-
ident that the null hypothesis of no CSD is rejected. In other words,
GGit ¼ GDPit þ EEit −NRPit −NFDit −CO2it ð5Þ
cross-correlation exists among study variables, and shocks occurring
in one country may spill over to other sample countries. Having ob-
served the CSD issue in the data, the series should be checked for sta- where GG represents green growth; GDP economic growth taken in
tionarity since to decide about the appropriate regression estimation GDP per capita in US dollar (constant 2011); EE is expenditure on edu-
approach. Meanwhile, unit root tests for panel data analysis such as cation; NRP is the monetary value of depleted natural resource rent;
the CIPS unit root test proposed (Pesaran, 2007b), recently get popular- NFD indicates the monetary value of forest depletion; CO2 is the mone-
ity in the literature. The bottom of Table 2 presents the result of CIPS of tary value of carbon dioxide, particulate emissions damage; and i and t
the data series. The null hypothesis of this unit root test is that the series represent cross-sections and time, respectively. The data for the

Table 2
CD-test and CIPS panel unit root tests.

ln (CO2) ln (PbCO2) Ln (GG) ln (ERT) ln (REC) ln (NREC)

CD-test 7.01⁎ [0.000] 6.69⁎,⁎⁎ [0.000] −1.95⁎⁎⁎ [0.051] 1.95⁎⁎⁎ [0.051] 4.33⁎ [0.000] 7.99⁎ [0.000]
Panel unit root tests
CIPS (at level) −1.673 −1.900 −3.708 −5.069 −1.929 −1.197
CIPS (First difference) −3.905 −3.401 −6.134 −6.238 −5.078 −3.577
⁎ Denotes significance level at 1%.
⁎⁎ Denotes significance level at 5%.
⁎⁎⁎ Denotes significance level at 10%.
 Danish, R. Ulucak / Science of the Total Environment 712 (2020) 136504 5

Table 3
Westerlund panel cointegration test.

Gτ Ga Pτ Pa

Model 1 −3.598⁎ [0.011] −11.600⁎⁎ [0.863] −6.790⁎⁎⁎ [0.087] 1.397 [0.919]

Model 2 −3.280⁎ [0.007] −14.026 [0.165] −8.049⁎ [0.000] −15.360⁎ [0.004]
⁎ Denotes significance level at 1%.
⁎⁎ Denotes significance level at 5%.
⁎⁎⁎ Denotes significance level at 10%.

above-aforementioned factors are retrieved from the databank of the concluding from empirical outputs of this study, are confirmed by ad-
world development indicator (WDI, 2018). vanced panel data estimators. This confirmation is supported by previ-
The model specification for green growth (robustness check) is ous studies (Chen et al., 2019). This is corroborated with some factors
given as follow: of technologies like the efficiency of production equipment and the
transformation of energy structure is helping in carbon emissions re-
ln ðGGit Þ ¼ α 0 þ α 1 ln ðERT it Þ þ α 2 ln ðRECit Þ þ α 3 ln ðNRECit Þ þ ξit ð6Þ duction. The innovative environmental measure allows the advance-
ment of technology, particularly in environmental technologies.
where GGit represents green growth and ξit is the randomly distributed Progress in energy technologies related to the environment increases
error term. Before proceeding estimations of long-run coefficients, sta- the share of clean energy in the energy mix and reduces energy inten-
tionarity of GGit at the first difference and cointegration relationship in sity. Meanwhile, the effect of energy technological progress on CO2
Eq. (6) are confirmed by Pesaran's (2007a, 2007b) and Westerlund's emissions is determinantal but it may appear gradually. Since the effi-
(2007) approaches. Then CUP-FM and CUP-BC estimators are conducted ciency of production equipment, due to energy technology, greatly in-
on the alternative model observing the green growth and results are re- creases production efficiency, new energy technology developments
ported in Table 5. The findings confirm that environmental-related promote sustainability. In the development process of environmental
technologies (ln ERT) has negative and significant effect on green technologies, fossil fuel combustion is replaced by new energy sources
growth, meaning that advancements in environmental technologies up to some extent, and carbon emissions alleviate in turn. Another plau-
contribute to increasing the green growth. The impact of renewable en- sible reason is improving the protection by environmental regulatory
ergy consumption (ln REC) on green growth is negative and significant, mechanisms as well. However, the regulatory processes for environ-
suggesting that renewable energy consumption promotes green mental degradation may not be fruitful by itself and it should be sup-
growth. However, the effect on non-renewable energy consumption ported by the technical progress as well (Gu et al., 2019). In order to
has a positive and statistically significant coefficient. It means that support the technological process, technological innovations are essen-
non-renewable energy impedes green growth. Hence, one can verify tial especially in the promotion of energy conservation, reducing carbon
that alternative representations of green growth are consistent for the emission by trading off carbon-emitting fossil fuels for renewable en-
impact of environmental-related technologies, renewable and non- ergy. Indeed, highlighting the importance of technologies is consequen-
renewable energy. tial for renewable energy development, and development in
technologies improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consump-
4. Discussion tion as well (Silva et al., 2013; Sohag et al., 2015). However, relatively
in higher emission countries likewise China and India, the technological
The main focus of the study is to explore the linkage between envi- development may have a greater negative impact on carbon emission
ronmental technologies, renewable energy, non-renewable energy, and mitigation as compared to lower emission countries through the re-
green growth. As is stated earlier modern economic growth literature bound effect. Rapid economic growth in high emission countries may
has given the inspiration to investigate the effects of environmental consume more energy, since the share of non-renewable energy is still
technologies, renewable and non-renewable energy usage on the dominant in the energy mix of high emitting countries, even if improve-
green growth process (Acemoglu et al., 2016; Aghion et al., 2016), that ment in energy technology improves energy efficiency and enlarges the
underlines directed technological change leading energy efficiency, de- ratio of renewables. So, environmental regulations play a complemen-
creasing non-renewables and increasing renewables as the focal point tary and useful role in technological innovations (Jiang et al., 2019).
of green growth. Based on Cup-FM and Cup-BC estimations, theoreti- In the light of empirical findings, BRICS countries should invest
cally expected relationships are confirmed between study variables. heavily in advanced energy technology to establish a green growth
The possible implication of results can be discussed in several points. path. Especially China, and India should pay more attention to increase
The environmental benefits of green growth in BRICS countries, green technology innovations due to their higher emitting positions.

Table 4
CUP-FM and CUP-BC results.

Regressor CO2 emissions Production-based CO2 emissions

CUP-FM CUP-BC CUP-FM CUP-BC

Co-efficient Co-efficient Co-efficient Co-efficient

[t-values] [t-values] [t-values] [t-values]

ln (ERT) −0.072⁎ −0.060⁎ −0.060⁎ −0.092⁎

[−4.757] [−3.294] [−3.274] [−5.860]
ln (REC) −0.050⁎⁎ −0.028⁎⁎,⁎⁎⁎ −0.652⁎ −0.193⁎
[−2.568] [−2.437] [−14.16] [−12.31]
ln (NREC) 0.079⁎ 0.068⁎ 0.017⁎⁎ 0.023⁎⁎
[3.681] [3.154] [2.658] [2.377]
⁎ Denotes significance level at 1%.
⁎⁎ Denotes significance level at 5%.
⁎⁎⁎ Denotes significance level at 10%.
6 Danish, R. Ulucak / Science of the Total Environment 712 (2020) 136504

Table 5 environmental measures. It is also important to note that high emis-

Robust check results. sions countries such as India and China, need improvement in
Regressor CUP-FM CUP-BC CUP-FM CUP-BC government's environmental measures because carbon emissions in-
Co-efficient [t-values] Co-efficient [t-values]
crease steadily (Chen and Lei, 2018). So, the lesson that can be con-
cluded from the empirical findings of the study is that environmental
ln (ERT) −5.117⁎ −14.44 −5.650⁎ −15.446
technologies, and disaggregate energy consumption has mutual inte-
ln (REC) −0.819⁎ −3.353 −0.630⁎⁎,⁎⁎⁎ −2.493
ln (NREC) 2.483⁎ 7.017 1.270⁎ 3.435 gration in BRICS countries.
⁎ Denotes significance level at 1%.
⁎⁎ Denotes significance level at 5%.
5. Conclusion
⁎⁎⁎ Denotes significance level at 10%.

This study explores the impact of environmental technologies on

green growth by controlling renewable and non-renewable energy con-
Environmental techniques for goods production and processing goods
sumption. The panel data from 1992 to 2016 is analysed through ad-
show positive effects in the BRICS countries and seem to dramatically
vanced econometric methodologies. Pesaran's (2007a, 2007b) CIPS
encourage green growth corroborated as cleaner technologies and ef-
unit root is used to examine the stationarity level and then
fectively tackling environmental concerns. Thus, environmental tech-
Westerlund's (2007) cointegration test employed to determine long-
nologies are helping to cleaner production; as a result, green growth
run equilibrium relationship between study variables. Having con-
occurs. It is worth noting that some green technology inventions are
firmed the cointegration relationship between the study variables that
also dependent on patents rights or intellectual properties (IPs), hence
turn to be stationary at the first differences, more robust panel data es-
their diffusion may be restricted (Mensah et al., 2019b). Overall envi-
timators, Cup-FM and Cup-BC, are conducted to obtain long-run coeffi-
ronmental related technologies are key factors for promoting green
cients. The key results can be summarized as: the environmental
competitiveness.
technologies have a crucial effect to promote green growth. Renewable
Results also indicate that total carbon emissions and production-
energy is also beneficial for green growth. Finally, non-renewable en-
based CO2 emissions related to renewable energy are statistically signif-
ergy consumption hinders green growth. The study also employs an al-
icant with a negative coefficient, suggesting that renewable energy
ternative proxy for green growth and consistent results are produced by
plays a key role in the promotion of green growth. Indeed renewable
the estimators.
energy is one of best alternatives to perform cleaner production, conse-
The results of the study have important policy implications. Environ-
quently pollution reduces (Mensah et al., 2019b). Renewable energy has
mental related technologies reduce total and production-based carbon
great market potential and it is more profitable as well. Renewable en-
emissions that are considered as an indicator of green growth. So, we
ergy development ensures energy security, promotes economic growth
urge more development in environmental-related technologies in
and alleviates poverty. Considering the positive role of renewable en-
BRICS countries. Policymakers should focus on more investment in en-
ergy in cleaner production, the carbon emission in BRICS continuously
vironmental technologies, such as renewable energy technologies and
increasing can be mitigated through energy transformation from non-
more spending on research and development in the clean energy sector
renewables to renewables. Also, It is clear that there is a little share of
with better economic performance. This is expected to ultimately re-
renewable energy in the overall energy mix in BRICS countries, and di-
duce pollution and promote green growth. Investing in more environ-
rected technological change is of importance to increase this low share
mentally friendly technologies or research and development in energy
and spur green growth as is underlined by Acemoglu et al. (2012). A
sector will reduce total and production-based carbon emission as well.
majority of literature findings summarized in Table 1 highlights the im-
Promoting collaboration on development of environmental-related
portance of technological progress to increase renewable energy share
technology will be helpful in addressing global climate change issue
that leads to an increase in economic growth. Renewable energy gener-
and regional pollution.
ation leads to decrease costs and also may result in less external cost,
hence means less environmental pollution (Alam and Murad, 2020).
These BRICS countries should allocate Public budgets for energy re- References
search development and demonstration (RD&D), that is helpful in im-
Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., Hemous, D., 2012. The environment and directed
proving quality of the environment (Balsalobre et al., 2015) and
technical change. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 131–166.
adaptation of cleaner energy process reduce environmental pollution Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U., Hanley, D., Kerr, W., 2016. Transition to clean technology. J. Polit.
(Balsalobre-Lorente et al., 2019). This result coincides with those of Econ. 124, 52–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/684511.
Danish et al. (2019); Danish and Wang (2019) for BRICS and Danish Aghion, P., Dechezleprêtre, A., Hémous, D., Martin, R., Van Reenen, J., 2016. Carbon taxes,
path dependency, and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry.
et al. (2017) for Pakistan and Bekun et al. (2019) in European Union J. Polit. Econ. 124, 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1086/684581.
countries. Alam, M.M., Murad, M.W., 2020. The impacts of economic growth, trade openness and
Finally, the study documents the role of non-renewable energy in technological progress on renewable energy use in organization for economic co-
operation and development countries. Renew. Energy 145, 382–390. https://doi.
green growth experience of BRICS countries and verifies that non- org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.054.
renewable energy consumption blocks green growth. Non-renewable Alvarez-Herranz, A., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Cantos, J.M., 2017a. Energy inno-
energy includes dirty fuels such as oil, gas, petroleum and others vation and renewable energy consumption in the correction of air pollution levels.
Energy Policy 105, 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.009.
which contribute to both CO2 emission in totality and production- Alvarez-Herranz, A., Balsalobre, D., Cantos, J.M., Shahbaz, M., 2017b. Energy Innovations-
based CO2 emission rises. Strikingly, it can be observed that the magni- GHG Emissions Nexus: Fresh Empirical Evidence from OECD Countries. Energy Policy
tude of non-renewable energy is greater than renewable energy, ap- 101, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.030.
Bai, J., Kao, C., Ng, S., 2009. Panel cointegration with global stochastic trends. J. Econom.
proving that the share of non-renewable energy consumption in the
149, 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.10.012.
energy mix is higher as compared to renewable energy. Non- Balsalobre, D., Álvarez, A., Cantos, J.M., 2015. Public budgets for energy RD&D and the ef-
renewable energy cause to increase production-based CO2 emissions fects on energy intensity and pollution levels. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 4881–4892.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3121-3.
as well. More production consumes a large amount of energy due to
Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Driha, O.M., Bekun, F.V., Osundina, O.A., 2019. Do agricultural ac-
outdated technology and consequently carbon emission increases tivities induce carbon emissions? The BRICS experience. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26,
from production. In this way, one can indirectly conclude that economic 25218–25234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05737-3.
performance based on the production increase hinders green growth, Bekun, F.V., Alola, A.A., Sarkodie, S.A., 2019. Toward a sustainable environment: Nexus be-
tween CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU
and this supports our argument that income alone cannot mitigate pol- countries. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lution but may reduce it together with progress in technology and scitotenv.2018.12.104.
 Danish, R. Ulucak / Science of the Total Environment 712 (2020) 136504 7

Breusch, T.S., Pagan, A.R., 1980. The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model Cooperation and Development economies. J. Cleanser Prod. 240, 1–10. https://doi.
specification in econometrics. Rev. Econ. Stud. 47, 239. https://doi.org/10.2307/ org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118204.
2297111. Nikzad, R., Sedigh, G., 2017. Greenhouse gas emissions and green technologies in Canada.
Chen, W., Lei, Y., 2018. The impacts of renewable energy and technological innovation on Environ. Dev. 24, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.01.001.
environment-energy-growth nexus: new evidence from a panel quantile regression. OECD, 2019. Energy Technol. RDD Stat. https://doi.org/10.1787/enetech-data-en.
Renew. Energy 123, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2018.02.026. Pesaran, M.H., 2004. General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels (No.
Chen, J., Gao, M., Ma, K., Song, M., 2019. Different effects of technological progress on 1233), CWPE 0435.
China’s carbon emissions based on sustainable development. Bus. Strateg. Environ., Pesaran, M.H., 2007a. Intertemporal consumption choices, transaction costs and limited
1–12 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2381. participation to financial markets: reconciling data and theory. J. Appl. Econ. 343,
Choi, I., 2015. Panel cointegration. In: Baltagi, B.H. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Panel 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.
Data. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 46–75. Pesaran, M.H., 2007b. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross sectional de-
Danish, Wang, Z., 2019. Does biomass energy consumption help to control environmental pendence. J. Appl. Econ. 22, 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951.
pollution? Evidence from BRICS countries. Sci. Total Environ. 670, 1075–1083. Pesaran, M.H., 2015. Time Series and Panel Data Econometrics. First edit. Oxford Univer-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.268. sity Press, Oxford, UK.
Danish, Zhang, B., Wang, B., Wang, Z., 2017. Role of renewable energy and non-renewable Sandberg, M., Klockars, K., Wil, K., 2019. Green growth or degrowth? Assessing the nor-
energy consumption on EKC: evidence from Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 156, 855–864. mative justi fi cations for environmental sustainability and economic growth through
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.203. critical social theory n a. 206, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.175.
Danish, Awais, M., Mahmood, N., Wu, J., 2019. Effect of natural resources, renewable en- Santra, S., 2017. The effect of technological innovation on production-based energy and
ergy and economic development on CO 2 emissions in BRICS countries. Sci. Total En- CO2 emission productivity: evidence from BRICS countries. African J. Sci. Technol.
viron. 678, 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.028. Innov. Dev. 9, 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2017.1308069.
Dauda, L., Long, X., Mensah, C.N., Salman, M., 2019. The effects of economic growth and Sarkodie, S.A., Adom, P.K., 2018. Determinants of energy consumption in Kenya: a NIPALS
innovation on CO2 emissions in different regions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https:// approach. Energy 159, 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.195.
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04891-y. Sarkodie, S.A., Strezov, V., 2018. Assessment of contribution of Australia’s energy produc-
Fang, Z., Chang, Y., 2016. Energy, human capital and economic growth in Asia Pacific tion to CO2 emissions and environmental degradation using statistical dynamic ap-
countries — evidence from a panel cointegration and causality analysis. Energy proach. Sci. Total Environ. 639, 888–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Econ. 56, 177–184. scitotenv.2018.05.204.
Fang, Z., Chen, Y., 2017. Human capital and energy in economic growth – evidence from Silva, S., Soares, I., Afonso, O., 2013. Economic and environmental effects under resource
Chinese provincial data. Energy Econ. 68, 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scarcity and substitution between renewable and non-renewable resources. Energy
eneco.2017.10.007. Policy 54, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.069.
Ganda, F., 2019. The impact of innovation and technology investments on carbon emis- Sohag, K., Ara, R., Mastura, S., Abdullah, S., 2015. Dynamics of energy use, technological in-
sions in selected organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. novation, economic growth and trade openness in Malaysia. Energy https://doi.org/
J. Clean. Prod. 217, 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.235. 10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.101.
Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1995. Economic growth and the environment. Q. J. Econ. Sohag, K., Kalugina, O., Samargandi, N., 2019a. Re-visiting environmental Kuznets curve:
110, 353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443. role of scale, composite, and technology factors in OECD countries. Environ. Sci.
Gu, W., Zhao, X., Yan, X., Wang, C., Li, Q., 2019. Energy technological progress, energy con- Pollut. Res. 26, 27726–27737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05965-7.
sumption, and CO2 emissions: empirical evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 236, Sohag, K., Taşkın, F.D., Nasir, M., 2019b. Green economic growth, cleaner energy and mil-
117666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117666. itarization: evidence from Turkey. Resour. Policy 63, 101407. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Guo, L. ling, Qu, Y., Tseng, M.L., 2017. The interaction effects of environmental regulation j.resourpol.2019.101407.
and technological innovation on regional green growth performance. J. Clean. Prod. Song, X., Zhou, Y., Jia, W., 2019. How do economic openness and R&D investment affect
162, 894–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.210. green economic growth?—evidence from China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 146,
Jiang, Z., Wang, Z., Zeng, Y., 2019. Can Voluntary Environmental Regulation Promote Cor- 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.050.
porate Technological Innovation? , pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2372 Ulucak, R., Bilgili, F., 2018. A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint mea-
Jiao, J., Jiang, G., Yang, R., 2018. Impact of R & D technology spillovers on carbon emissions surement for high, middle and low income countries. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/
between China’s regions. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 47, 35–45. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191.
10.1016/j.strueco.2018.07.002. UNEP, 2011. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Pov-
Jordaan, S.M., Romo-Rabago, E., McLeary, R., Reidy, L., Nazari, J., Herremans, I.M., 2017. The erty Eradication - A Synthesis for Policy Makers. www.unep.org/greeneconomy.
role of energy technology innovation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions: a case Wang, H., Wei, W., 2019. Coordinating technological progress and environmental regula-
study of Canada. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 78, 1397–1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tion in CO2 mitigation: the optimal levels for OECD countries & emerging economies.
rser.2017.05.162. Energy Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104510.
Kiefer, N.M., Vogelsang, T.J., 2002. Heteroskedasticity-autocorrelation robust standard er- Wang, S., Zeng, J., Liu, X., 2019. Examining the multiple impacts of technological progress
rors using the Bartlett Kernel without truncation. Econometrica 70, 2093–2095. on CO 2 emissions in China: a panel quantile regression approach. Renew. Sust.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3082033. Energ. Rev. 103, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.046.
Koçak, E., Ulucak, Z.Ş., 2019. The effect of energy R&D expenditures on CO 2 emission re- WDI, 2018. World Development Indicator a Database of World Bank 2018. World Bank
duction: estimation of the STIRPAT model for OECD countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development-
Res., 14328–14338 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04712-2. indicators.
Kwon, D.S., Cho, J.H., Sohn, S.Y., 2017. Comparison of technology ef fi ciency for CO 2 emis- WEF, W.E.F, 2016. What is the state of the BRICS economies?. [WWW Document]. URL.
sions reduction among European countries based on DEA with decomposed factors. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/what-is-the-state-of-the-brics-econo-
J. Clean. Prod. 151, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.065. mies/, Accessed date: 30 November 2019
Lin, B., Zhu, J., 2019a. Determinants of renewable energy technological innovation in Westerlund, J., 2007. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 69,
China under CO2 emissions constraint. J. Environ. Manag. 247, 662–671. https://doi. 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.121. Wiebe, K.S., Yamano, N., 2016. Estimating CO2 Emissions Embodied in Final Demand and
Lin, B., Zhu, J., 2019b. The role of renewable energy technological innovation on climate Trade Using the OECD ICIO 2015: Methodology and Results (No. No. 2016/05). OECD
change: empirical evidence from China. Sci. Total Environ. 659, 1505–1512. https:// Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers https://doi.org/10.1787/
doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.12.449. 5jlrcm216xkl-en.
Mensah, C.N., Long, X., Boamah, K.B., Bediako, I.A., Dauda, L., 2018. The effect of innovation World Bank, 2017. World Development Indicators (WWW Document).
on CO 2 emissions of OCED countries from 1990 to 2014. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., Yin, J., Zheng, M., Chen, J., 2015. The effects of environmental regulation and technical
29678–29698 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2968-0. progress on CO2 Kuznets curve: an evidence from China. Energy Policy 77, 97–108.
Mensah, C.N., Long, X., Dauda, L., Boamah, K.B., Salman, M., 2019a. Innovation and CO2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.008.
emissions: the complimentary role of eco-patent and trademark in the OECD econo- Zhang, Y.-J., Peng, Y.-L., Ma, C.-Q., Shen, B., 2017. Can environmental innovation facilitate
mies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05558-4. carbon emissions reduction? Evidence from China. Energy Policy 100, 18–28. https://
Mensah, C.N., Long, X., Dauda, L., Boamah, K.B., Salman, M., Appiah-twum, F., Tachie, A.K., doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.005.
2019b. Technological innovation and green growth in the Organization for Economic