Circular Economy Synergy: Harnessing Green Finance Innovation,

Resource Efficiency, and Zero Carbon Goals

Zi Leo
Wuhan University China: zileo525@gmail.com
Corresponding Author: Zi Leo (zileo525@gmail.com)
Abstract

Resources can be better conserved if manufacturers are seen as change agents. By

implementing a set of efficiency measures, the circular economy seeks to separate economic

development from environmental deterioration, serving as the model for society's operational

model. According to an increasing amount of research, efficiency methods have yet to

conserve energy and resources successfully in the present socioeconomic climate. The impact

of globalization, eco-financing, sustainable development, and carbon emissions on China's

economy from 2011 to 2021 is the subject of this research. Cointegration between variables is

proven in the study by the use of complex estimation techniques. The novel moment quantile

regression method is required because of the unequal distribution of the data. Despite a

positive correlation between economic growth and CO2 emissions, the data show that

globalization hurts regional emissions. Additionally, the data reveals a positive association

between green finance development, economic growth, and CO₂ emissions up to a certain

threshold. Beyond that limit, however, combining the two components dramatically reduces

emissions. The dependability of the models is shown by bootstrap quantile estimation. As

shown in this research, a large portion of the region's carbon emissions come from mineral

extraction, natural gas production, and other similar activities. Building on empirical

findings, this study lays out the policy implications of expanding funding for ecologically

beneficial financing.
Keywords: Circular economy, Carbon Zero-emissions, Green Finance Innovation, Resource

Efficiency

I. Introduction

Rising world consumption and contamination are increasing the world's limited resources.

Ideas like "regenerative design," "industrial ecology," and "cradle to cradle" have been

around since the late 1970s, when they were first proposed as ways to separate economic

expansion from resource usage and pollution. To achieve sustainable financial, social, and

environmental growth, one modern financial model is the circular economy (CE), which

seeks to maximize the economic life of resources and goods by reusing and recycling them as

much as possible (Seroka-Stolka & Ociepa-Kubicka, 2019).

In recent years, climate change has gathered worldwide attention, prompting governments

and groups worldwide to emphasize the need to implement environmentally conscious

economic growth strategies. This expansion can only be sustained if environmentally

conscious financing and moral resource administration unite. The concept of "green finance"

refers to the practice of investing in environmental protection to promote sustainable

development in the economy (Franco, 2019). Concurrently, natural resource aggregation

encourages the concentration of businesses engaged in natural resources mining, processing,

and sales to make the most of regional development and economies of scale. This essay

examines, via a Chinese lens, how green financing and the concentrated use of natural

resources promote ecologically sustainable economic growth (Rossi et al., 2020). We will

read pertinent research and case examples and analyze the underlying theories of these

concepts. Green finance and China's mineral markets will also be assessed. In addition, the

paper will explore the possibilities and obstacles to encouraging green economic

development at the regional level. The premise that financial organizations, such as banks,
may be strong advocates for sustainable growth (also called "green finance") is central to the

argument (Moktadir et al., 2018).

There is a more significant movement to adopt the principles of the circular economy (CE),

of which the notions above are a component. By shifting emphasis to product improvement,

re-equipping, reuse, and re-manufacturing—all with an eye on sustainability—the CE

strategy outperforms conventional recycling in many vital respects (Sharma et al., 2021).

Incorporating waste product use into renewable energy sources is an efficient and practical

part of the CE method to reduce resource consumption. For instance, there is a well-

documented correlation between CE and renewable energy consumption, which reduces

pollution in the long run (Ritzén & Sandström, 2017). Countries that have embraced the CE

model have been able to coordinate both financial and environmental growth, which has

brought the approach a lot of attention lately. Governments and non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) have both advocated for the CE. For instance, the CE approach's

emphasis on expanding growth and producing significant societal benefits has led the Ellen

MacArthur Foundation to advocate for its inclusion (Bhakta Sharma et al., 2021).

All resources, especially those derived from natural sources, must be distributed and used

effectively for a green recovery to materialize. Having access to natural resources is crucial to

societal and economic growth. However, these natural assets have been exhausted and made

useless due to intensive extraction and exploitation practices, which have increased pollution,

decreased ecological sustainability and boosted emissions of greenhouse gases (Wuni &

Shen, 2022). Improved use of natural resources is crucial to a "green recovery" that can be

achieved. Overexploitation and unsustainable consumption practices by humans are depleting

natural resources. As a result, the ability of NR to organize and oversee their use is crucial.

The correlation between NRU and quicker green economic growth demonstrates NRU's

positive influence on ecological recovery and creating more resilient social and
environmental systems. A more rapid rate of green economic growth is anticipated to be

driven by rising consumption of renewable energy sources and better energy use (Dey et al.,

2020).

Research indicates that NRU can only be advanced via GR, IGT, or industry green

transformation. Relying on renewable resources, implementing state-of-the-art equipment and

infrastructure, embracing energy-saving industrial techniques, preserving natural resources,

and reducing emissions are the main ways that GR supports NRU (Belmonte-Ureña et al.,

2021). The main ways in which IGT helps NRU are by improving green industrial structures,

decreasing resource misallocation, finding new energy sources, and using resources.

Additionally, business venture success over the last 30 years has skyrocketed compared to the

early days of globalization (Ubando et al., 2020). The proportion of GDP attributable to

imports and exports increased from 23% in 2011 to 58.2% in 2021, as reported by the World

Bank. Much empirical evidence suggests that "comparative advantage" is the driving force

behind global commerce flows. But when asked what's driving up CO2 emissions,

environmentalists almost always blame a flourishing economy and more international trade.

Several research investigations demonstrate that trade enhances productivity and

effectiveness when considering the whole global economic system. Developed countries'

efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions via international trade face many obstacles

(Kirchherr et al., 2017a).

In some cases, environmental degradation occurs due to increased productivity and

profitability brought about by the convergence of technological and scale effects. The

combined effects of pollution regulations and capital-labor dynamics, which have already

shown their ability to impact the natural landscape of developed countries positively, worsen

globalization's impact on the environment. Despite globalization's tremendous environmental

impact, the precise effect on CO₂ emissions, particularly in China's economy, requires further

research and policy-level attention (De Pascale et al., 2021).

Environmental recovery solutions are standard; however, several studies have shown that GR

is the best. Common goals of this endeavour include advancements in renewable energy

research and development and implementation and increases in environmentally adjusted

multifactor productivity (Behl et al., 2023). Especially when contrasted with other wealthy

countries, China's investments in these areas are on the rise. Through the promotion of

technologically upgraded tools, equipment, and resources and the investment in

environmentally responsive sectors, GF and GR promote low-carbon energy procedures in

factories and companies, according to empirical research. The use of sustainable technology,

energy efficiency measures, and renewable energy sources may achieve a decrease in carbon

emissions (Mutezo & Mulopo, 2021).

1.1. Objectives of the research

Examining how globalization affects greenhouse gas release is one of the primary goals of

this research. The current study makes a significant addition to empirical scholarship by

strengthening the link investigated via an extensive database and a focus on developed

countries. This investigation will also shed light on the complex relationship between green

funding and CO₂ emissions during the last 30 years (2011–2021). There have been analyses

of carbon releases, sustainable development, and green finance. There seems to be no

apparent connection between carbon emissions, green growth, and green funding. This article

investigates these connections inside China's economy to address this knowledge vacuum.

1.2. Contributions of the research

Followings are contributions of the research,

 1) Firstly, green development, environmental deterioration, and financial growth are

intricately linked, and this research delves extensively into them. It stresses that

resource usage and pollutant emissions should be used to generate revenue to assess

Green Growth.

2) Secondly, at the same time, it acknowledges that releases of greenhouse gases are a

significant contributor to the acceleration of global warming. An interesting angle

from which to view the interplay between the process of globalization, green finance,

and the release of carbon dioxide is via the lens of China's economic outlook from

2011–2021. The unique moment quantile regression approach is introduced to handle

asymmetric data distribution, and cointegration between variables is established

utilizing complex estimating methods.

3) Thirdly, the findings provide light on the intricate relationship between economic

growth, globalization, and their effects on the environment. Green funding, economic

development, CO₂ emissions, and threshold impacts after emission reductions are all

brought to light by the study. The research and model's reliability and validity are

confirmed by bootstrapping quantile estimates.

4) Lastly, to achieve sustainable development while preserving the environment, more

investment in green finance must be made. Beyond quantitative analysis, the study

reveals mineral and fossil fuels as essential contributions to regional carbon dioxide

emissions.

2. Literature review

2.1. Analyzing Past Research

Potential engines of green economic development, natural resource aggregating, and green

financing have recently seen increased focus. By examining relevant literature and case

studies, this study seeks to understand these ideas' present and future state in China. The idea
behind green finance is that banks and other financial companies can better promote

sustainable growth and environmental protection if they use their resources to back projects

that benefit the environment (Durán-Romero et al., 2020a). By directing private capital into

environmentally responsive projects, "green finance" promotes economic expansion, job

creation, and long-term economic stability. By fostering new technology and decreasing

dependence on fossil fuels, green investments may spur economic growth, according to

academic study. One challenge to green finance in China is the need for more stakeholder

understanding, which is especially true in developing countries and might slow the adoption

of environmentally conscious methods and the mobilization of private resources (de Jesus et

al., 2019).

Natural resource agglomerating is another emerging trend; it's a way for companies with

resources to band together and take advantage of regional growth and efficiencies of scale.

The benefits of pooled resources, information sharing, and new ideas are the base of this

approach. Research has shown that concentrated resources may spur regional growth by

luring more investment, new ideas, and productivity from outside sources (Jinru et al., 2022).

Similarly, China's fast industrialization leads to the combination of natural resources, which

may boost industrial growth and employment. To achieve sustainable results via actual

execution, addressing environmental consequences and setting up robust governance

frameworks are necessary (Jinru et al., 2022).

A "green recovery" is being considered as a potential solution to the world's current

problems. Reviving the economy and solving the urgent issue of sustainable development are

the two main objectives of this plan. At the core of a green recovery is the idea of effective

and sustainable resource utilization, which may be the basis for a more resilient and

ecologically responsible future (Betancourt Morales & Zartha Sossa, 2020). The use of

resources includes the efficient use of land, water, energy, and minerals. There is a lengthy
history of wasteful resource use, environmental degradation, and inefficiencies with these

approaches. Given the critical importance of a green recovery, we must reassess our

relationship to these invaluable assets (Fan et al., 2019).

Many critical factors must be considered to ensure efficient resource utilization and

accomplish a green recovery. Transitioning from a consumption-based to a consumption-

based economy is essential for sustainable resource management. By making the most of

what already exists, a circular economy reduces the amount of material that goes to waste and

the damage it does to the environment (Alavi et al., 2021). Access and service-based models

have replaced product ownership as the primary focus, and items are now designed to be

recyclable. Increasing our use of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and

hydropower may help us become less reliant on nonrenewable fossil fuels. Greenhouse gas

emissions and other negative social and environmental impacts of resource extraction are

mitigated by this change. Particular care must be taken with agriculture because of the

abundance of resources it uses (Howard et al., 2019). Actions that are not ecological have the

potential to cause soil degradation and water pollution. Sustainable agriculture, agroforestry,

and reduced chemical pesticide usage are sustainable methods of farming that should be

promoted as part of a green recovery to ensure sustainable food supply and environmental

well-being (Agarwal et al., 2022).

A powerful technique for promoting the green economy that intersects with these ideas is the

integration of resource concentrations and green financing. The shift to sustainable practices

by resource-related enterprises may be significantly aided by green financing, and the

collection of natural resources can spur regional growth and foster collaboration towards

common sustainability objectives (Tseng et al., 2018). Notable research includes efforts to

show how these ideas work together to improve green economic development. China's

initiatives in this field show how renewable energy and other green economic sectors may
benefit from green financing and resource aggregating (Pactwa et al., 2020). The promise has

its challenges, however. For example, there's a need for open systems to fight financial

misdeeds and promote responsibility, and there's a natural conflict between protecting the

environment and fostering economic growth (Zhu et al., 2010). With its growing renewable

energy landscape and plenty of natural resources, China still has a lot of room to grow its

green economy despite these challenges. To make the most of this opportunity, we must build

legal frameworks, raise stakeholder awareness, and encourage lawful collaboration toward

common sustainability objectives, among other things (Pavloudakis et al., 2021). It is crucial

to find a way to navigate these complications while maximizing the combined advantages of

green finance and natural resource gathering if China wants to steer its economic destiny in a

sustainable and resilient direction (Kirchherr et al., 2017b).

More and more, governments see green financing as a key to reaching their carbon neutrality

targets in the face of the pressing issue of the rapidly growing release of carbon. While

previous research has shed light on carbon emissions caused by manufacturing, there is an

immediate need for a thorough investigation of the intertwined nature of carbon released and

green financing. Expressly, we have provided empirical evidence that GR reduces CO2

emissions (Pregowska et al., 2022). New information suggests it helps reach carbon

impartiality targets, adding to this ongoing discussion. Green bonds and green research and

development are two forms of green funding that spur the use of renewable energy (Gigli et

al., 2019). The global environment is characterized by nations' growing commercial

interactions and cross-border activity. But being an active part of globalization makes people

worry about how it will affect the environment in the future. Scholars have recently explored

this aspect using various economic approaches, such as panel data analysis and time series

research (Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2019).

Careful management of water resources is essential for a long-term recovery. To address the

growing issue of water scarcity, we must implement measures to save water, improve

irrigation practices, and increase investment in sanitation and recycling. Care for and repair

of natural ecosystems are cornerstones of resource sustainability. Environmental services are

vital to human prosperity, and biodiversity is the key to their supply (Rizos et al., 2016).

Efforts to recover environmentally should revolve around protecting and enhancing

biodiversity. Effective resource management relies on recycling resources and disposing of

rubbish in an environmentally conscious way. Not only does this include domestic waste, but

it also encompasses industrial waste and old electronics (Atabaki et al., 2020). The "reduce,

reuse, and recycle" mantra must be widely disseminated. Reducing energy use requires smart

city planning and sustainable transportation. Compact, walkable communities with

dependable public transportation may reduce energy use and vehicle ownership. Green

technology research and development must get significant funding if resource effectiveness is

to be achieved (V. Kumar et al., 2019). Innovations in energy storage, materials science, and

industrial techniques that minimize waste are crucial for building a more sustainable

economy. Sustainable land management practices like reforestation are essential for

mitigating climate change and preserving biodiversity (Kuo et al., 2019).

Find that CO₂ emissions rise as a result of globalization by using a variety of statistical

methods. Research like this shows that polluting products and services exported to other

regions increase emissions. As they traverse the intricate landscape of economic growth and

sustainability, authorities must thoroughly understand the interdependencies between

globalization and its environmental effects (Ghisellini et al., 2016). In light of the critical

issue of rapidly growing carbon emissions, green financing is being embraced by more and

more countries as a crucial tactic to attain carbon neutrality targets. While previous research

has shed light on carbon emissions caused by industry, the intricate connection between the
release of carbon and GHG has yet to be thoroughly investigated (B. Kumar & Verma,

2021a). New data from studies shows that green financing helps get us closer to our carbon

neutrality targets faster, lending credence to this claim. This is where it comes into play, with

green bonds and green R&D being named as the two most important factors pushing for the

widespread use of renewable power. There is excellent international trade and investment in

today's global economy (Mak et al., 2020).

Nevertheless, being active in globalization raises worries about how it can impact the

environment's well-being. This dimension has been extensively studied in the past few years

in academia using various econometric approaches, such as panel data analysis and time

series analysis. Research shows that pollution-heavy products and services are more likely to

be transferred internationally, increasing emissions in some regions. When navigating

economic growth and sustainability, policymakers must fully understand the connection

between globalization and environmental damage (Guarnieri et al., 2020).

The importance of educating the public about the need to conserve resources and utilize them

responsibly cannot be overstated. Make educated choices in your daily life and fight for

policy changes with active people's support. They may help stabilize and sustain the economy

if included in a green recovery strategy (Kristensen et al., 2021). Using this approach has

several benefits. Minimizing resource exploitation, reducing emissions, and improving

ecosystem services are all important for a healthy planet. In turn, this mitigates the impact of

climate change while protection natural ecosystems. When governments and businesses save

costs on resources, it could help them weather financial storms better. Additionally, green

industries contribute to economic growth and job creation (Milousi & Souliotis, 2023).

We can better treat everyone equitably if we encourage underrepresented groups to join the

green economic resurgence. As part of this effort, we must promote the establishment of

training and employment programs tailored to the green sector. Reducing pollution and
conserving resources may improve public health, save healthcare costs, and increase well-

being (Yontar, 2023). Countries that take the lead in green recovery, energy security, and

efficient resource utilization may influence global environmental accords and policies. In

conclusion, maintaining natural capital should be a top priority throughout a green recovery.

This is important from an ethical and ecological standpoint. A circular economy, renewable

energy, and ethical methods for handling resources are essential to overcome the here-and-

now challenges (Farooque et al., 2019). A better, more sustainable future is within reach if

we uphold our promise of a green recovery that prioritizes economic growth with

environmental preservation. What we do now will determine the standard of living for

decades, so let us do our part to ensure a sustainable, resilient, and environmentally friendly

planet (Bocken et al., 2016).

2.2. The theoretical structure

As shown by resource rents, green innovation, and finance are essential for a green recovery.

This concept has a solid theoretical foundation in several vital notions. Green innovation is

necessary to reevaluate conventional approaches to economic growth. New technology,

processes, and goods are created and used to lessen their negative environmental impact.

According to this line of thinking, innovation may play a pivotal role in the fight for a green

recovery by increasing economic growth and decreasing resource usage and emissions (Dey

et al., 2022).

Furthermore, green finance is essential for acquiring funds for eco-friendly endeavors.

According to proponents of "green finance," investments should go toward projects and

businesses that do less environmental damage. Redirecting funds to create a low-carbon,

resource-effective economy is known as "green financing," it has the potential to speed up the

transition to a green recovery. Analyzing natural resource rents is necessary for

comprehending the connection between resource use and sustainability (Kundu et al., 2022).
Incorporating the ecological implications of mining and use into an accurate evaluation of

natural resources is central to the theoretical framework's emphasis on responsible and

environmentally conscious resource management (Rosa et al., 2019). Another point made by

the concept of a green rebound is the need to separate economic growth from resource use.

The idea is based on the premise that a "circular economy," which aims to preserve and reuse

resources, might be able to end the correlation between economic expansion and depletion of

natural resources. In the grand scheme of things, this shift benefits Earth (Betancourt Morales

& Zartha Sossa, 2020).

The study of rents from natural resources, green finance, and green innovation are all

significantly advanced by government regulations and rules. According to the theory, well-

structured laws and regulations may encourage individuals and businesses to engage in

sustainable practices (Nußholz, 2017). To facilitate a green recovery, specific measures are

necessary. Concepts such as resource effectiveness, sustainability, and decoupling economic

growth from environmental deterioration provide the theoretical groundwork for innovative

green ideas and green recovery funding. These suggestions will propel our economy towards

a more environmentally friendly future.

3. Methodology

3.1.2. The model and the variables

To test this hypothesis, this research primarily uses the GDP index. Multifactor productivity

enhancement that is ecologically adjusted is used by GI. Information pertinent to these factors

is gathered from the OECD database. This research broadens the scope of previous analyses

by including GDP growth (in unchanged dollars from 2015) as an additional variable. This

endeavor verifies the GF model experimentally. Collaboratively, these steps provide future

models, which provide the groundwork for thorough empirical research. This research

primarily uses the GDP indicator to analyze this link experimentally.

At the same time, GI is evaluated by looking at how well various factors contribute to

environmentally balanced economic development. Information pertinent to these factors is

gathered from the OECD database. The study utilizes the GF and GI squared versions to

investigate the accuracy of Kuznets Curves' environment. This endeavour aims to reproduce

the GF model and the GI technique experimentally (Münch et al., 2022). Collaboratively,

these steps provide future models, which provide the groundwork for thorough empirical

research. To test this hypothesis, this research primarily uses the GDP index. In this study, we

look at GF and GI through the lens of the EKC paradigm. Research and development

spending on renewable energy (GF) is a percentage of total energy public RD&D spending.

Environmental modified multifaceted expansion of productivity measure GI. Information

pertinent to these factors is gathered from the OECD database.

CO 2 ,¿=φ +γ GDP −γ GI
0 1 ¿ 2 ¿ +γ3 NRU ¿ −γ 4 GF¿ +ε ¿ ¿ (1)

CO 2 ,¿=φ +γ GDP −γ GI
0 1 ¿ 2 ¿ +γ3 NRU ¿ −γ 4 GF¿ +ε ¿ ¿ (2)

3.2. The approach to data and estimation

The data used in the research were collected between 2011 and 2021. As a first step in

estimating empirical information, descriptive statistics are used to summarize the data from

the study. This is accomplished by using the normalcy test. These features set this exam apart

and make it famous: According to the null theory, which states that the data follow a standard

distribution, the estimations of skewness and The Kurtosis should be close to zero.

( )
2
N 2 ( K −3 )
JB= S + (3)
6 4

Examining the features of panel data is the main aim of this research. Both the Panel of

Cross-Section Dependency and the Coefficient of Slope Heterogeneous are essential

components to consider while assessing the normalcy of the data. Demonstrate that when
problems with slope uniformity occur, the effectiveness and openness of analyzing panel data

may be impaired (Maione et al., 2022). The Coefficients of Slope Heterogeneous method,

developed to tackle this problem, is used in this work. The evaluation of panel data is made

more accessible by the CSH method, which considers and reduces the impact of slope

heterogeneity.

Δ́ CSH =√ N ( 2 k ) ( N Ś−K ) (4)

−1 −1

Δ́ CSH =√ N ( 2 k ) ( N Ś−K ) (5)

−1 −1

The slope heterogeneity measure in the first equation is represented by its estimated amount.

There is a total of N observations in the dataset. The economics model has k variables that are

autonomous (or "regressors"). This value represents the square root of all the remainders in

the regression investigation. K is the number of individuals or cross-sectional regions in the

panel data—slope heterogeneous coefficient approximation given by this calculation

(Tisserant et al., 2017). The coefficient of variability measure in panel statistical analysis is

the relationship between the slopes of the different cross-section units.

Addition, the coefficient of Slope Heterogeneous, is the expected value in the second method.

"N" stands for the sum of all observations. T stands for the total amount of periods in the

panel statistics. K is the number of entities or cross-sectional areas in the panel data. Stands

for the total of the squared residuals in a regression study. The ACSH, or Adjusted

Coefficients of Slope Variation, may be approximated using this formula. This coefficient

considers the variables in the initial equation and the total quantity of periods (T).

Potential effects on empirical studies: the Panel of Cross-Section Dependencyy. Let's get into

the description of the content. China can provide services and goods that are important on a

worldwide scale because it participates in trade and internationalization. Because of this,

many countries develop economic specializations. Empirical research might provide

consistent findings if the problem of cross-sectional dependency in panel statistics

examination is addressed (B. Kumar & Verma, 2021b). Your research used the Panel of

Cross-sectional Dependencyy test, which was created to address this possible problem. The

goal of this test is to fix whether the chosen economies show any signs of cross-sectional

dependency, meaning that there are common causes that affect variables across various units

(such as nations or regions).

N−1 N
√ 2T
CD Test = 1 /2 ∑ ∑ T ik(6)
[ N ( N−1 ) ] i=1 k=1+i

The computed value of the Cross-Section Dependency (CD) test parameter is this to find out

whether your panel dataset variables significantly depend on each other across time points

with this tool. T, the number of periods that make up your panel data. N: This variable

represents the total number of entities, nations, or other cross-sectional factors that comprise

your panel data. It represents the summation sign. For different values of 'i' and 'k,' you must

summarize certain concepts in this context. The parameters for each period and cross-

sectional unit are probably included in this matrix. The CD test result is normalized with its

help. (N-1) Γ(i = 1) N times the product of Γ(k = 1+i)ˆ The T-ik section is responsible for the

twofold summarization. It takes certain intervals of length 'i' and 'k' to aggregate each

component of the 'T' matrix.

N
1 ά
Gτ =
N
∑ S . Ei ά (7)
i=1 i

N
1 T ά i
G a= ∑
N i=1 ά i (1)
(8)

ά
Pτ = (9)
S . E ( α´ )

Pa=T . ά (10)
This approach clarifies how the factor values impact the dependent's mean and conditioned

variance. For datasets with out-of-the-ordinary distributions of data, quantitative regression is

a lifesaver. Because your data is not normally distributed, this approach is used to explanation

for the non-normalallocation of the data. This novel approach focuses on quantile estimations

and their variability and distributional features. To fully grasp your data's interrelationships

and overall statistical features, you must have this knowledge.

Y ¿ =θi +ϑ R¿ +(δ i + ρ Z ¿ ) μ¿(11)

Z1 =Z 1 (R),1=1, 2 , … , k (12)

Q y ( τ|R¿ )=( θ i+ δ i q ( τ ) ) +ϑ R¿ + ρ Z ¿ q ( τ )(13)

For any value of i from 1 to n, the quantile of a dependent variables y at a certain quantile

level is given by Q_y (|R_it), where R_it is a set of conditions. So, taking into account the

requirements R_it, the cost of the dependent variables y resembles to the quantile that has

been supplied. p_i, this stands for a person-specific intercept word. Each member of the panel

is linked to a constant value. R _i: This stands for a curve coefficient that is exclusive to

every person. It details the several ways in which each panel member relates to the quantile

and the dependent variable (B. Kumar & Verma, 2021a). This is the quantile function; it

takes a distribution of the variable that depends and returns its quantile. The condition R_it's

coefficients is this value. It records how the circumstance affected the quantile of the

dependent variable. The circumstances or variables specific to each individual and period are

known as R_it. Z_it: These are extra factors that interact with the conditions, such as time and

person-specific variables.

mini q ∑ ∑ γ τ (R¿ −(δ i + ρ Z¿ ) q)(14)

i t

γ τ ( A )=(τ−1) AI { A ≤ 0 }+TAI { A> 0} (15)

4. Results and discussion
Before investigating into the actual data, Table 1 provides descriptive statistics. The table

shows that all variables except GI have positive mean, median, and range values. These

indicators in the Chinese economy show rising tendencies throughout the given period, as

shown by their positive values. However, between 2011 and 2021, the GI shows a negative

minimum value, which indicates significant changes. The research determines the standard

deviation for each variable by considering the wide range of values. GDP, CO2 emissions,

GF, and GI standard deviations are the most pronounced. Understanding the range of values

for each variable throughout the given time frame is much easier with this data. Skewness

and kurtosis statistics are used when evaluating the normality of variables. The non-linear

nature of the data distribution is shown by the fact that these metrics' values differ from their

critical values. The normalcy analysis is further validated in this study using the established

normalcy test. At the 1% significance level, this test produces significant estimates for all

variables. This provides strong evidence that the data distribution does not follow a normal

distribution, as seen in Table 2.

Table 1. Descriptive analysis.

CO2 emission GDP NRU GF GI

Mean 1603.801 2.23E+10 89.31342 1.246554 23.46392
Median 572.3490 2.51E+12 90.37536 0.176866 22.35674
Maxi 7617.792 2.01E+11 98.97492 2.930501 60.47144
Mini 521.2022 7.33E+12 65.56445 −1.032923 0.574623
Std-dev 2803.992 4.60E+12 4.683565 0.183182 7.373852
Skew 0.951637 2.137623 −1.063541 −0.246397 1.006863
Kurt 5.099736 4.257801 2.246835 4.040443 4.458566
J-Bera 276.6185 360.2228 63.96517 20.98351 64.90014
Proba. 0.000023 0.000042 0.000054 0.002497 0.000031
Table 2. Coefficients slope of heterogeneousness Statistic.
Model1
The slopes of the homogeneous coefficients Statistic
Δ 20.651*
2
Adj-R 0.974**
Model2
Δ 32.035***
Adj-R2 0.509***
Note that the significance levels are * 10%, ** 5%, and *** 1%...

Model2 Model1 AdjR2

1800 1200 3000
1700
1100
1600 2500
1500 1000
2000
1400 900
1300
800 1500
1200
1100 700
1000
1000 600
900 500
500
800
700 400 0
0 919 1837 2755 3673 0 919 1837 2755 3673 0 919 1837 2755 3673

I1 I2
105 60
55
100
50
45
95
40
90 35
30
85
25
20
80
15
75 10
0 919 1837 2755 3673 0 919 1837 2755 3673

Fig.1. Shows the slopes of the homogeneous coefficients

Two separate models, model1 and model2, concerning the slope of the heterogeneity

coefficient, are shown in the table. For each one-unit shift in the independent variable's value,

the slope of the heterogeneity coefficient measures how much the dependent variable shifts.

With a coefficient slope of homogeneity of 20.651 at the 1% significance level (*), an

unidentified variable is strongly statistically associated with the dependent variable. At the
5% significance level (**), the corrected heterogeneous coefficient has a slope of 0.974,

suggesting a diminished but significant link between the independent and dependent

variables. The model2 results are: It is highly effective, with a coefficient of slope of

heterogeneity of 32.035 at a significance level of 1% (***). There is a substantial 1% (***)

level, and the slope of the corrected variability coefficients is 0.509.

Table 3 shows the association coefficient for the listed variables related to the different cross-

sectional units. Cross-sectional units represent other things or observations in a single instant,

and correlations show the connections between the variables in question. The negative link

between CO2 emissions and GDP is significant, as seen by the correlation value of 19.456.

At the 1% threshold of significance, the *** stands. There is a strong positive link between

NRU and GF, as shown by the correlation value of 33.800. The *** stands for a significance

level of 1% once again. Their 4.35 correlation coefficient sees a favorable association

between CO2 emissions and NRU. At the 1% threshold of significance, the *** stands.

Table 3. shows the correlation between several cross-sectional variables.

correlation amid several cross-sectional variables

CO2 emission GDP
19.456*** 32.505***
NRU GF
33.800*** 32.924***
GI
4.368***
Note that the significance levels are * 10%, ** 5%, and *** 1%...
 140 70000
CO2emission (left)
GDP (left)
NRU (left)
GF (right) 65000
120 GI (left)

60000
100

55000

80

50000

60

45000

40
40000

20
35000

0 30000
1 2
time series by group

Fig.2. Shows the correlation among several cross-sectional variables.

See the stationary assessment in the table, it was based on the Across sections Augmentation

IPS testing. The CIPS testing is used in many analyses of statistics to find out whether a

period of data is static or not. We verified the stativity of these variables using the CIPS

testing. There is no steady state (I (1)) in the results, as demonstrated by the significant

coefficients (***, a one percent significance threshold). Therefore, in order for these factors

to achieve a stationary state, differentiating is required. It was determined if gross domestic

product is a static variable by using the CIPS technique. A possible static state of the

parameter (I (0)) is indicated by the lack of statistical value at a ten percent significance

threshold for the Trends and Consistent in Time indicators. But because the coefficient

number for I (2) is rather large (***), it is likely that the variable is not stable and has to be

distinguished (I (1)) before it gets quiet.

Table 4. CIPS test for stationarity testing.

Variables I (1) I (2)

CO2 emission −3.368***
GDP −1.045 −2.124***
NRU −1.137***
GF −2.106***
GI −3.075***
Note that the significance levels are * 10%, ** 5%, and *** 1%...

I1 I2
105 60

55

100
50

45
95

40

90 35

30

85
25

20
80

15

75 10
0 919 1837 2755 3673 0 919 1837 2755 3673

Fig.3. Shows the results of CIPS test for stationarity testing (I(1),I(2).

Many statistical analyses rely on the CIPS examination to determine whether a period

sequence is fixed. Using the CIPS examination, we checked whether these variables were

static. The findings show that none of them are steady (I (1)) according to the important
values shown by ***. Accordingly, differentiation seems to be necessary for these variables

to reach stationarity. We used the CIPS test to see whether GDP is a stationary variable.

Table 5. displays the results of the cointegration analysis.

Statistic Model1 Model2

values Values of p Values Value of p
H1 −7.163* −0.338 −5.094* 0.001
HΩ −22.791** −0.455 −19.481 0.001
Pα −23.230*** −0.854 −35.018** 0.002
Pβ −34.047*** −0.231 −19.495*** 0.003
Take note that for the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, the corresponding symbols are

***, **, and *.

1800
Model2
Model1

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400
1 2
time series by group

Fig.4. Shows the results of the cointegration analysis (model1,model2)

Table 6: Green financing's environment kuzts curves, according to the MMQR study.
Parameters Position Measure Quantile
Q25 Q50 Q75 Q90
GDP 1.002*** −1.041*** 2.035*** 1.010*** 2.960*** 4.934***
[0.017] [0.011] [0.016] [0.017] [0.024] [0.027]
GI −2.006*** 1.008 −3.006*** −3.002*** −1.006*** −2.006***
[0.001] [0.002] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.003]
GF 1.042** 1.024*** 2.016 1.035** 5.066*** 1.083***
[0.017] [0.007] [0.014] [1.009] [1.019] [1.019]
NRU −2.000*** −1.001*** −1.002* −1.002*** −1.004*** −5.002***
[0.001] [0.002] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001]
CO2 EMISSION −7.001*** 6.482*** −5.423*** −4.096*** −6.528*** −6.213***
[0.201] [0.1233] [0.201] [0.269] [0.347] [0.420]
Take notice that the degrees of significant are * ten percent, ** five percent, and *** one

percent...

environmentKuzts MMQR
45 105

40
100
35
95
30

25 90

20
85
15
80
10

5 75
2011 2929 3847 4765 5683 2011 2929 3847 4765 5683

Position Measure
1200 3000

1100
2500
1000
2000
900

800 1500

700
1000
600
500
500

400 0
2011 2929 3847 4765 5683 2011 2929 3847 4765 5683

Fig.5. Shows the Green financing's environment kuzts curves, according to the MMQR study

(Position, Measure).

Table7. Environment Kuzts curves for MMQR founded study and green development.
Parameters Position Measure Quantile
Q25 Q50 Q75 Q90
GDP 1.976*** −2.033*** 3.006*** 5.984*** 4.936*** 3.915***
[0.017] [0.018] [0.009] [0.017] [0.026] [0.030]
GI 1.061*** −1.012 2.070*** 3.062*** 4.044 5.033
[0.020] [1.009] [0.020] [1.019] [1.030] [0.034]
GF 5.001 −4.002*** 3.001*** 3.000** −4.001 −5.000*
[0.001] [0.002] [1.001] [0.001] [0.001] [0.001]
CO2 emission −8.341*** 1.522*** −7.794*** −5.460*** −1.720*** −4.390***
[1.272] [0.146] [1.264] [3.274] [1.365] [0.424]
Bear in mind that *** 10%, ** 5%, and * 1% are the significance levels.

environmentKuzts MMQR Position

45 105 1200
40 100 1100
35 1000
30 95 900
25 90 800
20 85 700
15 600
10 80 500
5 75 400
2011 2929 3847 4765 5683 2011 2929 3847 4765 5683 2011 2929 3847 4765 5683

Measure Q25 Q50

3000 180 300
170 280
2500
160 260
2000 150 240
220
1500 140
200
1000 130 180
120 160
500 110 140
0 100 120
2011 2929 3847 4765 5683 2011 2929 3847 4765 5683 2011 2929 3847 4765 5683

Q75 Q90
28000 90
26000 80
24000 70
22000 60
20000 50
18000 40
16000 30
14000 20
12000 10
10000 0
2011 2929 3847 4765 5683 2011 2929 3847 4765 5683

Fig.6. Shows the Environment Kuzts curves for MMQR based

Table 8. Test findings for the robustness of the financial environmental Kuznets curves

(BSQR)
Variables Quantile
Q25 Q50 Q75 Q90
GDP 1.090*** 2.087*** 6.990*** 7.931***
−0.005*** −0.004*** −0.011*** −0.004***
GI −5.021 3.012 6.061** 7.015*
GF 1.002 −5.005 −1.002*** −5.002***
CO2 emission −7.936*** −19.172*** −6.711*** −5.992***
Take note that the levels of significance are * 10%, ** 5%, and *** 1%...

Q25 Q50 Q75

180 300 28000
170 280 26000
160 260 24000
150 240 22000
220 20000
140
200 18000
130 180 16000
120 160 14000
110 140 12000
100 120 10000
0 919 1837 2755 3673 0 919 1837 2755 3673 0 919 1837 2755 3673

Q90 CO2emission GDP

90 1.4 130
80 1.35 120
70 110
1.3 100
60 1.25 90
50 80
1.2 70
40
30 1.15 60
20 1.1 50
40
10 1.05 30
0 1 20
0 919 1837 2755 3673 0 919 1837 2755 3673 0 919 1837 2755 3673

NRU GF GI
120 70000 3.4
110 65000 3.2
100 3
90 60000 2.8
80 55000 2.6
70 50000 2.4
2.2
60 45000 2
50 40000 1.8
40 1.6
30 35000 1.4
20 30000 1.2
0 919 1837 2755 3673 0 919 1837 2755 3673 0 919 1837 2755 3673

Fig.7. Shows the financial environmental Kuznets curves (BSQR) with quantiles

Carbon emissions are likely represented by the variable "CO2 EMISSION" in this column.

This column shows the variable "GDP," which probably represents GDP per capita. Here, we

have the column for the variable "NRU," which might represent several energy use and

efficiency metrics. The factor associated with growth is probably denoted by the variable

"GF," found in this column (Spierling et al., 2020). The growth indicator (GI), which this
column may represent, is one such variable. The average value of each variable throughout

the whole dataset is shown in this row. You may find the median (the center value when the

data are sorted) for each variable in this row. Each variable's maximum observed value is

included in this column. The lowest values for all variables that have been observed are

shown in this column. Std-Deviation. You can see how far values are from the mean of any

given variable by looking at its standard deviation.

With this column, we can see how skewed each variable's distribution is. Positive skewness

results in longer right ends, while negative skewness results in longer left ends. Long

conclusions and outliers are indicated by kurtosis more significant than 0. It gives the test

statistic a numerical value. The Jarque-Bera test's value for probability is in this row. In the

absence of a regularly distributed set of data, a low possibility value (usually below a

significance threshold like 0.05) suggests otherwise.

Using the MMQR (Median-Median Quantile Regression) assessment approach, the

Ecological Kuzts Curve for Green Economics is examined in the table. Estimates of location

parameters for each variable at different quantiles (Q,25,50,75,90) are provided in the

"Position" column. You may get approximations of the scalevariables for the exact quantiles

in the "Measure" column. You can see the degrees of significance for the estimations within

the brackets. A*, a **, and a *** denote the ten percent, five percent, and one percent

significance levels, respectively (Li et al., 2022). There is substantial statistical relevance at

the 1% level (***) with an accurate estimation of 3007*** for the Q.25 quantile.

Table 9. The results of the environment Kuzts curves for green development and robust

examination

Parameters Quantiles
Q25 Q50 Q75 Q90
GDP 1.057*** 2.018*** 6.960*** 7.920***
Parameters Quantiles
Q25 Q50 Q75 Q90
GI −0.010*** −3.011*** −1.012*** −5.012***
GF 2.080*** 1.070** 1.042 1.034
NRU 1.001*** 5.000* −1.003 −6.002**
CO2 emission −7.384*** −4.942*** −4.970*** −5.430***
Take notice that the degrees of significant are * ten percent, ** five percent, and *** one

percent...

300 28000
environmentKuzts (left)
Q25 (left)
Q50 (left)
Q75 (right) 26000
Q90 (left)
250

24000

200 22000

20000

150

18000

100 16000

14000

50

12000

0 10000
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600

Fig.8. Shows the environment Kuzts curves for green development and robust examination

Table 10. The Integration Resilience MMQR Models Improves Robust

Parameters Position Measure Quantiles

Q25 Q50 Q75 Q90
GDP 4.972*** 2.013 1.960*** 1.976*** 2.986*** 2.001***
GI 2.029*** −1.006*** 1.038*** 1.030*** 1.020*** 1.015**
Parameters Position Measure Quantiles
Q25 Q50 Q75 Q90
GF 1.102*** 2.010** 1.089*** 2.103*** 1.111*** 2.123***
NRU −1.071*** −1.005 −2.064*** −1.071*** −1.073*** −3.081***
CO2 emission −7.024*** −1.124 −6.912*** −7.031*** −7.136*** −8.242***
Take notice that the degrees of significant are * ten percent, ** five percent, and *** one

percent...

300 28000
MMQRModels (left)
Q25 (left)
Q50 (left)
Q75 (right) 26000
Q90 (left)
250

24000

200 22000

20000

150

18000

100 16000

14000

50

12000

0 10000
2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600

Fig.9. Shows the Integration Resilience MMQR Models

The results of an examination using the Ecofriendly Kuzts Curve, for the Green Growth tool

in conjunction with the Median-Median Quantile Regression (MMQR) technique are shown

in this table. Estimates of location parameters for each variable at different quantiles

(Q,25,50,75,90) are provided in the "Position" column. You may get approximations of the

scale variable for the exact quantiles in the "Measure" column. You can see the degrees of
significance for the estimations within the brackets. Signifying 1%, 5%, and 10%

significance levels are *, **, and ***.

Table shows the results of the Green Economics Ecological Kuznets Curvature's test using

the Bootstrap Quantile Regression (BSQR) method. For each quantile of the relevant

variables, the table estimates the coefficient. The following is an in-depth explanation of each

part of the table. The quantiles represent other portions of the data distribution. One example

is the quantile (Q.25), the 25th percentile in a given distribution. Predicted Values, the table's

cells show coefficient estimates from the robustness test (Sulista et al., 2023). The

coefficients show how the tested variables were related to the result. The statistical

significance of the coefficient values is indicated by the asterisks (***) next to them. The

related p-values are the numbers that appear below the estimated coefficients (e.g., 0.005***,

0.004***). Finding the statistical significance of coefficients is made easier using p-values. A

significance level of 10% is denoted by *, a level of 5% by **, and a level of 1% by ***. At

the 1% confidence level (***), the computed coefficient has a p-value of 0.005***, which is

statistically significant. All three quantiles of GDP (Q,25,50,75,90) have similar p-values and

coefficient estimates.

The Environmental Kuznets Curve as it relates to Green Growth and the results of a

robustness study are shown in the table. Results were obtained via the use of Bootstrap

Quantile Regression, or BSQR. In this table, each row stands for a different variable, and

each column for another quantile (Durán-Romero et al., 2020b). Independent variables: As

shown in the first column, the robustness analysis considers the following variables: GDP,

GI, GF, NRU, and CO2 EMISSION. The quantiles of fifty, seventy-five, and ninety-five

percent are: The quantile-wise estimated coefficients for all variables are shown in these

columns. Each of the four quantiles (Q,25,50,75,90) stands for a unique point in the sample

distribution. The values inside the cells are the projected factors produced from the heftiness
study. Values of coefficients are marked as statistically significant if they are followed by

three asterisks (***). At the one percnt significance level, the quantile q.25 estimation is

1.057***. There is little difference in the percentile estimations of GDP. There is statistically

solid relevance at the one percent confidence level (***) according to the computed constants

for the q.25 quantile, which is 0.010***. The coefficients of variance for the (Q,25,50,75,90)

quantiles of GI are likewise significant at the 1% significance level (***).

Additional robustness findings are provided in this table using the Natural Resilience-MMQR

approach. The table shows estimated position and scale variables for different percentiles of

the variables being considered. Here are the variables: First column: GDP, GI, GF, NRU, and

CO2 EMISSION—the variables that were part of the study. In cases where Quantiles apply,

the variables estimations for different percentiles of the variables are shown in these columns.

The variables estimations signify the data allocation's center of gravity. The scale variables

for each quantile are estimated in these columns (Tisserant et al., 2017). The dispersion or

variability of the data distribution is linked to the scale parameter. Coefficient Estimate: The

values in the table's columns show coefficient estimates from the Natural Resilience-MMQR

study.

5. The conclusion and recommendations for policy

5.1. The conclusion

Rising pollution levels worldwide have recently been a significant problem for the

international community. Industrialized countries produce a disproportionate share of the

world's pollution because of their rapid industrialization. Consequently, these economies

prioritize restoring the environment. This is a significant concern since GDP and

globalization are substantial factors in Chinese economies. The research uses second-

generation stationarity and cointegration studies to find the variables' permanent equilibrium
connection. Since the data is asymmetrical, this research uses the Methods of Moment

Quantile Correlation (MMQR) (Akanbi et al., 2020). Globalization lowers release levels, but

GDP substantially impacts the release of CO2, according to the study. Emissions also rise as

a result of renewable funding and development. All quantiles show that these results are

significant.

5.2. Practical implications

Green innovation and green finance are essential for a green recovery from environmental

concerns, which is necessary for profiting on rents from natural resources. Authorities must

prioritize the promotion and financing of green revolution investigate and growth.

Establishing cooperative systems, tax reductions, and grants to encourage corporations to

finance in ecologically conscious innovations may be essential to attain this aim. Countries

may reduce their dependence on traditional, environmentally harmful resources by promoting

innovation in green energy, waste collection, and resource-efficient technologies.

Governments should also establish robust legal frameworks to encourage private sector

involvement in green initiatives. Pollutant limitations, carbon pricing schemes, and

environment credit trade marketplaces are all measures that may be implemented to promote

greener business practices.

Innovation is critical, but so is easy access to green finance if we want to generate a long-

term recovery. When lawmakers are trying to figure out how to pay for things, they should

prioritize green projects and programs. Green investment accounts, low-interest loans for

environmentally conscious companies, and sustainable bonds may all result from a joint

effort between governments and financial institutions. Investments in eco-friendly

technologies may be incentivized, and investments in industries that harm the environment

can be discouraged by changes to financial regulations. Both economies and the earth would
benefit from these measures if they could redirect investment capital towards greener

alternatives.

Analyzing natural resource rents is the first step since it will show you how to spend and

distribute these funds most effectively. Careful administration of this rent should be the

objective of policy, with the revenues reinvested in sustainable initiatives for the long term.

Sovereign wealth and specialist funds are one-way governments can reinvest resource profits

in green energy and conservation initiatives. It is also critical to establish accountable and

transparent governance procedures to prevent these funds' misuse or mishandling and inspire

trust among the public and investors alike. By smartly using natural resource rents,

innovative green technologies, and readily accessible green finance, nations may achieve

sustainable and resilient recovery while preserving the environment for future generations.

5.3. Implications for Policy

At higher values of these factors, the positive impact becomes negative, and the study's

policy consequences become apparent; this finding lends credence to the Environmental

Kuznets Curves (EKC) phenomena concerning GR and GRF. The results of this work are

supported by non-parametric solid Bayesian coefficient regression (BSQR) methods and

quantile estimates. Evidence from studies of carbon releases and natural resources shows that

mineral and gas rentals are bad for the environment. Regional CO₂ emissions are decreased

via oil rentals. This research suggests strategies that might improve the region's

environmental sustainability based on the data collected.

For example, the research recommends using a greater GDP to push a reorganization of the

industrial sector, considering the positive association between GDP and CO₂ emissions. A

significant reduction in CO2 emissions in the area may be possible due to this change. These

economies should encourage more international commerce and cooperation, particularly in

the renewable energy and eco-friendly innovation sectors. By directing their efforts here, the
region has a good chance of improving the sustainability of the environment and cutting the

release of CO2. The paper highlights green funding and financial growth to achieve

ecological viability and decrease emissions. Noteworthy is that both variables must surpass a

certain threshold before the possible negative consequences become apparent.

The report recommends that these economies put money into projects that increase renewable

energy use, technical advancement, and efficiency in energy usage to fight these issues.

These tactics have the potential to be very efficient in the fight against pollution. When

discussing its shortcomings, it is essential to highlight that the study's scope is confined to

industrialized countries. However, when considering sustainability and green financing from

a more significant viewpoint, China might be an excellent place to start for future studies. We

can learn much about the principles' effectiveness and how to apply them on a bigger scale by

looking at how they work in China.

5.4. Limitations and future research

If you want to know how green technology and green finance drive a green recovery, you

can't use rents from natural resources as a measure. Problematically, these connected

concepts are intrinsically complicated. Achieving a green recovery requires a comprehensive

and well-planned approach due to the many moving components. Research on natural

resource rents, green finance, and environmentally sociable innovations fall within this

category. There are a lot of other factors and externalities at play, making it hard to define

and analyze the specific contributions resources.

Additional obstacles may arise from the natural opposition and instability of existing

financial and economic institutions. Moving towards a green recovery will need significant

changes in how resources are valued, distributed, and dealt with. Traditional banking and

monetary institutions may be reluctant to change, which might slow down the path to the

green recovery that is so desperately needed. To get past this resistance, we need a new set of
laws and regulations and a sea shift in the mindset of the people involved in these systems.

Many unrealized opportunities exist for study into the intricate relationship amid innovative

green technology and green financing during a green recovery. Looking at specific case

studies may help us understand how different governmental measures and economic

mechanisms have encouraged green retrieval and maintainable resource utilization.

Investigating the impact of international agreements and collaboration on green finance for

worldwide green recovery programs is another avenue that can provide valuable results. Last

but not least, the sustainability of these plans may be better understood by looking at resource

rent in addition to the financial and ecological impact of transitioning to a circular economy

over the long run. A complex web of concerns will define sustainability and ecological

awareness; more research in these areas may help shed light on this.

References

Agarwal, S., Tyagi, M., & Garg, R. K. (2022). Restorative measures to diminish the covid-19
pandemic effects through circular economy enablers for sustainable and resilient supply
chain. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 16(3), 538–567.
Akanbi, L. A., Oyedele, A. O., Oyedele, L. O., & Salami, R. O. (2020). Deep learning model
for Demolition Waste Prediction in a circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production,
274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122843
Alavi, B., Tavana, M., & Mina, H. (2021). A Dynamic Decision Support System for
Sustainable Supplier Selection in Circular Economy. Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 27, 905–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.015
Atabaki, M. S., Mohammadi, M., & Naderi, B. (2020). New robust optimization models for
closed-loop supply chain of durable products: Towards a circular economy. Computers
and Industrial Engineering, 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106520
Behl, A., Singh, R., Pereira, V., & Laker, B. (2023). Analysis of Industry 4.0 and circular
economy enablers: A step towards resilient sustainable operations management.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 189, 122363.
Belmonte-Ureña, L. J., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Vazquez-Brust, D., & Yakovleva, N. (2021).
Circular economy, degrowth and green growth as pathways for research on sustainable
development goals: A global analysis and future agenda. Ecological Economics, 185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107050
Betancourt Morales, C. M., & Zartha Sossa, J. W. (2020). Circular economy in Latin
America: A systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6),
2479–2497. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2515
Bhakta Sharma, H., Panigrahi, S., & Dubey, B. K. (2021). Food waste hydrothermal
carbonization: Study on the effects of reaction severities, pelletization and framework
development using approaches of the circular economy. Bioresource Technology, 333.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2021.125187
Bocken, N. M. P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and
business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production
Engineering, 33(5), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124
de Jesus, A., Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Mendonça, S. (2019). Eco-innovation pathways to a
circular economy: Envisioning priorities through a Delphi approach. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 228, 1494–1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.049
De Pascale, A., Arbolino, R., Szopik-Depczyńska, K., Limosani, M., & Ioppolo, G. (2021). A
systematic review for measuring circular economy: The 61 indicators. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 281.
Dey, P. K., Malesios, C., Chowdhury, S., Saha, K., Budhwar, P., & De, D. (2022). Adoption
of circular economy practices in small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from
Europe. International Journal of Production Economics, 248, 108496.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2022.108496
Dey, P. K., Malesios, C., De, D., Budhwar, P., Chowdhury, S., & Cheffi, W. (2020). Circular
economy to enhance sustainability of small and medium-sized enterprises. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2145–2169. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2492
Durán-Romero, G., López, A. M., Beliaeva, T., Ferasso, M., Garonne, C., & Jones, P.
(2020a). Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation
policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 160.
Durán-Romero, G., López, A. M., Beliaeva, T., Ferasso, M., Garonne, C., & Jones, P.
(2020b). Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation
policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2020.120246
Fan, Y. Van, Lee, C. T., Lim, J. S., Klemeš, J. J., & Le, P. T. K. (2019). Cross-disciplinary
approaches towards smart, resilient and sustainable circular economy. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 232, 1482–1491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.266
Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Thürer, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019). Circular supply chain
management: A definition and structured literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 228, 882–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.303
Franco, M. A. (2019). A system dynamics approach to product design and business model
strategies for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118327
Garcés-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., Suárez-Perales, I., & Hiz, D. I. L. D. La. (2019). Is it
possible to change from a linear to a circular economy? An overview of opportunities
and barriers for european small and medium-sized enterprise companies. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5).
https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH16050851
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007
Gigli, S., Landi, D., & Germani, M. (2019). Cost-benefit analysis of a circular economy
project: a study on a recycling system for end-of-life tyres. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 229, 680–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.223
Guarnieri, P., Cerqueira-Streit, J. A., & Batista, L. C. (2020). Reverse logistics and the
sectoral agreement of packaging industry in Brazil towards a transition to circular
economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104541
Howard, M., Hopkinson, P., & Miemczyk, J. (2019). The regenerative supply chain: a
 framework for developing circular economy indicators. International Journal of
Production Research, 57(23), 7300–7318.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1524166
Jinru, L., Changbiao, Z., Ahmad, B., Irfan, M., & Nazir, R. (2022). How do green financing
and green logistics affect the circular economy in the pandemic situation: key mediating
role of sustainable production. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja , 35(1),
3836–3856. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2004437
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017a). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An
analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221–232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017b). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An
analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221–232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
Kristensen, H. S., Mosgaard, M. A., & Remmen, A. (2021). Circular public procurement
practices in Danish municipalities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281.
Kumar, B., & Verma, P. (2021a). Biomass-based biorefineries: An important architype
towards a circular economy. Fuel, 288, 119622.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2020.119622
Kumar, B., & Verma, P. (2021b). Biomass-based biorefineries: An important architype
towards a circular economy. In Fuel (Vol. 288, p. 119622). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119622
Kumar, V., Sezersan, I., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Gonzalez, E. D. R. S., & AL-Shboul, M. A.
(2019). Circular economy in the manufacturing sector: benefits, opportunities and
barriers. Management Decision, 57(4), 1067–1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-
2018-1070
Kundu, D., Dutta, D., Samanta, P., Dey, S., Sherpa, K. C., Kumar, S., & Dubey, B. K. (2022).
Valorization of wastewater: A paradigm shift towards circular bioeconomy and
sustainability. Science of the Total Environment, 848.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157709
Kuo, T. C., Chiu, M. C., Chung, W. H., & Yang, T. I. (2019). The circular economy of LCD
panel shipping in a packaging logistics system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
149, 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.022
Li, J., Song, G., Cai, M., Bian, J., & Sani Mohammed, B. (2022). Green environment and
circular economy: A state-of-the-art analysis. Sustainable Energy Technologies and
Assessments, 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102106
Maione, C., Lapko, Y., & Trucco, P. (2022). Towards a circular economy for the plastic
packaging sector: Insights from the Italian case. Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 34, 78–89.
Mak, T. M. W., Xiong, X., Tsang, D. C. W., Yu, I. K. M., & Poon, C. S. (2020). Sustainable
food waste management towards circular bioeconomy: Policy review, limitations and
opportunities. Bioresource Technology, 297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2019.122497
Milousi, M., & Souliotis, M. (2023). A circular economy approach to residential solar
thermal systems. Renewable Energy, 207, 242–252.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.02.109
Moktadir, M. A., Rahman, T., Rahman, M. H., Ali, S. M., & Paul, S. K. (2018). Drivers to
sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy: A perspective of leather
industries in Bangladesh. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1366–1380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.063
Münch, C., Benz, L. A., & Hartmann, E. (2022). Exploring the circular economy paradigm:
 A natural resource-based view on supplier selection criteria. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, 28(4), 100793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2022.100793
Mutezo, G., & Mulopo, J. (2021). A review of Africa’s transition from fossil fuels to
renewable energy using circular economy principles. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110609
Nußholz, J. L. K. (2017). Circular business models: Defining a concept and framing an
emerging research field. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(10).
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU9101810
Pactwa, K., Woźniak, J., & Dudek, M. (2020). Coal mining waste in Poland in reference to
circular economy principles. Fuel, 270, 117493.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUEL.2020.117493
Pavloudakis, F., Roumpos, C., & Spanidis, P. M. (2021). Optimization of surface mining
operation based on a circular economy model. Circular Economy and Sustainability:
Volume 2: Environmental Engineering, 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
821664-4.00005-4
Pregowska, A., Osial, M., & Urbańska, W. (2022). The Application of Artificial Intelligence
in the Effective Battery Life Cycle in the Closed Circular Economy Model—A
Perspective. In Recycling (Vol. 7, Issue 6). https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling7060081
Ritzén, S., & Sandström, G. Ö. (2017). Barriers to the Circular Economy - Integration of
Perspectives and Domains. Procedia CIRP, 64, 7–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.005
Rizos, V., Behrens, A., van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., Kafyeke, T., Flamos, A.,
Rinaldi, R., Papadelis, S., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., & Topi, C. (2016). Implementation of
circular economy business models by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs):
Barriers and enablers. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(11).
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU8111212
Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., & Terzi, S. (2019). Circular Business Models versus circular
benefits: An assessment in the waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipments sector.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 231, 940–952.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.310
Rossi, J., Bianchini, A., & Guarnieri, P. (2020). Circular economy model enhanced by
intelligent assets from industry 4.0: The proposition of an innovative tool to analyze case
studies. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12177147
Seroka-Stolka, O., & Ociepa-Kubicka, A. (2019). Green logistics and circular economy.
Transportation Research Procedia, 39, 471–479.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.06.049
Sharma, H. B., Vanapalli, K. R., Samal, B., Cheela, V. R. S., Dubey, B. K., & Bhattacharya,
J. (2021). Circular economy approach in solid waste management system to achieve
UN-SDGs: Solutions for post-COVID recovery. Science of The Total Environment, 800,
149605. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.149605
Spierling, S., Venkatachalam, V., Mudersbach, M., Becker, N., Herrmann, C., & Endres, H.
J. (2020). End-of-life options for bio-based plastics in a circular economy-status quo and
potential from a life cycle assessment perspective. Resources, 9(7).
https://doi.org/10.3390/RESOURCES9070090
Sulista, Rosyid, F. A., & Wibowo, A. P. (2023). Turning waste into profit: Circular economic
optimization of quartz sand from tin mining and processing. Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 39, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.05.002
Tisserant, A., Pauliuk, S., Merciai, S., Schmidt, J., Fry, J., Wood, R., & Tukker, A. (2017).
Solid Waste and the Circular Economy: A Global Analysis of Waste Treatment and
Waste Footprints. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 628–640.
 https://doi.org/10.1111/JIEC.12562
Tseng, M. L., Tan, R. R., Chiu, A. S. F., Chien, C. F., & Kuo, T. C. (2018). Circular economy
meets industry 4.0: Can big data drive industrial symbiosis? Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 131, 146–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.028
Ubando, A. T., Felix, C. B., & Chen, W. H. (2020). Biorefineries in circular bioeconomy: A
comprehensive review. Bioresource Technology, 299.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2019.122585
Wuni, I. Y., & Shen, G. Q. (2022). Developing critical success factors for integrating circular
economy into modular construction projects in Hong Kong. Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 29, 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.010
Yontar, E. (2023). Critical success factor analysis of blockchain technology in agri-food
supply chain management: A circular economy perspective. Journal of Environmental
Management, 330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117173
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., & Lai, K. hung. (2010). Circular economy practices among Chinese
manufacturers varying in environmental-oriented supply chain cooperation and the
performance implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(6), 1324–1331.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.013